Wasim Akram vs Fred Trueman

[Bolo.]

But that's because of a difference in styles presumably. Players can find awkward bounce more difficult to face depending on their own batting techniques. Doubt anyone is actually saying Morkel is a better bowler.

I doubt how many of the peer ratings are based on who was most effective against them. I'd imagine it's a distinct minority. A lot is style- either a skillset that impressed them, or that they found difficult to play against.

Difference in style explains a lot of player ratings. Bowlers with the widest range of skillsets and aggressive bats are generally rated extremely high.

 

[kyear2]

And yet you'll cite peer review for guys like Viv who doesn't have particularly outstanding numbers (relative to other greats) and hell, even say Barry Richards was as good as Gavaskar and Sutcliffe on the basis of peer opinion.

I'd call it truly bold if only I didn't think it was a joke.

I don't cite peer review for Viv, I cite bilwers faced and kminated for IVA, and I don't claim he was the best. I have him in a group of 3 where I believe he edges out Lara and Smith basically in line with most here.

Barry, I have to use peer review because there's precious little else. Everyone thinks the guy was the best and it was backed up in the limited sample size of WSC and his exploits in county cricket where he out performed his test playing team mate.

With regards to Wasim and even Imran, I cop flack for not rating therm, yet I literally rate them the same as everyone else here. I don't rate him higher than I do because he has holes all over his record and I believe a lot of his peer preview factors in odi's.
As far as fast bowlers go the top 6 is somewhat undisputed and I have Wasim I'm that next 4 of Lillee, himself, Donald and Garner. That's not beyond the pale either and not lower than where most of us, @Pap Finn Keighl apart, rate him.

 

[subshakerz]

If you asked a bunch of RSA bats from the 90s and 2000s who bowled the best at them, and they gave a genuine answer, you would be seeing answers like Srinath, Shreesanth and Asif. Nobody would actually give any of these as answers to the best they faced though. Which means the more legitimate aspects of how they are rating them is on stats or the opinion of others, like everyone else.

Nothing wrong when it comes to Asif who was a genuine worldclass bowler. Don't they would say Srinath though.

 

[subshakerz]

But that's because of a difference in styles presumably. Players can find awkward bounce more difficult to face depending on their own batting techniques. Doubt anyone is actually saying Morkel is a better bowler.

There is a difference between Andrew Strauss saying he found Morkel the most difficult to face because of the unique attributes of Morkel to left-handers like him, versus him saying Morkel was a greater bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't cite peer review for Viv, I cite bilwers faced and kminated for IVA, and I don't claim he was the best. I have him in a group of 3 where I believe he edges out Lara and Smith basically in line with most here.

Barry, I have to use peer review because there's precious little else. Everyone thinks the guy was the best and it was backed up in the limited sample size of WSC and his exploits in county cricket where he out performed his test playing team mate.

Yeah so it's selective then. If you were consistent you would entirely throw out the cases of Barry Richard and Pollock but you include them because suddenly peer rating matters.

With regards to Wasim and even Imran, I cop flack for not rating therm, yet I literally rate them the same as everyone else here. I don't rate him higher than I do because he has holes all over his record and I believe a lot of his peer preview factors in odi's.
As far as fast bowlers go the top 6 is somewhat undisputed and I have Wasim I'm that next 4 of Lillee, himself, Donald and Garner. That's not beyond the pale either and not lower than where most of us, @Pap Finn Keighl apart, rate him.

The problem is your criteria and suddenly not finding peer rating relevant when it comes to Wasim.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah so it's selective then. If you were consistent you would entirely through out the cases of Barry Richard and Pollock but you include them because suddenly peer rating matters.


The problem is your criteria and suddenly not funding peer rating relevant when it comes to Wasim.

With Richard, there nothing else but per review, so......

 

[Coronis]

With Richard, there morning else but per review, so......

Why aren’t you ranking van der Bijl as a top 5 pacer then?

 

[subshakerz]

With Richard, there nothing else but per review, so......

You cant jump to peer rating doesnt matter to suddnely it matter enough to give cricketers without full intl careers careers spots in their ATG XI sides.