Where does Imran Khan rank?

[kyear2]

I think Imran's position in all time xi is in doubt only if you want to go with four frontline bowlers plus sobers as the fifth option (and the no.6 batsman). even in that case, he is on par with Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Ambrose and Steyn to be the primary fast bowler; marginally ahead of other great options that complete the top 10 pacemen: Truman, Lillee, Barnes and Akram. When you add his batting to the equation, his selection is almost a no brainer.

If your team is from the post Sobers era, or if Sobers is playing as the third middle order bat and the six bowler, then the team sheet should start with Imran's name. Anyways, Imran in an ATG XI is a shoo-in by all standards.

With regards to your first paragraph, not everyone believes he's on par with the five listed, in fact in a couple polls head to head with at least two of those mentioned he lost handily. Most (going by comments on the forum) also place Hadlee ahead of him, Ambrose I haven't seen any polls recently so I would imagine that's a toss up while Marshall is seen by a plurality of forum members as the goat and at worst 2nd so can cautiously assume he may win that one as well.
I am aware you feel differently as you've stated on multiple times in the past that there's not much to choose between the top 10.

A few months ago there was a brief discussion on who most saw as the consensus picks for an at xi, the proposer suggested that there were some names that we shoo in's for such a team, the names that popped up for almost every selection.

Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall.
Some, primarily Coronis (from memory) said that the list should be condensed down to the only 3 undisputed selections Bradman, Sobers and Gilchrist, because they were the only ones who were irreplaceable in relation to any possible replacements. Others including myself made arguments for Hobbs, Tendulkar and especially Marshall and Pews suggested McGrath should also be added to the list, though some mentioned that "bat deep" leaning selections wouldn't be so inclined.
The argument somehow condensed in one for Marshall with (again) Coronis stating that even though he was his personal greatest, that wouldn't be the case for everyone, when someone suggested that even if he wasn't first, 90% would have him among the 3 elected. It was also pointed out that MM made more teams outside of CW, and Gilly was left off the Wisden's team .
It was somewhat settled that it wasn't about who couldn't be replaced but who were consensus or close to consensus choices for the majority of posters. Leaving us with

Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist Marshall

Hobbs, Tendulkar

Though I couldn't quite recall the argument against Hobbs, or if he was in the fist group as well. But in that short discussion, there was no mention of Imran, no. 8 was actually mentioned as the hardest spot to pin down, though it was assumed (by me) that Imran would possibly secure a plurality for the position.

I also went through the past 30 pages or so, of the ATG forum, just looking for personal teams listed, could only find 8, plus mine. So not a terribly large sample size by any means and making no claims of consensus.

Openers
Hobbs - 8
Hutton - 4
Gavaskar - 5
Sutcliffe - 1 (no prizes for guessing who)

Middle Order
Bradman - 9
Tendulkar - 8
Richards - 6
Hammond - 2
Smith - 1
Lara - 1

All Rounder
Sobers - 9

WicketKeeper
Gilchrist - 9

Fast Bowler
Marshall - 9
McGrath - 7
Hadlee - 5
Imran - 3
Steyn - 1
Barnes - 1
Wasim - 1

Spinner
Warne - 6
O'Reilly - 2
Muralitharan - 1

Even among this small number of teams, (no cherry picking), Imran was only included in 3, so it's a stretch to suggest that he's almost a no-brainer suggestion.

As I go back deeper, I will amend this little list as required.

As an aside I should probably declare that I'm the contrarian who didn't chose Hobbs, preventing him from being an unanimous selection as well, so an asterisk should probably be included there.

 

[subshakerz]

With regards to your first paragraph, not everyone believes he's on par with the five listed, in fact in a couple polls head to head with at least two of those mentioned he lost handily. Most (going by comments on the forum) also place Hadlee ahead of him, Ambrose I haven't seen any polls recently so I would imagine that's a toss up while Marshall is seen by a plurality of forum members as the goat and at worst 2nd so can cautiously assume he may win that one as well.
I am aware you feel differently as you've stated on multiple times in the past that there's not much to choose between the top 10.

A few months ago there was a brief discussion on who most saw as the consensus picks for an at xi, the proposer suggested that there were some names that we shoo in's for such a team, the names that popped up for almost every selection.

Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall.
Some, primarily Coronis (from memory) said that the list should be condensed down to the only 3 undisputed selections Bradman, Sobers and Gilchrist, because they were the only ones who were irreplaceable in relation to any possible replacements. Others including myself made arguments for Hobbs, Tendulkar and especially Marshall and Pews suggested McGrath should also be added to the list, though some mentioned that "bat deep" leaning selections wouldn't be so inclined.
The argument somehow condensed in one for Marshall with (again) Coronis stating that even though he was his personal greatest, that wouldn't be the case for everyone, when someone suggested that even if he wasn't first, 90% would have him among the 3 elected. It was also pointed out that MM made more teams outside of CW, and Gilly was left off the Wisden's team .
It was somewhat settled that it wasn't about who couldn't be replaced but who were consensus or close to consensus choices for the majority of posters. Leaving us with

Bradman, Sobers, Gilchrist Marshall

Hobbs, Tendulkar

Though I couldn't quite recall the argument against Hobbs, or if he was in the fist group as well. But in that short discussion, there was no mention of Imran, no. 8 was actually mentioned as the hardest spot to pin down, though it was assumed (by me) that Imran would possibly secure a plurality for the position.

I also went through the past 30 pages or so, of the ATG forum, just looking for personal teams listed, could only find 8, plus mine. So not a terribly large sample size by any means and making no claims of consensus.

Openers
Hobbs - 8
Hutton - 4
Gavaskar - 5
Sutcliffe - 1 (no prizes for guessing who)

Middle Order
Bradman - 9
Tendulkar - 8
Richards - 6
Hammond - 2
Smith - 1
Lara - 1

All Rounder
Sobers - 9

WicketKeeper
Gilchrist - 9

Fast Bowler
Marshall - 9
McGrath - 7
Hadlee - 5
Imran - 3
Steyn - 1
Barnes - 1
Wasim - 1

Spinner
Warne - 6
O'Reilly - 2
Muralitharan - 1

Even among this small number of teams, (no cherry picking), Imran was only included in 3, so it's a stretch to suggest that he's almost a no-brainer suggestion.

As I go back deeper, I will amend this little list as required.

As an aside I should probably declare that I'm the contrarian who didn't chose Hobbs, preventing him from being an unanimous selection as well, so an asterisk should probably be included there.

Gilly is overrated as an overall cricketer, even though he was the best wicket keeper bat.

 

[Coronis]

Dunno his FC record before he came into test cricket but he seemed to be perfectly coming into his prime when he joined the side.

 

[Prince EWS]

Dunno his FC record before he came into test cricket but he seemed to be perfectly coming into his prime when he joined the side.

I definitely think a large part of his batting career was more a product of circumstance than people like to admit. He's #1 in his position by such a big margin that it doesn't really matter, but still.

If he didn't exist I wonder how many people would try to pick Sanga or Flower in their ATWXI's instead of Knott. It'd end up one of the most contentious positions, and it'd even affect other selections (eg. more likely to 'bat deep' with Imran if you had Knott as keeper than if you had a better bat). Fuller Pilch would probably even pick Watling.

 

[Coronis]

I definitely think a large part of his batting career was more a product of circumstance than people like to admit. He's #1 in his position by such a big margin that it doesn't really matter, but still.

If he didn't exist I wonder how many people would try to pick Sanga or Flower in their ATWXI's instead of Knott. It'd end up one of the most contentious positions, and it'd even affect other selections (eg. more likely to 'bat deep' with Imran if you had Knott as keeper than if you had a better bat). Fuller Pilch would probably even pick Watling.

Flower was generally regarded as easily below Gilly/Sanga in keeping skills right?

 

[Prince EWS]

Flower was generally regarded as easily below Gilly/Sanga in keeping skills right?

Yeah, especially by me. I actually think he was pretty comfortably a better batsman than Gilchrist but he wasn't a good Test keeper. I guess I'd think of him as a "batting allrounder" - his keeping was probably as good as Worrell's bowling which is extremely useful to have to balance a normal Test side but you wouldn't want Worrell to be a frontline bowler in an ATWXI side. A chunk of people detest his keeping less than I do though; some people would definitely pick him IMO.

 

[kyear2]

Dunno his FC record before he came into test cricket but he seemed to be perfectly coming into his prime when he joined the side.

This, he didn't have the early lean years to detract from his numbers as so many cricketers do. But we can only judge by what he did.

 

[kyear2]

I definitely think a large part of his batting career was more a product of circumstance than people like to admit. He's #1 in his position by such a big margin that it doesn't really matter, but still.

If he didn't exist I wonder how many people would try to pick Sanga or Flower in their ATWXI's instead of Knott. It'd end up one of the most contentious positions, and it'd even affect other selections (eg. more likely to 'bat deep' with Imran if you had Knott as keeper than if you had a better bat). Fuller Pilch would probably even pick Watling.

Agree with everything here, and it would raise an interesting question with regards to who would be the keeper.

Was Knott seen as anything close to and AT XI lock prior to Gilly? Think Peterhrt had posted some older teams a while back in another thread.

 

[Majestic]

Bradman
Sobers
Viv
Hobbs
Imran
Warne

Tendulkar
Marshall
Lara
McGrath
Murali

I think it's hard to dispute between these 11 names. Top 10 would be a fair position for Imran.

 

[peterhrt]

Was Knott seen as anything close to and AT XI lock prior to Gilly? Think Peterhrt had posted some older teams a while back in another thread.

Before the 1980s most selectors of all-time teams opted for the best wicket-keeper. In world teams that was often Oldfield. In English teams Evans. When English selectors wanted five specialist bowlers they sometimes picked Ames, but that stopped once Botham arrived on the scene.

Knott was regarded by many as the best batsman among top-class keepers, in the same way that Gilchrist is now considered the best batsman among good keepers. Ray Illingworth and Ian Chappell amongst others thought Knott was the best wicket-keeper anyway. Those who watched English cricket six days a week disagreed. Christopher Martin-Jenkins noted that Knott "up to the stumps could be equally brilliant [compared with standing back] although he was undoubtedly more fallible".

On commentary last year Sangakkara said he hated keeping wicket in Tests and stressed the importance of keepers wanting the job. Should that rule him out as wicket-keeper in an all-time team?

 

[subshakerz]

On commentary last year Sangakkara said he hated keeping wicket in Tests and stressed the importance of keepers wanting the job. Should that rule him out as wicket-keeper in an all-time team?

Not if he is being bloody paid to do it in an ATG XI.

 

[honestbharani]

Not if he is being bloody paid to do it in an ATG XI.

As opposed to doing it for free for his country?

 

[subshakerz]

As opposed to doing it for free for his country?

He doesn't have to like it as long as he does it well.

 

[Socerer 01]

As opposed to doing it for free for his country?

the better argument would have been to say that Sanga would have done it because he wouldn’t be picked in that atg xi otherwise where as for Sri Lanka he still would have been picked if he didn’t keep

 

[Coronis]

Before the 1980s most selectors of all-time teams opted for the best wicket-keeper. In world teams that was often Oldfield. In English teams Evans. When English selectors wanted five specialist bowlers they sometimes picked Ames, but that stopped once Botham arrived on the scene.

Knott was regarded by many as the best batsman among top-class keepers, in the same way that Gilchrist is now considered the best batsman among good keepers. Ray Illingworth and Ian Chappell amongst others thought Knott was the best wicket-keeper anyway. Those who watched English cricket six days a week disagreed. Christopher Martin-Jenkins noted that Knott "up to the stumps could be equally brilliant [compared with standing back] although he was undoubtedly more fallible".

On commentary last year Sangakkara said he hated keeping wicket in Tests and stressed the importance of keepers wanting the job. Should that rule him out as wicket-keeper in an all-time team?

Nah. You just make it clear he won’t be picked to play in this wonderful team unless he keeps. Suck it up or go home.

 

[shortpitched713]

the better argument would have been to say that Sanga would have done it because he wouldn’t be picked in that atg xi otherwise where as for Sri Lanka he still would have been picked if he didn’t keep

That is actually an excellent argument.

 

[peterhrt]

Imran played most of his cricket in England. Graduating from Oxford, he had many interests outside the game and was not as committed to it as the likes of Hadlee or Marshall. Nevertheless his first-class record representing English counties sits quite well with the other leading all-rounders of the day.

Rice: 283 matches / 17053 runs av 44.29. 37 hundreds / 476 wickets @ 23.58. Wpm 1.7 / 268 catches
Botham: 251 matches / 11904 runs av 34.30. 22 hundreds / 659 wickets @ 27.22. Wpm 2.6 / 184 catches
Imran: 173 matches / 8847 runs av 38.29. 17 hundreds / 537 wickets @ 21.07. Wpm 3.1 / 51 catches
Hadlee: 148 matches / 5854 runs av 38.76. 11 hundreds / 622 wickets @ 14.51. Wpm 4.2 / 105 catches
Kapil Dev: 40 matches / 2312 runs av 42.81. 4 hundreds / 103 wickets @ 26.49. Wpm 2.6 / 40 catches

 

[Chin Music]

Hadlee and Rice were at ridiculous levels. I only recall Rice in his latter years when his bowling was clearly past peak.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, Rice is impressive, sure. But Hadlee averaging 14.5 must have seemed like the spitting incarnation of death to county cricket batsmen. His new ball control in English conditions must have been something else.

Edit:

Hadlee only averaged 25 with the ball in 14 Tests in England. Hmm, FC records really ought to be taken with something of a grain of salt it seems, if we didn't already know that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, Rice is impressive, sure. But Hadlee averaging 14.5 must have seemed like the spitting incarnation of death to county cricket batsmen. His new ball control in English conditions was something else.

Just causally averaged 39 with the bat too.

148 matches as well so we're not just talking about a good season.