Who was the better bowler ?

[Sanz]

A cricket-wise sin, fairly obviously.

I didn't call it a sin but just a mistake by selectors to select Botham when he was not good enough, just like you pointed out that it was selectors mistake to pick Imran even when he was not good enough to perform at international level.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, there's no need for it mate, even though I agree with you partially. Richard had pretty much admitted he was wrong, the argument should have finished. Instead, here we go again.

I can promise you that I will not participate in that silly discussion again in this thread.

 

[Perm]

I can promise you that I will not participate in that silly discussion again in this thread.

Thank you.

 

[Richard]

Thank you. I'm very rarely actually busy, just CBF'd taking myself off busy.

Thought so much - Towns is the same with his Awayness. Just don't like to try talking to people who're on Busy\Away\etc. for obvious reasons.

 

[Richard]

I didn't call it a sin but just a mistake by selectors to select Botham when he was not good enough, just like you pointed out that it was selectors mistake to pick Imran even when he was not good enough to perform at international level.

A mistake, beyond a doubt (after a certain point anyway), but until a certain time not so, really. It would have been hard to make a case for not selecting him.

Imran, different case. He should never, ever have been selected on either the 1971 or 1974 tours of England, and it's a classic case of selectorial error somehow being used to talk down a player, when there's no justification - whatsoever.

 

[Perm]

Thought so much - Towns is the same with his Awayness. Just don't like to try talking to people who're on Busy\Away\etc. for obvious reasons.

Yeah, I understand. As I said though, anytime, as I'm rarely actually busy. Although you probably won't catch me much over the next little while, there isn't any cricket to stay up late for.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

A mistake, beyond a doubt (after a certain point anyway), but until a certain time not so, really. It would have been hard to make a case for not selecting him.

Imran, different case. He should never, ever have been selected on either the 1971 or 1974 tours of England, and it's a classic case of selectorial error somehow being used to talk down a player, when there's no justification - whatsoever.

Totally Agreed.

 

[ansariaamir_leo]

I feel the comparison aint fair as they belong to seperate auras...

But still I think Wasim is better...

With his ability to swing the ball both ways, toe crushing yorkers, he is definitely the Sultan of Swing and King of all Bowlers.

We can't conclude on a players ability by looking at stats. By ability, I personally feel, Wasim was a bit better than Imran, not more than just a bit.

 

[Pup Clarke]

there isn't any cricket to stay up late for.

India v Australia, England v Sri Lanka , Pakistan v South Africa?

 

[Engle]

Imran's initial selection was bcuz he had friends/family in high places, as is the wont of Pak selection. He did not even have his run-up mapped out. In fact, his early ambitions were as a batsman (dreamt of walking out to partner cousin Majid), but was discouraged pursuing that line due to the surfeit of Pak batsmen. His only way to the Test team was as a fast bowler.

After his early failures, he could have given up, but by dint of sheer perserverance and hard work, he went out to become......the first genuine fast bowler from the sub-continent and heralded an era towards attack, far removed from their inherent defensive mindset.

Imran was the pioneer, the leader who broke ceilings. Were it not for him, we may not have had a Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib.

 

[Richard]

Well... to an extent. I agree that he broke certain ceilings but Pakistan had produced at least 2 fine seam-bowlers before him, in Fazal Mahmood and Sarfraz Nawaz.

 

[Engle]

Fazal and Sarfraz were not considered ' fast' bowlers. Imran was the pivotal point after the Fazals and Sarfrazs from which sprung the Wasims, Waqars and Shoaibs.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't really matter that much whether someone's fast or fast-medium, really - Mohammad Asif quite clearly to me has the potential to outstrip the whole lot of them, even Imran, and he's no more than fast-medium.

A seamer is a seamer, whatever his speed.

 

[Engle]

A fastie can intimidate
A mediumer cannot

 

[Richard]

At the end of the day, though, intimidation of being hurt doesn't really matter - it's taking wickets that does.

And having your wicket taken is an intimidating enough thing. Do you seriously think Glenn McGrath, even when bowling at "just" 81-82mph, did not intimidate?

 

[Sanz]

Fazal and Sarfraz were not considered ' fast' bowlers. Imran was the pivotal point after the Fazals and Sarfrazs from which sprung the Wasims, Waqars and Shoaibs.

Ironically it was Sarfira Nawaz who taught the Reverse Swing skills to Imran Khan.