Ok,let's forget dead pitches and all that.From a stats POV-414 wickets@23.The tail ender argument doesn't cut it for me-for one,he consistently troubled top order batsmen-indeed,he built up enough pressure from one end for the other to take a wicket.For another,tail enders are also part of the 20 wickets that a bowling side must take.Surely all 414 wickets were not tail enders?!!!
He was even a purist's delight-No fast bowler could do what he could with the ball.It was almost magical.Greatness transcends stats they say,and it is so true in Wasim's case(even though his stats are brilliant)
I would agree the Imran was the greater player and would def. have him in my AT side.I would have him over Lillee-as good a bowler and a much better batsman.I'd also go for Hadlee over MM for the same reason.
I can certainly see why some would rate McGrath or Amby higher than Wasim as a test bowler.But the thing is he brings much more to the table with his variety and batting.His bowling is negligibly inferior,if that.
Of course I will take Wasim anyday if I want some exciting bowling to watch.
I think there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. - Gidgeon Haigh
[Warne is] the greatest bowler ever produced in this entire world - Muttiah Muralidaran
[Warne is] the greatest bowler of all time - Glenn McGrath
In my opinion Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer who's ever lived - Ian Botham
Warne is the greatest cricketer to pick up a ball ever.
And is the greatest bowler I have ever laid eyes on. - Brian Lara
I'm not really sure he should have been in the team. But the variety argument does make sense to me.
I didn't say that I agreed with the pitch arguments. I only said that reverse swing and sporting pitches don't have anything in common (except for roughing up the ball). You can have sporting pitches and still be able to reverse swing the ball (like in England). The fact that the Pakistani bowlers were swinging the ball does NOT change the fact that the pitches were not dead. That is all that I am saying.
It might help in some conditions but over the length of the career he just wouldn't cut it as a great bowler comparable to the others.
Imagine if a batsman opposing these bowlers is set; the aforementioned 3 are just bowling more of the same and the batsman keeps scoring. Then you put Wasim in and he brings a new trajectory and approach and takes that wicket. He may take every other wicket slower or costlier, but the fact that he may trouble a certain batsman in that kind of way, that is troubling the rest of the attack, makes that trade-off worth paying IMO.
The above example is somewhat simplistic and the aforementioned 3 will rarely be that predictable; but it does explain why a batsman all of a sudden gets out to a parttimer when he is clearly comfortable against the leading bowlers of the team. It's a similar dynamic.
Last edited by Ikki; 26-10-2010 at 05:38 AM.
I was listening to this discussion on the selected XI:
'The ultimate classroom project' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio at Cricinfo.com
The host asks "Marshall is a bit of a question mark?" WTH?
I still feel quite strongly that Imran got done by that stupid one all rounder rule for ESPN. With 2 all rounders you could have had such a good balance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)