Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Prince EWS]

Hmmm, Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Hadlee, Garner, Steyn, Larwood, Trueman, Lindwall, Akram, Waqar, Pollock, Donald, Holding. These are the possible ones, Imran would probably be in my top 10. I've probably forgotten someone good.

Davo.

Always forgotten.

 

[Coronis]

Davo.

Always forgotten.

Ah, of course, he always slips my mind. Procter would be in that list too. A couple more South Africans could probably be added too. Also found this the other day, interesting read.

 

[smash84]

Very much so. But the fact that they're debatable and not just straight up wrong proves his point.

It doesn't quite prove the point of a fair case. I meant that it is difficult to make a fair case with those names. I am assuming a fair case would mean one that is quite convincing.

For e.g. take waqar, how do you make a fair case that he edges out Imran?

 

[Plumbinfront]

That's just semantics now mate. By your own admission it is debatable meaning it isn't clear cut. Hence it backs up what I said earlier. You can make a case. Fair case, convincing case, good case...that is just semantics.

 

[smash84]

That's just semantics now mate. By your own admission it is debatable meaning it isn't clear cut. Hence it backs up what I said earlier. You can make a case. Fair case, convincing case, good case...that is just semantics.

Errrr......NO......you were the one to strike up that silly conversation.

How about putting your money where your mouth is and make a fair case of why Waqar is better than Imran?

 

[Plumbinfront]

What are you talking about? You highlighted 7-8 names out of the 15 Coronis posted and said it was ''debatable'', which backs up what I said earlier. You CAN make a case for leaving Imran out of the top 15 fast bowlers. I am not saying there are definitely 15 fast bowlers better. You can, however, make a case and by using the word ''debatable'' you have backed up what I said. Waqar vs Imran IS debatable. I reiterate...I have Imran in my top 10 quicks and I do think he is better than Waqar but it is very close and by no means clear cut like say, Warne vs Harbhajan. You could use Waqar's peak for example as a point in his favour.

 

[Satyanash89]

How about putting your money where your mouth is and make a fair case of why Waqar is better than Imran?

Ummm.... does anyone really need to do that? They're both incredible bowlers, and a "fair case" could be made for either being better, purely as bowlers, in my opinion.
Don't want to get into a discussion about it but since you wanted a fair case for Waqar, he has a strike rate of 43, one of the lowest in history... a full 10 lower than Imran... there you go... a fair case

 

[smash84]

What are you talking about? You highlighted 7-8 names out of the 15 Coronis posted and said it was ''debatable'', which backs up what I said earlier. You CAN make a case for leaving Imran out of the top 15 fast bowlers. I am not saying there are definitely 15 fast bowlers better. You can, however, make a case and by using the word ''debatable'' you have backed up what I said. Waqar vs Imran IS debatable. I reiterate...I have Imran in my top 10 quicks and I do think he is better than Waqar but it is very close and by no means clear cut like say, Warne vs Harbhajan. You could use Waqar's peak for example as a point in his favour.

So that is what I am asking you. How do you make a fair case of Imran not being in the top 15?

By using the word debatable I thought I would bring out something useful that you might have to say on what your throwing around. Seems like I was mistaken

Ummm.... does anyone really need to do that? They're both incredible bowlers, and a "fair case" could be made for either being better, purely as bowlers, in my opinion.
Don't want to get into a discussion about it but since you wanted a fair case for Waqar, he has a strike rate of 43, one of the lowest in history... a full 10 lower than Imran... there you go... a fair case

haha......if that is what your fair case means then I would recommend that you don't put up fair cases too often

 

[Satyanash89]

haha......if that is what your fair case means then I would recommend that you don't put up fair cases too often

If you want me to post a huge paragraph explaining how Waqar in full flight was a sight for the gods and just about as unstoppable as a bowler can get, i'm sorry you won't get it... because there are plenty of articles out there explaining that far better than I ever could.
I have no idea what you want people to say when you ask for a "fair case", whatever that is, for Waqar being better. Fact is, they are very close as bowlers and either of them can be considered to be the better bowler. Why don't you make a fair case for Imran, then, since you think he's so far ahead of Waqar as to render discussion useless....instead of contributing nothing to the thread apart from :

 

[smash84]

If you want me to post a huge paragraph explaining how Waqar in full flight was a sight for the gods and just about as unstoppable as a bowler can get, i'm sorry you won't get it... because there are plenty of articles out there explaining that far better than I ever could.
I have no idea what you want people to say when you ask for a "fair case", whatever that is, for Waqar being better. Fact is, they are very close as bowlers and either of them can be considered to be the better bowler. Why don't you make a fair case for Imran, then, since you think he's so far ahead of Waqar as to render discussion useless....instead of contributing nothing to the thread apart from :

Ok, now that you ask for it .....

Imran

Averages sub 30 in all countries that he played in, performed well against most opposition and most conditions
Since you mentioned Waqar's SR Imran still got cheaper wickets even if 10 deliveries slower
Ran through some very good batting lineups (2nd highest Man of Match ratios for any fast bowler)
As you talk of peaks Imran has the highest post war peak of any bowler (let alone a fast bowler)
Performed extremely well against the greatest team of his era (arguably the greatest team ever to grace the cricket field)

Care to make a case for Waqar other than listing down the aesthetics of his of his bowling action? Or maybe the new troll on the forum plumbinfront might like to make a "fair case"

 

[H4G]

Ok, now that you ask for it .....

Imran

Averages sub 30 in all countries that he played in, performed well against most opposition and most conditions
Since you mentioned Waqar's SR Imran still got cheaper wickets even if 10 deliveries slower
Ran through some very good batting lineups (2nd highest Man of Match ratios for any fast bowler)
As you talk of peaks Imran has the highest post war peak of any bowler (let alone a fast bowler)
Performed extremely well against the greatest team of his era (arguably the greatest team ever to grace the cricket field)

Care to make a case for Waqar other than listing down the aesthetics of his of his bowling action? Or maybe the new troll on the forum plumbinfront might like to make a "fair case"

Other than all those factors that you mentioned, just look at Imran's record as captain.The guy always used to leade by example & became better & better when he was given captaincy.


All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

2408 runs @ 52
187 wickets @ 20

 

[Fusion]

Or maybe the new troll on the forum plumbinfront might like to make a "fair case"

Cut out the insults please. I would like to remind everyone to keep it civil.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Imran in the top 10 and unlike what Smali posted, no doubt about it at all. Ridiculous that people think 15 better bowlers than him.

 

[Prince EWS]

I really don't think there's much between the top 10 or so fast bowlers at all, and you also have players like Larwood, Procter and Waqar who people with different criteria to me will rate up there as well. I think you could make a case to have Imran #1 but I also think you could make a case to have him #15, depending on what you value and what your criteria is.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Proctor should not even be in contention. I don't care if he averaged 100 in those 7 Tests with the bat and 10 with the ball. He only played 7. Unfair to him but that's how it is.

 

[Prince EWS]

Proctor should not even be in contention. I don't care if he averaged 100 in those 7 Tests with the bat and 10 with the ball. He only played 7. Unfair to him but that's how it is.

I agree, but others have a different criteria for rating players, in which he suddenly becomes a serious contender to the throne.

I'd definitely have Imran in my top 10, but you could easily make a case against it. If someone said he wasn't in their top 25 then it'd be a bit much but he could easily slide down as low as 15 or so without it being overly controversial. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my preferred method of splitting hairs is definitively better than someone's else's, although I'm probably in the wrong thread if I want to make that statement.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

And how are people going to compare Imran with guys like Larwood and Lindwall? By stats Imran was the better bowler, but they played nearly 100 years ago so no ones seen them. Can't even compare and therefore our lists should not include them.

 

[Red]

I agree, but others have a different criteria for rating players, in which he suddenly becomes a serious contender to the throne.

I'd definitely have Imran in my top 10, but you could easily make a case against it. If someone said he wasn't in their top 25 then it'd be a bit much but he could easily slide down as low as 15 or so without it being overly controversial. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my preferred method of splitting hairs is definitively better than someone's else's, although I'm probably in the wrong thread if I want to make that statement.

That's true. And The fact that there are probably 15 fast bowlers who could be considered the greatest without it seeming completely ridiculous also suggests that even though I think someone is number 1, if you think they're number 15 it's not absurd.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I agree, but others have a different criteria for rating players, in which he suddenly becomes a serious contender to the throne.

I'd definitely have Imran in my top 10, but you could easily make a case against it. If someone said he wasn't in their top 25 then it'd be a bit much but he could easily slide down as low as 15 or so without it being overly controversial. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that my preferred method of splitting hairs is definitively better than someone's else's, although I'm probably in the wrong thread if I want to make that statement.

There should at least be a consensus on who can be rated and who can't.

We can all say so and so was an ATG but should not be rated because he either did not play enough or played 100 years ago.

 

[Red]

And how are people going to compare Imran with guys like Larwood and Lindwall? By stats Imran was the better bowler, but they played nearly 100 years ago so no ones seen them. Can't even compare and therefore our lists should not include them.

There is footage of Lindwall (plenty) and Larwood (a bit). There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence about them. I think they're comparable to modern players, if that's what people want to do.