• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

How good was Imran Khan?

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If you can't see how Khan was a better bowlers and a comparable batsman if not better at times (speaking only of tests) then you have no reason to be on a cricketing forum.
Lol, no argument then, didn't think so.
 

adub

International Captain
Imran was ****ing god. I'm too young to have seen Miller play and Khan obviously never had a 109 up his arse, but Imran wouldn't have been outshone by Miller in bowling or rooting, and could hold his own at batting.

Athletic, good fielder, fast, could swing it both ways as well as move it off the seam, ball tamperer extraordinaire, inspirational leader and Shield Winning New South Welshman (hon). And that's all before he developed into a very very solid batsman later in his career.

What's not to love?

I think his batting ability has people underrating his bowling. Makes my all time XI on bowling alone. Can't think of anyone I'd want more coming out at 8 in a best ever line up.
 

Gowza

U19 12th Man
I'd say Sobers, Miller, Botham and Procter are probably the most naturally talented all rounders, rice probably close. Imran wasn't as natural with the bat as the others, his mindset is what made him achieve what he achieved with the bat. I'd argue that Miller underachieved with both bat and ball at test level, with that he was still one of the greatest all rounders ever.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Imran was ****ing god. I'm too young to have seen Miller play and Khan obviously never had a 109 up his arse, but Imran wouldn't have been outshone by Miller in bowling or rooting, and could hold his own at batting.

Athletic, good fielder, fast, could swing it both ways as well as move it off the seam, ball tamperer extraordinaire, inspirational leader and Shield Winning New South Welshman (hon). And that's all before he developed into a very very solid batsman later in his career.

What's not to love?

I think his batting ability has people underrating his bowling. Makes my all time XI on bowling alone. Can't think of anyone I'd want more coming out at 8 in a best ever line up.
That I definitely disagree with. The snippets of video I've seen of him fielding and the majority of opinions from people who watched him at the time indicate he was a bit of a liability in the field.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
Imran was ****ing god. I'm too young to have seen Miller play and Khan obviously never had a 109 up his arse, but Imran wouldn't have been outshone by Miller in bowling or rooting, and could hold his own at batting.

Athletic, good fielder, fast, could swing it both ways as well as move it off the seam, ball tamperer extraordinaire, inspirational leader and Shield Winning New South Welshman (hon). And that's all before he developed into a very very solid batsman later in his career.

What's not to love?

I think his batting ability has people underrating his bowling. Makes my all time XI on bowling alone. Can't think of anyone I'd want more coming out at 8 in a best ever line up.
Lovely post but yeah he wasn't a very good fielder except maybe when he just came into the side and was neither a good bowler nor batsman.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Disagree with that, I know he averaged late 40s with the bat in FC cricket as was pretty even in both disciplines, but if anything was the stronger of the two suits, it'd be bowling for me.
He averaged 50 in First Class cricket with the bat.

Miller was a batting allrounder.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Keith Miller wasn't a bowling all rounder imo. Batting all rounder who underperformed with the bat in tests.
He averaged 50 in First Class cricket with the bat.

Miller was a batting allrounder.
Miller initially came into the side as a batsman, but Bradman decided he needed another quick bowler and Miller, being Miller, just happened to be a test class paceman as well as a FC batsman who averaged 49.

Miller probably could have been greater, but he had a casual attitude to cricket post war (he probably would have had PTSD nowadays). For mine, Miller is the greatest true all-rounder ever, a genuine strike bowler and a genuine top 6 batsman, as well as a gun fielder.
 

listento_me

U19 Captain
The ranking of all rounders in tiers

1st tier
Sobers and Khan

2nd tier
Kallis, Botham and Hadlee

3rd tier
Dev and Miller

All tiers are within the framework of greatness and each of these all rounders are great but there was truly something special of Khan and Sobers from what I've seen, read and heard.

Botham was without a doubt the most naturally gifted but he faded whereas Khan and Hadlee got better with age. Sobers was the purest batsman of the lot and a great utility bowler, slow, spin, medium, fast whatever was needed.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
How was Botham? Would be doing nothing and just pull something ridiculous out of his arse from nowhere. Insane.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
The ranking of all rounders in tiers

1st tier
Sobers and Khan

2nd tier
Kallis, Botham and Hadlee

3rd tier
Dev and Miller

All tiers are within the framework of greatness and each of these all rounders are great but there was truly something special of Khan and Sobers from what I've seen, read and heard.

Botham was without a doubt the most naturally gifted but he faded whereas Khan and Hadlee got better with age. Sobers was the purest batsman of the lot and a great utility bowler, slow, spin, medium, fast whatever was needed.
Hadlee isn't close to being in the 2nd tier of all rounders, behave yourself. His batting wasn't good enough.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The ranking of all rounders in tiers

1st tier
Sobers and Khan

2nd tier
Kallis, Botham and Hadlee

3rd tier
Dev and Miller

All tiers are within the framework of greatness and each of these all rounders are great but there was truly something special of Khan and Sobers from what I've seen, read and heard.

Botham was without a doubt the most naturally gifted but he faded whereas Khan and Hadlee got better with age. Sobers was the purest batsman of the lot and a great utility bowler, slow, spin, medium, fast whatever was needed.
Jeez mate, what world are you living in? Even as a New Zealander who possibly has some unconscious bias going on when it comes to Hadlee, I'm telling you that you're dreaming if you think he was even close to the genuine 'allrounder' Miller was.

You're also being disingenuous if you really believe that cricket writers and historians in general don't view Miller in the very top class of allrounders, because it's reading about Miller, especially what his contemporaries said about him, which makes one appreciate he was one of the very top allrounders ever to play the game.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sobers's batting >>> Imran's bowling?

Not sure if serious.
Serious as a heart-attack.

So many folks, including our very own recent "2nd-greatest batsman" poll have Sobers as their 2nd greatest batsman of all-time. An honour that just isn't bestowed on Imran for his bowling.

I've read the odd person who would have Imran as one of their top 5 bowlers at best, but mostly he seems to be in the top 10 if that high, and generally behind the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, Barnes, McGrath, Steyn & Ambrose to name a few, and that's before even considering spin bowlers like Warne, Murali & co

In fact, is Imran he even considered to be the best Pakistani bowler of all time? Personally I'd give that honour to Akram, and I might be wrong, but I get the feeling most Pakistani cricket historians would too if we're purely talking bowling.

So in summary, Sobers is to many the 2nd greatest bat ever, and to most a definite top 5 candidate, whereas I can't say I've ever read anyone rate Imran as high as number 2 bowler before, and I don't believe most have him in their top 5.

Therefore Sobers batting >> Imran's bowling.

Now if it was the amount of ">>>>" symbols I was using to indicate the margin you take issue with. I did that because I believe it's that clear & categorical.
 
Last edited:

adub

International Captain
The first half of Botham's career was truly insane. Just a freak. Probably the closest I've seen to what Miller was reported to be. Just ridiculously good without even trying. But he lost the magic long before he stopped playing. On the basis of peak performance Both is at the very highest level, but his later career brings his overall rating down.
 

DriveClub

International Regular
Serious as a heart-attack.

So many folks, including our very own recent "2nd-greatest batsman" poll have Sobers as their 2nd greatest batsman of all-time. An honour that just isn't bestowed on Imran for his bowling. I've read the odd person who would have Imran as one of their top 5 bowlers at best, but mostly he seems to be in the top 10 if that high, and generally behind the likes of Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, Barnes, McGrath, Steyn & Ambrose to name a few, and that's before even considering spin bowlers like Warne, Murali & co

In fact, is Imran he even considered to be the best Pakistani bowler of all time? Personally I'd give that honour to Akram, and I might be wrong, but I get the feeling most Pakistani cricket historians would too if we're purely talking bowling.

So in summary, Sobers is to many the 2nd greatest bat ever, and to most a definite top 5 candidate, whereas very few & none I've ever read rate Imran as high as number 2 bowler, and I don't believe most have him in their top 5.
Which would only make IK bowling < GS batting, not <<<, that's just hyperbole.
 

Top