How good was Imran Khan?

[Furball]

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.

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.

Yes, easily.

 

[Zinzan]

Which would only make IK bowling < GS batting, not <<<, that's just hyperbole.

I edited my reasons for the ">>>" as opposed to simply ">".

 

[Zinzan]

Yes, easily.

In your opinion, or the consensus of most informed fans & cricket historians? At a guess I'd suggest more in cricketing circles would have Akram the bowler slightly ahead of Imran the bowler.

I'm not sure if there's been any polls done here on that question, but I'd be surprised is Akram wasn't ahead.

 

[Tromperie]

Why can't Miller be compared to Imran considering their numbers are almost identical, because you simply assert it or do you actually have an argument?

One argument is that Khan played quite a few more tests than Miller, and there's no evidence that Miller would have been able to sustain his excellent stats for as long as Khan did.

 

[Zinzan]

One argument is that Khan played quite a few more tests than Miller, and there's no evidence that Miller would have been able to sustain his excellent stats for as long as Khan did.

That's a valid question to ask, although from what I've read from Miller's contemporaries & cricket historians is that if anything his stats don't reflect quite how good he was, especially with the bat where many say he under-performed in averaging 36 or 37 he did.

So I get the impression that a longer career of more games played would have seen his record improve, although obviously I can't know that for sure.

 

[smash84]

S

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.

yes. that was the issue. >>> usually signifies "much much greater" than which obviously wasn't the case.

To your other point on the best fast bowler from Pakistan. Imran is the best fast bowler for test cricket among the two. Akram was more skillful with the ball and >> than Imran as a LO bowler but that didn't make him a better bowler. Imran was damned good as a bowler and only slightly behind the likes of Richard Hadlee and Malcolm Marshall in his era purely on bowling alone.

 

[listento_me]

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.

Would you say people involved in cricket would rank khan and Sobers higher than Millar? Possibly Kallis in the modern day? I guess Botham, Dev and Hadlee are up for debate.

There's noway Miller is in the upper tier that I labeled.

 

[smash84]

.

There's noway Miller is in the upper tier that I labeled.

lolwut?

Are you kidding me? Miller is arguably the most "rounded" all rounder in the history of the game.

You probably haven't heard much of him because you frequent Pakpassion or ICF too much.

 

[honestbharani]

Calling Miller a 3rd tier allrounder is just bottom tier posting.

 

[Daemon]

Guys I'm sensing a nasty argument just round the corner. Let me diffuse the tension a little bit.

 

[Zinzan]

Would you say people involved in cricket would rank khan and Sobers higher than Millar? Possibly Kallis in the modern day? I guess Botham, Dev and Hadlee are up for debate.

There's noway Miller is in the upper tier that I labeled.

You're being a little tricky with your wording of the question by lumping Sobers and Imran together as if they're the same.

From what I've read, heard & seen & then packaged together, I'd say the general consensus among most respected historians is Sober's is the greatest all-round cricketer ever, followed by both Imran & Miller as the great bowling allrounders & then Kallis as the other great batting allrounder.

Hadlee wasn't quite good enough with the bat to be up there, Kapil not quite good enough with the ball, while Botham's career frankly fizzled out too much after his freakish start (1979-1984), to be up there with them across his whole career.

If I was picking an allrounder based on their peak 5 year period, it'd probably be Botham circa 1979-84 though.


If had to pick the greatest allrounders (not cricketers, but allrounders, there is a subtle difference), I'd probably rank them

1. Sobers
2=. Imran/Miller
4= Kallis/Botham
6= Hadlee/Kapil

 

[social]

Compare Imran and Botham against the best team of their era

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

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

 

[Zinzan]

Compare Imran and Botham against the best team of their era

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

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

Well yeah, that's one of many ways to look at it, although I would say looking at their numbers over the same time period would be a little fairer. Botham's era of 1978-91 was a stronger Windies period than Imran's 1971-1977 part period. I'd also what to look at the make up of the opposition they both faced, dismissed etc as well as where those games were played. In other words a decent dissection.

But sure, in general Imran has a better record against the Windies.

 

[subshakerz]

How good was Imran? Legitimately should be in the top five 5 cricketers of all time.

A ridiculously good all-rounder who just got better and better . His formative period was 71-79. From 1980 onwards, he was just a superstar. The closer you study his career record from 1980 onwards, the more it leaves you in awe. He never really failed collectively in a test series with bat and ball since 1980 onwards till retirement.

An underrated pacemen, given that at his peak, he was the greatest bowler ever (check this out if you do not believe me: Blogs: Anantha Narayanan: Test streaks: 52 and 27 matches long | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo). He outperformed all of his peers in his bowling against the best batting side of the time, the WI. His bowling against India in 1983 was arguably the best fast bowling series performance. Won matches on his own singlehandedly against the big boys and was the first to show the true devastating potential of reverse swing (after Sarfraz discovered it)

And yes, despite what some of you may say, he was an underrated batsman. Yes, his career average was helped by not-outs, but even if you remove some to make it a normal range, he would end up with an average of 35 or so, which is around the Gus Logie/Gatting level. You forget what an average of 35 meant in the 80s when bowling standards were super high. And no, he didnt just become a batsman at the final stage of his career. In 1983 at his bowling height, when he broke his shin and couldnt bowl, he stayed in the team for two years as a pure batsmen, and did quite well.

And of course, as captain, he was one of the very best if not the best. Built his team, introduced an attacking mindset, made youngsters into worldclass cricketers, scored some landmark victories.

I cant think of anyone with the possible exception of Bradman who had as much impact on their team.

 

[subshakerz]

A few reasons Imran gets underrated is that he happened to come as a time when three other world class all-rounders were there, which slightly overshadowed those achievements, which is also the case with why his fast-bowling is slight underrated as well.

 

[smash84]

You're being a little tricky with your wording of the question by lumping Sobers and Imran together as if they're the same.

From what I've read, heard & seen & then packaged together, I'd say the general consensus among most respected historians is Sober's is the greatest all-round cricketer ever, followed by both Imran & Miller as the great bowling allrounders & then Kallis as the other great batting allrounder.

Hadlee wasn't quite good enough with the bat to be up there, Kapil not quite good enough with the ball, while Botham's career frankly fizzled out too much after his freakish start (1979-1984), to be up there with them across his whole career.

If I was picking an allrounder based on their peak 5 year period, it'd probably be Botham circa 1979-84 though.


If had to pick the greatest allrounders (not cricketers, but allrounders, there is a subtle difference), I'd probably rank them

1. Sobers
2=. Imran/Miller
4= Kallis/Botham
6= Hadlee/Kapil

Dude, Miller was not a bowling all rounder. Stop peddling this myth. Batting was his stronger suit even if his bowling average is suitably low. He barely has 3 wpm and just 1 10 wicket haul in his career.

 

[smash84]

Well yeah, that's one of many ways to look at it, although I would say looking at their numbers over the same time period would be a little fairer. Botham's era of 1978-91 was a stronger Windies period than Imran's 1971-1977 part period. I'd also what to look at the make up of the opposition they both faced, dismissed etc as well as where those games were played. In other words a decent dissection.

But sure, in general Imran has a better record against the Windies.

The stats that social has put don't even account for the 1971-1977 period for Imran.

 

[Zinzan]

The stats that social has put don't even account for the 1971-1977 period for Imran.

Read the post again, I think you got yourself muddled up.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Over rated hack.


JOKE. One of the all time greats, individual preference as to how many are rated above him but there won't be many on anyones list.

 

[smash84]

Read the post again, I think you got yourself muddled up.

How so?