The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Glad I wasn't the only one wondering about the point of those links.So they both have topless CricInfo pictures... so what?
Glad I wasn't the only one wondering about the point of those links.So they both have topless CricInfo pictures... so what?
But why would you do that?imran. akram's record is poorer in comparison with imran's in terms of average, wkts/test, strike rate, frequency of five-fers and ten-fers. the difference becomes even more obvious when you remove akram's record against kiwis and lankans. imran is way way ahead of him against strong teams and against top order batters.
Wasim's record against Australia is very similar to Imran's though, and his record against WI is slightly better (though I'm the first to concede that Imran played more often against great WI sides than Wasim did). Imran might still be the greater, but it's not as though Wasim simply spent his career destroying weak batting lineups. And for the statistically minded, I wish Wasim had retired 8 Tests earlier because those last 8 Tests hurt him.imran. akram's record is poorer in comparison with imran's in terms of average, wkts/test, strike rate, frequency of five-fers and ten-fers. the difference becomes even more obvious when you remove akram's record against kiwis and lankans. imran is way way ahead of him against strong teams and against top order batters.
Whether or not you give a flying %$#& is none of my concern. I was responding to Bhupinder Singh who was arguing about time and not about no. of tests. Imran didn't play for 6-7 years simply because he was not good enough.I don't give a flying %$£& about number of years - for a time in cricket relates to matches. It doesn't matter if you're crap for 10 years if you don't play a game in that time.
That's why in the next series he took 18 wickets in 3 tests.Botham was no good as a bowler after the First Test in India in 1981\82.
Yeah go on be selective. That is what you are best at.You are the one, incidentally, trying to move goalposts by picking utterly implausible points at which to start different periods of players' careers. Nothing in Imran's career before 1976\77 matters - at all, really. To try and bring that into a criticism of him is just dismal. And to suggest that he was not a superb bowler immediately that season began is equally baffling of logic.
He wasn't, though, you just took number of years because it suited you best when trying to argue against him. He even specifically stated later on that Imran only played 4 Tests in the 5 years after his debut. Imran was only crap for an incredibly short time. And given that BS is a well-known Imran fan, he's hardly likely to argue something that makes Imran look bad, is he?Whether or not you give a flying %$#& is none of my concern. I was responding to Bhupinder Singh who was arguing about time and not about no. of tests. Imran didn't play for 6-7 years simply because he was not good enough.
He didn't, though. He took 9 at 35.55, after taking 8 at 65.87 in the rest of the series which started with this game.That's why in the next series he took 18 wickets in 3 tests.
And it's what makes me a good analyst of cricket.Yeah go on be selective. That is what you are best at.
When the hell did I mention about number of years,its BS that you started.All I meant to say was that Botham was rubbish for number of Tests than he was good.Whether or not you give a flying %$#& is none of my concern. I was responding to Bhupinder Singh who was arguing about time and not about no. of tests. Imran didn't play for 6-7 years simply because he was not good enough.
Bhupinder Singh - You mentioned time and not number of tests :-When the hell did I mention about number of years,its BS that you started.All I meant to say was that Botham was rubbish for number of Tests than he was good.
First of all dont use words like WTF, FFS etc when you are communicating with me. I consider tham as abusive language esp when it comes from someone like you and for that I am reporting your post.And precisely WTF does it matter if someone didn't play for 5 years because they weren't good enough? Don Bradman didn't play in the first 20 years of his life. Why? Because he wasn't good enough. Does this make any difference whatsoever to what happened when he became good enough?
Only people that are clutching are you and Bhupinder. Dont know what are you arguing here. Imran should not have picked before 1976-77, fine. But why not apply the same criteria to Botham as well ? If Imran shouldn't have been picked before 1977 then Botham shouldn't have been picked after 1986 either.No. Imran should never have been selected ITFP until 1976\77. To try and manufacture the fact that he was into a criticism, as well as being clutching at straws, simply beggars belief.
And it's what makes me a good analyst of cricket.
I'm not good at English at all & could've made a mistake.Believe me,I meant number of tests,not time period in years.And still no reply to the following post?Bhupinder Singh - You mentioned time and not number of tests :-
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1330287&postcount=141
"But Botham was absolutely rubbish in later stages of his career,for apprximately as much time as he was was successful."
What a load of BS.If a bowler averaging in 30s is rubbish,then you'll surely also consider Gary"I could bowl every style crapily"Sobers,Andrew Flintoff,Sarfaraz Nawaz & many many others averaging in 30s as rubbish bowlers also?
Ofcourse. Not my fault though.I'm not good at English at all & could've made a mistake.
Sanz,there can be many other factors other than being rubbish also e.g politics,availability of better bowlers(based on FC record at that time),losing the trust of selectors & many other possible reasons.And when analyzing performances in cricket,what matters is number of matches & not time period in years.Sir Don Bradman didn't play for 20 years after making his debut ? News to me, What next ? Imran did make his debut in 1971 and again was not picked for another 5-6 years means he was rubbish.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1325267&postcount=15What a load of BS.If a bowler averaging in 30s is rubbish,then you'll surely also consider Gary"I could bowl every style crapily"Sobers,Andrew Flintoff,Sarfaraz Nawaz & many many others averaging in 30s as rubbish bowlers also?
Of course and I have no problem with analyzing the number of matches, actually I did that in one of my earlier posts.Sanz,there can be many other factors other than being rubbish also e.g politics,availability of better bowlers(based on FC record at that time),losing the trust of selectors & many other possible reasons.And when analyzing performances in cricket,what matters is number of matches & not time period in years.
I never considered him great.I was just curious that what will you say about Gary Sobers(whom you consider greatest allrounder ever) when he's also averaging 34 after making that statement "Every bowler averging in 30s is rubbish",thats why I wrote Gary"I could bowl every style crapily"Sobers & didn't use any words of praise for his bowling.So now you consider Sir Gary a great bowler because it suits your argument ?
He is the greatest allrounder, because of his batting, bowling (all kinds of) and fielding. And when I said every bowler averaging in 30s...it was in the context of fast bowlers only, I should have made that clarification early. I would never call Bedi, gupte etc as crap. But I would call Srinath a Crap bowler.I never considered him great.I was just curious that what will you say about Gary Sobers(whom you consider greatest allrounder ever) when he's also averaging 34 after making that statement "Every bowler averging in 30s is rubbish",thats why I wrote Gary"I could bowl every style crapily"Sobers & didn't use any words of praise for his bowling.
If you could indeed read I said Bradman didn't play for 20 years after his birth. That he wasn't good enough to do so in said time doesn't really matter, as it doesn't matter than Imran wasn't good enough in 1971 or 1974. Bradman was good enough when he was first picked; Imran was good enough in 1976\77. Due to this, anything beforehand ceases to matter.Sir Don Bradman didn't play for 20 years after making his debut ? News to me, What next ? Imran did make his debut in 1971 and again was not picked for another 5-6 years means he was rubbish.
Except Botham's start to his career showed he did deserve to and should have been picked when he was. That the selectors erred in Imran's case does not say anything about him. It's they, not he, whose reputation suffers. At least, in the eyes of those with any sense.Only people that are clutching are you and Bhupinder. Dont know what are you arguing here. Imran should not have picked before 1976-77, fine. But why not apply the same criteria to Botham as well ? If Imran shouldn't have been picked before 1977 then Botham shouldn't have been picked after 1986 either.
And your inability to do so makes you worse, too.