Your ATG team pace bowling trio

[subshakerz]

Never said that.

But let's try again.

Any spinner but Warne and I'm choosing Knott.

Even with Warne as the spinner, I go back and forth between the two, because what Knott could do behind the stumps is the best I've seen.

I also have hardly seen Gilly make mistakes during his peak and he was very good to Warne. But I'm under no illusion that he was as good as Healy, far less Knott.

Knott was essentially flawless and actually created chances behind the stumps. I argue that creates a net positive effect on bowlers.

With a supremely strong top 6, couldn't the team suffer the loss in batting of Gilly to Knott to get the best keeper ever?

Even Wisden went that route.

 

[kyear2]

Knott was essentially flawless and actually created chances behind the stumps. I argue that creates a net positive effect on bowlers.

With a supremely strong top 6, couldn't the team suffer the loss in batting of Gilly to Knott to get the best keeper ever?

Even Wisden went that route.

And it's one I have 0 issue with.

He might even get my vote in the upcoming thread. Not as a sympathy vote, but he's legitimately an AT keeper and was good enough with the bat

 

[subshakerz]

And it's one I have 0 issue with.

He might even get my vote in the upcoming thread. Not as a sympathy vote, but he's legitimately an AT keeper and was good enough with the bat

Where would Knott batt in your lineup?

 

[Thala_0710]

He might even get my vote in the upcoming thread.

Which thread?

 

[sayon basak]

Which thread?

Thread that is upcoming.

 

[subshakerz]

And it's one I have 0 issue with.

He might even get my vote in the upcoming thread. Not as a sympathy vote, but he's legitimately an AT keeper and was good enough with the bat

Just to remind you, you said if you select Knott, picking Imran would be mandatory based on batting (!)

Yes Gilly was very good, Knott was special

It would necessitate probably a swap from Wasim to Imran, with a then legitimate need.

 

[kyear2]

Just to remind you, you said if you select Knott, picking Imran would be mandatory based on batting (!)

I did, and gave reasoning for same.

I've also said it more than once and either created a thread or just posed the question related to which combo was better. Gilly and Wasim or Knotty and Immy.

You think I hate Imran, I just think they're better options, but without Gilchrist the depth might be necessitated. Considering that the spinner is Warne, and that he's not missed much vs the great man, I think less is lost with him, let me explain.

What are the 3 main reasons I don't rate Imran the bowler as much as you do? And let's just do it, because you'll literally never drop it.

1. The vast majority of his legacy is build on his performances at home. Yes he was a great bowler and has one good series in most countries, but the consistency wasn't there. Away from home he isn't in the same tier as the other contenders.

2. He wasn't the same bowler until the ball started to reverse. He was often much more effective when he came on for his second spell and the ball was more suited for compliance with reverse. With the pitches, outfields and other modern features of the game, reverse is not longer a guarantee to occur, and definitely not as early. Without it, he's not the threat with the old ball as he otherwise would be.

3. But the main reason, and the one that make me rethink everytime I go to type in his name is, that he's the most limited of all the bowlers up for consideration. He was primarily, predominantly even, an inswing bowler. I've watched so many of his spells and clips and it's a sustained feature of his game. Against high quality batsmen I need, not prefer, but need someone who can move the ball both ways.
When I reference Wasim and why he's selected, the three reasons I put forward are best old ball bowler of all time (reverse or not), can move the ball both ways and ridiculous peer rep.

Even with regards to his secondary skill, his batting is overplayed. Everyone loves to cite that for a decade he averaged 50 with the bat (to his credit ORS has shattered this perception), but literally for the duration of his preferred bowling career, he maintained a rpi of 27. That's really handy, it's not paradigm shifting, especially compared to Gilchrist.

At the end of the day, Wasim gives me more with the ball, and even though he's not close with the bat, he too has clutch knocks and has Marshall and Warne as extremely capable 9's and 10's.

Most conditions in which we play cricket, or even the iconic grounds which are normally proposed for such at contests, outswing is the most effective means of dismissal. And because of that I do prefer Wasim or Steyn.

This isn't anti Pakistani, or even anti Imran, he's not part of what I would deem a perfect attack. Yes, there will be scenarios, probably even later today or tomorrow where I would genuinely wish I had an Imran level bat coming in at 8, but it can't be at the expense of that.

Is that so heinously unreasonable?

Now the real challenge is what happens if Bumrah makes that push and is a viable candidate. Can he and McGrath be in the same tail? That would be the interesting conversation, but for now Wasim (for me) is good enough that it isn't an issue.

 

[subshakerz]

I did, and gave reasoning for same.

I've also said it more than once and either created a thread or just posed the question related to which combo was better. Gilly and Wasim or Knotty and Immy.

You think I hate Imran, I just think they're better options, but without Gilchrist the depth might be necessitated. Considering that the spinner is Warne, and that he's not missed much vs the great man, I think less is lost with him, let me explain.

What are the 3 main reasons I don't rate Imran the bowler as much as you do? And let's just do it, because you'll literally never drop it.

1. The vast majority of his legacy is build on his performances at home. Yes he was a great bowler and has one good series in most countries, but the consistency wasn't there. Away from home he isn't in the same tier as the other contenders.

2. He wasn't the same bowler until the ball started to reverse. He was often much more effective when he came on for his second spell and the ball was more suited for compliance with reverse. With the pitches, outfields and other modern features of the game, reverse is not longer a guarantee to occur, and definitely not as early. Without it, he's not the threat with the old ball as he otherwise would be.

3. But the main reason, and the one that make me rethink everytime I go to type in his name is, that he's the most limited of all the bowlers up for consideration. He was primarily, predominantly even, an inswing bowler. I've watched so many of his spells and clips and it's a sustained feature of his game. Against high quality batsmen I need, not prefer, but need someone who can move the ball both ways.
When I reference Wasim and why he's selected, the three reasons I put forward are best old ball bowler of all time (reverse or not), can move the ball both ways and ridiculous peer rep.

Even with regards to his secondary skill, his batting is overplayed. Everyone loves to cite that for a decade he averaged 50 with the bat (to his credit ORS has shattered this perception), but literally for the duration of his preferred bowling career, he maintained a rpi of 27. That's really handy, it's not paradigm shifting, especially compared to Gilchrist.

At the end of the day, Wasim gives me more with the ball, and even though he's not close with the bat, he too has clutch knocks and has Marshall and Warne as extremely capable 9's and 10's.

Most conditions in which we play cricket, or even the iconic grounds which are normally proposed for such at contests, outswing is the most effective means of dismissal. And because of that I do prefer Wasim or Steyn.

This isn't anti Pakistani, or even anti Imran, he's not part of what I would deem a perfect attack. Yes, there will be scenarios, probably even later today or tomorrow where I would genuinely wish I had an Imran level bat coming in at 8, but it can't be at the expense of that.

Is that so heinously unreasonable?

Now the real challenge is what happens if Bumrah makes that push and is a viable candidate. Can he and McGrath be in the same tail? That would be the interesting conversation, but for now Wasim (for me) is good enough that it isn't an issue.

Please pick a lane:

- Outside of just being useful with the bat, we cannot sacrifice bowling quality for lower order batting, and therefore Imran doesn't make the grade as a bowler. Btw, he is overrated as a bat.

- Based on the team makeup, Imran can even bat at no.7 in my ATG lineup (ahead of Knott as you indicated previously) and therefore he is good enough as a bowler too.

Both can't be true.

 

[kyear2]

Please pick a lane:

- Outside of just being useful with the bat, we cannot sacrifice bowling quality for lower order batting, and therefore Imran doesn't make the grade as a bowler. Btw, he is overrated as a bat.

- Based on the team makeup, Imran can even bat at no.7 in my ATG lineup (ahead of Knott as you indicated previously) and therefore he is good enough as a bowler too.

Both can't be true.

Yes, ignore everything else said, but I'll address your points.

I have picked a lane, hence why I will select Gilchrist more often than not, Knott though is a very viable alternatives. I just think less is lost with Gilchrist, was clear about that.

He's an ATG bowlers, no one's saying he isn't. For me he's right around Holding, Donald, Lindwall, while they would make the grade, they're also not being chosen either. They're not as good as the other options.

Re being over rated, I think most rate him correctly, it's the ones who parrot the averaging 50 for the decade where the disconnect comes. He was never a 50 averaging value batsman, not close, and even you know this.

With regards to his bowling critiques I was clear, reasoned, dispassionate and I believe accurate.

He was a great player and as an all rounder only Kallis, Miller and Gilchrist can even be mentioned in the same breath.

If a team is selected as an honor, he has a decent shout, if I'm selecting a team as I do to take the field, as Kimber said yesterday, you have to select the 4 bowlers most likely to take 20 wickets. He's not among those 4 for me.

None of this is unreasonable nor controversial.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, ignore everything else said, but I'll address your points.

I have picked a lane, hence why I will select Gilchrist more often than not, Knott though is a very viable alternatives. I just think less is lost with Gilchrist, was clear about that.

He's an ATG bowlers, no one's saying he isn't. For me he's right around Holding, Donald, Lindwall, while they would make the grade, they're also not being chosen either. They're not as good as the other options.

Re being over rated, I think most rate him correctly, it's the ones who parrot the averaging 50 for the decade where the disconnect comes. He was never a 50 averaging value batsman, not close, and even you know this.

With regards to his bowling critiques I was clear, reasoned, dispassionate and I believe accurate.

He was a great player and as an all rounder only Kallis, Miller and Gilchrist can even be mentioned in the same breath.

If a team is selected as an honor, he has a decent shout, if I'm selecting a team as I do to take the field, as Kimber said yesterday, you have to select the 4 bowlers most likely to take 20 wickets. He's not among those 4 for me.

None of this is unreasonable nor controversial.

You didn't address the point I made. How can your critique of Imran's inadmissibility as a bowler and overrating as a bat stand if you include automatically him at no.7 in your ATG lineup with Knott as a keeper?

It's a complete contradiction.

 

[kyear2]

You didn't address the point I made. How can your critique of Imran's inadmissibility as a bowler and overrating as a bat stand if you include automatically him at no.7 in your ATG lineup with Knott as a keeper?

It's a complete contradiction.

I literally did. I did in the first post and repeated it again in the response.

Yes, if Knott is selected, it likely necessitates selecting Imran at 8. It's also the reason why Knott isn't subsequently selected. When one combines Gilchrist being great to Warne for a decade and what you're giving up with the ball, Gilchrist is the eventual choice.
But yeah, Knott can be selected with Wasim, after all Wisden did it.

Did you address any of the points that I made though? I gave 3 very detailed reasons why he's not the 3rd pacer in a 3 man pace attack of all time. Are they reasonable points?

I know you do, but how many others would select Imran if you were just looking at the 3 best bowlers. Even in this poll which takes into account his batting, he's a very distant 4th.

And stop being hyperbolic, "inadmissibility" really? Just stop it.

 

[subshakerz]

I literally did. I did in the first post and repeated it again in the response.

Yes, if Knott is selected, it likely necessitates selecting Imran at 8.

But I thought we don't lower bowling standards for better lower order batting outside of just being useful, and Imran's batting is overrated anyways?

You don't see it, do you? You have been trying to present your critiques of Imran in an ATG XI based on some consistent principles but then you admit Imran can slip right in based on team makeup and by extension is acceptable as a bowler, which has been the argument from our side in the first place.

This is you freaking earlier in this thread, and yet you are blatantly contradicting yourself. Because you consider Knott (based on top 6 batting being sufficient to allow the best keeper) and therefore NEED to select Imran for his batting.

The over rating of lower order batting that is pervasive around a few here, to the point where it's the primary consideration of selection is ridiculously misguided.

 

[kyear2]

But I thought we don't lower bowling standards for better lower order batting outside of just being useful, and Imran's batting is overrated anyways?

You don't see it, do you? You have been trying to present your critiques of Imran in an ATG XI based on some consistent principles but then you admit Imran can slip right in based on team makeup and by extension is acceptable as a bowler, which has been the argument from our side in the first place.

This is you freaking earlier in this thread, and yet you are blatantly contradicting yourself. Because you consider Knott (based on top 6 batting being sufficient to allow the best keeper) and therefore NEED to select Imran for his batting.

I genuinely understand your position, you're defending your guy and it's personal to you, fine. I'm trying to better understand where people are coming from.

But this is why I stopped engaging with you, this response is just intellectually dishonest.

You're cutting off the entire premise of the response.

And no, my opinion hasn't changed, the premise of selecting your entire bowling attack based on their batting averages to me is still extremely misguided. Their job is to take 20 wickets.

In any event, since you have no intent to respond to by substantive points and lying or misrepresenting the others, I'll just go back to ignoring you.

 

[subshakerz]

And no, my opinion hasn't changed, the premise of selecting your entire bowling attack based on their batting averages to me is still extremely misguided. Their job is to take 20 wickets.

How is this different from auto selecting Imran with Knott?

 

[Cipher]

How is this different from auto selecting Imran with Knott?

Dude why do you constantly try to change his mind on Imran? He rates him amongst the best just not in his first 3 bowlers of an ATG side. You're never going to change his mind on rating him higher because of the reasons he's given & has stuck with consistently. You can disagree with them personally but considering you & he have been arguing about this for years going from forum history surely there must come a point where you've exhausted all possible points & you're just wasting your time. You've done a great job in singing Imran's praise & certainly given me thought for considering him in the best side but surely there must come a point where you can do something better with your time?

It's like me with wicketkeeper batsmen, purists out there will believe that you should choose the best keeper possible & forget batting. I disagree with that notion but I am unbothered with others having different opinions if they're sticking by them. You can put your best points forward but at the end of the day it's up to a person themselves to change their mind.

If you just like arguing for the enjoyment of it go ahead but considering you seem to get angry about it I really do wonder if this is the best use of your time on this forum.

 

[subshakerz]

Dude why do you constantly try to change his mind on Imran? He rates him amongst the best just not in his first 3 bowlers of an ATG side. You're never going to change his mind on rating him higher because of the reasons he's given & has stuck with consistently.

Dude please check this thread, except for this page, the vast majority of it was others debating him on Imran, not me. I had given up debating him on the merits of Imran recently.

And nobody cares for how he rates Imran, all of our critiques are on how he doesnt have a consistent criteria in selecting/assessing cricketers and ignores counterarguments. Not just Imran, but Barry, Marshall, Bradman, Hobbs, it's the same issue that he gets called out on.

Even this page I am not trying to change his mind on Imran but ask him to stick to a single standard, which he does not.

Do you understand the issue from my side? To be clear, I am perfectly fine with how he rates Imran and there are others who rate him even lower and I don't argue with them.

 

[Cipher]

Dude please check this thread, except for this page, the vast majority of it was others debating him on Imran, not me. I had given up debating him on the merits of Imran recently.

And nobody cares for how he rates Imran, all of our critiques are on how he doesnt have a consistent criteria in selecting/assessing cricketers. Not just Imran, but Barry, Marshall, Bradman, Hobbs, it's the same issue that he gets called out on.

Even this page I am not trying to change his mind on Imran but ask him to stick to a single standard, which he does not.

Do you understand the problem from my side? To be clear, I am perfectly fine with how he rates Imran and there are others who rate him even lower and I don't argue with them.

Okay I'm glad you've given up on it, it's just not worth your time imo.
It's just whenever you two debate Imran always seems to be brought up at some point, it's like watching a TV show with the same rehashed plot over and over again, it must get boring.

That's fine if you don't like how he grades his criteria, realistically I don't think anyone here can actually be fully consistent/rigid on what their judgement is because cricket/sport in general is contextual especially when it comes to rating players because no player faces the exact same conditions as another. If he's insisting on rigid criteria sure call that out but he is raising other points too (I realise he doesn't address every argument himself either).

People are going to have their favourites & you can point out the flaws/strengths of each player but realistically pretty much everyone here has caveats to their ATG selections. How do we know how someone like Hobbs might fair against express pace reverse swing bowling or how Tendulkar would go on a sticky wicket? What conditions are we putting this ATG team in? There's no defined place & time when it occurs, it's all subjective & there is no perfect ATG team, which makes it fun to debate.

You can call out criteria inconsistencies if he's using that against other players and not his own but try to focus on what he's actually putting forward in each point. For example he doesn't rate Imran as highly as others because he doesn't swing it both ways & the home vs away record.
The supposed inconsistent criteria regarding the balance of primary & secondary skills within team structure isn't the main reason he's picking certain players, it's really about which individual players he rates higher mostly based on their primary skill & how he can justify selecting them in a team. He might rate Hadlee higher than Akram as a bowler but he selects Akram because he prefers what he offers with the old ball and it contrasts to his other bowlers. He's given his selected bowlers roles in the side, he rates Marshall & McGrath the best & because they contrast they're in the side just for their primary skill alone. Because they're opening the bowling he wants someone else good with an older ball, in which he rates Akram & Steyn above Imran. He's making choices on competitive balance to the XI.

I don't think he was suggesting the Imran/Knott combination couldn't get 20 wickets (he may think it's slightly harder to achieve idk). But if I'm reading this correctly, his view is Knott's increase in keeping skill might help offset the slight decline in Imran's bowling quality in taking 20 wickets in comparison to an Akram/Gilchrist combination, while still maintaining a comparable strong batting presence. But he did say that he preferred the Akram/Gilchrist combination more & gave reasons for that including that Gilchrist has experience keeping to Warne & that Gilchrist offers more with his batting. Plus he rates Akram's bowling higher.

He wants to have good batting where possible, he just doesn't want to skimp on wicket taking quality in pursuit of that. I'm not sure what the inconsistency is here? Unless he thinks Gilchrist/Akram is worse off wicket taking wise vs Imran/Knott for the team. He just rates one selection pairing over another for the benefits it brings to the team.

There's no issue in critiquing his choice for Barry as an example if he uses short test records for other players against them but in other matters you're better off arguing about players personal merits rather than criteria that is always going to be contextual/not bulletproof.
For example you could say Imran didn't need outswing to get wickets given his record or that he's won player of the series awards in away nations. Not "you're inconsistent considering Imran for the first XI because he pairs well with Knott". He clearly does value depth in batting to some extent down to number 8 but it's a balancing act for the team overall.

Going from his XI he believes Gilchrist & higher bowling quality (Akram) is better than Knott & lower bowling quality (Imran) for his 1st ATG XI.
If he changes his XI to Knott/Imran (while still believing Akram is a better bowler than Imran) you will have a point to raise regarding sacrificing bowling quality for batting but at least for this selection pairing, his logic is consistent for choosing his first XI.

 

[subshakerz]

Okay I'm glad you've given up on it, it's just not worth your time imo.
It's just whenever you two debate Imran always seems to be brought up at some point, it's like watching a TV show with the same rehashed plot over and over again, it must get boring.

That's fine if you don't like how he grades his criteria, realistically I don't think anyone here can actually be fully consistent/rigid on what their judgement is because cricket/sport in general is contextual especially when it comes to rating players because no player faces the exact same conditions as another. If he's insisting on rigid criteria sure call that out but he is raising other points too (I realise he doesn't address every argument himself either).

People are going to have their favourites & you can point out the flaws/strengths of each player but realistically pretty much everyone here has caveats to their ATG selections. How do we know how someone like Hobbs might fair against express pace reverse swing bowling or how Tendulkar would go on a sticky wicket? What conditions are we putting this ATG team in? There's no defined place & time when it occurs, it's all subjective & there is no perfect ATG team, which makes it fun to debate.

You can call out criteria inconsistencies if he's using that against other players and not his own but try to focus on what he's actually putting forward in each point. For example he doesn't rate Imran as highly as others because he doesn't swing it both ways & the home vs away record.
The supposed inconsistent criteria regarding the balance of primary & secondary skills within team structure isn't the main reason he's picking certain players, it's really about which individual players he rates higher mostly based on their primary skill & how he can justify selecting them in a team. He might rate Hadlee higher than Akram as a bowler but he selects Akram because he prefers what he offers with the old ball and it contrasts to his other bowlers. He's given his selected bowlers roles in the side, he rates Marshall & McGrath the best & because they contrast they're in the side just for their primary skill alone. Because they're opening the bowling he wants someone else good with an older ball, in which he rates Akram & Steyn above Imran. He's making choices on competitive balance to the XI.

I don't think he was suggesting the Imran/Knott combination couldn't get 20 wickets (he may think it's slightly harder to achieve idk). But if I'm reading this correctly, his view is Knott's increase in keeping skill might help offset the slight decline in Imran's bowling quality in taking 20 wickets in comparison to an Akram/Gilchrist combination, while still maintaining a comparable strong batting presence. But he did say that he preferred the Akram/Gilchrist combination more & gave reasons for that including that Gilchrist has experience keeping to Warne & that Gilchrist offers more with his batting. Plus he rates Akram's bowling higher.

He wants to have good batting where possible, he just doesn't want to skimp on wicket taking quality in pursuit of that. I'm not sure what the inconsistency is here? Unless he thinks Gilchrist/Akram is worse off wicket taking wise vs Imran/Knott for the team. He just rates one selection pairing over another for the benefits it brings to the team.

There's no issue in critiquing his choice for Barry as an example if he uses short test records for other players against them but in other matters you're better off arguing about players personal merits rather than criteria that is always going to be contextual/not bulletproof.
For example you could say Imran didn't need outswing to get wickets given his record or that he's won player of the series awards in away nations. Not "you're inconsistent considering Imran for the first XI because he pairs well with Knott". He clearly does value depth in batting to some extent down to number 8 but it's a balancing act for the team overall.

Going from his XI he believes Gilchrist & higher bowling quality (Akram) is better than Knott & lower bowling quality (Imran) for his 1st ATG XI.
If he changes his XI to Knott/Imran (while still believing Akram is a better bowler than Imran) you will have a point to raise regarding sacrificing bowling quality for batting but at least for this selection pairing, his logic is consistent for choosing his first XI.

Again, I don't want to debate him on Imran's merits primarily because I don't think he is capable of viewing Imran with any degree of objectivity. If you like there is a post a few pages earlier where I give half a dozen inconsistencies he applies to Imran. It's past the point where there is anything to gain here.

Yes many may have inconsistencies in their criteria, but it is Kyear who will go on and on ad nauseum to not just me but many others about how his criteria are somehow like immutable principles.

I can give you examples if you wish. It is the disconnect between his matter of fact framing and the clear contradictions of not using criteria with other cricketers that creates issues. If he was casual about it rather than passionately trying to prove those who disagree wrong, nobody would care

As for Knott/Imran, there are inconsistencies because he has tried to display Imran as not that good of a lower order bat yet in the case of select Knott will select Imran as a necessity for his batting. However, he has said that even if Wasim has no batting skill he would prefer to select him if Gilly is around. Essentially four tailenders from 8 to 11.

He consider Imran a better bowler than Wasim, but wants Wasim as he considers him a better third seamer for the old ball, but then will bring up Imran's bowling ranking to suggest he isn't good enough for the bowling lineup whereas he rates Wasim lower.

Kyear once faked his ATG XIs selection to have Imran is the third XI, and later admitted falsifying it was all a ruse to trigger me in a thread I was not even involved in.

You did put him in your third team though before that. It's inexcusable and embarassing.

That was purely to piss you off for being tou, I see it worked.

So please consider the above and realise that the more you go into his positions, the more problematic it becomes. And it wouldn't be as big a problem if he wasn't so sanctimonious about it with essay long posts.

 

[kyear2]

Dude why do you constantly try to change his mind on Imran? He rates him amongst the best just not in his first 3 bowlers of an ATG side. You're never going to change his mind on rating him higher because of the reasons he's given & has stuck with consistently. You can disagree with them personally but considering you & he have been arguing about this for years going from forum history surely there must come a point where you've exhausted all possible points & you're just wasting your time. You've done a great job in singing Imran's praise & certainly given me thought for considering him in the best side but surely there must come a point where you can do something better with your time?

It's like me with wicketkeeper batsmen, purists out there will believe that you should choose the best keeper possible & forget batting. I disagree with that notion but I am unbothered with others having different opinions if they're sticking by them. You can put your best points forward but at the end of the day it's up to a person themselves to change their mind.

If you just like arguing for the enjoyment of it go ahead but considering you seem to get angry about it I really do wonder if this is the best use of your time on this forum.

But it's not even putting forward his best points or even arguing mine.

He's literally trying to mischaracterize my statements in a silly game of gotcha.

I laid out 3 well defined points, if one was serious, they would argue those.

But he thinks it's personal and has resorted to distortion of what I said and blatantly cherry picking statements.

I'm willing to have any discussion, just have some integrity in the argument.

As I've said, I get where he's coming from.

 

[kyear2]

Dude please check this thread, except for this page, the vast majority of it was others debating him on Imran, not me. I had given up debating him on the merits of Imran recently.

And nobody cares for how he rates Imran, all of our critiques are on how he doesnt have a consistent criteria in selecting/assessing cricketers and ignores counterarguments. Not just Imran, but Barry, Marshall, Bradman, Hobbs, it's the same issue that he gets called out on.

Even this page I am not trying to change his mind on Imran but ask him to stick to a single standard, which he does not.

Do you understand the issue from my side? To be clear, I am perfectly fine with how he rates Imran and there are others who rate him even lower and I don't argue with them.

You definitely care how I rate him, let's not pretend.

I've made counter arguments that you've ignored, even in this thread. But please tell me the counter arguments for the highlighted players that I've ignored.

Is that I've ignored or just have a different opinion to others.

Please, please highlight the standard that I've ignored. In a totally honest and transparent post, where you're not cutting shirt what I've said, please tell me what standard that I've ignored. Since @OverratedSanity is agreeing with you, he's free to chime in as well.