Who was the better bowler ?

[The Sean]

So they both have topless CricInfo pictures... so what?

Glad I wasn't the only one wondering about the point of those links.

 

[bagapath]

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.

 

[Richard]

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.

But why would you do that?

 

[The Sean]

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.

 

[Richard]

Wasim never really played a genuinely weak West Indies, TBH - his last one was in the Caribbean in 2000, when they still had many fantastic players and were generally very competetive at home (that series was the last of that era).

I suppose you could throw in the 1997\98 tour when Pakistan flattened them (the first time they'd lost to someone other than Australia for 26 years EDIT no it wasn't, forgot New Zealand in 1979\80, though that was dubious) but every other West Indies side Wasim played would have been a good one, 2nd-best in The World at worst.

 

[Sanz]

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.

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.

Botham was no good as a bowler after the First Test in India in 1981\82.

That's why in the next series he took 18 wickets in 3 tests.

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.

Yeah go on be selective. That is what you are best at.

 

[Richard]

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 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?

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? 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.

It's only if a player becomes not good enough to play having previously been good enough that you can place it as a black-mark against them.

That's why in the next series he took 18 wickets in 3 tests.

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.

Yeah go on be selective. That is what you are best at.

And it's what makes me a good analyst of cricket.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

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.

 

[Sanz]

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.

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."

 

[Richard]

It is you who interpreted "time" as "number of years". It's perfectly plausible for someone to mean number of games when they say "quite some time". That is what I've always judged a cricketer on - number of games, not timespan of those games.

 

[Sanz]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 it's what makes me a good analyst of cricket.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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."

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?

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?

 

[Sanz]

I'm not good at English at all & could've made a mistake.

Ofcourse. Not my fault though.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

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.

 

[Sanz]

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?

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1325267&postcount=15

So now you consider Sir Gary a great bowler because it suits your argument ?

Anyways - Let me rephrase that statement. For a fast bowler any average of of 30 Plus is ordinary. I take back my use of the word 'Crap' and replace it as average or ordinary. If Andrew Flintoff ends up with a career average of 30+ then yes I would call him ordinary, infact he was actually quite ordinary before 2003.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Of course and I have no problem with analyzing the number of matches, actually I did that in one of my earlier posts.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

So now you consider Sir Gary a great bowler because it suits your argument ?

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.

 

[Sanz]

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.

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.

 

[Beleg]

shortpitchedwhatever,

Shoaib's definitely a better bowler than Waqar. I didn't watch enough of Imran to comment on his bowling prowess.

However, Wasim is right there with the best bowlers I have ever watched. Statistics, in this case, do not do his bowling ability justice at all.


Edit: And I watched a significant chunk of Wasim's career. Pretty much all the tests he played after 1990.

 

[Richard]

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.

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.

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.

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.

And your inability to do so makes you worse, too.