That's fair, he might argue you also have favouritism for him as well though. Just a cursed topic between you both.
If that's how it is sure, as long as you're correctly interpreting his points/criteria in the first place & then finding flaws in it. You're passionate too though which is why he cares enough to argue back.
Not that good of a lower order bat in comparison to who? I've read him say he isn't a good enough established batsman that could play in the top 6 for AT sides which is true. But I haven't read anything to suggest he would say his batting is worse than other number 8's. He's said that lower order batting is less impactful than higher order batsmen which is also true.
If he's selecting Imran it's because partly he believes of all the ATG bowlers who can balance out Knott's lower batting average he is the one to do it. You can claim that he isn't as good a bat as recognised batsmen but can still say he has batting utility for team balance. I don't think that's an inconsistency.
Because he primarily puts importance on bowling skill, batting skill is a bonus. Batting skill matters less for the bowlers if Gilly is at 7 rather than Knott. Don't forget he has Marshall & Warne in his side as well who can still perform 8 & 9 to an acceptable standard.
I have my doubts if he personally ranks Wasim a lower quality bowler, but picks him instead of Imran. That should be explained why, which I'm pretty sure he has done earlier in this thread re: swinging the ball both ways etc. I haven't seen him say that he thinks Imran is better than Wasim though. Considering he brings up peer reviews as an argument as to how Wasim was rated vs Imran & the level of critique he has for Imran compared to Wasim that would make me think he prefers Wasim. He may just be raising cricketwebs rankings of bowlers idk. But as you said it's because he rates Wasim's old ball bowling better which serves more purpose to his team. He may also personally just not want Imran in his team due to questions of his record.
I know I made the original thread where he admitted this, he actually has him in his 2nd XI. Trolling is annoying but you need to let this go, he debates intentionally for 99% of the other times. There's plenty of other posters who post facetiously more than he does.
Of course, I don't doubt he's been nasty in some of his responses to a number of people but you & I can also get petty too on occasion. You & I have also written long posts, I'm not saying you have to get along with him but remember that you're engaging with someone that has some similar traits to you (passionate, analytical, determined) even if your viewpoints differ in some regards. That's just why I've been saying don't bother antagonising on old points, it's like fighting a reflection of yourself & it leads nowhere. If it's new and there's understanding to be had then great but don't waste your time on stuff that ain't changing. Your differing views on Imran Khan is the best example of this.
One at a time.
His idea of lack of objectivity is that I don't agree with him. So this question, is he one of the the three greatest fast bowlers of all time, no. Under all eventualities is he the greatest old ball bowler of all time, no. Was he more reliant than most on reverse swing, yes. Was his legacy built primarily on his home performances which were, yes, partially tainted by unprecedentedly biased home umpiring and rampant ball tampering? Yes. During his peak that's being discussed in another thread, of the 22 matches played during those 5 years, 16 were in Pakistan at an average of 12. The other 6 were in England and SL and wickets were taken at 18.
His lower order batting is among the 5 best ever, of the ones who even approaches all time great status as bowlers, only Pollock comes close and controversially Procter, was better. The overrating comes when people start quoting the 50 average over a decade. It's a hollow stat and everyone knows it, he never approached that quality or level. As a bowler between 74 and 88, Subz's preferred tl not mine, his rpi was 27, and even that with a high contributions from down hill skiing. He's a elite no. 8 at this level, but no higher than that. Knott has a higher rpi than he did @ 29 and performed better while batting at no. 7.
There's no inconsistency, he's not a good enough batsman to stake a claim based purely on that, but if additional balance is required, he's the one best suited to do so. He's the best of the available options. He harps on the fact that he would be the choice if Knott is selected, while avoiding the part that he's also the reason he ultimately isn't.
Yeah, everyone forgets that Marshall and Warne already provides better than average and pretty good depth. It's not a glaring weakness.
There's this wonderful article by Gideon Haigh, who speaks to selecting all time XIs which cemented my perception of same, where he simply asks, why choose 4 new ball bowlers when only two will get it, who fields at slip, complimentary batting styles etc etc. Wasim is seen by most as the best old ball bowler ever (Bumrah may soon supercede) who was just as effective if the ball wasn't reversing, and could move old and new ball alike both ways. With a cordon which he's afforded here, I think he's (for now) unquestionably the best option.
Essay long posts are required with him and his cohorts as they like to distort my positions
He still cherry picks, so what can one do.
I'm still awaiting responses with regards to the actual points made earlier.
The crazy thing is that we agree on most points outside of Imran (his childhood hero), slip fielding and Barry.
And when he speaks of bias it crazy considering his decade long crusades against Kallis, Ambrose and others because they're direct challengers to Imran.
