Which batsmen were most successful against Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath?

[subshakerz]

Just some of your own words re Wasim... note the highlighted portions. I can privide more if you wish.

You would also note later in the thread I asking why I'm wrong abiut Wasim and if his issues were suffcient to make up fpr the numbers deficit.

Yes I have explained this other places, Wasim was more skilled at reverse but Imran just as if not more effective.

 

[DrWolverine]

Wisden is the "cricket bible",

Wisden is just an old cricket book published in England. It’s not the official authority on cricket and its opinions are still just opinions.

 

[subshakerz]

For cricketers in general.

Record home and away

Impact and impact vs the best of era

Peer ratings

Imran is notably better than Wasim on the first two counts.

 

[Coronis]

@kyear2 I’m curious, because iirc you have quoted Wasim’s old ball ability as to why you have him in your XI, but you consider Steyn a better old ball bowler (and bowler overall), why not Steyn in your XI?

 

[kyear2]

As always, you're overly emotional when it comes to Marshall. Here is his partner.

1000029046.png

Ofcourse there is no controversy, what controversy would there even be?



Every team was doing seam lifting and some form of tampering in the 80s, including both Pakistan and the West Indies, in your fantasy la la land maybe West Indies never did it while every other team in existence did, but I'm not that idealistic.

These whataboutisms and false comparisons are tiring.

1. Holding was pissed about western hypocricy, espcially as it related to Hair punishing Inzy, while no one had an issue with what England did in 2005.

Most already thought Hair had an agenda, this further proved it.

So he made an obviously hyperbolic statement which you see as an indictment for every pacer ever. That's not remotely proof. Proof is multiple Pakistanis coming out to blame Imran for ruining Pakistani cricket or saying they only did it because Imran introduced it.

This overall stance reminds me of an interview I saw last week. Someone was reflecting on Trump's corruption, self dealing and self enrichment and someone, just as you are now, responded with most presidents have.

So to be clear, there can be no comparison between the billions trump has enriched himself by and literally any other in history. The scaling isn't comparable. That too applies in this scenario. And that is before on factors in the umpiring during the period.

This false equivalency is staggering.

And when you say there wasn't any controversy.

1. If we were doing it at that scale, better believe there would have been. There shouldn't have been any about bouncers or over rates either.

2. Tou can ask anyone on this forum who lived through the period and ask if it wasn't well known that Imran was tampering the hell out of the ball. It wasn't a secret.

All that aside, players visiting the caribbean, Australia and South Africa have long covered themselves in sun screen, players everywhere have used hair grease, more recently chap stick etc etc. When one sweats and then shines the ball, does that count as ball tampering to you, and is that the equivalent of what Pakistan was doing?

 

[kyear2]

No. It isn’t.

Sureee...

 

[kyear2]

Imran achieved more and has a better record, despite being mainly a bat for some of his career. Those are the facts and data.

Imran didn't have some magically better cordon. He also didn't have a mentor to teach him everything like Wasim did.

He had a better record that came with a better cordon, no late career health issues, and the most biased home umpires ever.

What I was objecting to calling him the objectively better bowler. That's not a statement that's backed up by those who saw both.

Re mentor, Sarfraz? Really?

 

[kyear2]

Wisden is just an old cricket book published in England. It’s not the official authority on cricket and its opinions are still just opinions.

All opinions are just opinions. I don't get your point..

And you're missing the point.

The narrative pushed is that one would have to be epically stupid not to choose Imran based on his batting, that or have an agenda.

I'm saying, which should be obvious, that there's a hell of a lot of credible teams, individual or collaborative efforts that don't include him or any bowling all rounder. And no amount of trying to discredit cricinfo or Wisden takes away from that.

So from that perspective, the only stupidity would be making that statement in the first place. Not everyone factors in batting, and I genuinely don't understand why that's so hard to understand.

 

[kyear2]

Imran is notably better than Wasim on the first two counts.

Record home and away?

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 I’m curious, because iirc you have quoted Wasim’s old ball ability as to why you have him in your XI, but you consider Steyn a better old ball bowler (and bowler overall), why not Steyn in your XI?

Multiple reasons, all of which I've answered previously.

I no longer think it's Steyn, but Wasim. I mean it's close and Steyn is better with the new ball as well, but Wasim brings a better skill set and intangibles.

But there were two threads, I asked questions, I got good answers and my mind was changed.
I also find it compelling that he made both the Wisden and Cricinfo XIs, and has that insanely high peer rating.

I also don't think that an all time world XI should be made up of players from only 3 countries and the bolwing attack benefits from having a bowler from the SC.

But primarily, I like that he can move both old and new balls both ways, is argubaly the greatest old ball bowler, even when it's not reversing and with an exceptional cordon at his disposal he can properly unleash his entire repertoire.

As I've consistently said, there's 4 candidates for the spot. All 4 are viable, valid and deserving for all different reasons. Steyn, Wasim, Bumrah, Imran.

 

[shortpitched713]

Wasim wasn't a more effective bowler than Imran. There just isn't any way.

He could be onsidered arguably more useful for an all-time attack for the whole left arm thing. But no way more effective or better bowling career.

I you want to say more skilled, because having more bowling techniques due to learning from his mentor, then sure but that doesn't necessarily translate to effect.

Also in that case Anderson > Marshall because access to more skills and techniques, also.

Ultimately we don't judge this way. It comes down to effect against the actual opposition they faced. And in that Imran definitely was more destructive at his peak and more effective overall than Wasim. Not a huge gap at all, but I think most who watched/studied Pakistan cricket would agree.

 

[kyear2]

Wasim wasn't a more effective bowler than Imran. There just isn't any way.

He could be onsidered arguably more useful for an all-time attack for the whole left arm thing. But no way more effective or better bowling career.

I you want to say more skilled, because having more bowling techniques due to learning from his mentor, then sure but that doesn't necessarily translate to effect.

Also in that case Anderson > Marshall because access to more skills and techniques, also.

Ultimately we don't judge this way. It comes down to effect against the actual opposition they faced. And in that Imran definitely was more destructive at his peak and more effective overall than Wasim. Not a huge gap at all, but I think most who watched/studied Pakistan cricket would agree.

But they don't

Even the forum members here who watched both, and mentioned / referenced in this very thread said Wasim was better.

Imran's absolute peak was that 82 series, has anyone ever read articles with regards to that series, ehay the Indian players claim they were told by the players and umpires? The magic tricks the ball did after off field breaks?

Ever looked at the lbw disparity for the series? It was 21 to 6, and 3 of those were totally inconsequential.

The way some here speak one would imagine that Imran was a top 5 bowler all.time, when he barely managed that feat in his era. And that's not including Ambrose or peak Wasim who are both generally rated considerably higher.

 

[subshakerz]

Record home and away?

Yes Imran is better IMO.

 

[kyear2]

Yes Imran is better IMO.

Well we, as usual disgaree.

 

[shortpitched713]

But they don't

Even the forum members here who watched both, and mentioned / referenced in this very thread said Wasim was better.

Imran's absolute peak was that 82 series, has anyone ever read articles with regards to that series, ehay the Indian players claim they were told by the players and umpires? The magic tricks the ball did after off field breaks?

Ever looked at the lbw disparity for the series? It was 21 to 6, and 3 of those were totally inconsequential.

The way some here speak one would imagine that Imran was a top 5 bowler all.time, when he barely managed that feat in his era. And that's not including Ambrose or peak Wasim who are both generally rated considerably higher.

Most people here simply haven't even seen Imran.

Go to PakPassion, consensus for those who have seen both, leans towards Imran. Just like here Wasim votes are simply inflated by younger viewers, many of whom will admit only seeing Wasim and voting for him for this reason. He was just part of a much more exposed era of cricket, especially for Pakistan.

Same people might tell you Zidane was better than Maradonna or Tyson is better than Ali. But the more crisp colored, flashy highlight packages reinforce vibes that are missing the actual story. Thankfully stats and actual accomplishments don't miss that.

 

[kyear2]

Most people here simply haven't even seen Imran.

Go to PakPassion, consensus for those who have seen both, leans towards Imran. Just like here Wasim votes are simply inflated by younger viewers, many of whom will admit only seeing Wasim and voting for him for this reason. He was just part of a much more exposed era of cricket, especially for Pakistan.

Same people might tell you Zidane was better than Maradonna or Tyson is better than Ali. But the more crisp colored, flashy highlight packages reinforce vibes that are missing the actual story. Thankfully stats and actual accomplishments don't miss that.

You obviously didn't read my post. It spike directly to those who saw both bowlers. Pretty sure earlier in this thread as well.

 

[Johan]

These whataboutisms and false comparisons are tiring.

1. Holding was pissed about western hypocricy, espcially as it related to Hair punishing Inzy, while no one had an issue with what England did in 2005.

Most already thought Hair had an agenda, this further proved it.

So he made an obviously hyperbolic statement which you see as an indictment for every pacer ever. That's not remotely proof. Proof is multiple Pakistanis coming out to blame Imran for ruining Pakistani cricket or saying they only did it because Imran introduced it.

This overall stance reminds me of an interview I saw last week. Someone was reflecting on Trump's corruption, self dealing and self enrichment and someone, just as you are now, responded with most presidents have.

So to be clear, there can be no comparison between the billions trump has enriched himself by and literally any other in history. The scaling isn't comparable. That too applies in this scenario. And that is before on factors in the umpiring during the period.

This false equivalency is staggering.

And when you say there wasn't any controversy.

1. If we were doing it at that scale, better believe there would have been. There shouldn't have been any about bouncers or over rates either.

2. Tou can ask anyone on this forum who lived through the period and ask if it wasn't well known that Imran was tampering the hell out of the ball. It wasn't a secret.

All that aside, players visiting the caribbean, Australia and South Africa have long covered themselves in sun screen, players everywhere have used hair grease, more recently chap stick etc etc. When one sweats and then shines the ball, does that count as ball tampering to you, and is that the equivalent of what Pakistan was doing?

Cope.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran's absolute peak was that 82 series, has anyone ever read articles with regards to that series, ehay the Indian players claim they were told by the players and umpires? The magic tricks the ball did after off field breaks?

Why do you harp on that series and not the notorious 1990 series where Wasim and Waqar were accused of tampering but Imran didn’t play? Or the footage of the 1992 England series?

 

[subshakerz]

He had a better record that came with a better cordon, no late career health issues, and the most biased home umpires ever.

What I was objecting to calling him the objectively better bowler. That's not a statement that's backed up by those who saw both.

Re mentor, Sarfraz? Really?

Where is the evidence he had a better cordon?

Imran had a shin injury which took two years off his bowling peak, and played as a specialist bat for a couple years, played longer than Wasim, and still ended up with better stats.

Sarfraz was mentoring Imran the way Imran mentored Wasim, read Wasims book, he was literally asking Imran every ball what to bowl. Imran gave him fitness guidance to actually have a long career.

 

[subshakerz]

This overall stance reminds me of an interview I saw last week. Someone was reflecting on Trump's corruption, self dealing and self enrichment and someone, just as you are now, responded with most presidents have.

So to be clear, there can be no comparison between the billions trump has enriched himself by and literally any other in history. The scaling isn't comparable. That too applies in this scenario. And that is before on factors in the umpiring during the period.

again leave politics out of this forum.