Overall who was a better cricketer? Sachin Tendulkar or Imran Khan?

[bujhee kom]

Both ATGs but Imran was better in his 2nd skill set than Sachin was (Khan's batting is better than Sachin's bowling) and was a great captain. Imran wins in Tests which are (were?) the main format.

Imran by a nose.

 

[sshakir411]

I merely pointed out what's pros with SRT as batsman. Do you deny maintainly quality for such a long career is not a positive of his career and I made that comment after reading how Imran is way ahead.

It is a positive but it hardly doubles his standing...his longevity is baked in to his record..you don't need to add another premium and double it..that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Bilal7]

Even Afridi was rare. Afridi with 8k runs and almost 400 wickets is easily better than Inzi with 11k runs in ODIs and easily appears to be of more value by the logic presented in this thread so far.

Quality over quantity. Number of runs/wickets is not the be all, end all. Averages, impact, consistency and many other factors come into play as well.

That's what happens when one makes judgments without following a player's career. But definitely a great bowler and a great captain, no doubt about it.

If you think a guy who averaged 50+ in test cricket over a period of 10 years and played a match-winning innings in the finals of a World Cup - something that Sachin failed to do - is not at the very least a good batsman, then it's you who needs to reassess your judgement.

Fielding has improved by a whole lot these days which is why players from the 80s seem poor in comparison but Imran was safe in the field, which made one a good fielder in his time.

You have an Indian in this thread arguing Sachin should be counted as 2 ATG batsmen in one. They think it's treason when you don't support an Indian no matter who they're up against.

Truly bizarre.

It is a positive but it hardly doubles his standing...his longevity is baked in to his record..you don't need to add another premium and double it..that doesn't make sense to me.

Sachin's whole appeal is longevity. Take that out and he's not an ATG, most likely. He never had a peak like Ponting's or a portfolio of great innings like Lara. Consistency and longevity were his defining traits so him playing 200 tests is a big reason for him being an ATG, it's not something extra that one can use to rate him twice as good as guys like Kallis, Ponting, Lara, Miandad, etc.

 

[Dead Ball]

SRT was UNANIMOUSLY considered not only an ATG, but a possible GOAT by 2002 , at the time when the longevity argument hadn't even come in. I think it was Wisden who had voted him as the second greatest of all time behind Bradman in 2002.

Some arguments made in this thread are really dumb

 

[ChennaiFan]

Sachin Tendulkar

 

[bujhee kom]

Sachin Tendulkar

Great argument with sound logic presented. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] must be your hero.

 

[waleed88]

Wisden and almost all the renowned sporting entitites/journalists have put Tendulkar ahead of Imran in terms of rankings in the greatest cricketers of all time. Surely Tendulkar is without a doubt the most influential for what he achieved in cricket, and how long he continued on to perform for country.

 

[CanadianG00se]

here comes many things.sachin the bat is one of the greatest,imran the bowler one of the greatest..imran the bat decent.with captaincy aids another value plus carrer of 21 yeara..so i will take imran at any day of the week over sachin for the reality that bowler is always match winner plus his captaincy aids more value.
i just cant understand why indians devalue kapil dev that much i think he is head to head with sachin.

Sachin >>>>>>>>>>> Kapil

not even a contest. you have to understand how Sachin influenced millions of Indians.

 

[as-95]

Steyn, Hadlee, McGrath ... all better bowler than IK. As you said if only Marshall was better bowler than him then with his batting, he will be a lock for all time test XIs, but he rarely makes it to all time test XIs. Test XI is not just about being a better cricketer, but being second best bowler with batting will make you a lock.

What an absolute load of rubbish. Hadlee and Steyn are nowhere near better than Imran. McGrath and marshall are debatable but many would rate peak Imram higher.

 

[as-95]

In answer to the OP:

Imran is the superior overall cricketer. Sachin is the better batter. Imran the better bowler. Imran the better captain, leader and overall cricketer.

 

[as-95]

Just read through the thread. What I gather is that even if an allrounder matches a batsman or bowler's primary asset and is miles ahead in secondary departments, they still are not exactly better.

ATG allrounders, particularly a bowling all rounders are the most valuable and useful players in all of cricket. Fair enough if this comparison was Dwayne Bravo vs Sangakkara you can say the allrounder was average in both departments, so he's not as useful as Sanga. However if it's something like Hadlee vs Steyn or IK vs Tendulkar as a CRICKETER comparison, it's clear who the victor will be.

Of course certain individuals when it comes to rating players consider other factors like if they're pakistani, because if they are then they've automatically lost the comparison because apparently structure-less Pakistan can't produce higher/highest tier cricketers.

Perfectly sums up why Imran is the better cricketer. But this will prove too difficult for the ******* to understand.

 

[waleed88]

Allrounders are amazing, but players who are the greatest of all time in just one speciality are always more special than those who are jack of 2 trades.

People always talk about Sachin, Viv, Bradman.

A jack of both trades is a master of none.

Sachin is superior. He will always be.

 

[Buffet]

What an absolute load of rubbish. Hadlee and Steyn are nowhere near better than Imran. McGrath and marshall are debatable but many would rate peak Imram higher.

Step out of PP...

 

[Buffet]

Allrounders are amazing, but players who are the greatest of all time in just one speciality are always more special than those who are jack of 2 trades.

People always talk about Sachin, Viv, Bradman.

A jack of both trades is a master of none.

Sachin is superior. He will always be.

Your analogy is not correct here. IK was master of one trade as well. He is an ATG bowler. Your analogy will be right for someone like Kapil. Who was not an ATG bowler or batsman, but an ATG all rounder.

 

[Cric1234]

No South African fan would complain if Steyn averaged 35+ with the bat and became a less special jack of all trades.

 

[babajee]

Imran Khan was one of the GOAT bowlers so merits a comparison with Sachin by that regard.

Coupled with the all round package he brought with the impact he had on games and his captaincy he’s the better cricketer.

And i’m not just saying this because i’m a pakistan fan

 

[Tusker]

MS can just dream of winning against that WI side with that bowling line up.

Not really ... that WI team was missing Viv and Marshall due to injury and ofcourse Lloyd,Holding,Roberts,Garner had long retired. MSD Won Against comparable teams.

Anyhow the talk was about overall not just ONE single Testmatch.

 

[waleed88]

Your analogy is not correct here. IK was master of one trade as well. He is an ATG bowler. Your analogy will be right for someone like Kapil. Who was not an ATG bowler or batsman, but an ATG all rounder.

Imran's stats are not in the top 10 bowlers ever in Test Matches are they? He is in the top 15 if I'm not wrong

Imran's runs are not int he top 10 runmakers either.

 

[Tusker]

Your analogy is not correct here. IK was master of one trade as well. He is an ATG bowler. Your analogy will be right for someone like Kapil. Who was not an ATG bowler or batsman, but an ATG all rounder.

imran is not the same ATG Bowler as Tendulkar is an ATG Batsman. I can name atleast 5 Bowlers who were better than Imran. Heck he isnt even the best bowler from his Country. Wasim is and possibly Waqar too.

 

[waleed88]

Imran is an ATG because of his leadership skills and his ability to inspire the team with his performances. Both cannot be judged by stats and therefore is something not quantifiable like Sachin's abilities and numbers are. I guess disadvantage of being an allrounder, they are never judged the way specialists are. Their contributions cannot be determined by numbers alone.
Which is why he comes in the list of greatest captains of all time.

 

[Justcrazy]

Imran , I have no doubts.

I have high regards for sachin , arguably best of this Era , but as cricketer its Imran

 

[Shinwari Khan]

Imran Khan all the way. Not just in cricket, but life in general.

 

[Sadevdesai]

Tendulkar is 90% Batsman 10% a Bowler ..... Imran is 70% Bowler 30% a Batsman .... so not easy to compare their worth to the Team !!! Both are dearly needed, mind you.

 

[Buffet]

imran is not the same ATG Bowler as Tendulkar is an ATG Batsman. I can name atleast 5 Bowlers who were better than Imran. Heck he isnt even the best bowler from his Country. Wasim is and possibly Waqar too.

You can debate about Wasim, but Waqar? Seriously, Why will Waqar be rated higher than IK?

Also, I didn't say that that they were at the same level in their primary skill, but IK just by his bowling is an ATG. So surely a master of one skill.

 

[Buffet]

Imran's stats are not in the top 10 bowlers ever in Test Matches are they? He is in the top 15 if I'm not wrong

Imran's runs are not int he top 10 runmakers either.

I am not sure what kind of stats you are talking here, but IK will comfortably come among the top 10 pacers in history for me. Anyway, sorting averages or runs is not a way to go. For Example, Waqar's aggregate number may look as good as IK, but when you go in details then it's clear that IK was a better bowler.

 

[Hitman]

Quality over quantity. Number of runs/wickets is not the be all, end all. Averages, impact, consistency and many other factors come into play as well.



If you think a guy who averaged 50+ in test cricket over a period of 10 years and played a match-winning innings in the finals of a World Cup - something that Sachin failed to do - is not at the very least a good batsman, then it's you who needs to reassess your judgement.

Fielding has improved by a whole lot these days which is why players from the 80s seem poor in comparison but Imran was safe in the field, which made one a good fielder in his time.

He was a nothing batsman during the first half of his career. It was after his bowling declined that he worked hard on his batting and developed himself into a useful batsman. He was never a good Test batsman, merely a useful one at most. And he was always a below average fielder throughout his career even by standards of fielding during his era.

 

[waleed88]

I am not sure what kind of stats you are talking here, but IK will comfortably come among the top 10 pacers in history for me. Anyway, sorting averages or runs is not a way to go. For Example, Waqar's aggregate number may look as good as IK, but when you go in details then it's clear that IK was a better bowler.

If you remove the bias of what that has been taught to you since childhood, and what you have seen on Pakistani media while growing, you will see that there are numerous other names above Imran Khan who's stats are better, who's average is better, they have picked more number of wickets in lesser games.

You can talk about all the qualititative stuff that defines Imran Khan, but fact is he is just another great who didn't stand the test of time, alot of players topped what he did. When looking at his numbers he has nothing that is different from all the other 20 names on the list, but in face of someone like Mcgrath his stats looks ordinary

 

[waleed88]

I am not sure what kind of stats you are talking here, but IK will comfortably come among the top 10 pacers in history for me. Anyway, sorting averages or runs is not a way to go. For Example, Waqar's aggregate number may look as good as IK, but when you go in details then it's clear that IK was a better bowler.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93276.html

If you forget the bias, or what he has done for country as a captain and as a mentor, just on the numbers he accumulated, you will see he is no.20 of highest wicket takers... which is nothing amazing considering there are 19 others who have achieved that feat.

 

[Buffet]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93276.html

If you forget the bias, or what he has done for country as a captain and as a mentor, just on the numbers he accumulated, you will see he is no.20 of highest wicket takers... which is nothing amazing considering there are 19 others who have achieved that feat.

You can't sort bowlers by number of wickets or batsmen by number of runs to rank them in greatness. I won't even sort them by average and here you are sorting them by aggregate runs/wickets.

 

[Buffet]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93276.html

If you forget the bias, or what he has done for country as a captain and as a mentor, just on the numbers he accumulated, you will see he is no.20 of highest wicket takers... which is nothing amazing considering there are 19 others who have achieved that feat.

In your sorted list, you have Anderson, Kapil, Walsh, Pollock, Broad etc above IK. Now, no one will rate all these bowlers above IK. Clearly, sorting by aggregate wickets or runs is not a way to find relative greatness of players.

 

[Cric1234]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93276.html

If you forget the bias, or what he has done for country as a captain and as a mentor, just on the numbers he accumulated, you will see he is no.20 of highest wicket takers... which is nothing amazing considering there are 19 others who have achieved that feat.

Because he played less matches Marshall is a few places ahead now you're not saying he's worse than K Dec who has more wickets longevity isn't something to be used against a player Tendulkar would only average 3-4 points more had he played 100 tests less.

 

[AlizeeFan]

What an absolute load of rubbish. Hadlee and Steyn are nowhere near better than Imran. McGrath and marshall are debatable but many would rate peak Imram higher.

Peak of MoYo is higher than peak of Miandad, Sanga, SRT, Richards and Lara.

 

[Bilal7]

Tendulkar is 90% Batsman 10% a Bowler ..... Imran is 70% Bowler 30% a Batsman .... so not easy to compare their worth to the Team !!! Both are dearly needed, mind you.

Lolwut? Imran was a 90 with the ball, Sachin was perhaps a 92 with the bat. Imran however was also a 70 with the bat, 92 with the armband and a slightly better fielder than Sachin. The fielding is relative because the standards changed dramatically after the turn of the milennium.

He was a nothing batsman during the first half of his career. It was after his bowling declined that he worked hard on his batting and developed himself into a useful batsman. He was never a good Test batsman, merely a useful one at most. And he was always a below average fielder throughout his career even by standards of fielding during his era.

Point is that he averaged 50+ for over a decade and played a match-winning innings in the final of a WC, something Sachin was never able to do.

Be a little honest with yourself, Imran was a good batsman at the very least and would walk into most teams as a batsman even today.

Imran was a good fielder for his era, where subcontinental teams were lethargic and shoddy in the field.

Imran > Sachin.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/93276.html

If you forget the bias, or what he has done for country as a captain and as a mentor, just on the numbers he accumulated, you will see he is no.20 of highest wicket takers... which is nothing amazing considering there are 19 others who have achieved that feat.

Laughable. Only a total noob would rate players based on how many wickets or runs they totalled over the course of their career. If that is the case, then Mahela Jayawardene is a better batsman than Bradman.

 

[as-95]

Step out of PP...

Funny how you use this argument when very few on or outside of Pakpassion would rate Hadlee as a superior bowler to Imran. Same goes for Steyn. Your posts are predictable in Pakistani comparison threads and I can often guess the content of your post as soon as I see your name.

Imran is the greatest all rounder of all time. An ATG bowler and a great batsman too. It is clear who the greater overall cricketer is between Imran and Sachin.

 

[Bilal7]

Peak of MoYo is higher than peak of Miandad, Sanga, SRT, Richards and Lara.

Not really. Yousuf had a purple patch, not a peak. A peak is a sustained run of form over a few years while a purple patch lasts for just a few matches. Yousuf was amazing for a single year but Imran was amazing for multiple years.

Averaged 13 with the ball during his absolute best and over the last ten years of his career, he averaged 19 with the ball and 50+ with the bat. All while being the best Asian captain ever.

 

[Buffet]

I am not sure what kind of stats you are talking here, but IK will comfortably come among the top 10 pacers in history for me. Anyway, sorting averages or runs is not a way to go. For Example, Waqar's aggregate number may look as good as IK, but when you go in details then it's clear that IK was a better bowler.

If you remove the bias of what that has been taught to you since childhood, and what you have seen on Pakistani media while growing, you will see that there are numerous other names above Imran Khan who's stats are better, who's average is better, they have picked more number of wickets in lesser games.

You can talk about all the qualititative stuff that defines Imran Khan, but fact is he is just another great who didn't stand the test of time, alot of players topped what he did. When looking at his numbers he has nothing that is different from all the other 20 names on the list, but in face of someone like Mcgrath his stats looks ordinary

That's the problem some time in PP. You are not debating the point and debating the poster because argument presented was different than your views. Why are you assuming that I grew up watching Pakistani media? In some other thread, some PPers didn't like my argument and they started calling me Indian and now you are calling me Pakistani.

Let's stick to debating the post. I anyway rate McGrath higher than IK so not sure what point you are making. Now McGrath being higher doesn't mean that IK is not an ATG bowler.

 

[as-95]

No South African fan would complain if Steyn averaged 35+ with the bat and became a less special jack of all trades.

Exactly. Even with his bowling alone, Imran is top 3 of all time. When you add his batting into the equation, it is just further cementing his greatness as a cricketer over his peers. A jack of all trades is a bits and pieces cricketer who is a decent batter and decent bowler. Imran was a ATG bowler and a highly effective batsman too.

An ATG all bowler and ATG all rounder. Master of all trades is probably the best word to describe him. A greater cricketer than Sachin for sure.

 

[as-95]

[/I]uffet;9484537]That's the problem some time in PP. You are not debating the point and debating the poster because argument presented was different than your views. Why are you assuming that I grew up watching Pakistani media? In some other thread, some PPers didn't like my argument and they started calling me Indian and now you are calling me Pakistani.

Let's stick to debating the post. I anyway rate McGrath higher than IK so not sure what point you are making. Now McGrath being higher doesn't mean that IK is not an ATG bowler.

I am sure that you have stated yourself that you have an Indian background/ancestry despite being South African.

 

[Buffet]

Funny how you use this argument when very few on or outside of Pakpassion would rate Hadlee as a superior bowler to Imran. Same goes for Steyn. Your posts are predictable in Pakistani comparison threads and I can often guess the content of your post as soon as I see your name.

Yah, most people rate IK just second to Marshall in bowling. Add his batting , That's why he makes into all the world XIs .

 

[Buffet]

I am sure that you have stated yourself that you have an Indian background/ancestry despite being South African.

Me having Aus/Ind ancestry or being South African is irrelevant to any discussion. Arguments should be about a post and not about the poster. I was trying to convey the same earlier in this thread when a poster assumed that I grew up in Pakistan because I didn't agree with his views on IK.

 

[Teshi98]

It is difficult to compare allrounders with batsmen or bowlers.
Imran is among top 10 test bowlers ever but he was not among best in odis as a bowler.
Sachin is comfortably among top 2/3 batsmen in both formats and goat when formats are combined.
So in their stronger areas sachin was easily better than imran.
Imran as test batsmen was ordinary in first part of his career and pretty good in second part.
In odis he was a good batsmen at best.
Sachin also was a decent bowler in odis but nothing bowler in tests.
So out of 100 in each department their points should be like.
Tests batting
Sachin 93
Imran 67
Tests bowling
Imran 87
Sachin 20
Odis batting
Sachin 95
Imran 55
Odis bowling
Imran 75
Sachin 50.
Basically the difference between imran the test batsmen and sachin the test bowler is so huge that imran wins this comfortably despite differences in other aspects.
Imran was an atg captain in addition to this but a decent fielder. Sachin was average captain but good fielder for good part of his career and surely better than imran.

 

[Mamoon]

Your logic is starting to let you down.

You said « but when you are comparing an all-rounder to a batsman or a bowler, you have to stick to their primary skill, i.e. batting for Tendulkar and bowling for Imran. «
So lets use this and compare Stokes, a genuine all rounder against Broad.
Broad’s bowling is marginally better than stokes batting so according to you Broad is a better cricketer. We will not count Stokes’s bowling....

As I said, if you start comparing specialists to all-rounders, the specialists will always be at a disadvantage. Broad and Stokes cannot be compared; the former should be compared to other pacers and the latter should be compared to other all-rounders.

Broad's 400 Test wickets cannot go to waste because Stokes can bowl and bat better.

 

[Mamoon]

There is a reason why all-rounders are rare. It is because it takes a hell of a lot of work and talent to be good at both batting and bowling.

Specialist players are at a disadvantage when compared to all-rounders and that is how it should be. A player like Kallis is easily more valuable than a player like Dravid. Similarly, Imran Khan is a more valuable player than Sachin Tendulker.

Of course, the players being compared should be of comparable skill in one format for the secondary skills to come into play. Comparing Warne or Inzi with Afridi is silly.

No I don't agree that specialist players should be at a disadvantage. If that's the case than the top 10 greatest players of all time should all be all-rounders, and even today the best cricketers in the world should be all-rounders not batsmen or bowlers.

Imran is one of the greatest Test bowlers the game has ever seen. He is certainly in the top 5 of all time, but in ODIs, there are several bowlers ahead of him. On the other hand, Tendulkar is the only batsman who is a certainty when it comes to top 5 in both formats.

There is a good reason why Tendulkar makes more all-time XIs than Imran, even if we ignore the Indian or the Pakistani bias. Simply because his batting was better than Imran's bowling, and there aren't many names that you would ahead of him in your batting lineup but there are several bowlers such as Wasim, McGrath, Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee etc. that make these all-time XIs ahead of Imran.

Mostly, Imran doesn't even make an all-time XI ahead of Sobers, and that is because when you compare him to the likes of Sobers, Botham or even Miller, he hasn't influenced/impacted many matches and series with both bat and ball.

Imran was an ATG bowler but his batting is overstated on PP; he doesn't make any top team based on his batting alone, and that 50 average of his during the last few years of his career is misleading because of not out inflation, and more importantly, his run production was not comparable to other batsmen with 50+ averages.

As an all-rounder, Imran is the reverse of Kallis. An ATG bowler and a decent, serviceable batsman who won't make most teams without his bowling. Just like how Kallis was an ATG batsman but won't make most teams due to his bowling alone. In their peaks, Sobers, Botham and Miller would have walked into any team either as a batsman or as a bowler. As a bowler, Imran is better than every ATG all-rounder in history except for maybe Hadlee, but he was a better batsman than the latter only.

Imran is the best Asian all-rounder of all time and certainly among the top 10 cricketers in history. In addition, he is also the most influential cricketer that Pakistan has ever produced, and also a genuinely great captain who would most likely captain a team if he gets into the XI. That is more than enough praise and adulation, but let's not make him what he is not - he is not a bigger player than Tendulkar, and he is not the greatest all-rounder of all time. That is part of the PP, green-tinted narrative and doesn't exist outside the scope of this forum.

 

[Harpoon]

Imran. Wihout a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Tusker]

You can debate about Wasim, but Waqar? Seriously, Why will Waqar be rated higher than IK?

As a bowler Waqar did everything that Imran did and possibly more. His exceptional Strike rate puts him in a rare category.

Also, I didn't say that that they were at the same level in their primary skill, but IK just by his bowling is an ATG. So surely a master of one skill.

Well there are different levels of ATG's ... Tendulkar almost always comes in as the Top 3 ATG's if not the No.1 batsman. Imran doesnt. That is a big difference.

 

[Tusker]

If Ashwin wasn't such a passenger outside Asia then of course he'd be a better overall cricketer than Kohli, don't know where is the discrepancy here? Though Kohli himself with an away average of 44 and overall Test average of < 50 isn't all that in Tests anyway.

Even at home Ashwin isnt replacing Kohli even though the rest of the batting lineup is much stronger than the batting lineup minus Tendulkar during the 90s.

 

[Tusker]

There is a good reason why Tendulkar makes more all-time XIs than Imran, even if we ignore the Indian or the Pakistani bias. Simply because his batting was better than Imran's bowling, and there aren't many names that you would ahead of him in your batting lineup but there are several bowlers such as Wasim, McGrath, Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee etc. that make these all-time XIs ahead of Imran.

I agree ... said the same above ... and would add ... Robert, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock and Steyn as those who come close to Imran if not better than him in terms of bowling.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

No I don't agree that specialist players should be at a disadvantage. If that's the case than the top 10 greatest players of all time should all be all-rounders, and even today the best cricketers in the world should be all-rounders not batsmen or bowlers.

Imran is one of the greatest Test bowlers the game has ever seen. He is certainly in the top 5 of all time, but in ODIs, there are several bowlers ahead of him. On the other hand, Tendulkar is the only batsman who is a certainty when it comes to top 5 in both formats.

There is a good reason why Tendulkar makes more all-time XIs than Imran, even if we ignore the Indian or the Pakistani bias. Simply because his batting was better than Imran's bowling, and there aren't many names that you would ahead of him in your batting lineup but there are several bowlers such as Wasim, McGrath, Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee etc. that make these all-time XIs ahead of Imran.

Mostly, Imran doesn't even make an all-time XI ahead of Sobers, and that is because when you compare him to the likes of Sobers, Botham or even Miller, he hasn't influenced/impacted many matches and series with both bat and ball.

Imran was an ATG bowler but his batting is overstated on PP; he doesn't make any top team based on his batting alone, and that 50 average of his during the last few years of his career is misleading because of not out inflation, and more importantly, his run production was not comparable to other batsmen with 50+ averages.

As an all-rounder, Imran is the reverse of Kallis. An ATG bowler and a decent, serviceable batsman who won't make most teams without his bowling. Just like how Kallis was an ATG batsman but won't make most teams due to his bowling alone. In their peaks, Sobers, Botham and Miller would have walked into any team either as a batsman or as a bowler. As a bowler, Imran is better than every ATG all-rounder in history except for maybe Hadlee, but he was a better batsman than the latter only.

Imran is the best Asian all-rounder of all time and certainly among the top 10 cricketers in history. In addition, he is also the most influential cricketer that Pakistan has ever produced, and also a genuinely great captain who would most likely captain a team if he gets into the XI. That is more than enough praise and adulation, but let's not make him what he is not - he is not a bigger player than Tendulkar, and he is not the greatest all-rounder of all time. That is part of the PP, green-tinted narrative and doesn't exist outside the scope of this forum.

Very analytical post sir,Congrats. You have backed YOUR statements in an organized and rational manner to refute those who rank Imran equal or better than Sobers as an all-rounder or a street above Botham or Miller.I praise your statement on Sobers,Miller and Botham being more effective in matches and series with both ball and bat.I hope you read my posts on comparing Imran.Miller ,Kallis and Botham.You very well evaluate Imran as bower and batsmen.Even if Imran ranks amongst the top 5 fast bowlers and captains of all-time he was not amongst the great batsmen.He could be the 2nd best of all-rounders overall but none could ever join the Sobers league.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

He was a nothing batsman during the first half of his career. It was after his bowling declined that he worked hard on his batting and developed himself into a useful batsman. He was never a good Test batsman, merely a useful one at most. And he was always a below average fielder throughout his career even by standards of fielding during his era.

Possibly a very god test batsmen but not as flamboyant or impactful as Ian Botham or even Kapil Dev and never in the league of the very best .I rate Asif Iqbal a better batsmen if you consider his scores ,opposition gaced amnd manner of batting.Imran has a great average but not such a big aggregate or scored many centuries like Botham and Kapil.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Denis Lillee also. Regarded as the greatest Australian fast bowler of all time.

Salute you being one of the few around here who recognize his true greatness.Lillee was arguaby as good as even Marshall and Mcgrath or Wasim if not better.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I wonder what were those 25 judges were thinking back in 2001 when they rated Sachin ahead of Imran when Sachin was just halfway through his career -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ends-of-Cricket-Top-25-Cricketers-Of-All-Time


Or what David Gower was thinking when he compiled his list of greatest cricketers -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...id-Gower-s-50-Greatest-Cricketers-of-All-Time


Or when WISDEN was thinking when they compiled when their All Time XI -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...305/Wisdens-all-time-Test-XI-in-pictures.html


Or when Cricinfo compiled their All Time XI -

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/magazine/alltime_composite.html

Well I stated the same but each one has to make his own analysis.None place Sobers at the top or apart from Gower do justice to Lara.Remember Geoff Armstrong ranked Imarn at no 4 which is notable.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Steyn, Hadlee, McGrath ... all better bowler than IK. As you said if only Marshall was better bowler than him then with his batting, he will be a lock for all time test XIs, but he rarely makes it to all time test XIs. Test XI is not just about being a better cricketer, but being second best bowler with batting will make you a lock.

Neck to neck with Hadlee and Mcgrath but personally I rank Marshall,Lillee and Wasim ahead by a nose.Hadlee and Mcgrath statistically surpass Imran and had more control.At his best in 1982-93 and in 1987 Imran was probably the best fast bowler in the world.In sum total Imran the all-rounder did not surpass Sachin the batsmen.I am including his great fast bowling aspect as an all-rounder.Possibly in peak periods Imran did overpower Sachin.Not only the staggering figures but the manner he attained them.Imran may arguably rank amongst the top 3 all-rounders,top 5 captains,top 5 paceman but not amongst the 50 best batsmen of all.

If Imran had been at his best with both bat and ball then he may have nosed Sachin.If Imran posessed the flamboyance of Miller and Botham with the bat at the same time as his peak as fast bowler then I may have backed him to be ahead of Tendulkar.

 

[Ab Fan]

Salute you being one of the few around here who recognize his true greatness.Lillee was arguaby as good as even Marshall and Mcgrath or Wasim if not better.

In an all time test XI, Lillee and Marshall makes it to most teams XI with their bowling only unlike Imran.

There is a thing called peer-reputation which current generation don't value.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

The logic that Imran was better in multiple facets and hence, is comfortably better than Tendulkar is nonsense and sounds like straw-clutching rubbish.

How willing are people to go further with this logic? If we start rating all-rounders on their all-round skills, than most quality all-rounders will be considered as superior cricketers to ATG specialist batsmen or bowlers.

Using this logic, one can assume that someone like Klusener is a better ODI player than Warne because he was a genuine all-rounder unlike Warne.

You rate players based on their primary skills and not their secondary and tertiary skills. As I said, if we start rating players on all-rounder facets than specialist cricketers will find it very hard to compete, even if their primary skill was much better.

The only instance where you have to consider all-round skills is when you are pitting a genuine all-rounder against another all-rounder. For example, if you are comparing Imran with Kapil you have to consider their batting, bowling, fielding and leadership etc., but when you are comparing an all-rounder to a batsman or a bowler, you have to stick to their primary skill, i.e. batting for Tendulkar and bowling for Imran.

Otherwise, people will have smoke coming out of their ears if I consider Afridi a better cricketer than Miandad or Inzamam.

Imran and Tendulkar's primary skills are comparable. Both were ATGs when it comes to bowling and batting respectively, but Tendulkar has a genuine claim of being in the top 3 greatest Test and ODI batsmen. On the contrary, Imran has a strong claim of being one of the top 3 Test bowlers of all time, but there were several bowlers who were ahead of him ODIs.

In addition, Tendulkar holds more batting records than any man dead or alive, and is undoubtedly the most iconic and influential cricketer to ever live, which is why the global audience - including the casual followers and the writers and historians have Tendulkar in their best XI of all time and not necessarily Imran. In addition, Tendulkar has the strongest claim of any batsman to the GOAT title, because he ticks more boxes than any other batsman including Bradman, Viv etc.

Tendulkar wins this easily, but it will be somewhat closer if we talk about Test cricket only.

Salute you great analysis sir.You logically sum up Sachin's and Imran's great acheivements .No doubt Imran has stronger claims in only test cricket but arguably even just in that format Tendulkar may nose him considering longevity and impact.I repeat it was almost a dead-heat in the end with hardly a whisker separating them.

 

[Proactive_]

Even at home Ashwin isnt replacing Kohli even though the rest of the batting lineup is much stronger than the batting lineup minus Tendulkar during the 90s.

Ashwin is easily a much more valuable player than Kohli in India. Is this even a debate? Kohli averaged single digits Vs Aus, had a weak series against SA and his only 50+ score in the NZ series was his double hundred. It was only against England where he was a consistent performer throughout the series. If Ashwin could perform half as good outside Asia as he does in Asia, he would be twice the Test player Kohli is.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Imran and it isn't even close. You get a fast bowler as good as anyone ever except Marshall, plus a test class batter, and excellent skipper. He was a pressure player too unlike SRT.

Personally I still rate Lillee,Hadlee,Mcgrath and Wasim marginally ahead .Imran was not as complete as Wasim or Lillee,Statistically Mcgrath and Hadlee are ahead while analyzing pure skill both Lillee and Akram rate ahead.Although very good as he was not as flamboyant or impactful as Sobers,Miler or Botham with the bat.He alos could not perform at best with both ball and bat in a test or series like Miller,Sobers and Botham.In that respect similar to Kallis.Neverthless an outstanding match-winner.In only test cricket Imran to me is much closer Combing ODI's Sachin may be more of afavourite.

 

[ManFan]

Both had tremendous influences in their countries as they inspired generations of cricketers to pursue what they excelled at. However, on who was the better cricketer, the answer is simpler than some might think. ATG batsman vs ATG bowler, captain, and a decent batsman. Dhoni and Bevan's averages have been inflated because of their not-outs but nobody argues their ability because they came at #6. So, the argument of Imran being an inferior batsman than his stats due to being not-out several times is rubbish. IK > Sachin.

 

[Tusker]

There is a thing called peer-reputation which current generation don't value.

And there is a very good reason for it ... most people are well informed these days. We can see through any nonsense very easily. Back in the day before internet people had no other option but to take these "Peer Reviews" very seriously and at face value. Over time it became apparent that these are notoriously unreliable. It is almost always a better option to go check out the player on your own than relying on anybody's opinion.

 

[A-1]

Imran khan every day of the week and twice on Sunday

 

[Harsh Thakor]

In tests, I would rate Imran ahead because he was an excellent captain too. In both formats combined, I would rate SRT higher.

SRT has a very strong argument in being the top 3 batsman ever in both formats. Imran has a strong case to being among the top 3 all rounders in tests but probably not in ODIs. In ODIs Imran wouldn't probably feature in the top 30 bowlers or batsmen of all time.

very sound analysis sir.considering longevity tendulkar may also nose Imran in test cricket.

 

[Robert]

I agree ... said the same above ... and would add ... Robert, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock and Steyn as those who come close to Imran if not better than him in terms of bowling.

Yeah, I am a pretty good quick bowler. Certainly better than Imran. Probably better than Marshall actually.

 

[Ab Fan]

And there is a very good reason for it ... most people are well informed these days. We can see through any nonsense very easily. Back in the day before internet people had no other option but to take these "Peer Reviews" very seriously and at face value. Over time it became apparent that these are notoriously unreliable. It is almost always a better option to go check out the player on your own than relying on anybody's opinion.

How is peer reputation unreliable? When there are dozens of people claiming that he was the greatest ever who inspired the likes of Marshall and Imran and would make it to any list of greatest cricketers ever just behind Marshall among all fast bowlers ever.

 

[Tusker]

Yeah, I am a pretty good quick bowler. Certainly better than Imran. Probably better than Marshall actually.

But hey atleast Iam not blind to not notice that Lillee never did anything much outside of Eng+Aus. That Jack Hobbs has a technique that is straight out of village cricket.

 

[Tusker]

How is peer reputation unreliable? When there are dozens of people claiming that he was the greatest ever who inspired the likes of Marshall and Imran and would make it to any list of greatest cricketers ever just behind Marshall among all fast bowlers ever.

Because these "peer reviews" are usually exercises in mutual appreciation for mutual benefit. Have you ever seen any cricketer do a critical analysis of any of his peer ? I certainly don't. Does this mean that all these cricketers had no flaws?

Do not confuse this with the peer evaluation that happens in scientific fields.

 

[Mamoon]

Very analytical post sir,Congrats. You have backed YOUR statements in an organized and rational manner to refute those who rank Imran equal or better than Sobers as an all-rounder or a street above Botham or Miller.I praise your statement on Sobers,Miller and Botham being more effective in matches and series with both ball and bat.I hope you read my posts on comparing Imran.Miller ,Kallis and Botham.You very well evaluate Imran as bower and batsmen.Even if Imran ranks amongst the top 5 fast bowlers and captains of all-time he was not amongst the great batsmen.He could be the 2nd best of all-rounders overall but none could ever join the Sobers league.

Salute you great analysis sir.You logically sum up Sachin's and Imran's great acheivements .No doubt Imran has stronger claims in only test cricket but arguably even just in that format Tendulkar may nose him considering longevity and impact.I repeat it was almost a dead-heat in the end with hardly a whisker separating them.

Thank you. Yes I have read your work on the comparison of the great all-rounders and I agree with most of what you have written. I always look forward to your threads because there is a lot to learn from.

 

[Tusker]

Ashwin is easily a much more valuable player than Kohli in India. Is this even a debate? Kohli averaged single digits Vs Aus, had a weak series against SA and his only 50+ score in the NZ series was his double hundred. It was only against England where he was a consistent performer throughout the series. If Ashwin could perform half as good outside Asia as he does in Asia, he would be twice the Test player Kohli is.

Not valuable enough to bridge the gap of a batting Avg difference of 20+ between the two.

 

[Mamoon]

Both had tremendous influences in their countries as they inspired generations of cricketers to pursue what they excelled at. However, on who was the better cricketer, the answer is simpler than some might think. ATG batsman vs ATG bowler, captain, and a decent batsman. Dhoni and Bevan's averages have been inflated because of their not-outs but nobody argues their ability because they came at #6. So, the argument of Imran being an inferior batsman than his stats due to being not-out several times is rubbish. IK > Sachin.

There is a difference between remaining not out in ODIs and remaining not out in Tests. They cannot be equated.

Coming in at #6 or #7 in ODIs and remaining not out consistently is a very difficult thing to achieve because in the death overs, you have to go for big shots, which is why a lot of batsmen get out in the last 5 overs or so. On the other hand, coming in at #6 or #7 in Tests and remaining not out is nothing special, because generally there is no scoreboard pressure and you don't have to play high-risk cricket.

Imran was a good Test batsman but his batting is very overrated here. He was clutch and has played some good knocks under pressure, but he wasn't good enough to be a specialist batsman and he did not have the ability to score big frequently. His lack of hundreds is testament to that, especially when he was not an aggressive player like Kapil who often got out after playing aggressive cameos.

Imran was mostly a defensive batsman who thrived in situations where he had to block, but on his days he could hit some big sixes. He was pretty a much a very inferior version of Misbah. PPers like to portray him as an ATG bowler and an ATG batsman rolled into one, but he would not make any good team in any era due to his batting alone. His batting was pretty much as good as Kallis' bowling.

 

[Syed1]

Some people letting their hate for IK muddle their thinking

 

[Tusker]

Thank you. Yes I have read your work on the comparison of the great all-rounders and I agree with most of what you have written. I always look forward to your threads because there is a lot to learn from.

Repectfully disagree ... I have found many errors and logical problems with his long winded threads that many people don't bother to scrutinize ... once you do it he wont even talk to you after that. Did you seriously read the whole OP in this thread ?

 

[Proactive_]

Not valuable enough to bridge the gap of a batting Avg difference of 20+ between the two.

You seriously might be the only guy in the world who would take Kohli over Ashwin in Tests in India lol. Take Pujara instead of Kohli and we have a very serious conversation here. Kohli is not even half the player Ashwin is in Asian conditions.

 

[as-95]

Both had tremendous influences in their countries as they inspired generations of cricketers to pursue what they excelled at. However, on who was the better cricketer, the answer is simpler than some might think. ATG batsman vs ATG bowler, captain, and a decent batsman. Dhoni and Bevan's averages have been inflated because of their not-outs but nobody argues their ability because they came at #6. So, the argument of Imran being an inferior batsman than his stats due to being not-out several times is rubbish. IK > Sachin.

This^^. The answer to OP's question is alot simpler than we arr making it and this post spells ot out for you. As an overall cricketer, Imran is superior to Sachin.

 

[Syed1]

IK could win matches with bat, ball or as captain.




/thread

 

[ManFan]

There is a difference between remaining not out in ODIs and remaining not out in Tests. They cannot be equated.

Coming in at #6 or #7 in ODIs and remaining not out consistently is a very difficult thing to achieve because in the death overs, you have to go for big shots, which is why a lot of batsmen get out in the last 5 overs or so. On the other hand, coming in at #6 or #7 in Tests and remaining not out is nothing special, because generally there is no scoreboard pressure and you don't have to play high-risk cricket.

Imran was a good Test batsman but his batting is very overrated here. He was clutch and has played some good knocks under pressure, but he wasn't good enough to be a specialist batsman and he did not have the ability to score big frequently. His lack of hundreds is testament to that, especially when he was not an aggressive player like Kapil who often got out after playing aggressive cameos.

Imran was mostly a defensive batsman who thrived in situations where he had to block, but on his days he could hit some big sixes. He was pretty a much a very inferior version of Misbah. PPers like to portray him as an ATG bowler and an ATG batsman rolled into one, but he would not make any good team in any era due to his batting alone. His batting was pretty much as good as Kallis' bowling.

Imran had 6 centuries while Kallis only had 5 five-wicket-hauls ( 2 were against BD and the horrendous WI team ). Imran's batting is far superior to Kallis' bowling in Test cricket. I agree he is not an ATG batsman and #6 where he generally batted, required him to face both the old and new ball. Test cricket is all about discipline with the ability to score runs at a consistent rate. When Imran batted, a run rate of 3 was standard and 4 was splendid. Nowadays, a run rate of 4+ is generally expected from top teams. Imran executed his role to perfection as far as batting is concerned. Imran's ability with the ball is unquestioned as evident by his 23 wickets in the 87 tour of the WI team at the fag end of his career. Although Sachin broke every record for a batsman, he is not remembered as a match-winner. In fact, if you wanted someone to bat and chase 300+ on Day 5, most people would choose Lara over Sachin. Sachin failed when it mattered the most ( 03' Final, 11 Final, 09' CT ) and most of his centuries in WC's were against weak teams like Kenya, Namibia. His only noteworthy centuries came against SL, ENG, and SA which were all lost or tied. IK meanwhile averaged 35 with the bat and 19 with the ball making 1 century against SL which won the match for his team. Despite not having a 5-wicket-hual in the WC, the two teams he did have 4-wickets against ( WI and ENG ), his team won the match. Not only is Imran a greater match-winner and cricketer in Test but also in the World Cup which is the benchmark for ODI cricket.

 

[waleed88]

That's the problem some time in PP. You are not debating the point and debating the poster because argument presented was different than your views. Why are you assuming that I grew up watching Pakistani media? In some other thread, some PPers didn't like my argument and they started calling me Indian and now you are calling me Pakistani.

Let's stick to debating the post. I anyway rate McGrath higher than IK so not sure what point you are making. Now McGrath being higher doesn't mean that IK is not an ATG bowler.

If you see the records accumulated by Tendulkar, he is at the top of run getters in Test Matches, 51 centuries, that is an insane number of centuries whichever way you look at it. He is no.1 on his list, Khan is no.20. That is the point I am trying to raise.

 

[waleed88]

Lolwut? Imran was a 90 with the ball, Sachin was perhaps a 92 with the bat. Imran however was also a 70 with the bat, 92 with the armband and a slightly better fielder than Sachin. The fielding is relative because the standards changed dramatically after the turn of the milennium.



Point is that he averaged 50+ for over a decade and played a match-winning innings in the final of a WC, something Sachin was never able to do.

Be a little honest with yourself, Imran was a good batsman at the very least and would walk into most teams as a batsman even today.

Imran was a good fielder for his era, where subcontinental teams were lethargic and shoddy in the field.

Imran > Sachin.



Laughable. Only a total noob would rate players based on how many wickets or runs they totalled over the course of their career. If that is the case, then Mahela Jayawardene is a better batsman than Bradman.

If you look at it objectively, these 'lists' and rankings of the greats are based predominantly on stats, and then the impact they produced. Imran had impact, but there are other names who were able to top him off 'statistically'. Ofcourse we Pakistanis always talk about his general contribution to our cricket in general, introducing and producing the greats of cricket. But Internationally, that has no such bearings on how he is ranked as great, which is purely stats based/records based.

 

[waleed88]

Because he played less matches Marshall is a few places ahead now you're not saying he's worse than K Dec who has more wickets longevity isn't something to be used against a player Tendulkar would only average 3-4 points more had he played 100 tests less.

Then you can say Tendulkar is smart because he prolonged his career for selfish reasons, I think any player should be looking to do that, statistically if it improves your record it is worth it if you can break a few records. Imran has a fantastic record, but then again what is his record in front of someone who has scored the highest number of runs in test cricket and has 51 cneturies. This is a comparison to Tendulkar for Imran. Which in itself is comparison of achievements of greats.

 

[waleed88]

In your sorted list, you have Anderson, Kapil, Walsh, Pollock, Broad etc above IK. Now, no one will rate all these bowlers above IK. Clearly, sorting by aggregate wickets or runs is not a way to find relative greatness of players.

I get it, that is however it is looked by everyone else who is 'non pakistani.' No one will understand the impact of Imran Khan for Pakistani cricket, others just look at him as a cricketer, who has a great numbers, but when you compare it to some of the others in his list, there are better numbers.

For Tendulkar there is no one better than him. Regardless of the reason/longevity, consistency.

 

[Bilal7]

No I don't agree that specialist players should be at a disadvantage. If that's the case than the top 10 greatest players of all time should all be all-rounders, and even today the best cricketers in the world should be all-rounders not batsmen or bowlers.

Imran is one of the greatest Test bowlers the game has ever seen. He is certainly in the top 5 of all time, but in ODIs, there are several bowlers ahead of him. On the other hand, Tendulkar is the only batsman who is a certainty when it comes to top 5 in both formats.

There is a good reason why Tendulkar makes more all-time XIs than Imran, even if we ignore the Indian or the Pakistani bias. Simply because his batting was better than Imran's bowling, and there aren't many names that you would ahead of him in your batting lineup but there are several bowlers such as Wasim, McGrath, Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee etc. that make these all-time XIs ahead of Imran.

Mostly, Imran doesn't even make an all-time XI ahead of Sobers, and that is because when you compare him to the likes of Sobers, Botham or even Miller, he hasn't influenced/impacted many matches and series with both bat and ball.

Imran was an ATG bowler but his batting is overstated on PP; he doesn't make any top team based on his batting alone, and that 50 average of his during the last few years of his career is misleading because of not out inflation, and more importantly, his run production was not comparable to other batsmen with 50+ averages.

As an all-rounder, Imran is the reverse of Kallis. An ATG bowler and a decent, serviceable batsman who won't make most teams without his bowling. Just like how Kallis was an ATG batsman but won't make most teams due to his bowling alone. In their peaks, Sobers, Botham and Miller would have walked into any team either as a batsman or as a bowler. As a bowler, Imran is better than every ATG all-rounder in history except for maybe Hadlee, but he was a better batsman than the latter only.

Imran is the best Asian all-rounder of all time and certainly among the top 10 cricketers in history. In addition, he is also the most influential cricketer that Pakistan has ever produced, and also a genuinely great captain who would most likely captain a team if he gets into the XI. That is more than enough praise and adulation, but let's not make him what he is not - he is not a bigger player than Tendulkar, and he is not the greatest all-rounder of all time. That is part of the PP, green-tinted narrative and doesn't exist outside the scope of this forum.

Not all of the top ten cricketers will be all-rounders because apart from Imran, Kallis and Sobers, no other all-rounder reached the level of an ATG all-rounder. Miller was the prototype Imran so he can be included in this as well.

Kapil, Botham and Pollock, etc were not better players than Marshall, Bradman, Sachin or Wasim because their secondary skill could not make up for the huge gap that existed between their primary skills and the primary skills of ATG specialists.

Whereas Imran, Sobers and Kallis were ATGs in their primary skills and their secondary skills were add-ons. All three would make thr top ten cricketers list.

Imran does not make many ATG XIs because he's competing for the lone all-rounder's spot. Most people have five batsmen, four bowlers, a keeper and an all-rounder which makes it tough for Imran to get into the team. Sachin would not make it either if he were competing for a sole batting spot.

You can make a thousand excuses for why his 50+ average does not make him a good batsman but the fact is that he did average 50+ with the bat and he played a match-winning innings in a World Cup final, something that Sachin never could. That makes him a pretty good batsman. Not-outs are the reason why Dhoni averages 50+ in ODIs but given your hypocritical tendencies, you've never had an issue with that. Imran being so good that he was often not dismisssed is a positive for him, not a negative.

He is a much more valuable player than Tendulker because he just doesn't give you an ATG bowler, he gives you much more than that. Not only will Imran be the best player in your side and win you several games with his amazing bowling, he'll also be a solid #6 batsman who rarely gets dismissed for cheap and can increase the run-rate when needed. Imran will also captain your side and make your average players punch above their weight ensuring that your team stands toe to toe with the very best.

Sachin will give you a lot of runs and look like a million bucks while doing it but he probably won't win you a lot of games and your team will implode if he is given the armband.

I don't need to step outside PP because there is no better place to discuss cricket. You are welcome to leave if you find this to he untrue.

 

[Buffet]

I get it, that is however it is looked by everyone else who is 'non pakistani.' No one will understand the impact of Imran Khan for Pakistani cricket, others just look at him as a cricketer, who has a great numbers, but when you compare it to some of the others in his list, there are better numbers.

For Tendulkar there is no one better than him. Regardless of the reason/longevity, consistency.

I wasn't giving IK any points for having an impact on Pakistani cricket. I was just rating him for what he did. Better aggregate numbers is not the way to go to be honest. It's just one parameter.

 

[waleed88]

I wasn't giving IK any points for having an impact on Pakistani cricket. I was just rating him for what he did. Better aggregate numbers is not the way to go to be honest. It's just one parameter.

Yes, we look at other players from the same ignorant spectacles that others look at our players. Half the people don't even know what Imran was to Pakistan cricket, likewise we can't say the same what Marshall or Hadlee were for their countries. Imran's impact remained till the 80s-90s. But then others topped him off. Sachin won't be topped until someone actually surpasses him in runs or centuries for that matter.