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

[Harsh Thakor]

Sachin Tendulkar and Viv Richards are two of cricket's legends.They have carved a permanent niche amongst the legends of cricket to an extent few cricketers have ever done and literally written a new chapter to the history of cricket.Both made an impact of an emperor with sheer presence and posessed an aura few sportsman have ever done.

Sachin was a super batsmen who could bowl while Imran was great fast bowler great captain a genuinely great all-rounder for a period and a good batsmen.Sachin bore greater pressure representing a relatively weaker team and had marginally more technical perfection,natural talent and all-round excellence in his department of the his game.Imran was the more determined or agressive cricketer with greater match-winning killer instinct or drive to overpower the opposition and vastly ahead of Sachin as a leader..In his time Imran shaped Pakistani cricket to reach the top of the pedestal as few cricketers have ever contributed .Tendulkar arguably bore more responsibility than any great cricketer ,playing more great innings under pressure than any great batsmen. and his longevity surpassed that of any great cricketer in test history.Imran was marginally more consistent but was never a great fast bowler and batsmen silmuntaneously to decisively surpass Tendulkar's impact.Like Tendulkar Imran alos gave some remarkable performances in series lost like in England in 1982 and in West Indies in 1977.Imran led Pakistan to their maiden test series wins in England and India in 1987 and brought them within a doorstep of deceiving their first test series victory in West Indies before dubious umpiring decisions robbed them of it. He also led Pakistan to win their 1st world cup in 1992.In contrast India never became the top one day or joint best test team under Tendulkar like Pakistan did under Imran.Still Tendulkar reached heights of landmark cricketers may never surpass becoming the youngest to attain al the 100 run landmarks and the fastest ever from 7000 runs onwards.His batting won India home series v England in 1993 and Australia in 1998 and important one day tournaments in Sharjah and Sri Lanka in 1998.Combining ODI's with test matches Tendulkar completely overshadowed Imran.In pure test cricket it was neck to neck if you consider Tendulkar played for a weaker team.Even if his contribution was not as much as other stars like Laxman and Sehwag in his later years Tendulkar's mere presence had an important impact in India winning games.In that light his average of around 60 in games won is remarkable.One factor I note is that Tendulkar mantained an average for a considerably longer duration in his peak.To a certain extent at home Imran benefited from having home umpires unlike the era of Sachin when neutral umpiring was introduced.


In terms of pure game I feel Tendulkar was marginally more complete with a variety and originality in his batting just a fraction more than Imran had as a bowler.Imran pionered reverse swing but Tendulkar was more artistic or creative making a marginally great impact on development of cricketing art.Comparing temperament and charisma it was virtually a draw.

Perhaps by a whisker Tendulkar would nose Imran in selection for an all-time test xi.The Imran of 1981-87 and Tendulkar in the 1st part of his career could hardly be seperated but prowess to me may decide the verdict in favour of Sachin.Had he had support from a team like Imran did Sachin may have been the architect of many more famous wins.Although a very good batsmen in his peak Imran did not have the flamboyance of Botham,Sobers or Kapil .No doubt with the ball Imran could run through a batting line up.He also had a better equivalent of best performances with the ball than Tendulkar with the bat capturing 7 or more wickets 5 times,including 8 twice in a single innings.Both Tendulkar and Imran were the best performers in their respective departments against the best teams of their era being Australia in case of Sachin and West Indies in case of Imran.Tendulkar overshadowed Imran in performances in world cups which is significant.

Overall Imran was a better match-winner but by a whisker I would choose Tendulkar ahead as a cricketer overall.. Like Bradman his figures spoke for itself.Imran brought more glory to his nation but Tendulkar defined a nation's cricketing or sporting spirit more than any great.In single matches or series Imran was more impactful but in a longer span sachin just nosed him.Tendulkar was the best batsmen in the world for a considerably longer time than Imran was as an all-rounder or fast bowler.In 1982-83 and part of 1987 he wast he best pace bowler while from 1982-83 and 1986-88 he was the best all-rounder.The likes of Hadlee,Marshall,Botham,Lillee were often neck to neck or even marginally better in periods.For considerable years Sachin overshadowed the likes of Lara or Ponting.Amongst critiques in authors who selected best 100 cricketers of all only Geoff Armstrong and Sycld Berry have placed Imran ahead.Cristopher Martin Jenkins,David Gower and ESPN panel chose Tendulkar with the later 2 placing him only behind Bradman and Sobers.

STATISTICS COMPILED BY S.RAJESH FROM CRICINFO.

IMRAN KHAN

During his peak years in Test cricket, Imran was easily the best allrounder among his peers. In the nine years between 1980 and 1988, his bowling average of 17.77 was almost 22 lesser than his batting average - the difference was clearly the best among those with 1500 runs and 100 wickets during this period. Hadlee's bowling performances were exceptional during this period, but he couldn't quite match up to Imran with the bat, while both Botham and Kapil had far lesser success with the ball.

Top allrounders between 1980 and 1988 (Qual: 1500 runs, 100 wickets) Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM Diff in ave
Imran Khan 48 2028 39.76 4/ 10 236 17.77 18/ 5 21.99
Richard Hadlee 51 1987 31.04 2/ 10 284 19.03 28/ 7 12.01
Ian Botham 72 3989 34.38 10/ 19 255 31.83 15/ 2 2.55
Kapil Dev 72 3103 31.98 5/ 16 242 30.05 14/ 2 1.93
Ravi Shastri 61 2702 34.64 7/ 10 132 38.24 2/ 0 -3.60

In fact, extending this analysis to all Test cricket, only Sobers had a higher difference between batting and bowling averages (among those with at least 3000 runs and 200 wickets, and two wickets per Test). Jacques Kallis is the other allrounder who has more than 3000 runs and 200 wickets - and a huge difference between batting and bowling averages - but for much of his career Kallis has been a batsman who bowls a bit: his 266 wickets have come from 140 Tests, an average of less than two wickets per match.

Best allrounders in Tests (Qual: 3000 runs and 200 wkts; at least two wkts per Test) Player Tests Runs Average 100s Wickets Average 5WI Diff in ave
Garry Sobers 93 8032 57.78 26 235 34.03 6 23.75
Imran Khan 88 3807 37.69 6 362 22.81 23 14.88
Shaun Pollock 108 3781 32.31 2 421 23.11 16 9.20
Ian Botham 102 5200 33.54 14 383 28.40 27 5.14
Richard Hadlee 86 3124 27.16 2 431 22.29 36 4.87
Chris Cairns 62 3320 33.53 5 218 29.40 13 4.13
Kapil Dev 131 5248 31.05 8 434 29.64 23 1.41
In his pomp, not only was Imran the best allrounder, he was also the best bowler in the world. At a time when a connoisseur of fast bowling would have been spoilt for choice, for there were so many great ones going around, Imran was still the best of the lot with an average of 17.77 and a strike rate of less than 44 balls per wicket. Hadlee was next in line, with three West Indians following in their wake. The top six all averaged less than 25, which is also a telling commentary on the balance of power between bat and ball during that period.

Top bowlers in the world between 1980 and 1988 (Qual: 150 wickets) Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike rate 5WI/ 10WM
Imran Khan 48 236 17.77 43.6 18/ 5
Richard Hadlee 51 284 19.03 47.0 28/ 7
Malcolm Marshall 58 297 20.20 44.7 18/ 3
Joel Garner 49 210 20.62 51.8 7/ 0
Michael Holding 45 184 23.38 50.3 9/ 1
Dennis Lillee 35 171 24.07 52.3 11/ 3

What's more surprising, though, is the sort of numbers Imran racked up as a batsman when his glory days as a bowler were over. He was technically sound and could play with the straightest of bats, and when he worked on his patience and temperament, the result was a batsman who could play long innings and adapt his game according to the needs of the hour. In the last five years of his career, Imran averaged 59.69 in 28 Tests, and four of his six Test hundreds came during this period. Among those who scored at least 1500 runs during this period, only New Zealand's Martin Crowe had a better average.

Admittedly, the average was boosted by the number of not-outs he notched up - 11 in 37 innings - but that further illustrates how difficult he was to dismiss during the last years of his Test career. Even Javed Miandad had a lower average, though he scored almost 1000 more runs than Imran.

Highest batting averages between Jan 1, 1987 and Jan 6, 1992 (Qual: 1500 runs) Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Martin Crowe 24 2186 60.72 8/ 8
Imran Khan 28 1552 59.69 4/ 9
Graham Gooch 32 3282 55.62 8/ 18
Andrew Jones 20 1703 54.93 5/ 6
Javed Miandad 35 2512 54.60 8/ 10
Mark Taylor 28 2565 53.43 7/ 17
Robin Smith 28 2118 52.95 6/ 15
Shoaib Mohammad 32 2175 50.58 7/ 8

One of the highlights of Imran's career was his battles against the best team of his times, West Indies. As a batsman he wasn't as effective against them, but as a bowler he was superb, taking 80 wickets at 21.18. Comparing the stats of the four superstar allrounders of that era against West Indies, it's clear that three of them raised their games against them - Hadlee and Kapil too had terrific numbers against them - but the disappointment was Botham, who struggled with both bat and ball.

The four allrounders against West Indies Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM
Imran Khan 18 775 27.67 1/ 3 80 21.18 6/ 1
Richard Hadlee 10 389 32.41 1/ 1 51 22.03 4/ 1
Kapil Dev 25 1079 30.82 3/ 4 89 24.89 4/ 1
Ian Botham 20 792 21.40 0/ 4 61 35.18 3/ 0

Perhaps even more impressive than his individual performances against West Indies was the manner in which Imran inspired his team to raise their level against them. He led them on three occasions versus West Indies between 1985 and 1990, and each series was a classic, with each team winning a Test every time. Imran the bowler was outstanding in two of those series, taking 18 wickets at 11.05 in 1986, and 23 wickets at 18.08 in 1988. During that period Pakistan was the only team to win more than one Test against West Indies. (In complete contrast, England won one and lost 11 Tests against them during this period.)

In fact, one of the stand-out aspects of Imran Khan was the manner in which he lifted his performances when he became captain: in the 48 Tests in which he led Pakistan he averaged 52.34 with the bat and 20.26 with the ball; in the 40 Tests in which he wasn't captain his batting average was 25.43 and his bowling average 25.53. Imran's batting average of 52.34 is among the highest by captains - only four have led in 40 or more Tests and averaged higher. Sunil Gavaskar and Allan Border were among those whose batting average as captain was lower than Imran's. Under him, Pakistan also won 14 Tests, which remains the joint-highest (along with Miandad) for Pakistan.


ODI'S

Imran's ODI numbers were pretty impressive too, though his bowling average of almost 27 didn't do complete justice to his skills. He averaged only slightly more than one wicket per match, but that was also because of the stress fracture, which severely curtailed his bowling. When on song, even the best of batsmen found him difficult to handle: in Sharjah in 1985, he destroyed the Indian batting line-up with figures of 6 for 14, though Pakistan ended up losing by 38 runs.

As a batsman, Imran was a terrific matchwinner: in matches that Pakistan won, he averaged almost 47, which was well above his overall batting average of 33.41. Among Pakistan's batsmen who scored at least 2000 runs in wins, only four have a higher average. Given that he was a man for the big occasions, it's hardly surprising that his World Cup stats are better than his overall career numbers: his only ODI century came in a World Cup game, against Sri Lanka in 1983, while he is one of only six bowlers to take 25 or more wickets at an average of less than 20.

Best bowling averages in World Cup games (Qual: 25 wickets) Bowler ODIs Wickets Average Econ rate
Shane Bond 16 30 17.26 3.50
Glenn McGrath 39 71 18.19 3.96
Brad Hogg 21 34 19.23 4.12
Imran Khan 28 34 19.26 3.86
Shane Warne 17 32 19.50 3.83
Muttiah Muralitharan 31 53 19.69 3.83


SACHIN TENDULKAR

Tendulkar's consistency also shines through when his career is split into blocks of 50 Tests. The lowest he averaged in one of those four blocks was 46.91, between Tests 101 and 150, a period during which he was also beset by tennis-elbow problems. Apart from that spell, his least productive period was the last couple of years, when his average dropped to 27.52 from 15 Tests, with no hundreds in 24 innings. At the end of 2011, Tendulkar averaged 56, but because of that lean spell, he finished at 53.78 (which is still outstanding by any standards). (Click here for his cumulative career average in Tests.)

Tendulkar's Test career, in blocks of 50 Tests Period Runs Average 100s/ 50s
First 50 Tests Nov 1989-Mar 1997 3438 49.82 11/ 16
51-100 Tests Mar 1997-Sep 2002 4967 65.35 19/ 18
101-150 Tests Oct 2002-Aug 2008 3472 46.91 9/ 15
151-200 Tests Aug 2008-Nov 2013 4044 52.51 12/ 19
Career Nov 1989-Nov 2013 15,921 53.78 51/ 68

His best phase

In 1992, Tendulkar scored three hundreds, and all of them were masterpieces - 148 not out in Sydney, 114 in Perth, and 111 in Johannesburg. He was ready for bigger things, but he still finished with a calendar-year average of 41.90, because in the remaining eight innings that year he totalled 46 runs - his scores in those innings read 6,17,5,0,11,1,6,0 - clearly, he needed to become more consistent.

Being a quick learner, Tendulkar grasped that lesson fast, and over the next ten-year period he was the most prolific batsman in world cricket. That was also the time when most opposition teams had a couple of world-class fast bowlers in their ranks: the overall batting average in those ten years was 29.59; in the next 11-year period it went up to 32.67.

For Tendulkar, though, that period between 1993 and 2002 was when he was head and shoulders above all other batsmen in world cricket. He averaged 62.30 from 85 Tests; the next-best, Steve Waugh, averaged 55.07. His masterpieces during that period included 122 at Edgbaston in 1996, 169 in Cape Town the following year, 113 in Wellington in 1998, 136 against Pakistan in Chennai in 1999, 116 against Australia in Melbourne later that year, and 155 in Bloemfontein in 2001. That India ended up losing all six of those matches was a reflection of the rest of the batsmen, and the Indian bowling attack, that Tendulkar had to play with and carry along. Not all his hundreds were in defeats, though: he also scored nine in wins during that period, most famously conquering Shane Warne when scoring an unbeaten 155 in the second innings in Chennai in 1998.

Highest averages in Tests between Jan 1993 and Dec 2002 (Qual: 3000 runs) Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Sachin Tendulkar 85 7726 62.30 27/ 31
Steve Waugh 109 7765 55.07 25/ 33
Rahul Dravid 69 5614 53.46 14/ 28
Matthew Hayden 37 3079 53.08 12/ 10
Andy Flower 60 4630 52.02 12/ 25
Jacques Kallis 65 4455 50.62 11/ 25
Brian Lara 86 7328 50.53 18/ 34
Inzamam-ul-Haq 80 6056 50.46 17/ 31
Ricky Ponting 63 4246 48.80 14/ 17
Mohammad Yousuf 42 3099 48.42 10/ 16

Between 1990 and 2008, no batsman who played at least 20 innings against them averaged more than Tendulkar's 56.08. In 30 innings in Australia during this period, Tendulkar averaged 58.53. With a 12 innings cut-off, only Virender Sehwag (59.50) averaged more. In 35 innings that Lara played in Australia over the same period, he averaged 41.97.

Highest batting averages v Aus between 1990 and 2008 (Qual: 20 inngs) Batsman Innings Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Sachin Tendulkar 55 2748 56.08 10/ 11
VVS Laxman 44 2204 55.10 6/ 10
Kevin Pietersen 20 963 53.50 2/ 6
Virender Sehwag 30 1483 51.13 3/ 7
Brian Lara 58 2856 51.00 9/ 11
Ijaz Ahmed 20 913 50.72 5/ 1
Richie Richardson 24 1084 49.27 4/ 4
Shivnarine Chanderpaul 29 1210 48.40 4/ 7
Michael Vaughan 20 959 47.95 4/ 1
Graham Thorpe 31 1235 45.74 3/ 8


ODI'S
From the moment he started opening, his ODI career graph swung upwards and stayed high almost throughout his career. From March 27, 1994, which was the first time he opened, he averaged 47.08 in 394 matches, at a strike rate of 87.71. During this period he didn't open the batting in 50 matches, and in those games his average fell to 36.70.

Sachin Tendulkar's ODI career Period ODIs Runs Average Strike rate 100s/ 50s
Before 1994 65 1679 31.09 74.32 0/ 12
1994 to Dec 2000 198 8220 45.66 88.96 27/ 38
Jan 2001 onwards 200 8527 48.17 86.41 22/ 46
Career 463 18,426 44.83 86.23 49/ 96

The opening act
Among all openers who scored 8000-plus ODI runs, Tendulkar's average is the highest; in fact, even with a 6000-run cut-off, no opener has an average of more than 42 - Gary Kirsten's 41.80 is the second-best. Apart from the high average and strike rate, the other stat that stands out for Tendulkar is his conversion rate of fifties into hundreds: he has 45 centuries and 75 half-centuries, a fifties to hundreds ratio of 1.67. Among openers with at least 6000 runs, the only ones with comparable ratios were Herschelle Gibbs (18 centuries and 24 fifties, ratio 1.33) and Saeed Anwar (20 hundreds and 37 fifties, ratio 1.85). All the others had ratios of more than two, with some of the top names (Haynes, Ganguly, Gilchrist) scoring three fifties per century. Thus, while it's true that Tendulkar was given the opportunity to make big scores thanks to his batting position, he also utilised that much better than most other openers.

Openers with more than 8000 runs in ODIs Batsman Innings Runs Average Strike rate 100s/ 50s
Sachin Tendulkar 340 15,310 48.29 88.05 45/ 75
Sanath Jayasuriya 383 12,740 34.61 92.48 28/ 66
Adam Gilchrist 259 9200 36.50 98.02 16/ 53
Sourav Ganguly 236 9146 41.57 73.59 19/ 58
Desmond Haynes 237 8648 41.37 63.09 17/ 57
Chris Gayle 217 8184 40.71 84.83 20/ 44
Saeed Anwar 220 8156 39.98 79.93 20/ 37

Australia's tormentor
Tendulkar was often at his best against the best team of his generation, Australia. He scored 3077 runs against them at 44.59, which is 36% more than the second-best aggregate against them. The highlights were obviously the 143 and 134 in Sharjah in 1998, a year which was his best in ODIs: he scored 1894 runs at 65.31, including nine centuries. Both, the runs scored and the hundreds remain a record for a calendar year.

Even apart from those two Sharjah classics, he had seven hundreds against Australia, the last one being 175 - his highest against Australia - three years ago in Hyderabad. Tendulkar's nine hundreds is also record for a batsman against one opposition. (Tendulkar also has eight hundreds against Sri Lanka, while no other batsman has more than seven against an opposition.)

The one glitch in Tendulkar's stats, though, are his ODI numbers in Australia: just one century in 46 innings, and a below-par average of 34.67. Unlike in Tests, where he averages more than 50 against Australia both home and away, in ODIs Tendulkar's best against them came in the subcontinent: in Asia he average 55.30 against them in 40 innings, with eight centuries, but outside Asia he averaged 29.82 against them, with one century in 30 innings.

Highest run-scorers in ODIs against Australia Batsman ODIs Runs Average Strike rate 100s/ 50s
Sachin Tendulkar 71 3077 44.59 84.74 9/ 15
Desmond Haynes 64 2262 40.39 65.14 6/ 13
Viv Richards 54 2187 50.86 84.63 3/ 20
Brian Lara 51 1858 39.53 76.58 3/ 15
Kumar Sangakkara 44 1706 42.65 77.02 1/ 12
Jacques Kallis 50 1660 34.58 72.87 1/ 13
Jonty Rhodes 55 1610 40.25 77.92 0/ 10
Richie Richardson 51 1498 32.56 63.26 0/ 15

World Cup superstar
In the biggest tournament in the format, Tendulkar was usually at his best. His overall World Cup tally of 2278 is the best, and he is also the only batsman to twice aggregate more than 500 in a World Cup tournament - he scored 673 in 2003, a record for a single World Cup, and 523 in 1996. Only four other batsmen have touched 500 even once in a World Cup. Tendulkar's nine Man-of-the-Match awards is also a World Cup record, three clear of the second-placed Glenn McGrath.

Apart from his World Cup heroics, Tendulkar also finished with a great record in tournament finals, though there was a period between 1999 and 2004 when he appeared to struggle in them. Overall he averaged more than 54 in tournament finals, with six hundreds in 39 innings.

Highest averages among batsmen with 1000+ runs in World Cups Batsman Innings Runs Average Strike rate 100s/ 50s
Viv Richards 21 1013 63.31 85.05 3/ 5
Sachin Tendulkar 44 2278 56.95 88.98 6/ 15
Herschelle Gibbs 23 1067 56.15 87.38 2/ 8
Sourav Ganguly 21 1006 55.88 77.50 4/ 3
Mark Waugh 22 1004 52.84 83.73 4/ 4
Jacques Kallis 32 1148 45.92 74.40 1/ 9
Ricky Ponting 42 1743 45.86 79.95 5/ 6
Javed Miandad 30 1083 43.32 68.02 1/ 8
Brian Lara 33 1225 42.24 86.26 2/ 7

The matchwinner
It was often said about Tendulkar that his big scores didn't lead to team wins, but stats reveal something quite different: Tendulkar scored 33 of his 49 centuries in wins, and averaged more than 56 in team wins, at a strike rate of 90. Among those who scored at least 5000 runs in wins, only Lara and Richards have higher averages. In terms of hundreds scored in wins, Ponting is next with 25.

However, it's also true that Tendulkar's 14 centuries in defeats is a record too, five clear of Chris Gayle, who's next with nine. In defeats, though, Tendulkar's average dropped to 33.25 at a strike rate of 79.86. Clearly, in the overall context of his lengthy career, his runs led to wins more often that not. As mentioned earlier, no player has won as many Man-of-the-Match awards either - Tendulkar has 62, while the next-best is Jayasuriya with 48.

Highest averages in wins in ODIs (Qual: 5000 runs in wins) Batsman Innings Runs Average Strike rate 100s/ 50s
Brian Lara 134 6553 61.82 86.32 16/ 42
Viv Richards 114 5129 56.98 93.01 11/ 32
Sachin Tendulkar 231 11,157 56.63 90.31 33/ 59
Mohammad Yousuf 151 6426 55.87 78.59 14/ 41
Sourav Ganguly 147 6938 55.06 77.87 18/ 41
Michael Clarke 134 5084 52.95 80.62 4/ 42

 

[Hitman]

Pakistanis will opt for Imran, Indians will opt for Sachin. While most neutral lists of greatest cricketers have Sachin ahead, with Imran barely making it ahead of him in a list or two.

 

[Proactive_]

Depends on the composition of the team. For instance in the 2000s and late 90s, I would have taken an Imran over a Tendulkar in the Indian team any day of the week. India already had enough batting resources and needed a proper front line bowler to force the issue in Tests overseas. Weaker batting sides with adequate bowling might have preferred Tendulkar over Imran.

Discounting these factors, I'll say Imran trumps Tendulkar anyway. Great bowler + Solid batsman + Great captain >> Great batsman + Part time bowler. Plus, India always had a very stable batting unit from 96 onwards and Tendulkar was rarely even the best batsman in the Team in the 2000s. It was always someone between Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Gambhir and later Pujara. Imran was almost always the best bowler in the Pakistan team and a very integral part of the team.

 

[Mobashir]

Imran khan the bowler and Tendulkar the batsman are comparable, and even here imran might be ahead.
You ad Imran's bowling + capitancy and he is on a different level than Sachin.

 

[DRsohail]

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.

 

[DRsohail]

kapil inspired whole indian generation before that they were defensive in criket but Kapil adide indian team culture the value of attack as imran khan mentioned this many times .

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Imran khan the bowler and Tendulkar the batsman are comparable, and even here imran might be ahead.
You ad Imran's bowling + captaincy and he is on a different level than Sachin.

Tendulkar's cumulative figures are so staggering that they may never be surpassed .100 international centuries,15,000 test runs 49 O.D.I.centuries.Like Imran capturing 70 test wickest and 500 O.D.I.wickets .For a great part of his career Tendulkar averaged the equivalent around 20.5-21 with the ball as a batsmen .Also calculate percentage contribution in 1st part of carer mainly before 1996.Imran hardly acheived as much so young and till 1995 Indian batting almost was single-handedly shouldered by Sachin with possible exception of Azharuddin.Tendulkar caried a crisis on his shoulders more than Imran.In terms of pure game Sachin traversed more diverse region sin batting than Imran with bowling.

 

[Dead Ball]

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.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

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.

A good balanced reply but read my reply in last post to Mobashir.***** longevity , staggering statistics and comparitive skill.Ofcourse Imran vastly ahead as skipper or ahead as match-winner but Tendulkar's accomplishments speak for itself being closer to the Don than anyone.Often the course of a game revolved only around Sachin.

 

[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.

A very balanced answer sir appreciate rationality .Do analyze Tendulkar's longevity in tests at the top and pressure faced as well as staggering figures.At best maybe Imran being such a match-winner but Tendulkar's durability was simply phenomenal.

 

[Proactive_]

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.

Trust me man it amazes me to no extent why Kapil isn't rated any where near some of the demi god batsmen in the Indian cricketing circles. His worth to the Indian team during his tenure far over weighs any batsman to have ever played for India. Not only was he India's first genuine opening bowler, he was the only legitimate opening bowler we had for the majority of his career. I can understand non Indians not rating him that highly due to his stats but Indians should understand just how much the Indian team's performance rested on his shoulders for almost the entirety of his 15 year career.

I think it's got more to do with the mindset of appreciating players over team performance. Indians would rather praise a batsman who happens to be one of the best in the world rather than praise a fast bowler who happened to be much more pivotal to their chances of victory despite not being counted as one of the best in the world.

It's sad that still, 23 years after Kapil's retirement, India still can't produce genuine fast bowlers who can be competent overseas and help us winning matches. As Kapil once said - "Fast bowlers toh majdoor (Laborer) hain" and he went on to say something to the effect that batsmen are the real and only superstars in this country.

 

[DRsohail]

A good balanced reply but read my reply in last post to Mobashir.***** longevity , staggering statistics and comparitive skill.Ofcourse Imran vastly ahead as skipper or ahead as match-winner but Tendulkar's accomplishments speak for itself being closer to the Don than anyone.Often the course of a game revolved only around Sachin.

yes logetivity does count but here comes the point that u cant compare a fst bowler with a bat,fast bowler longevity will always be llesser than a bat whatever efforts u put.come will have that natural akills and body to adapt likewasim .imran compensated it with his bat.tendulkar as a bat is in the lague of his own and imran is the same .but i think it was KAPil dev the first one who injected confidence in indian crickters so i do value him like i value imran in our set up though we have wasim,inzi ,miandaad. hanif.

 

[DRsohail]

Trust me man it amazes me to no extent why Kapil isn't rated any where near some of the demi god batsmen in the Indian cricketing circles. His worth to the Indian team during his tenure far over weighs any batsman to have ever played for India. Not only was he India's first genuine opening bowler, he was the only legitimate opening bowler we had for the majority of his career. I can understand non Indians not rating him that highly due to his stats but Indians should understand just how much the Indian team's performance rested on his shoulders for almost the entirety of his 15 year career.

I think it's got more to do with the mindset of appreciating players over team performance. Indians would rather praise a batsman who happens to be one of the best in the world rather than praise a fast bowler who happened to be much more pivotal to their chances of victory despite not being counted as one of the best in the world.

It's sad that still, 23 years after Kapil's retirement, India still can't produce genuine fast bowlers who can be competent overseas and help us winning matches. As Kapil once said - "Fast bowlers toh majdoor (Laborer) hain" and he went on to say something to the effect that batsmen are the real and only superstars in this country.

KAPIL AS A LEADER AND WORKING HORSE is head and shoulder above all indian bats which u people value more than him but here in pakistan many elders in my family compares kapil with imran and they highly value him,may be we have that natural love for aggression of fast bowlers which kapil brings.carrying the load of fast bowling spearhead for moe than 15 year with over 30 average bat some of them clutch innings,u cant iamgine how much efforts it require,i have to seeany modern fast bowlers carrying that load and surviving for more than 5 years....my love and appreciation is immense for KAPIL DEV.

 

[Mobashir]

Tendulkar's cumulative figures are so staggering that they may never be surpassed .100 international centuries,15,000 test runs 49 O.D.I.centuries.Like Imran capturing 70 test wickest and 500 O.D.I.wickets .For a great part of his career Tendulkar averaged the equivalent around 20.5-21 with the ball as a batsmen .Also calculate percentage contribution in 1st part of carer mainly before 1996.Imran hardly acheived as much so young and till 1995 Indian batting almost was single-handedly shouldered by Sachin with possible exception of Azharuddin.Tendulkar caried a crisis on his shoulders more than Imran.In terms of pure game Sachin traversed more diverse region sin batting than Imran with bowling.

I always compare test performances when both players are good enough in ODI's.
You can't compare a cricketer of the 80's ODI achievements with someone who played in 90's and 00's.

In test, there is no match for a cricketer like Imran Khan In tests.
Best bowler of your team and bats more than capably.
Sachin's like bowling is pretty useless in test cricket.

There is also the fact that sachin has not played many Laraesque innings. Very rarely if not never he stood tall against a great bowling line up on a good surface.

 

[another drop catch]

Sachin is miles miles miles ahead of Imran khan in any format

 

[DRsohail]

in odi as sid by many posters there is no comparison.

 

[DRsohail]

Sachin is miles miles miles ahead of Imran khan in any format

u overdose it??????any format///?????

 

[DRsohail]

I always compare test performances when both players are good enough in ODI's.
You can't compare a cricketer of the 80's ODI achievements with someone who played in 90's and 00's.

In test, there is no match for a cricketer like Imran Khan In tests.
Best bowler of your team and bats more than capably.
Sachin's like bowling is pretty useless in test cricket.

There is also the fact that sachin has not played many Laraesque innings. Very rarely if not never he stood tall against a great bowling line up on a good surface.

he does average more than 50 in AUSTRALIA???

 

[Proactive_]

KAPIL AS A LEADER AND WORKING HORSE is head and shoulder above all indian bats which u people value more than him but here in pakistan many elders in my family compares kapil with imran and they highly value him,may be we have that natural love for aggression of fast bowlers which kapil brings.carrying the load of fast bowling spearhead for moe than 15 year with over 30 average bat some of them clutch innings,u cant iamgine how much efforts it require,i have to seeany modern fast bowlers carrying that load and surviving for more than 5 years....my love and appreciation is immense for KAPIL DEV.

I've always thought that Kapil is far more appreciated in Pakistan than he is here in India. People here just don't realize what it takes to be a world class fast bowler and further what it takes to be that for prolonged periods of time. Batsmen are the kings and bowlers are just commodities to be abused and blamed here. This mindset percolates to the level of young cricketers as well who almost never think of taking up fast bowling. No wonder that despite all the thousands of crores of rupees, infrastructure, coaching and everything.. India still can't produce genuine quick bowlers who can win Test matches overseas. Sad state of affairs really.

 

[another drop catch]

u overdose it??????any format///?????

sachin is undisputed ATG in both the formats
whereas imran doesnt fit in most ATGs all time XI list

 

[shariqnoor]

Tendulkar's cumulative figures are so staggering that they may never be surpassed .100 international centuries,15,000 test runs 49 O.D.I.centuries.Like Imran capturing 70 test wickest and 500 O.D.I.wickets .For a great part of his career Tendulkar averaged the equivalent around 20.5-21 with the ball as a batsmen .Also calculate percentage contribution in 1st part of carer mainly before 1996.Imran hardly acheived as much so young and till 1995 Indian batting almost was single-handedly shouldered by Sachin with possible exception of Azharuddin.Tendulkar caried a crisis on his shoulders more than Imran.In terms of pure game Sachin traversed more diverse region sin batting than Imran with bowling.

I don't think Tendulkar stats can't be surpassed. 100 international centuries will certainly be broken by Kohli at the rate he's going. Wouldn't count out Kohli getting past Tendulkar's ODI runs. In Tests, maybe Cook might overtake Tendulkar's 15k runs. However the genius of Tendulkar still stands. Great batsman. But I'd pick Imran simply because of how much he brings to the team. Incredible bowler, more than a capable batsman, and a great captain. Tendulkar excels in only one facet of the game and was found out very quickly as a captain.

 

[DRsohail]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] yes and it is evident by many posters here.u can win matches with WC bowlers helped by decent bat but not by WC bat and decent bowlers it will either end in a draw or loss most of the time. i mean test matches.

 

[DRsohail]

sachin is undisputed ATG in both the formats
whereas imran doesnt fit in most ATGs all time XI list

ok on the basis of that then there should be no comparison as u believe it.

 

[Tusker]

Depends on the composition of the team. For instance in the 2000s and late 90s, I would have taken an Imran over a Tendulkar in the Indian team any day of the week. India already had enough batting resources and needed a proper front line bowler to force the issue in Tests overseas. Weaker batting sides with adequate bowling might have preferred Tendulkar over Imran.

Discounting these factors, I'll say Imran trumps Tendulkar anyway. Great bowler + Solid batsman + Great captain >> Great batsman + Part time bowler. Plus, India always had a very stable batting unit from 96 onwards and Tendulkar was rarely even the best batsman in the Team in the 2000s. It was always someone between Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Gambhir and later Pujara. Imran was almost always the best bowler in the Pakistan team and a very integral part of the team.

was pretty sure you would have picked Imran even before I opened the thread ...

This argument was settled last year through a Poll : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-the-greatest-ever-Asian-Test-cricketer/page3

On a predominantly Pakistani forum Tendulkar bagged equal votes as Imran did which is quite telling.

BTW Ashwin has comparable bowling stats to Imran in Test Cricket at this stage and is a better batsman than Imran ... so according to your logic Ashwin is prefered over Kohli who does not even bowl part time unlike Tendulkar ?

Anyhow Imran does not make it into many prestigious World XI sides like the Cricinfo World XI or Bradman's XI amongst many other things. Also never seen anyone rate imran as the best bowler ever. All discussed in that thread. Someone was even desperate enough to bring in fielding and still got owned ... lol

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] yes and it is evident by many posters here.u can win matches with WC bowlers helped by decent bat but not by WC bat and decent bowlers it will either end in a draw or loss most of the time. i mean test matches.

MS Dhoni Won more matches(Both Tests and ODI's) than Imran sdid with very modest bowling resources

 

[another drop catch]

ok on the basis of that then there should be no comparison as u believe it.

yes
atleast dont compare with pakistani ATGs

 

[CricFan2012]

In tests its Imran, and ODIs its Tendu, overall it's very difficult to say, Imran might have the edge because of his captaincy

 

[CadPakFan]

But in the end, the question is really asking who was more impactful? Imran bowling or Sachin's batting? Imran's batting or Sachin's bowling?

 

[Proactive_]

was pretty sure you would have picked Imran even before I opened the thread ...

This argument was settled last year through a Poll : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-the-greatest-ever-Asian-Test-cricketer/page3

On a predominantly Pakistani forum Tendulkar bagged equal votes as Imran did which is quite telling.

BTW Ashwin has comparable bowling stats to Imran in Test Cricket at this stage and is a better batsman than Imran ... so according to your logic Ashwin is prefered over Kohli who does not even bowl part time unlike Tendulkar ?

Anyhow Imran does not make it into many prestigious World XI sides like the Cricinfo World XI or Bradman's XI amongst many other things. Also never seen anyone rate imran as the best bowler ever. All discussed in that thread. Someone was even desperate enough to bring in fielding and still got owned ... lol

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.

 

[cr7great]

sachin is far ahead from every cricketer except don bradman

 

[Mamoon]

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.

 

[Robert]

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.

 

[Princejain191]

Imran was a rare genuine all-rounder. He would have got into that Pakistan team based on batting or bowling alone. So, I reckon this comparison is partly unfair.

While Sachin is among the greatest of all batsmen, it is invariable that a genuine all-rounder would add greater value to any side. Even if we were to take their primary skills as basis for the comparison, Imran Khan, as his stats suggest, must have a ridiculous bowler and great bowlers are just more valuable than great batsmen.

So, Imran is a clear choice for me and I am pretty sure I can count the players on one hand that could match up to him. (Indian here, by the way - so no bias)

 

[Abdul]

Pakistanis will opt for Imran, Indians will opt for Sachin. While most neutral lists of greatest cricketers have Sachin ahead, with Imran barely making it ahead of him in a list or two.

Don't generalize. I would pick Sachin without second thoughts.

 

[Buffet]

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.

I don't think we should simply say that secondary skill is not important in comparing players. Afridi example is not going to cut it because there is too huge a gap between primary skill of Afridi and Warne.

In the test format, primary skill of SRT was better than primary skill of IK, but gap is not huge. In ODI, the gap is too large in primary skill of these two players. But when comparing cricketers, we can't ignore what else they bring to the table. IK's secondary skill was clearly superior to SRT's secondary skill in both formats. As a fielder SRT was not too gun, but it's not hard to be better than IK to be honest. Then you throw captaincy, which goes in favor of IK clearly.

Taking everything into account, you can make a case for either of them. As a cricketer, I don't think that one is easily better than other. In just primary skill, yah SRT was easily better, but cricketer is not just about primary skill.

 

[Buffet]

sachin is far ahead from every cricketer except don bradman

Viv, SRT, IK, Murali, Kallis, McGrath etc are not too far apart from each other as a cricketer. Anyone claiming that is simply using a hyperbole.

 

[DRsohail]

yes
atleast dont compare with pakistani ATGs

don.t do it if u feel better.

 

[DRsohail]

MS Dhoni Won more matches(Both Tests and ODI's) than Imran sdid with very modest bowling resources

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

 

[DRsohail]

I don't think we should simply say that secondary skill is not important in comparing players. Afridi example is not going to cut it because there is too huge a gap between primary skill of Afridi and Warne.

In the test format, primary skill of SRT was better than primary skill of IK, but gap is not huge. In ODI, the gap is too large in primary skill of these two players. But when comparing cricketers, we can't ignore what else they bring to the table. IK's secondary skill was clearly superior to SRT's secondary skill in both formats. As a fielder SRT was not too gun, but it's not hard to be better than IK to be honest. Then you throw captaincy, which goes in favor of IK clearly.

Taking everything into account, you can make a case for either of them. As a cricketer, I don't think that one is easily better than other. In just primary skill, yah SRT was easily better, but cricketer is not just about primary skill.

hahahhaha AB primery aer 2ndry skills k baat agayi....u can e to say that both cant be compared and if u have to chose one.i will go with imran,3 in one. primary skills are comparable but imran wins with 2 extra skills,its not like imran is decent with the ball he is ATG with the ball and decent with the bat.

 

[DRsohail]

[MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION]

 

[Ab Fan]

Not much to seperate in tests.Imran's captaincy takes it though in my views in tests while SRT is so far ahead in odis that its not even funny.

And Imran is not a better bowler than anyone bar Marshall. Otherwise, there is no reason he won't have made it to all time Tests XI.

 

[lehen]

IK was not a genuine AR and was more of a bowling AR.A great Test bowler and an Avg-good ODI player. His battings stats which are not great themselves were boosted by Not outs and sedate style of batting. Statistically Sachin is light years ahead but IK will give Sachin a good contest in tests,in ODIs it is a no contest.Overall Sachin for most people

 

[DRsohail]

and remember imran played in 80s osi criket was different at those times than it was later although sachin wins in odi.

 

[DRsohail]

IK was not a genuine AR and was more of a bowling AR.A great Test bowler and an Avg-good ODI player. His battings stats which are not great themselves were boosted by Not outs and sedate style of batting. Statistically Sachin is light years ahead but IK will give Sachin a good contest in tests,in ODIs it is a no contest.Overall Sachin for most people

so who was a genuine all rounder???

 

[Napa]

Just look at the list of greatest cricketers ever compiled by those from outside the Subcontinent. In lists made by cricketing greats like Gower and Warne will find Tendulkar in positions 1 to 5, whereas Khan is usually in positions 6 to 15.

Anyway, I personally consider Gavaskar, who took India to the #1 ranking way back in 1973 to be greater than both of them.

 

[Buffet]

And Imran is not a better bowler than anyone bar Marshall. Otherwise, there is no reason he won't have made it to all time Tests XI.

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.

 

[DRsohail]

Just look at the list of greatest cricketers ever compiled by those from outside the Subcontinent. In lists made by cricketing greats like Gower and Warne will find Tendulkar in positions 1 to 5, whereas Khan is usually in positions 6 to 15.

Anyway, I personally consider Gavaskar, who took India to the #1 ranking way back in 1973 to be greater than both of them.

be ready for the firbrigade from ur countrymen.how on earth u can put someone ahead of tendulkar .

 

[Hitman]

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

 

[Ab Fan]

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.

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

 

[AlizeeFan]

With Tendulkar you get value of 2 ATG test batsmen and 2 ATG ODI batsman.

With Imran you get an ATG test bowler and a good batsman in same format. Add captaincy to that.

 

[Buffet]

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

I rate McGrath higher. Anyway, I was only throwing some names ..

I personally think that some one can make a good case of Murali, SRT and IK as the best cricketer from Asia. All 3 have been great and unique.

 

[Buffet]

With Tendulkar you get value of 2 ATG test batsmen and 2 ATG ODI batsman.

With Imran you get an ATG test bowler and a good batsman in same format. Add captaincy to that.

What does that mean?

 

[another drop catch]

Just look at the list of greatest cricketers ever compiled by those from outside the Subcontinent. In lists made by cricketing greats like Gower and Warne will find Tendulkar in positions 1 to 5, whereas Khan is usually in positions 6 to 15.

Anyway, I personally consider Gavaskar, who took India to the #1 ranking way back in 1973 to be greater than both of them.

are you serious ? ? ?
how on earth Gavaskar is ahead of God of cricket

 

[lehen]

so who was a genuine all rounder???

Jacques Kallis

 

[sshakir411]

2 ATGs with great stats. People are splitting hair to justify their pick but I honestly feel it is very subjective. I'd go with what [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] said. Fast bowler + good bat + great captain > great bat + part time bowler. Plus Imran was a go-getter and far more ruthless than Sachin was in all aspects..Alpha male > beta male, for me at least.

 

[Napa]

be ready for the firbrigade from ur countrymen.how on earth u can put someone ahead of tendulkar .

It really depends upon what a poster's age is. Many of those over 45 have fond memories of Gavaskar. Objectively speaking, to take India to the #1 ranking way back in 1973 and to keep it there for over a year is a super achievement, a breakthrough for the subcontinent which till then didn't have much respect.

 

[Hitman]

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

Or when Christopher Martin Jenkins compiled his list of 100 greatest cricketrs -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...topher-Martin-Jenkins-100-greatest-cricketers

 

[Mamoon]

I don't think we should simply say that secondary skill is not important in comparing players. Afridi example is not going to cut it because there is too huge a gap between primary skill of Afridi and Warne.

In the test format, primary skill of SRT was better than primary skill of IK, but gap is not huge. In ODI, the gap is too large in primary skill of these two players. But when comparing cricketers, we can't ignore what else they bring to the table. IK's secondary skill was clearly superior to SRT's secondary skill in both formats. As a fielder SRT was not too gun, but it's not hard to be better than IK to be honest. Then you throw captaincy, which goes in favor of IK clearly.

Taking everything into account, you can make a case for either of them. As a cricketer, I don't think that one is easily better than other. In just primary skill, yah SRT was easily better, but cricketer is not just about primary skill.

I didn't compare Afridi to Warne, because the primary skills of both were the same (leg spin) and Afridi's superior batting was not enough to put him above Warne. I compared Afridi to someone like Inzamam, and how this logic of all-round skills can make Afridi look a better cricketer than Inzamam even though 99/100 people would pick Inzamam.

Inzamam's primary skill was greater than Afridi's, but he had no secondary skill so based on primary skill + secondary skill, Afridi should be considered as a superior cricketer. Obviously you can disagree with that and say that Inzamam's primary skill was so much better than Afridi's primary skill that the latter's secondary skill was not enough to make up for it.

However, my point is that if we start comparing players based on their all-round capabilities, then specialist players will always have a disadvantage. Hence, all-rounders should not be compared to specialist players. A lot good all-rounders will become better than elite specialist players if take their all-round skills into consideration, and there are many examples.

Tendulkar's batting is better than Imran's bowling across formats, and that should be enough to rate Tendulkar higher. Imran should be compared to other bowlers or all-rounders; he should not be compared to batsmen.

 

[DRsohail]

Jacques Kallis

he was not great with the ball he was a batting all rounder,next...

 

[AlizeeFan]

What does that mean?

There have been 11 batsmen who have scored 10k+ runs. 3 from Ind, 3 from SL. Most of the time if you score 8-9k runs in ODIs, you can have a count it as great career and teams find it difficult to replace such batsmen.

By the year 2000, he was already highest run getter, most 100s in ODIs and sealed his spot as ODI ATG.

From thereon he scored another approx another 9k with avg of 48. Only 8 players scored more than 9k runs since then. Dhoni, Kohli, ABDV have better averages and all of them are ODI greats.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

That's why I said he gives you value of 2 ATG batsman.

In tests, this arguement is thin as his 2nd half of career wasn't as good as his first half. Avg of 57 in first half and 50 in 2nd half with almost 8k runs in each.

 

[AlizeeFan]

he was not great with the ball he was a batting all rounder,next...

His bowling average is almost similar to most pacers India and Pakistan play in tests these days. However a batsman averaging 37 won't find a place in either team easily and certainly won't play 50+ tests.

 

[Buffet]

Tendulkar's batting is better than Imran's bowling across formats, and that should be enough to rate Tendulkar higher. Imran should be compared to other bowlers or all-rounders; he should not be compared to batsmen.

Well, it tough to compare batsman with an all rounder or bowler with a batsman. I do your point, even if I don't agree with ignoring the secondary skill of players.

 

[DRsohail]

His bowling average is almost similar to most pacers India and Pakistan play in tests these days. However a batsman averaging 37 won't find a place in either team easily and certainly won't play 50+ tests.

how many wicket he got in more than 160 matches...harly 1.5 wicket per innings.

 

[Buffet]

There have been 11 batsmen who have scored 10k+ runs. 3 from Ind, 3 from SL. Most of the time if you score 8-9k runs in ODIs, you can have a count it as great career and teams find it difficult to replace such batsmen.

By the year 2000, he was already highest run getter, most 100s in ODIs and sealed his spot as ODI ATG.

From thereon he scored another approx another 9k with avg of 48. Only 8 players scored more than 9k runs since then. Dhoni, Kohli, ABDV have better averages and all of them are ODI greats.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

That's why I said he gives you value of 2 ATG batsman.

In tests, this arguement is thin as his 2nd half of career wasn't as good as his first half. Avg of 57 in first half and 50 in 2nd half with almost 8k runs in each.

Got your point, but due to all that he is rated much higher as well. So it's already taken into account.

 

[AlizeeFan]

how many wicket he got in more than 160 matches...harly 1.5 wicket per innings.

Yes, that goes against him. Then there are 2 things to consider here. First unlike runs which just add up as much as team can, wickets available tend to reduce. When you are bowling in SA team which consistently produced 2 wicket takers regularly at a time, 3rd or 4th bowler is trying to get wickets from 3-4 wickets available. For ex - Donald (almost 3 wickets an inn) and Pollock (2 wickets an inn) means Kallis couldn't take many.

His wicket per inning may not look good, but at least he has some numbers (almost 300 wickets in both formats at avg of 32) which are similar to those of main pacers of any team these days.

Which aspect of Imran's batting looks similar to a top batsman of any team? 3800 runs? Avg of 37 or 6 100s? None.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Got your point, but due to all that he is rated much higher as well. So it's already taken into account.

I mentioned that in reply of the added value by an all rounder. If Imran brings value of great bowler and a decent batsman at same time, you have added advantage with SRT too and in both formats.

 

[Bilal7]

Sachin Tendulker: ATG batsman, nothing bowler, decent fielder and nothing captain.

Imran Khan: good batsman, ATG bowler, good fielder and ATG captain.

Any idiot can see who the better player of the two is. I don't know why Indians are so reluctant to accept a simple fact.

 

[Bilal7]

I didn't compare Afridi to Warne, because the primary skills of both were the same (leg spin) and Afridi's superior batting was not enough to put him above Warne. I compared Afridi to someone like Inzamam, and how this logic of all-round skills can make Afridi look a better cricketer than Inzamam even though 99/100 people would pick Inzamam.

Inzamam's primary skill was greater than Afridi's, but he had no secondary skill so based on primary skill + secondary skill, Afridi should be considered as a superior cricketer. Obviously you can disagree with that and say that Inzamam's primary skill was so much better than Afridi's primary skill that the latter's secondary skill was not enough to make up for it.

However, my point is that if we start comparing players based on their all-round capabilities, then specialist players will always have a disadvantage. Hence, all-rounders should not be compared to specialist players. A lot good all-rounders will become better than elite specialist players if take their all-round skills into consideration, and there are many examples.

Tendulkar's batting is better than Imran's bowling across formats, and that should be enough to rate Tendulkar higher. Imran should be compared to other bowlers or all-rounders; he should not be compared to batsmen.

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.

 

[AlizeeFan]

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.

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.

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.

 

[DRsohail]

Yes, that goes against him. Then there are 2 things to consider here. First unlike runs which just add up as much as team can, wickets available tend to reduce. When you are bowling in SA team which consistently produced 2 wicket takers regularly at a time, 3rd or 4th bowler is trying to get wickets from 3-4 wickets available. For ex - Donald (almost 3 wickets an inn) and Pollock (2 wickets an inn) means Kallis couldn't take many.

His wicket per inning may not look good, but at least he has some numbers (almost 300 wickets in both formats at avg of 32) which are similar to those of main pacers of any team these days.

Which aspect of Imran's batting looks similar to a top batsman of any team? 3800 runs? Avg of 37 or 6 100s? None.

br u need to understand what workload means?

 

[Hitman]

Sachin Tendulker: ATG batsman, nothing bowler, decent fielder and nothing captain.

Imran Khan: good batsman, ATG bowler, good fielder and ATG captain.

Any idiot can see who the better player of the two is. I don't know why Indians are so reluctant to accept a simple fact.

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.

 

[Cric1234]

Easily Imran as a cricketer because Sachin is a bit ahead as a batsman compared to Imrans bowling but Imran is a competent batsman and a better captain.
If you only compare their primary skill then Sachin but otherwise Imran is ahead.

 

[Cric1234]

In test cricket that is in ODIs Sachin is ahead Imran is neither a great bowler or batsman.

 

[Haz95]

Without reading this thread, Indians+Mamoon will vote for SRT. Pakistanis will vote for Imran. Neutrals will have a hard time deciding or pick Imran.

IMO Imran was the better CRICKETER over all. ATG Bowler, ATG Captain, Good fielder and good batsman as opposed to SRT being a ATG/ batsman and a mediocre everything else. SRT being like 1% ahead in batting compared to Immys bowling and being an overall better ODI cricketer makes it a pretty close win for Immy.

 

[sshakir411]

Sachin Tendulker: ATG batsman, nothing bowler, decent fielder and nothing captain.

Imran Khan: good batsman, ATG bowler, good fielder and ATG captain.

Any idiot can see who the better player of the two is. I don't know why Indians are so reluctant to accept a simple fact.

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.

 

[Cric1234]

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.

At the same time they use any method to bring down Bradman and also call Sachin as 2 ATG batsmen.

 

[Mobashir]

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.

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....

 

[Haz95]

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.

 

[AlizeeFan]

br u need to understand what workload means?

Yeah, there is no doubt that being a fast bowler is toughest job. A pacer has all his body part at risk - shoulder, arm, wrist, fingers, leg. There is no other sports which is equivalent to fast bowling in terms of that.

If a bowler is spending time at crease too, then definitely it impact is much higher. That's why pacers are rated with just 50-70 tests career unlike batsman.

 

[AlizeeFan]

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.

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.