Viv Richards, Imran Khan top two cricketers in the last 40 years according to Scyld Berry

[www787]

Stop hyping up Imran's bowling dude. You can tell that to kids who have not seen him play. Imran started his career as an average fast bowler and later on developed in to really good one, after short peak, due to injury, politics, picking and choosing games.. became trundled most of his second half. Played more as a batsman towards the end, bowled only when condition was good.

Wasim may have not been that effective in test but he was really special. Did magic with the ball. Indians and players all over had respect for him even during 90s when wasim team used to beat India for fun.

Dude !!! what are you talking about?in 80's he was considered one of the best bowlers. in 87' he took 10/77 against England.
in 88' against west indies he took 7/80.
in 92' he retired

obviously at the age of almost 40 he wouldn't be bowling as he was bowling during his peak.

So Dude! how old are you if you are still talking like a "dude who stole my car", and dude please get your facts correct before you insult a "dude" who modified his action to became one of the best fast bowler, captain and an all rounder the cricketing world has seen.

 

[thehub]

Dude !!! what are you talking about?in 80's he was considered one of the best bowlers. in 87' he took 10/77 against England.
in 88' against west indies he took 7/80.
in 92' he retired

obviously at the age of almost 40 he wouldn't be bowling as he was bowling during his peak.

So Dude! how old are you if you are still talking like a "dude who stole my car", and dude please get your facts correct before you insult a "dude" who modified his action to became one of the best fast bowler, captain and an all rounder the cricketing world has seen.

Lol at showing 10 wickets and 7 wicket in whole test match. Do you want me to show 10fors that kapil got in his last two yrs? It's not proving anything. Imran was trundler from 87 onwards.

My response was, wasim was far better bowler than imran.

 

[www787]

Lol at showing 10 wickets and 7 wicket in whole test match. Do you want me to show 10fors that kapil got in his last two yrs? It's not proving anything. Imran was trundler from 87 onwards.

My response was, wasim was far better bowler than imran.

7 wicket in first inning of first test match against the mighty West Indian.

You claimed he was trundled in his second half and I just gave you example of what he was capable in his second half of his career. So, either you are in a group of people who hate seeing Imran being praised by the rest and best of the cricket players because your grandma loved watching IK play or you're just trolling since fact and stats don't matter after you what you claimed to be totally wrong in your post. Either way I won't be entertaining you further.

 

[thehub]

7 wicket in first inning of first test match against the mighty West Indian.

You claimed he was trundled in his second half and I just gave you example of what he was capable in his second half of his career. So, either you are in a group of people who hate seeing Imran being praised by the rest and best of the cricket players because your grandma loved watching IK play or you're just trolling since fact and stats don't matter after you what you claimed to be totally wrong in your post. Either way I won't be entertaining you further.��

go check his stats, he wasnt consistently bowling well. Waqar was at peak for 5 yrs or so.. after that he was average, even he got 6for or 7for towards the end against england. I can name many players like that. Imran was average during his last 5 yrs. he wasnt even bowling much.

 

[www787]

go check his stats, he wasnt consistently bowling well. Waqar was at peak for 5 yrs or so.. after that he was average, even he got 6for or 7for towards the end against england. I can name many players like that. Imran was average during his last 5 yrs. he wasnt even bowling much.

Won man of the series in 1988 in West Indies with 23 wickets in 3 matches. He was 35 years old

Bowled 185 overs, getting 13 wickets against India on flat pitches of Pakistan in 1989. Where Wasim took 23 wickets. he was 36 years old and Wasim in his early 20's
Waqar started Test debut in 1989 against India, imran retired in 1992. So waqar had been playing on 3 years when imran khan retired.

Like I said "dude" you do not know what you're talking about. You're one of those Indians who can't swallow any praise of Imran khan as a great cricketer by every current and ex cricketer.

Stop wasting bandwidth and stop talking about something which you have no knowledge.

 

[Monsee]

Won man of the series in 1988 in West Indies with 23 wickets in 3 matches. He was 35 years old

Bowled 185 overs, getting 13 wickets against India on flat pitches of Pakistan in 1989. Where Wasim took 23 wickets. he was 36 years old and Wasim in his early 20's
Waqar started Test debut in 1989 against India, imran retired in 1992. So waqar had been playing on 3 years when imran khan retired.

Like I said "dude" you do not know what you're talking about. You're one of those Indians who can't swallow any praise of Imran khan as a great cricketer by every current and ex cricketer.

Stop wasting bandwidth and stop talking about something which you have no knowledge.

And to add to this, we should probably let it go anyway, this dude is from the Trundleland that has had almost no Phaaast bowlers averaging below 30 (2 barely below it) with 100+ wickets to their name unless we also include their Jumbo Spinner/Phaastish man...let alone sub 23 as in Imran's case!

How will a guy with Maruti know how to drive a Rolls Royce?

 

[Monsee]

I have never heard anyone other than Pakistanis complaining about Indian umpires. lol. Pakistanis too mostly complain about the game kumbe got 10 wickets. Video is available on that game.

Yeah same Indian umpire who in the 1987 series gave Qadir run out while he had already made it to in the crease to avoid the 6-0 whitewash that Pak was gonna had your team; same umpires hwo gave Gavaskar several reprieves in the 1987 Banglore test and yet he was not able to complete his 100 or save/win the game?

If Indian umpires were so superior why they rarely ever made it to the elite list despite all the money, power, contacts, technology etc. available from BCCI?

 

[Muhammad10]

Lol at showing 10 wickets and 7 wicket in whole test match. Do you want me to show 10fors that kapil got in his last two yrs? It's not proving anything. Imran was trundler from 87 onwards.

My response was, wasim was far better bowler than imran.

Just to compare, from when was Kapil a trundler? Or was trundling permanent in his case...

 

[Bilal7]

Is this list combining test and ODI?If so Tendulkar would be ahead of Lara and almost on par with Viv Richards.Why do you nplace Muralibabive Warne?Combining test and o ODI Wasim may well be in top 3 .

Test cricket is where legends are made. This list, like Berry's, is solely about the premier format.

 

[Bilal7]

Even most Pakistani supporters who watched both bowl know which one was the better bowler and even career numbers stack up very well for Imran the bowler in Tests; we are not taking in to consideration the Mickey Mouse ODI stats because this list is about Test cricketers only!

Indians and their fascination with Wasim probably have a lot to do with the fact that Imran beat them red, white, black, and blue every time they met us except one series under the 'Best Umpires on the Universe' aka Indian Umpires!

Well, of course Indians love Wasim. He's like a super-human to them, given that they've only ever had trundlers and more trundlers in their cricketing careers.

They don't know much about Imran because his greatness is just incomprehensible for them. Do you really blame them? Imran had the greatest bowling peak of all-time. Better than Marshall's, McGrath's, Wasim's and everyone after them. He averaged a mind-boggling 13 during his peak, while simultaneously being a very good batsman, good fielder and an ATG captain.

Sachin was useless for 50% of a match. Imran was the best player on the pitch 100% of the time.

 

[Monsee]

Just to compare, from when was Kapil a trundler? Or was trundling permanent in his case...

This is all Indian media's fault, bigging up their players in minds of their fans to the point that Imran (one of the best fast bowlers of 1970's through 1980's and one of the all time bowlers) becomes a Trundler and they think Kapil was god's second coming LOL

 

[marlonbrowndo]

There are still Indians who have the guts to compare kapil and Imran in Test cricket?

 

[thehub]

Won man of the series in 1988 in West Indies with 23 wickets in 3 matches. He was 35 years old

Bowled 185 overs, getting 13 wickets against India on flat pitches of Pakistan in 1989. Where Wasim took 23 wickets. he was 36 years old and Wasim in his early 20's
Waqar started Test debut in 1989 against India, imran retired in 1992. So waqar had been playing on 3 years when imran khan retired.

Like I said "dude" you do not know what you're talking about. You're one of those Indians who can't swallow any praise of Imran khan as a great cricketer by every current and ex cricketer.

Stop wasting bandwidth and stop talking about something which you have no knowledge.

I watched that series. Yes he took a lot of wickets but he was nothing great. He was more like medium pacer bowling in 120s in that series. Did he bowl like how he used to bowl when he was at peak?

Anyway I think I should stop here. You seem to have got upset. Maybe you are one of those imrans cheerleader like monsee.

 

[thehub]

Just to compare, from when was Kapil a trundler? Or was trundling permanent in his case...

People here call Indian bowlers trundlers which includes kapil because our bowlers were not express quick.

 

[thehub]

Yeah same Indian umpire who in the 1987 series gave Qadir run out while he had already made it to in the crease to avoid the 6-0 whitewash that Pak was gonna had your team; same umpires hwo gave Gavaskar several reprieves in the 1987 Banglore test and yet he was not able to complete his 100 or save/win the game?

If Indian umpires were so superior why they rarely ever made it to the elite list despite all the money, power, contacts, technology etc. available from BCCI?

You can talk about one incident. But about pak umpires, each team has a big book.

Lol at your interpretation. Indian umpires did not get in to elite, does not mean they are cheat. They were not good enough. There is a big difference between cheating and not being good enough.

 

[Proactive_]

Not having Dale Steyn in the Top 10 is absolutely asinine. The guy averages 22 over 80+ Tests and 400+ wickets in the most batting friendly era in the history of cricket. Doesn't get any better than that.

 

[Hitman]

You can talk about one incident. But about pak umpires, each team has a big book.

Lol at your interpretation. Indian umpires did not get in to elite, does not mean they are cheat. They were not good enough. There is a big difference between cheating and not being good enough.

One just needs to read Steve Waugh's autobiography where he writes about his experience of touring Pakistan in 1988. According to Waugh, Miandad used to openly mock Australian players while he was batting asking them to not bother appealing, it's his home and his rules.

 

[Junaids]

From August 1982 to May 1988 Imran Khan was an astonishingly good bowler.

Wasim Akram was still a novice, and Imran didn't just carry the attack, the team lost a grand total of two Tests in that period, both to the West Indies in drawn 1-1 series.

He literally made Pakistan unbeatable in Test series, until his bowling slowed down in his late 30's.

With Imran in the team they lost one Test series in his final decade from ages 30 to 40. And that was 1-0 away to Australia.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Ah, bitter Indian fans on a Pakistani website. What a sight.

 

[TQ89]

Scyld berry is an acknowledge historian and has been covering the sport since 40 years. I think regardless of what everyone thinks here, his list should be respected. I don't see the reason of debating how a certain player should be ranked higher or not.

Most of the average posters here in PP weren't even born in the 80's while this guy has been covering the sport much before that period.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

From August 1982 to May 1988 Imran Khan was an astonishingly good bowler.

Wasim Akram was still a novice, and Imran didn't just carry the attack, the team lost a grand total of two Tests in that period, both to the West Indies in drawn 1-1 series.

He literally made Pakistan unbeatable in Test series, until his bowling slowed down in his late 30's.

With Imran in the team they lost one Test series in his final decade from ages 30 to 40. And that was 1-0 away to Australia.

Any view on my list of best 10 cricketers?if not seen it please do and reply,I place Lara as best test batsmen,.Viv best in test and ODI and Wasim at No 3. In combined test and ODI.Would you include Lillee and Hadlee?To me Hadlee Sven above Wasim in only test cricket .

 

[www787]

I watched that series. Yes he took a lot of wickets but he was nothing great. He was more like medium pacer bowling in 120s in that series. Did he bowl like how he used to bowl when he was at peak?

Anyway I think I should stop here. You seem to have got upset. Maybe you are one of those imrans cheerleader like monsee.

Upset? Cute.

Decide your argument first then we can discuss because you seem to be all over when you're proven wrong again and again. You have nothing but your opinion, you came up with made up lie which I proved wrong, now you're saying he wasn't fast enough.

Like I said "dude" you have no idea what you're talking about.

So, yes "dude" you should "stop" embarrassing yourself.

 

[Monsee]

You can talk about one incident. But about pak umpires, each team has a big book.

Lol at your interpretation. Indian umpires did not get in to elite, does not mean they are cheat. They were not good enough. There is a big difference between cheating and not being good enough.

Whatever makes you happy, as for the big book from each team bit; we all know why they openly won't attack anything Indian

 

[Hitman]

The last retort of Pak fans finally come into play - Conspiracy Theories.

 

[Monsee]

Yep, Pak was the only country known for poor umpiring while Indian umpires were hailed as second coming of Dickey Bird by even the most nationalist (like) of India writers:

Wisden Almanack offers this anectode (seems to be clearly written by a loving Indian journalist):

For all that the Pakistanis' comments on the umpiring were in bad taste, there was no doubt that it was deficient in standards. It has been remarked on adversely by the Australians as well. The Indian Board must take steps to improve it and one way would be to induce former first-class players to take up umpiring. As elsewhere, umpiring in India is no longer a financially unattractive occupation.

 

[Hitman]

Looks like someone's little precious ego has been hurt when I mentioned how a former Aussie captain and one of their greatest cricketers openly speaks of the horrors that he and his team experienced in Pakistan at the hands of their wonderful umpires. Indian umpires might have been incompetent at times but certainly no International player other than Pakistani ones has ever branded them cheats, neither did the LBW rules go out of the book when they were umpiring nor did they create such havoc for the opposition that they hated touring India because of that. Pakistan was a place teams hated touring just because of their patriotic umpires.

P.S. I have scanned copies of pages where Steve Waugh spoke of his experiences in the 1988 Tour of Pakistan. Unfortunately they aren't allowed to be posted here.

 

[Muhammad10]

Don't get personal.

 

[Hitman]

Don't get personal.

I never started it, although I do apologize.

 

[Chrish]

Biased umpiring was prevalent those days. But it's also the known fact that some umpires were worse than the others. Statics and testimony of players detest to that. Hence I specifically emphasize home vs away record of the players who played in pre-neutral umpiring era and if there is a big discrepancy I would question their merit. Why would some so called ATGs didn't achieve the fair balance while players from other teams did?

It's kinda cute seeing people arguing otherwise.

 

[Monsee]

This is the eye popper but obviously Pak and Miandad are the always the biggest vilians:

8 Times Javed Miandad was out lbw in home Tests, out of 33 lbw dismissals in his career. At home, his lbw percentage was only 11 (eight out of 73 dismissals), but in away Tests, it went up to 26% (25 out of 95).

11 at home vs 26% away from home for Miandad

Bill Lawry, the Australian opener, was never out lbw in 30 home Tests; all of his seven lbws happened overseas.

0 at home in 30 tests vs 7 times away in 61 innings (37 tests in total)...now I leave you guys to judge which case looks worse yet no one talks about Bill Lawry and them awful Aussie umpires. Why, because most people used to have this idea that white umpires played fair and Asian ones did not!

 

[Chrish]

Bill Lawry played in entirely different era so it's completely irrelevant when you are discussing players of 70s - 80s.

Still it's refreshing to see you putting actual effort rather than posting usual drivel.

 

[Monsee]

Bill Lawry played in entirely different era so it's completely irrelevant when you are discussing players of 70s - 80s.

Still it's refreshing to see you putting actual effort rather than posting usual drivel.

Drivel is posted to encounter lower drivel sometimes, you know how simpletons only understand a certain level of intellect only, if that is your choice of tone as well, say so

It is quite interesting when the debate at hand is home umpires (biased one supposedly) now you decide to suddenly add another dimension aka 80's and 90's only; no one faxed/texted me to say this is the new criteria one must follow when pointing to poor umpiring from any other country; bad decisions are just that i.e poor umpiring irrespective of time and place!

 

[Junaids]

There was a huge change between the period up to the 1970s and after - basically the demarcation is the Packer Revolution.

Pre-Packer, to be quite honest the only decent umpires were those in England - including an Aussie like Bill Alley. Most international cricket was either not televised or shown live and not recorded, so umpires got away with howlers. The only reason umpires in England were better was that with 17 counties playing 3 day championship matches plus 3 one-day competitions, every umpire got at least 65 days of experience each season, so they basically improved their skills.

After Packer, everything was televised in the "white" countries and standards increased.

Two things went wrong in Asia. You had more "nationalistic" umpires and "campaigning" umpires - think of Darrell Hair or Shakoor Rana.

But you also had more incompetent umpires who advanced in their careers due to their connections.

If you think of England in Pakistan in 1987, there had been a minor problem in the series in England three months earlier, because Pakistan resented umpire David Constant who had given a marginal call in England's favour in the 1982 series which led to England narrowly winning 2-1 instead of Pakistan doing so.

But Shakoor Rana in the second Test copped England's frustration at the astonishingly appalling decisions given by Shakeel Khan - then aged just 34 years - in the First Test.

Shakeel Khan's decisions was so sensationally appalling that he should have been Man of the Match. Several of them looked like they were just a consequence of total incompetence - he gave Abdul Qadir out stumped with the bails still on the stumps - but several more cannot be described without the moderators jumping into action.

 

[Chrish]

Drivel is posted to encounter lower drivel sometimes, you know how simpletons only understand a certain level of intellect only, if that is your choice of tone as well, say so

It is quite interesting when the debate at hand is home umpires (biased one supposedly) now you decide to suddenly add another dimension aka 80's and 90's only; no one faxed/texted me to say this is the new criteria one must follow when pointing to poor umpiring from any other country; bad decisions are just that i.e poor umpiring irrespective of time and place!

Of course what era players are from is important.. Take other players from 50s and 60s, be it Trueman, Sobers or Harvey all of them have discrepancy in home vs away records. So it's not just unique to Lawry.

On the other hand, many ATGs have fairly balanced home vs away records in 70s/ 80s such as Viv, Gavaskar, Hadlee, Lilllee etc. On the other hand players from certain team do have question marks.

Why?

 

[Tusker]

There was a huge change between the period up to the 1970s and after - basically the demarcation is the Packer Revolution.

Pre-Packer, to be quite honest the only decent umpires were those in England - including an Aussie like Bill Alley. Most international cricket was either not televised or shown live and not recorded, so umpires got away with howlers. The only reason umpires in England were better was that with 17 counties playing 3 day championship matches plus 3 one-day competitions, every umpire got at least 65 days of experience each season, so they basically improved their skills.

Only comparing and competing with Technology will get you better .... never underestimate the powers of the English press/experts and with a never ending supply of gullible people who fall for their yarn it was easy peesy. They made Jack Hobbs as the batsman of the century for fudge sake.

Go take a look at Dave Shepards umpiring in that famous 2003 WC match .... missed so many no balls it wasnt even funny. All of these umpires were very lucky to have not been scrutinized by Tech and basically had a job with ZERO checks and balances. They were a power on to themselves.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] , I totally agree with you.

The reason why umpiring improved post-Packer was that:

1. TV coverage was filmed at both ends - previously how could we evaluate an LBW decision?
2. TV coverage was recorded and decisions were scrutinized.

I did not actually say that previously English umpires were better. Look back, I used the odd expression "umpires in England" were the only decent ones.

There was a clear reason for this: they were umpiring professionally for an average of 65-70 days per year, while umpires elsewhere were lucky to umpire 20 days per summer. So the ones getting the most practice were in England - even if they were Aussies like Bill Alley.

Fortunately technology drove people like Shakeel Khan out of the game. I would strongly encourage you to look up some articles about him!

 

[Hitman]

Miandad started his career in 1976, and the first time he was adjudged LBW in Pakistan was in 1985, that too in a series against the then minnows Sri lanka, against whom the home team certainly needed no help from the umpires. He was adjudged lbw twice in that series. He was adjudged LBW 8 times at home and 5 of them happened during the last 5 years of his career, at a time when Pakistan had a good team and din't need to rely on the umpire's favor.

What more needs to be said when the man used to himself mock the opposition players asking them to quit bother appealing for LBW since it's of no use, and that it's his land and his rules.

Going one step further, one Shakoor Rana (former Pak umpire) once egged an Indian bowler while appealing for LBW telling him, "Chal, chal, bowling kar. Yaha clean bowled hone par he wicket milega" (Don't bother appealing and start bowling again. You'll get wickets here only if you get them bowled).

There's Pak's star batsman of that time and their most well known umpire of that time themselves giving testimony of what the rest of the world accused about them. What more needs to be said.

 

[Hitman]

And out of those 8 times he was adjudged LBW at home, once was by a foreign umpire.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] , I totally agree with you.

The reason why umpiring improved post-Packer was that:

1. TV coverage was filmed at both ends - previously how could we evaluate an LBW decision?
2. TV coverage was recorded and decisions were scrutinized.

I did not actually say that previously English umpires were better. Look back, I used the odd expression "umpires in England" were the only decent ones.

There was a clear reason for this: they were umpiring professionally for an average of 65-70 days per year, while umpires elsewhere were lucky to umpire 20 days per summer. So the ones getting the most practice were in England - even if they were Aussies like Bill Alley.

Fortunately technology drove people like Shakeel Khan out of the game. I would strongly encourage you to look up some articles about him!

Technology that is good enough to make the umpire look like a fool came about in the late 90s early 00s. Iam talking about pitch mat and closeups to judge bat pads and nicks. One of the most infuriating aspects of watching cricket in the 90s and 00s was to listen to commies doing the usual PC talk about how the umpire had to judge that in realtime and he had no benefit of replays. I still remember the 2008 BG Series and Bucknors blatant cheating which drove those who were for technology over the edge and they got in DRS.


But this wasnt easy at all ... I still remember the old farts like Aggers in the English press ranting and raving as though the sky would fall down if we ditched the "tradition" of trusting the umpire. I wish we could have a listen at all that ranting and raving and the stupid idiotic resistance from BCCI ... it would provide for some great comedy when there is no doubt remaining whatsoever that without Tech you cannot even dream of a fairness.

This is one of the classic reasons why I am such a ardent pro-modern game ... it tells us how woefully backward we were. Cringeworthy if you consider that it took decades (Not years but decades ) to JUST get run-outs decided by TV Camera.