[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChthonicPowers: *
No good comparing a 40 ++ guy to a 30 year old.
[/QUOTE]
Phiw wahi baat... I guess no use trying to explain myself again....
Carry on folks....I am done.
Imran at his prime would still be very lethal not matter what era we are talking about. As far as Botham and Kapil are concerned they both were never as lethal in their prime as Imran was in his. Imran could be compared to Lille, Thomson, Garner or Holding not to Botham and Kapil.
How can you say that cricket now is improved compared to cricket in 1980's. I mean going by your theory soon you will be probably declare that Nehra or Zaheer Khan were better then Akram, casue Akram played when the cricket was easier. I think there is not much improving in sports. It is what is it, its played the way its played. You cant change a whole lot. Richards was as good a batman as they come, this era or any era. Imran was a great fast bowler in any era. Gavaskar was a complete batsman with tremendous concentration, if Imran can take his off stump with an indipper then Gavaskaer was leaving then I think Imran would be able to do it in 2003 too.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LahoriMunda: *
Imran at his prime would still be very lethal not matter what era we are talking about. As far as Botham and Kapil are concerned they both were never as lethal in their prime as Imran was in his. Imran could be compared to Lille, Thomson, Garner or Holding not to Botham and Kapil.
How can you say that cricket now is improved compared to cricket in 1980's. I mean going by your theory soon you will be probably declare that Nehra or Zaheer Khan were better then Akram, casue Akram played when the cricket was easier. I think there is not much improving in sports. It is what is it, its played the way its played. You cant change a whole lot. Richards was as good a batman as they come, this era or any era. Imran was a great fast bowler in any era. Gavaskar was a complete batsman with tremendous concentration, if Imran can take his off stump with an indipper then Gavaskaer was leaving then I think Imran would be able to do it in 2003 too.
[/QUOTE]
LahoriMunda... first of all let me congratulate you on being the first Guppie to exactly understand what I meant (your gift certificate is on the way).
Yes, I do feel that the cricketing standards today is much higher than yesteryears esp. with the advent of one-day cricket , the kind of which today is much different from Imran's era.
Your analogy of Nehra/Zaheer is an illogical extrapolation of my theory so I will not pusue it further.
Your comment about Kapil Dev, however, vindicates my argument. I have always considered Kapil Dev to be an over-rated bowler myself. That a bowler like him was successful doesn't say much about the era he and Imran played in.
Gee thanks for the gift certificate, but then again its the word of an Indian so I dont know if sohuld expect the certificate any time soon if ever...
So basically according to your theory ODI has improved the standard of criket. So its safe to assume players who have brilliant ODI records are better then others. In that case would you consider Bevan a better batsman then Lara or Tendulkar?
As you said it your self Imran was not much of a bowler at the end of his career. He played more like a regualr batsman, I guess didnt need to bowl too much with Wasim, Waqar and Aaqib in the team but Imran despite not bowling in the last few years still has an awsome bowling average of 22.81 compared to Kapil's average of 29.64. in tests. And Kapil bowled regularly till the end, mainly because there wasnt a whole lot of appealing options and then he also wanted to complete his 500 wickets. Kapil was never in the same class as Imran. Imran outclased him not ony as a bowler but also as a batmsan and leader. There is no comparison.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LahoriMunda: *
Kapil was never in the same class as Imran. Imran outclased him not ony as a bowler but also as a batmsan and leader. There is no comparison.
[/QUOTE]
I totally agree but we are not comparing Imran and Kapil here.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LahoriMunda: *
So its safe to assume players who have brilliant ODI records are better then others.
[/QUOTE]
That does not quite follow automatically from my statement.
I maintain that bowling/batting/fielding and running between the wickets is vastly improved today. Today's players have greater fitness levels and the demand on their stamina is much more....
In the end analysis (now that I have already wasted too much time in this thread), I will say that it is stupid to compare two players who played in two different eras.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Some1: *
Yes, I do feel that the cricketing standards today is much higher than yesteryears esp. with the advent of one-day cricket , the kind of which today is much different from Imran's era.
[/QUOTE]
thats such a ridiculous statement, level of cricket has gone down with the level of batting and bowling. the only level that has gone up is the level of fielding and overall competitiveness. top teams in those times like pak, WI, India, Aus and Eng were filled with quite a few great players in those days. its a different story these days, u hv only a bunch of world class batsman and bowlers and the others are whom u mite thing as "greats" are just gd and not extra-ordinary.
and one day cricket has brought down the level of cricket, it has not made it better. wat u see alot now is loads of bits n peices players...
if imran did so well in that era, he would have don even better in this era, just like batsmen gavaskar, zaheer, haynes, n others would have done against present day bowlers...
Compairing Imran with Sachin is like compairing apples with oranges. One was an all rounder, but primarily a bowler and one of the best captain around. The other is purely a batsmen. Both are legends and I for one cannot see how you can compare the two.
You cannot compare Sachin's batting skills with Imran and similarly Imran as a bowler and a captain was head and shoulders above Sachin.
The thread is therfore being closed.