Do you know that!

[Richard]

They are, never denied it, just said you've got to get rid of them to get the real picture.

[C_C]

I think it is fairly accurate to compare averages in the same era.
Cross era comparisons are largely dubious.

That being said, i don't think Botham retired 'too late' - unless you mean he retired a decade or so too late ( 83-92 stats are 29 batting ave. and 37 bowling ave- terrible ).
Its one thing having success for over a decade or so and then tailing off near the end of one's career ( ala Viv) and having 5-6 stunning seasons and then sucking for the next 10. Its called being 'found out'.
Botham was 'found out' as a bowler and largely curbed as a batsman. Pure and simple.
IMO, out of the 'big 4' allrounders of his era(Imran,Kapil,Hadlee and himself), he ranks as the worst overall.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Craig

Accept it Richard, Bangladesh are an official Test playing nation, so therefore their Tests are official.

unofficialy their Tests are a joke

[age_master]

what shows how good flower is/was is that compared to the averages of his Zimbabwean team mates and in that context, and its comparible to a S Waugh or AB average for mine.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by C_C

I think it is fairly accurate to compare averages in the same era.
Cross era comparisons are largely dubious.

That being said, i don't think Botham retired 'too late' - unless you mean he retired a decade or so too late ( 83-92 stats are 29 batting ave. and 37 bowling ave- terrible ).
Its one thing having success for over a decade or so and then tailing off near the end of one's career ( ala Viv) and having 5-6 stunning seasons and then sucking for the next 10. Its called being 'found out'.
Botham was 'found out' as a bowler and largely curbed as a batsman. Pure and simple.
IMO, out of the 'big 4' allrounders of his era(Imran,Kapil,Hadlee and himself), he ranks as the worst overall.

No, he wasn't found-out, he was very clearly afflicted by injury (only had himself to blame for it, he was overweight, but had he maintained fitness he'd have gone on far longer).
If you can tell me how a batting average of 37.36 after 66 Tests and a bowling average of 20.93 after 42 qualifies him as being a worse batsman than Richard Hadlee and worse bowler than Kapil, I'd like to hear how.
Simple fact is, out of 102 Tests, Botham was a very, very fine batsman for 66 of them and a quite magnificent bowler for 42.
For the other 60 he was a wholly mediocre bowler and for the other 43 he was a below-average batsman, while still playing the odd match-winning innings. But as so often, using the time (5 years to 10) is actually incredibly misleading, when what matters is number of matches.
But like many players, his career can be clearly split into two parts and in the first he was easily the best of the big-four; in the second clearly the worst.

[C_C]

But like many players, his career can be clearly split into two parts and in the first he was easily the best of the big-four; in the second clearly the worst.

The best of the big four is Imran Khan. End of story.
50+ batting average and 20 bowling average AT THE SAME TIME for the last 55 tests he played is sufficient enough for me to consider him a rival for Sobers.

Simply put, botham's batting AND bowling for the last 10 years of his career were extremely mediocre.
And like i said, its a classic case of being found out, ala Jimmy Adams- a few seasons of brilliance followed by double the seasons of codswallop.
Just stretch Jimmy Adam's career by 2x and you get a parallell with Botham.
the other three either improved with time(Imran) or maintained an excellent level of performance for the bulk of their careers. But in any case where you have a stunning start and then the bulk of the rest mired in mediocrity, it is a rather simple case of being found out.
Found out belatedly perhaps but found out nonetheless.

[Richard]

Except for Botham easily more than half his batting career is very good; and considerably more than a third of his bowling career is stunningly good.
And the loss of form later can be explained easily by injury and weight problems, not sussing-out of opposition.
Of course Imran was the best overall, and of course he was the best in the later stage of his career, I don't know what the need to post that was, I'd imagine most people know that. Nonetheless Imran in his first 35 Tests was merely a reasonable lower-order batsman; he also bowled exceptionally poorly very early on and was nothing particularly special in his first 15 Tests.

[C_C]

Except for Botham easily more than half his batting career is very good; and considerably more than a third of his bowling career is stunningly good.

I consider Imran and Hadlee to be the only allrounders of that era who could be genuine contenders for an alltime XI based on their bowling alone. However, neither Kapil and nor Botham can make the alltime XI either on their batting alone or their bowling alone.
As such, their batting and bowling must be seen in conjunction with each other.

# of matches must be balanced with # of years to get an accurate picture. A player can play a disproportionate # of matches when hot and then play much less when not so hot.
A player doesnt get found out simply by playing a lot, a player gets found out over time. Whether you squeeze in 50 matches before being found out or 10 is largely irrelevant.
The fact that Botham played over 50% of his matches in a 5 year stretch near the beginning of his 14 year career says to me that he was found out later on and was lucky enough to get a lotta matches in that phase of his career. Many players arn't so lucky.

But after 1982, for the next 10 years Botham was a shyte bowler and a below par batsman ( 29 batting ave. is below-par). And unlike Richards of Kapil, his figures arn't ruined by the last 3-4 years of his career when he was 'getting on' in age and 'overstaying' his welcome, his figures are ruined by 10 years of mediocrity.

[Richard]

And those 10 years form less than half his career.
It takes matches, not time, to figure someone out. The more exposure you get, the more likely you are to be worked-out.
What a ridiculous idea that he was fortunate enough to play a large number of matches in a short space of time. Yet you don't understand the basic idea that bowlers are lucky if all their wickets come from poor strokes!

[C_C]

It takes matches, not time, to figure someone out. T

Disagree.
It takes TIME to figure someone out.
Primarily because you 'figure out' or try to figure out someone while analysing them- which is done AFTER the match and not during the match in such detail.
it also comes with time when you face a player more often.

Yet you don't understand the basic idea that bowlers are lucky if all their wickets come from poor strokes!

Thats not a basic idea. thats just basic idiocy. We have tried telling you that 1. McGrath has more variety than ANY pace bowler in the last 15 years barring Akram and 2. batsmen who face McGrath confirm the same and 3. 'poor strokes' can be induced.
But then again, you know more about batting than Dravid or Tendulkar i presume....

What a ridiculous idea that he was fortunate enough to play a large number of matches in a short space of time.

He was lucky to play a large number of matches in a short span of time early on in his career before he was figured out. That is just luck of the draw. Some folks happen to miss a lot of their prime through injuries or lack of opportunities and some make hay before they are smashed around for eternity (Botham).

But like i said- any player who has 4-5 years of excellence followed by 10 years of mediocrity is a player who was simply 'found out'.

[shaka]

No offence to Bangladesh or Zimbabwe, but Flower did often face the world best bowlers, and an average of over 50 has to be counted as impressive.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by C_C

Botham was 'found out' as a bowler and largely curbed as a batsman. Pure and simple.
IMO, out of the 'big 4' allrounders of his era(Imran,Kapil,Hadlee and himself), he ranks as the worst overall.

Botham was a mercurial player. He was capable of some of the most stunning feats of brilliance ever seen on a cricket field, but his average game was, well, average. Imran was more consistent, but was not even in the same league as Ian in terms of batting ability. Imran was servicable and played an important role with the bat, but he was never a match-winner. Look at his big scores - almost all of them come in team scores of 500+ in drawn games on flat pitches. Botham's crowning moment with the bat was 149 coming in over 100 runs down AFTER following-on, on a tricky wicket (Australia were skittled for just over 100 on this wicket), against a lethal bowling attack. Imran never came anywhere near anything like this. Nor did he achieve anything like Bothams effort in India in 1980 where, on another seamer-friendly pitch, he took England from 5/58 to 296 with a century, and picked up 13/106 for the match with the ball.

Simply put, Botham when he was a good player (first half of his career) was a big game and big occasion player. When nobody else could do it, he turned it on and did amazing things. Imran was a fantastic bowler at his peak, probably even better than Botham was at his, and he was a reliable batsman. Botham was never reliable, but he was brilliant with the bat, something Imran never was. We've discussed him before, and I think you SEVERELY underrate Botham as a player (as you do many Englishmen in fact, any particular reason for that?) and you also underrate the value of a player who can win games outright with a spectacular performance as opposed to those who simply do their bit in each game, win or lose.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by C_C

But like i said- any player who has 4-5 years of excellence followed by 10 years of mediocrity is a player who was simply 'found out'.

Obviously that depends, doesn't it? If a player sufferes a severe injury and never performs to their previous standard after it (eg Terry Alderman) they aren't found out. Botham suffered from a lack of fitness, application and various other off-field problems far more than being found-out. An example of being found out is Steve Waugh's bouncer trouble early in his career, or Ganguly's bouncer trouble later in his career. Botham never had any particular weakness that anyone discovered and worked on - he just wasn't as good after the first few years. He had a peak from around 78 to 82 where he displayed Sobersesque brilliance, and then a long period where he got progressively worse.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by C_C

Disagree.
It takes TIME to figure someone out.
Primarily because you 'figure out' or try to figure out someone while analysing them- which is done AFTER the match and not during the match in such detail.
it also comes with time when you face a player more often.

And in short all you need is video-evidence, and you can do it in a couple of hours. Before about 1995, however, video-analysis was a very rare thing, so the more someone played the more likely they were to have something that could be worked-out worked-out.

Thats not a basic idea. thats just basic idiocy. We have tried telling you that 1. McGrath has more variety than ANY pace bowler in the last 15 years barring Akram and 2. batsmen who face McGrath confirm the same and 3. 'poor strokes' can be induced.

Yes, you have, and I've said that 1 doesn't really matter very much, 2 is a part of 1 and 3 requires more than simply bowling accurately and a bit of variation in pace or angle.

But then again, you know more about batting than Dravid or Tendulkar i presume....

I certainly don't know significantly less, however poor I am compared to them at putting it into practice.

He was lucky to play a large number of matches in a short span of time early on in his career before he was figured out. That is just luck of the draw. Some folks happen to miss a lot of their prime through injuries or lack of opportunities and some make hay before they are smashed around for eternity (Botham).

But like i said- any player who has 4-5 years of excellence followed by 10 years of mediocrity is a player who was simply 'found out'.

No, he's not, not if he played 60 matches in 5 years and 3 in the next 10. It's matches, not years, that make a percentage of a career and you are wholly stupid if you think otherwise.

[badgerhair]

Originally Posted by C_C

But like i said- any player who has 4-5 years of excellence followed by 10 years of mediocrity is a player who was simply 'found out'.

It isn't being found out when you have to change your action radically and can no longer swing the ball both ways (1980), and it isn't being found out when subsequently you find that your back won't let you put enough effort to swing it more than the occasional tad in the one direction you have left (1983). It is losing the abilities which made you the youngest bowler to 100 wickets or whatever it was, not people getting used to you, that makes you much easier to play.

On the other hand, ignore me. It's mildly amusing watching the man who doesn't believe Botham's bowling ever changed arguing with the man who doesn't believe Flintoff's bowling has ever changed.

Cheers,

Mike