Do you know that!

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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.

spot on...Imran as a batsman just wasnt the same kinda player Botham was. You can look at all the statistics but THE telling one is the number of hundreds they got. Botham had the ability to go on to score big..and fast..and turn games around in the blink of an eye...Imran actually didnt have the natural abilty with the bat to do that...he was a batsman who fought through his not so amazing talent and infact developed a good technique that allowed him to score useful runs.

Botham was, quite simply, THE biggest match winner of the four. Yeah fair enough, he wasnt the player he was after 1982...but he still gave the odd great performance after 82 as well. If he had have retired in 82/83, he and Sobers would have been light years ahead of any one else..he didnt retire, that shouldnt dampen how people think of him for his 5 year peak. During that time its no contest..Botham all the way.

[C_C]

Imran was a far better batsman than Botham or Kapil or Hadlee ever could DREAM of being.
he maintained a 50+ batting average for the last 55 matches of his career, which spanned the last 10-12 years of his career.
Botham has come nowhere close to this.
As per lack of high scores, its primarily because Imran batted down the order in what was a strong batting lineup for most of his career, unlike botham who batted in a wonky lineup.
This had nothing to do with lacking the capability to bat up the order, simply because of Imran's prevailing viewpoint that the lower order needs a credible batsman to shepherd the tail consistenty and milk out as much runs as possible- Imran averages over 40 when batting in positions higher than #7.

As per decieding who is better and who isnt, one or two innings isnt the guage- consistency is. For if i am to quote a random innings outta the hat, VVS Laxman is a better batsman than Steve Waugh,Tendulkar,Dravid,Ponting,Viv Richards etc etc., since he has played a knock that none of those names have.

IMO, Imran was capable enough to walk into any team based on his batting or bowling alone. None of the other three were and in the case of Kapil and Botham, neither their bowling nor their batting were strong enough to merit inclusion on either one of the attributes in a very strong team.

[C_C]

, that shouldnt dampen how people think of him for his 5 year peak.

his peak was impressive. However, not as impressive as Imran's 5-year peak.
Imran had a superior batting average and as far as bowling goes, i havn't come across a bowler yet in the post war era who had a 5 year peak bowling average of 14-15 runs/wicket, for over 150 wickets.
But whats more important than peak is the median performance. Kapil, Imran and Hadlee were much more consistent with their performances, unlike Botham.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by C_C

his peak was impressive. However, not as impressive as Imran's 5-year peak.
Imran had a superior batting average and as far as bowling goes, i havn't come across a bowler yet in the post war era who had a 5 year peak bowling average of 14-15 runs/wicket, for over 150 wickets.
But whats more important than peak is the median performance. Kapil, Imran and Hadlee were much more consistent with their performances, unlike Botham.

It comes down to more than the average..I guess you just had to be there

[Richard]

It comes down to very little other than average. Botham from 1982\83 onwards was not much of a bowler and from 1983\84 onwards was not that much of a batsman.
But those facts DO NOT detract from the fact that for over half his career he was a quite magnificent batsman and for not far from half he was an unbelievably good bowler.
As far as I'm concerned it'd have been better for the game of cricket and for England if Botham had realised what was to happen to him and retired after 1983. Then no-one would be able to put about this rubbish about him being worked-out. Simple fact of the matter is, his bowling degenerated for blatantly obvious reasons, and for whatever reason he didn't bat anywhere near as well in the final 3rd of his career as he had in the first 2\3s. But that didn't have anything to do with being worked-out, as no specific flaw continued to get him out.

[SJS]

Of the four allrounders talked off. Botham was the most gifted and, at his best, without doubt the best of the lot.

As a batsman. He was the best of the lot. Period. If you have seen them bat, you wouldnt talk stats. There was no comparison between him and the others in batting.

As a fielder. He was one of the greatest all round fielders of al time. Again the other three were simply not in the same league.

As a bowler. It is as a bowler alone that he could be considered close to the bottom of that impressive heap. Imran and Hadlee were superior bowlers overall (even if Botham had ended his career half way through) but he (Botham) and kapil were not the same bowlers towards the later part of their careers as in the earlier. For Botham this latter part was nearly half his career. One can give various reasons for his bowling declining but the facts remain more or less as stated.

As an all rounder, its difficult to pick throughout their careers since Hadlee was a mediocre batsman for a long spell and Botham as stated was a mediocre bowler for a long spell. Imran flowered as a batsman much later in his career.

But if you take them at their peaks and only at their peak period, Botham was the greatest all rounder of the lot.

The only one who came close to being another Gary Sobers from this lot was Botham in the early part of his career.

He was a match winner with both bat and ball.

Imran and Hadlee were match winners with the ball and sometimes won/mostly saved batting situations. Kapil was a pure all rounder and could be a match winner with both bat and ball but was less of a batsman than Botham and far lesser as a bowler than the other two.

Having watched all four throughout their careers was a great privilege.

[Adamc]

Originally Posted by SJS

Imran and Headley were superior bowlers overall

[Richard]

I'm sure Deano would be flattered but equally I'm sure he'd be embarrased that anyone could mix him up with SRJH.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Adamc

I often make this mistake.

[Richard]

Really, why?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Richard

Really, why?

I dont know this is the third time I have done this on this forum

[honestbharani]

Maybe you actually rate The Great Dean Headley so much. I am telling you guys, if you are an English selector, listen to SJS, pick Headley. He will bring the Ashes home.

[Richard]

Shame his back-injury forced him to retire 5 years ago.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

It comes down to very little other than average. Botham from 1982\83 onwards was not much of a bowler and from 1983\84 onwards was not that much of a batsman.
But those facts DO NOT detract from the fact that for over half his career he was a quite magnificent batsman and for not far from half he was an unbelievably good bowler.
As far as I'm concerned it'd have been better for the game of cricket and for England if Botham had realised what was to happen to him and retired after 1983. Then no-one would be able to put about this rubbish about him being worked-out. Simple fact of the matter is, his bowling degenerated for blatantly obvious reasons, and for whatever reason he didn't bat anywhere near as well in the final 3rd of his career as he had in the first 2\3s. But that didn't have anything to do with being worked-out, as no specific flaw continued to get him out.

You see this is what annoys me about people who use statistics and averages etc as the be all and end all.

Yes Bothams figures slipped a lot after 83, and that has contributed greatly to his average looking averages. But the fact is, the need of the team should always be greater than the need to fluff up ones averages.

England needed Botham in that team for much of the time after his peak. He still was an amazing talent with the bat (in 1985, I would defy anyone to find a batsman who was in better nick than Botham, and that includes Gower....the fact that he didnt score as many runs as say Gower was due to the differing roles those two played)...he was good enough to play for England as a batsman alone. OK , his success rate wasnt as good as it should have been, but there was absolutley no players in England who could take over his role (if anyone dares utter Derek Pringle...!!!! ).

Botham still was good enough to be able to put in one or two world class performances a series even after his peak. (and when I say world class, I mean WORLD CLASS, not just your average Man Of The Match type performaces)(eg. his astonishing 8 wickets vs WI,his 103 vs NZ in 83,100 in NZ in 83, 138 vs Australia in 86, his 50 vs Pakistan in 87 batting with Gatting to save the match..and of course the greatest 18 runs ever scored in test matches vs Australia in 85 )

Of course there were times he played like crap...but that was the nature of the beast. His presence in the England team meant more than just runs and wickets.

[Richard]

It did? How do we know that, then? Were England a team consistently "punching above weight" in the mid-1980s?
Yes, Botham could still put-in extraordinary performances but is it REALLY worth picking a player for 40 games if he might turn 2 of them on their heads? I say no, myself.
I have not disputed that Botham was still incredibly talented with the bat between 1983\84 and 1987 - because I've said countless times that ability does not simply disappear. But for whatever reasons, by-and-large he wasn't performing.
As for the need of the team is greater than the need to maintain averages... fact is, if you're doing poorly (and averaging poorly as a result) the team suffers. A player with a batting-average of 29 and a bowling-average of 37 IS NOT a very good player, however well he's done previously. And as such he's not going to contribute positively to very many matches. As such, it might be an idea to replace him with someone who is, rather than keeping him going because of something he did 5 years ago. No, there wasn't another all-rounder around - there very, very rarely is. Test-class all-rounders are exceedingly rare. But as we've found-out on countless occasions, picking mediocre all-rounders (which fact is Botham WAS from 1983\84 onwards) is in fact worse than picking a specialist.