Do you know that!

[FaaipDeOiad]

While I personally would certainly take '77-'83-Botham over '81\82-'91\92 Imran, I think that's still a little of a disservice to Imran. We are talking about someone who averaged 52.77 in 68 Test-match innings. Now however much you can't take stats as gospel, that is still some achievement and certainly that of one who is a little more than a servicable lower-order batsman.

Fair enough. Imran was a good batsman, he just wasn't a GREAT batsman.

 

[marc71178]

A player with a batting-average of 29 and a bowling-average of 37 IS NOT a very good player

Says the man who champions Craig White (batting average of 24, bowling of 38).

 

[Swervy]

Says the man who champions Craig White (batting average of 24, bowling of 38).

...quote from an old article about Flintoff (when I say old..i mean last year)

'...it is all just lies, damned lies and statistics. A visitor from Mars, or even Memphis, would think Thilan Samaraweera to be an alltime great. A visitor from Neptune, or Nebraska, would have no idea of the extraordinary impact Learie Constantine (Test batting average 19, bowling 30) had on the game. Nobody who has felt the Flintoff force doubts he is the most complete allrounder England have had since you-know-who. But it would be nice if those pesky stats showed it as well.'

 

[Swervy]

Fair enough. Imran was a good batsman, he just wasn't a GREAT batsman.

thats right..he was a good batsman who could get useful runs.

It is interesting to note that Imrans batting figures improved when he wasnt the main bowling threat or when he didnt bowl at all.


First 25 tests... ave 22 bat, 32 ball
Next 11 tests..ave 30 bat(1 hundred), 21 ball
Next 30 tests..ave 41 bat(3 hundreds), 18 ball
Next 15 tests..ave 72 bat(2 hundreds), 32 ball

I dont know what conclusions one can make from that, just thought it was interesting..although I do get the feeling that if this forum had have been going say in 1980, I think a lot of the 'stats' peiople would have written Imran off as a test dud

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

thats right..he was a good batsman who could get useful runs.

It is interesting to note that Imrans batting figures improved when he wasnt the main bowling threat or when he didnt bowl at all.


First 25 tests... ave 22 bat, 32 ball
Next 11 tests..ave 30 bat(1 hundred), 21 ball
Next 30 tests..ave 41 bat(3 hundreds), 18 ball
Next 15 tests..ave 72 bat(2 hundreds), 32 ball

I dont know what conclusions one can make from that, just thought it was interesting..although I do get the feeling that if this forum had have been going say in 1980, I think a lot of the 'stats' peiople would have written Imran off as a test dud

I don't think it says much aside from the fact that Imran continued to improve as a batsman while his bowling declined in his later years.

 

[Richard]

Says the man who champions Craig White (batting average of 24, bowling of 38).

Because so many times I've said White was a fantastic Test-match player over any lengthy period, haven't I?
All I've said is he had the potential to be, and was for a very, very short time.

 

[Richard]

You say that as if it is absolute fact that Botham had a drink problem!!!!...but then again who am I to argue with someone who works behind the counter in an offy....jeez, my uncle died an alcoholic and my brother in law is about to go into re-hab for it, but I certainly wouldnt call myself an expert in the field..I bow down to your superior knowledge

I don't simply work behind the counter, that's the thing - I've worked behind (and in front of) the counter for 20 months now - I've talked, at length, to God-knows-how-many customers, and you can tell those who just like getting ****ed, those who let it go a bit too far, and those who are unquestionably alcoholics. I've taken exams in licensing law, and the consequences of alcohol abuse, and the social responsibilites relating to licensees.
And while it's not absolute fact Botham had a drink problem (I never said it was - I said he had a problem with several combining factors which included drink) it is very well known that these combining factors contributed to his being a lesser player between 1983\84 and, perhaps, 1987\88, than he otherwise might have been.

 

[marc71178]

Because so many times I've said White was a fantastic Test-match player over any lengthy period, haven't I?
All I've said is he had the potential to be, and was for a very, very short time.

Yet, people are derided for saying the same about Botham.

 

[Richard]

Eh? No-one has ever, ever (as far as I've seen) said that Botham was a brilliant player for only an incredibly short time.
There is little or no parrallel between Botham and White's careers - all there is in common is potential.

 

[Sanz]

.. if this forum had have been going say in 1980, I think a lot of the 'stats' peiople would have written Imran off as a test dud

...and Botham as a better allrounder than Sobers.

 

[C_C]

The suggestion that someone who was a servicable lower order bat and adept at shepharding the tail is superior to someone who was, at his peak, one of the greatest and most devastating batsmen in the world simply because he had a higher average is just laughable, and it's exactly this sort of statistics obsession that is utterly beyond me.

Even at his absolute batting best, Botham didnt average 40 with the bat. Anything below that is in mediocre category. Kindly do not undervalue the word 'greatest'.
That is a mockery of batsmen like Gavaskar,Viv, Chappell, Border, Miandad, etc, all of whom could teach Botham a thing or three about batting.

I could name 10 Botham innings that are better than anything Imran ever came close to. He did a good job adding some runs on with the tail, especially later in his career, and a couple of times he cracked an easy hundred on a road to boost his team closer to a mammoth total. Botham played some of the greatest innings ever seen. There is no comparison.

And like i said, a few innings doesnt a batsman make.
By the same analogy, i can show you atleast two innings that VVS Laxman has played that Ponting hasn't and therefore by the same extension of your logic, VVS is so far ahead of Ponting that there isnt any comparison.
Agreed ?

 

[C_C]

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.

Again, like i said, do not undervalue the word 'magnificient'. I consider 'magnificient' to be a reserve of perhaps the top 50 batsmen ever. Botham had atleast a dozen and half batsmen who were better than him in his own era, a dozen and half in this era and a few dozen batsmen preceeding him that were far superior.
Botham has no business being classified as a magnificient batsman.
Infact, none of them were magnificient batsmen but Imran came the closest to being one.

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.

And as far as i am concerned, if every single bowler and batsman retired right after their absolute peak, you would have quiete a few batsmen averaging 60-70 and quiete a few bowlers averaging 15-20.

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.

Simple fact of the matter is, Botham was worked out. I've been told myself by a contemporary international of Botham's era that once batsmen were content to let his prodigious outswingers go by harmlessly, Botham was clueless what to do next, as that was his primary breadwinning delivery.
He was worked out in the last half of his bowling career -something that lasted a decade or so. Get over it.
As per his batting goes, its just one little thing- he was brutally exposed by the west indies four prong.
Anyone who doesnt perform against the best of the best isnt the best. Simple as that.
Botham's performance against the best of his time- WI- were so far behind that of the other three allrounders, that it isnt funny.

To SJS:

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

I fail to see how so, since Imran's peak was far more impressive, despite battling injuries- he had a superior batting record and a bowling record that blows Botham to bits.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

By the same analogy, i can show you atleast two innings that VVS Laxman has played that Ponting hasn't and therefore by the same extension of your logic, VVS is so far ahead of Ponting that there isnt any comparison.
Agreed ?

Err no, because Ponting has played many great innings. Laxman's 281 is better than any innings anyone in the world currently has played, with the possible exception of Brian Lara, but that doesn't mean he is one of the best batsman, because there are other players who have put in brilliant performances. Imran never played brilliant innings with the bat (with one exception), because he wasn't a brilliant batsman. Botham played many.

Have a look at Imran's 100+ scores:
1980 vs West Indies - 123. Came out of 369 in a drawn match against quite a good bowling attack, came in at 5/95... undoubtedly his finest moment as a batsman.
1983 vs India - 117. Came out of a team score of 652 in a 10 wicket win, as the fourth century maker in the innings. Came in at 5/367. Bowling attack... included Mohinder Amarnath bowling second change. His only century in a match which finished with a result.
1987 vs India - 135. Came out of a team score of 487 in a drawn match. Came in at 6/257. Another terrible bowling attack, with Maninder Singh, Yadav and Ravi Shastri sending down 138 overs between them.
1987 vs England - 118. Came out of a team score of 708 in a drawn match, third century in innings. Came in at 4/382.
1989 vs India - 109. Came out of a team score of 409 in a drawn match. Came in at 4/233. Bowling attack had Prabhakar opening the bowling and Ankola, Shastri and Ayub as the spinners.
1990 vs Australia - 136. Came out of a team score of 387 in a drawn match. His fifth century in a draw, and his first and only in the second innings. Came in at 3/7. Bowling attack of Hughes, Campbell, Rackeman and Taylor.

That's all there is. As I have said, Imran was always a good lower-order batsman and later in his career developed into someone worthy of a specialist position. Botham hit his peak in bowling and batting at the same time, and that is exactly why, as SJS said, he is the best of the four in terms of combined ability at his peak - he was a match-winner with both bat and ball, while Imran was never a match-winner with the bat, even at his batting peak.

In comparison to Imran, Botham had more than twice as many centuries (14 to 6), and was ALWAYS worthy of a specialist position, except at the end of his career when he should not have been playing at all. He thrived in the situations where nobody else could score, and several times won games off his own bat. The 1981 Ashes was a series of powerhouse performances that Imran never matched as an all-rounder.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Simple fact of the matter is, Botham was worked out. I've been told myself by a contemporary international of Botham's era that once batsmen were content to let his prodigious outswingers go by harmlessly, Botham was clueless what to do next, as that was his primary breadwinning delivery.

Funny then that in the period he was supposedly "worked out" he was no longer BOWLING his "prodigious outswingers", due to weight and injury problems. I suppose that's just a co-incidence though, right? That when his bowling massively changed, he suffered repeated back injuries and his performances visibly declined in the mind of every person who saw him at the time, and he could no longer swing it in the fashion that led him to be dominant early in his career, his average went up? Who would have thought!

 

[C_C]

Imran at his peak(bowling + batting): 1980-1987

Matches: 54
Innings : 70
Not Outs: 19
Total Runs: 2589
Average: 50.76
HS : 136
C: 5
F: 16
Total Wickets: 227
Average: 19.08
Strike Rate: 47.2
B-B: 8-58
5wkts: 15
10 wickets: 5
---------------------------

Botham has NOWHERE CLOSE to this record in terms of 'batting and bowling' peak.

Imran's batting peak:

Matches: 51
Inings: 65
Not outs: 18
Total Runs: 2494
Average: 53.06
HS: 136
C: 5
F: 15
---------------------------

Botham's batting peak was nowehre CLOSE to this.


Imran's bowling peak:

Matches: 35
Total wickets: 184
Average: 15.92
B-B: 8-58
5wkts: 14
10wkts:3
St/R: 42.2
----------------------------

Botham's bowling peak was NOWHERE close to this.

Conclusion: Imran blows Botham outta the ballpark when it comes to cumulative bowling peak, batting peak and allround peak.

In anycase, a player isnt determined by his peak performance, his worth his determined by his overall performance and consistency. Imran had higher highs than Botham and Botham's lows were a helluva lot lower than Imran's too.

Err no, because Ponting has played many great innings. Laxman's 281 is better than any innings anyone in the world currently has played, with the possible exception of Brian Lara, but that doesn't mean he is one of the best batsman, because there are other players who have put in brilliant performances. Imran never played brilliant innings with the bat (with one exception), because he wasn't a brilliant batsman. Botham played many.

So you honestly mean to say you cannot find a single innings of Imran's that is a quality batting knock ? In that case, look harder.
You argued that Botham has 10-or so knocks the like of which Imran never even dreamed of playing and thus is much better batsman.
My counter is, Laxman has played 2 or 3 knocks, the likes of which Ponting never even dreamed of playing, thus Laxman is a much better batsman.
That is logically consistent.

Imran batted lower down the order because like i said, his beleif was that the team's potential could be maximised if some credible batsman stuck it out with the lower order and milked out as much runs as he could.
The idea that he was an extremely competent batsman is proved by the fact that he was excellent up the order as well. He averaged 54 with the bat at #5 and 61 with the bat at #6.
He simply chose not to bat up the order- which is why he has lower # of hundreds. But then again, unless you are talking about blazing geniuses like Sobers or Gillchrist, #6 and below traditionally have a lower century rate than # 1-5, simply because they get stranded with the tail.

As per Imran never matching Botham's 1981 ashes, i disagree.

Botham batted rather well that series - scored 399 runs @ 36.27 with 2 centuries and 1 fifties, including a legendary match where he took 10 wickets and scored a ton.
He also proceeded to take 34 wickets @ 20.58 with 3 five-fers and 1 10-fer.

Imran's best 'allround' series was against India- he scored 324 runs @ 64.80 with 1 century and 2 fifties and proceeded to take 40 wickets @ 13.95, with 4 five-fers and 2 10-fers. He also had a century and 10-fer in a match.

On both counts he overshadows Botham's best series- batting and bowling, but significantly so in the bowling.
If you adjust for the quality of the opposition, Imran still edges it in my opinion or at the least, its pretty close.
But the point is,Imran has very much matched botham's best performances.

Facts prove you wrong- Imran simply was a better batsman, bowler and allrounder than any of the three, particularly Botham.
if anyone is worthy of his place in the side as a specialist batsman, its Imran Khan, who had 50+ average with the bat for over 50+ matches, along with consistent performances.
Not Botham, who was erratic, scored double as many centuries as Imran but didnt average anywhere CLOSE to what Imran did. Centuries or no centuries, i will take a 50+ average batsman any day of the week over a 35-40 average batsman.
Especially considering the batsman in question batted lower down the order and thus missed a lot of opportunities, unlike Botham.

Not to mention,Imran's quality and Botham's hype was brutally exposed against the best team of their times- West Indies.
While Imran struggled to a 27 batting average, Botham bombed out with a meager 21 batting average. And while Imran was stellar with the ball with 21 bowling average, botham got his **** handed to him on a platter with a 35 bowling average.
There is no comparison really. Imran Khan owns Botham, lock, stock and barrell.
Actually, its bloody close between Imran Khan and Sobers as far as the greatest allrounder of all time goes- i will still give it to Sobers, but by a whisker.
After Imran, i would rate the next best as Keith Miller, followed by Kapil,Mankad,Botham,Pollock,Kallis,Hadlee,Cairns,Benaud and Greig. In that order.

 

[C_C]

Funny then that in the period he was supposedly "worked out" he was no longer BOWLING his "prodigious outswingers", due to weight and injury problems.

Get a hold of english test cricket tapes. Botham was outswinging it prodigiously till 1987 and then it went downhill.
His alsoran bowling was murdered by the best batsmen of the day- the calypso kings.Imran on the other hand, owned the calypso kings and remains the only bowler to have knocked down Viv Richards in international cricket.

 

[SJS]

I don't think it says much aside from the fact that Imran continued to improve as a batsman while his bowling declined in his later years.

I would ammend it slightly.

As his bowling declined, Imran, who was captain, worked very hard on his batting and the results showed.

Kapils faced with similar situation, did not do so and concentrated on breaking Hadlee's 431 wickets record. This led to people talking of Kapil having played past his "use-by" date.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that instead of the bowling record, if Kapils had decided he would play as a batsman , primarily, and worlked on it, he was talented enough to have really flourished with the bat.

There lies the difference in the men that Kapil and Imran were.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

His alsoran bowling was murdered by the best batsmen of the day- the calypso kings.Imran on the other hand, owned the calypso kings and remains the only bowler to have knocked down Viv Richards in international cricket.

The only bowler? Hardly. Take another look at the 75/76 series in Australia. Richards was flourishing at that point into the awesome player he would be later in his career, and he and Lillee had some epic battles in the series, but Lillee won overall. Richards came to Australia with a big reputation on the back of his obvious talent and his astonishing 192* in his second test match.

By the end of 1976 he would have 7 test match centuries (two of them doubles), have an average in the mid 60s and have set himself up for lifetime recognition of one of the most destructive players ever seen. In his remaining two series that year he would average 92 against India and 118 against England. Against Australia over 6 tests he averaged 38 with one great hundred, and Lillee (who was not at his best fitness wise and did not play every test), dismissed him 5 times, while Thompson (who WAS at his absolute best in 1975/76, the only time he was ever truly brilliant in test cricket) dismissed him 3 times.

Other bowlers got on top of him throughout his career from time to time as well. Lillee dimissed him the most times, but in fact Kapil Dev and the much maligned Ian Botham dismissed him 7 times each, more than Imran's 5. Some spinners got on top of him, with even below average bowlers like Border (3 dismissals) and Ravi Shastri (4) having the better of him at times. He was a great batsman, but he wasn't an invincible god that nobody ever touched.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Actually, its bloody close between Imran Khan and Sobers as far as the greatest allrounder of all time goes- i will still give it to Sobers, but by a whisker.
After Imran, i would rate the next best as Keith Miller, followed by Kapil,Mankad,Botham,Pollock,Kallis,Hadlee,Cairns,Benaud and Greig. In that order.

Kapil and Mankad better than Botham? Even if you go on averages over their entire careers Botham is better than Mankad, and the second half of Botham's career he was a shadow of his former self!

 

[C_C]

he only bowler? Hardly. Take another look at the 75/76 series in Australia. Richards was flourishing at that point into the awesome player he would be later in his career, and he and Lillee had some epic battles in the series, but Lillee won overall.

Its sheer propaganda that Lillee won overall.
Sheer propaganda accentuated by the fact that AUS thumped WI 5-1

Have a look at their series-wide performances. Lillee averaged 26.37 with the ball- by no means an 'awesome performance'.
Viv averaged 38.73- by no means an awesome performance.
So it was basically a tie between Viv and Lillee that series.
Arguing otherwise is simply arguing propaganda.
Infact, Andy Roberts took 22 wickets at 26.36- exact same average as Lillee...yet, is he EVER mentioned in association to that series ?
No.
Why ?
because of the hyperbole that is associated with wins.
But cutting out the bulldust, the fact remains- Lillee didnt do 'superbly' in that series as is potrayed- he got collared a few times and he dominated a few times.

By the way, when i meant 'knocked down', i meant physically knocked down.
Imran Khan is the only man in international cricket to literally fell Viv Richards.

And how many times you dismissed someone is rather irrelevant really.
You can dismiss me 10 times outta 10 if you want but if i score 10 centuries in those 10 innings, i own your hiney. Simple as that.
Besides, care to compare how many times Botham faced off vs Richards and how many times Imran did ?

As per comparing Botham with Mankad, bear in mind we are comparing spinners with pacers- we cannot do a simple average-wise comparison, because if we did that, then Merv Dillon is not much behind Bishen Bedi and there isnt much to pick and choose from between Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie.
For a spinner, Mankad was simply top class. He was a brilliant fielder in his own right and as a batsman, he was pretty much in Botham category as well.
Mankad's batting stats suffered unduly, because he was never allowed to settle at a position- he remains one of the few, if not the only batsman ever to bat at all 11 batting positions.
However, his class is displayed by the fact that he averaged 40+ as a batsman.
And since you are so fond of a few innings here and there, it should be a no brainer for you, since Mankad has played a few stunning innings in his own right as well- that too, against the best bowling attack of his time( Australia), unlike Botham, who flopped massively against the best of his time(West Indies).

And Kapil was better than Botham.
There isnt much to pick and choose from their overall stats- despite the fact that Kapil had much inferior bowling support than Botham did. There isnt much to choose between their batting either.Kapil was much more consistent throughout his career and unlike Botham, he aquitted himself very well against the best batting and bowling unit of his time- the west indies.
Botham was a much better fielder than kapil but Kapil was a significantly better captain, considering that Botham was one of the poorest in history.