Do you know that!

[SJS]

To compare two batsmen and their relative merits AS BATSMEN, purely on the basis of their career averages (or averages over a period of their careers), shows ones total inability to look at cricket and cricketing skills and analyse individual performances during ones career. The sum of a cricketer's is his performances over his career and these cant be evaluated by just clubbing all the figures together to come to a total picture of his worth as a cricketer.

You dont need to know much about the game to compare stats in cold terms. Unfortunately that doesnt make you an authority on the game.

Unfortunately, a large proportion of the game's followers cant do much better than that so the media also concentrates on the same. Unfortunately, in places like the subcontinent, those asked by the media to cover the game also, a very large proportion of them, are very poor students of the game as such so stats are a very convinient fast-food for these arm-chair-critics.

To say that two batsmen are, more or less equal, equal if their career averages are the same is to say that Imran is as good a batsman as Atherton. !!! The difference in their averages being 0.01 per innings !!!

Even if one is incapable of looking at anything other than stats, one could do beter than look at just the average.

If one saw that while averaging the same, Atherton scored 16 centuries and 46 fifities (in 115 tests) while Imran scored 6 100's and 18 fifties (in 88 tests) one would be forced to think what this meant.

In his first 88 tests, (to compare with Imrans eventual 88)
Botham scored 4809 runs at 35.4 per innings
& Imran scored 3807runs at 37.7 per innings

ONE THOUSAND RUNS MORE in the same number of tests !! Bu**er the average !!

Botham's runs included 14 hundreds and 21 fifties with a top score of 208
& Imran's runs included 6 hundreds and 18 fifties with a top score of 137

MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY HUNDREDS in the same number of tests!! Bu**er the average !!

To put it differently, to score 3806 runs in test matches

Imran
-averaged 37.7
-scored 6 hundreds doing it
-took 88 tests to do it

Botham
-averaged 36.4
- scored 13 hundreds doing it
- took 67 tests to do it !!

Botham took 21 tests less to do what Imran did over his career and in the process scored 13 centuries to his 6 !! Averages be bu**ered !!



I repeat, stats are an imperfect tool to measure relative merits of two players but for those who insist, integrity would dictate looking at more details.

 

[SJS]

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

Yes he played very solidly on the last part of his career. but this average is "helped" a BIT by 8 not outs in 21 innings.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I thought that we had a thread that proved that stats were the be-all and end-all, and then you go and post all of this? I don't think I know you anymore...

 

[SJS]

I thought that we had a thread that proved that stats were the be-all and end-all, and then you go and post all of this? I don't think I know you anymore...

Forgive me pleeeeeaaaase !!

PS : Between you and me, I am propogating to the J"ohnny-come-latelies" that if they want to use stats, they better come to us and get trained on how to do a good job of it

 

[C_C]

Au contraire,SJS- it is you who display your ignorance about the fundamentals of the game and cling to the popular version as opposed to the logical version.
Statistics ARE the bottomline. Because they are the most concrete and unbiassed method of guaging the performance of a said player.

Imran was as good as Atherton- infact, he was better. I say so.
Atherton pre back injury was pretty good but post back injury, he was mediocre.

As per # of runs in the same # of tests it only proves your inability to grasp statistical significance.
It is irrelevant how many matches you've played. What is relevant is how many times you've batted and at what position.
How are you gonna score runs if you havn't batted ?
Imran has a 1000 less runs than Botham.
Imran also batted in 14 less innings than Botham.

And the fact that Imran has less 50+ scores than botham is explained by the fact that he batted lower down the order(thus he has a higher % of not outs) and has a lot more scores between 20-50.
Botham has been not out only six times in his career- that shows he got the opportunity to bat till he got out a lot more than Imran and thus has more runs.
But runs are irrelevant without the average. Even my granny can score 10,000 test runs if you give her a couple of thousand test innings.
If you had an iota of statistical understanding, you'd realise why the average is the single biggest statistical guage for excellence in cricket.

And i have looked statistics at a much more detailed view and concluded that Botham was no match for Imran as a batsman - at peak or at overall career.

Statistics is the best tool to guage a player- it is devoid of emotionalism, idiocy and outright fabrications- its all present in the data.
Anybody who claims otherwise is still stuck in the days of tea party cricket and as any professional will tell you, its not a sunday picnic. It is a professional sport. So get on with the time.

 

[C_C]

but this average is "helped" a BIT by 8 not outs in 21 innings.

This line alone proves your total ineptness at statistical analysis. I will be more than happy to teach you how to interpret statistics correctly and accurately in the future if you have the humility to ask.
something i doubt very much.

Your attempted potrayal of 'average is the bread and butter of the illiterate' is not only quentessential classist attitude, it is also erroneous. you see, i happen to be extremely well educated in matters of science and it aint a boast that i could most probably coach you in statistical analysis. So next time you try that 'these guys don't know what they are talkin about', i suggest you get a bit more substence and a bit less colour and fanfare based smokescreen.

Disregards!

 

[marc71178]

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.

Miller and Mankad, both of whom played against namby pambies - and Mankad's record wasn't even that good against them...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

A few things...

Firstly, Andy Roberts was brilliant that series, and every thing I have ever read about it has said exactly that. It was one of his strongest performances in fact, particularly his masterful 7/54 in Perth. He was one of the stars of that series, and they are pretty clearly defined: Lillee, Thompson and the Chappell brothers for Australia, Clive Lloyd, Roy Fredericks (if only for that one amazing innings) and Andy Roberts for the West Indies.

And, you do realise don't you, that it is possible to win an individual battle with a player without having an awesome series? For example, Shane Warne against India in 99/00, took 8 wickets @ 41. A poor series without question, and there are various reasons for it - but the record shows he was not successful overall. However, he won the individual battle with Rahul Dravid comfortably. He only dismissed him twice, but both times were in the first test, setting up a pattern, he was brought on to bowl when Dravid came to the crease each time and dominated him. He was a significant reason why Dravid had a poor series.

Lillee did not dominate in the 75/76 series. He had a GOOD series, against a strong batting lineup, but he did not dominate. He did however win the battle with Richards. Richards had 2 good tests and 4 poor ones, but for the most Lillee won the battle with him.

And, as far as Mankad is concerned, I agree he was an excellent player, but he was NOT anywhere near as good as Botham, and neither was Kapil. Botham was both a better bowler and a MUCH better batsman than Kapil. The one thing Kapil had in spades over Botham was of course consistency (with the bat at least, botham at his peak was far more consistent with the ball), but in terms of ability and brilliance when it was most needed, Botham has it all over Kapil.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

To compare two batsmen and their relative merits AS BATSMEN, purely on the basis of their career averages (or averages over a period of their careers), shows ones total inability to look at cricket and cricketing skills and analyse individual performances during ones career. The sum of a cricketer's is his performances over his career and these cant be evaluated by just clubbing all the figures together to come to a total picture of his worth as a cricketer.

You dont need to know much about the game to compare stats in cold terms. Unfortunately that doesnt make you an authority on the game.

Unfortunately, a large proportion of the game's followers cant do much better than that so the media also concentrates on the same. Unfortunately, in places like the subcontinent, those asked by the media to cover the game also, a very large proportion of them, are very poor students of the game as such so stats are a very convinient fast-food for these arm-chair-critics.

To say that two batsmen are, more or less equal, equal if their career averages are the same is to say that Imran is as good a batsman as Atherton. !!! The difference in their averages being 0.01 per innings !!!

Even if one is incapable of looking at anything other than stats, one could do beter than look at just the average.

If one saw that while averaging the same, Atherton scored 16 centuries and 46 fifities (in 115 tests) while Imran scored 6 100's and 18 fifties (in 88 tests) one would be forced to think what this meant.

In his first 88 tests, (to compare with Imrans eventual 88)
Botham scored 4809 runs at 35.4 per innings
& Imran scored 3807runs at 37.7 per innings

ONE THOUSAND RUNS MORE in the same number of tests !! Bu**er the average !!

Botham's runs included 14 hundreds and 21 fifties with a top score of 208
& Imran's runs included 6 hundreds and 18 fifties with a top score of 137

MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY HUNDREDS in the same number of tests!! Bu**er the average !!

To put it differently, to score 3806 runs in test matches

Imran
-averaged 37.7
-scored 6 hundreds doing it
-took 88 tests to do it

Botham
-averaged 36.4
- scored 13 hundreds doing it
- took 67 tests to do it !!

Botham took 21 tests less to do what Imran did over his career and in the process scored 13 centuries to his 6 !! Averages be bu**ered !!



I repeat, stats are an imperfect tool to measure relative merits of two players but for those who insist, integrity would dictate looking at more details.

This is, of course, dead on the money. It is simply no contest between Imran and Botham in terms of ability with the bat. You can certainly argue that Imran was a better all-rounder overall, because he could be so devastating with the ball (even more than Botham), because he maintained his period of excellence for so much longer even if it wasn't quite as astonishing at its peak, and because he was such a dedicated player and captain, but to suggest that he comes close to Botham in this particular area is unbelievable.

 

[C_C]

I've categorically demonstrated how and why Imran was a better batsman than Botham- by a fair margin: He did MUCH better with the bat during his batting peak and MUCH better overall.
Botham has only one thing over him- centuries.
Thats about it.
Everything else- consistency, performance against the best, peak efficiency and overall career efficiency-wise, he was head and shoulders above Botham.
And like i said, even IF one had a superior peak, peaks must be balanced out with the troughs to get the complete picture.
Imran's peak was better than even Marshall, Ambrose or McGrath's with the ball- yet i would say those three edge Imran with the ball by a wee bit.
Because they were more consistent with the ball than Imran.

To simply argue otherwise is to disagree for disagreement's sake.

And as usual, SJS posts utter tripe and gets away with it- as i've countered in my previous post.

As per Lillee dominating Richrds that series, i totally disagree. I think it was very much an even contest. Most bowlers get their batsmen more often than the batsman smashes them around- simply because batsmen can go haywire but one mistake and they are gone.
In the entire picture, the only bowler that came close to dominting Richards was Chandrasekhar in India.
As per Dravid vs Warne- Dravid usually always starts in a defensive and cautious mode and it is quiete a stretch to say Warney won the personal battle with Dravid this series,let alone throughout his career.

And like i said, for the umpteenth time, Kapil was a superior bowler AND batsman to Botham.
Kapil was far more consistent throughout his career with the bat and the ball, he most definately had the ability on par with Botham when it came to batting and superseeded Botham with the ball.
Botham, for all his fanfare, got brutally exposed against the best batting team of his time.
And if you cant do it against the best, you arn't the best. End of story.
Plus Kapil and Botham have very similar bowling records despite Botham having operated in a much superior bowling lineup for a far longer time than Kapil did.

Personally, it is a toughie between Mankad and Kapil- Mankad was certainly a better bat than Kapil and Botham- as i said, he got dicked around way too much- batted in 11 different positions in the 40 odd matches he played- thats a new position less than every 4 matches!
And he was an extremely classy spinner, on par with the best of the best.

I've backed up my standpoint with facts- cold, hard statistical facts with logical reasoning.
As such, the ones claiming Botham was anywhere close to Sobers/Imran in class are doing it purely from an emotive response without substantiating that response with statistical factuality.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just to add another stat in Botham's favour, from this weeks Ask Steven on cricinfo about taking a 5-fer and scoring a hundred in the same test.

It's been done 26 times in tests.The great Sobers did it twice, in 1962 and 1966. Keith Miller did it once, as did Mankad and Imran Khan. Jacques Kallis has managed it two times to date (once against Bangladesh), and Mushtaq Mohammad of Pakistan did it twice as well, one of those times was a double hundred, and the other time against a very impressive West Indies outfit. Some other famous all-rounders to pull it off on one occasion are Jack Gregory, Richie Benaud, Polly Umrigar, Tony Greig and Wasim Akram. Some of the lesser lights to also manage it on one occasion are Jimmy Sinclair, Aubrey Faulkner, Charles Kelleway, Denis Atkinson, Collie Smith and Paul Strang. Many big names have never managed it, such as Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev, Shaun Pollock and so on.

So, how many times did Ian Botham do it? FIVE. He did it twice in 1978, against New Zealand and Pakistan, in 1980 against India and 1981 against Australia in two amazing performances, and then in 1984 he did it one final time against New Zealand, as he began to decline seriously as a player.

 

[Swervy]

I've categorically demonstrated how and why Imran was a better batsman than Botham- by a fair margin: He did MUCH better with the bat during his batting peak and MUCH better overall.
Botham has only one thing over him- centuries.
Thats about it.
Everything else- consistency, performance against the best, peak efficiency and overall career efficiency-wise, he was head and shoulders above Botham.
And like i said, even IF one had a superior peak, peaks must be balanced out with the troughs to get the complete picture.
Imran's peak was better than even Marshall, Ambrose or McGrath's with the ball- yet i would say those three edge Imran with the ball by a wee bit.
Because they were more consistent with the ball than Imran.

To simply argue otherwise is to disagree for disagreement's sake.

And as usual, SJS posts utter tripe and gets away with it- as i've countered in my previous post.

As per Lillee dominating Richrds that series, i totally disagree. I think it was very much an even contest. Most bowlers get their batsmen more often than the batsman smashes them around- simply because batsmen can go haywire but one mistake and they are gone.
In the entire picture, the only bowler that came close to dominting Richards was Chandrasekhar in India.
As per Dravid vs Warne- Dravid usually always starts in a defensive and cautious mode and it is quiete a stretch to say Warney won the personal battle with Dravid this series,let alone throughout his career.

And like i said, for the umpteenth time, Kapil was a superior bowler AND batsman to Botham.
Kapil was far more consistent throughout his career with the bat and the ball, he most definately had the ability on par with Botham when it came to batting and superseeded Botham with the ball.
Botham, for all his fanfare, got brutally exposed against the best batting team of his time.
And if you cant do it against the best, you arn't the best. End of story.
Plus Kapil and Botham have very similar bowling records despite Botham having operated in a much superior bowling lineup for a far longer time than Kapil did.

Personally, it is a toughie between Mankad and Kapil- Mankad was certainly a better bat than Kapil and Botham- as i said, he got dicked around way too much- batted in 11 different positions in the 40 odd matches he played- thats a new position less than every 4 matches!
And he was an extremely classy spinner, on par with the best of the best.

I've backed up my standpoint with facts- cold, hard statistical facts with logical reasoning.
As such, the ones claiming Botham was anywhere close to Sobers/Imran in class are doing it purely from an emotive response without substantiating that response with statistical factuality.

Can Dev or Imran really compete with Botham for sheer dominance on the field though? I really dont think they can.

I am not one for judging a player by grouping his entire career as one . All players go through phases. Richards wasnt half the batsman in the very late 80's that he was in the late 70's...and yet,and quite correctly he will always be judged on how he performed at his peak.
Botham, if he had have been playing for Australia nowadays, would have been dropped, because thats almost policy with the Aussies...talent is always knocking at the door. However, England in the 80's had no really talented players to take over, hence Botham plays on in the team. Would Botham have been judged a better player if he had been dropped in 83 from the England team? I think people like CC would judge him to be better..I personally wouldnt.

So when judging these players I think its fair to use peak times as a measuring stick as to how good a player WAS..not how poor he ended up, or how poor he started his career (Is it really fair to judge Imran on his first decade of tests cricket..I dont think so...)

In his first 5 years Botham reeled off these immense performances:
4th test: 103 and 8 wickets vs NZ
7th test: 108 and 8 wickets vs pakistan
10th test: 9 wickets vs NZ
11th test: 11 wickets vs NZ
18th test: 7 wickets vs India
20th test: 137 vs India
21st test: 7 wickets vs India
22nd test: 11 wickets vs Australia
24th test: 119* vs Australia
25th test: 114 and 13 wickets vs India
33rd test: 7 wickets vs WI
38th test: 50 and 149* and 7 wickets vs Austrlia
39th test: 5 for 11 vs Australia
40th test: 118 vs Australia
41st test: 10 wickets vs Australia
42nd test: 9 wickets vs India
47th test 142 vs India
50th test: 128 vs India
51st: 208 vs India
54th test: 9 wickets vs Pakistan

Thats 19 ALLROUND (7 wickets in a test or 100 in an innings) performances that had either a winning effect on the English team, or saved England for defeat...or towered over everyone else in the game (thats 35% of the time)

Dev took about 100 tests to have that effect (and it is fair to say that Devs peak was in those first 100 tests)

I think is ok to say that, for the sake of comparison we can say Imrans peak (AS AN ALLROUNDER) was 54 tests up to the series (and including the series 88/89 in NZ)...17 performances of the game breaking standard...most of those with the ball

I know that its a fairly simplistic way of looking at it...but the reason why Botham got the name he did (and yes, in the early 80's, he was considered an almost equal to Sobers,and quite often called the greatest player for England since WG) was becuse he was an out and out match winner..in a team that didnt win that much!!!!

Imran was a much more conservative player than Botham, thats why Imran was more steady, but no-one in the last 30 years actually comes close to Bothams game breaking, odds defying play....Botham could change a test match in an hour with both bat or ball...Imran could do it with the ball...Dev could do that with the bat

So its pretty hard to judge really...averages dont do Botham justice..and to be honest dont do Kapil Dev justice either. You had to watch Botham play to understand what he was about....he was so much more than plain hard cold fact of averages

 

[Sanz]

Just to add another stat in Botham's favour, from this weeks Ask Steven on cricinfo about taking a 5-fer and scoring a hundred in the same test.

I think this one statement itself should be enough to conclude that Ian Botham was indeed a better allrounder than Imran, Kapil and Hadlee. Imran could have been a better batsman or bowler than Botham, but how many times did he actually perform as an allrounder in a given Test ?? Same goes for Kapil & Hadlee. None of these players come close to Botham.

Here is what I posted in one of the threads that was going on this issue sometime last year.

Imran's overall stats may show him as a great allrounder, IMO those stats dont tell you the full story. In the early part of his career Imran wasn't very successful with the bat to be qualified as a world class allrounder in the league of Botham or Sobers, His batting flourished in the later part of his career (say last 5-7 years or you can say since 1986-87 india series) where he was mostly ineffective as a bowler.

To me Botham was way better than Imran, Kapil and Hadlee as a Batsman and pretty much as effective as them as bowler. Botham consistently contributed with Bat and Ball in most of the series he played in but that can not be said about Kapil, Imran or Hadlee. Here is My Allrounders List :-

Top Allrounders :- Gary Sobers, Ian Botham

Good Allrounders :- Imran, Kapil, Hadlee

Average Allrounders :- Chris Cairns, Steve Waugh, Kallis, Pollock, Klusener, Brian Mcmillan

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The 7 wickets/century thing is an interesting way of looking at it. I'd be interested to see how other all-rounders stack up against Botham.

Keith Miller played 55 tests in all, and had 13 such performances, including both 7+ wickets and a hundred in the same match once.

2nd test: 9 wickets vs England
5th test: 141* vs England
12th test: 7 wickets vs England
24th test: 145* vs England
28th test: 129 vs West Indies
30th test: 7 wickets vs West Indies
31st test: 7 wickets vs West Indies
33rd test: 7 wickets vs South Africa
37th test: 109 vs England
45th test: 147 vs West Indies
48th test: 137 vs West Indies
49th test: 109 and 8 wickets vs West Indies
51st test: 10 wickets vs England

 

[marc71178]

I've categorically demonstrated how and why Imran was a better batsman than Botham- by a fair margin:

No, you haven't.

 

[Langeveldt]

No, you haven't.

haha, love it

 

[Richard]

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.

Ah, this would be the Vinoo Mankad who you know for a fact to possess a superior attitude to the namby-pamby amateurs of the time, would it?
(Of course, Mankad being a professional was actually one who supposedly merely sharpened his skills against namby-pamby amateurs, even though as I've told you countless times he was playing mostly against fellow professionals)

 

[Richard]

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.

Nope, Imran came close only for the last part of his career. Whether he was better than Botham, simply by averaging 53 to 37, is another question, and as far as I'm concerned is answered no.
As for 18 batsmen better around Botham's time... you'd be pushing that.

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.

Total and utter rubbish, hardly any batsman or bowler EVER averages those sorts of figures from the 1930s onwards, let alone someone who's played 30 or 40 Tests.

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.

And something that lasted less than a third of his career. Get it into your head.

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.

So name the batsmen who weren't exposed by the WI four-prong? Not very many, that's how many.
Being exposed by such a stupendous attack is no massive slight, it's simply a slight disappointment suffered by many.

 

[Richard]

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

It does, though, mean he was quite sensational and reached peaks very few reach between that Kolkata Test and The SCG 2003\04.

 

[Richard]

Imran was as good as Atherton- infact, he was better. I say so.
Atherton pre back injury was pretty good but post back injury, he was mediocre.

Quite one of the most utterly ludicrous statements I have EVER read - though coming from you it's hardly surprising that the subcontinental had to be better than the Englishman.
Do you seriously believe Imran would have had close to the batting-average he did in his later Test-career had he faced the new-ball in England against some of the best new-ball attacks ever for over half his career AND had to play through discomfort most people can only dread in their worst nightmares for over 4\5s of his career?
THAT is why statistics, while generally the most reliable method of judging players, must always be taken in every relevant context possible.
If you didn't take the pre-1960s era in your favourite context most of the best players then would be better than most of the best players of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.