Hadlee, Khan, Dev, Botham - Who was the best allrounder?

[JBH001]

The cogent period for Imran is not 1982 - 1992 but 1982 to 1986 (again perhaps indicating how difficult it is to bowl and bat at consistently stellar levels for a long period of time). Here he did average over 40 and 15 (!) with the ball (taking a truckload of wickets) over a period of about 24 test matches.

Also, Ikki, in those last 5 years he actually took 80 or so wickets in about 28 tests.

 

[Ikki]

JBH, if you go over my posts, I actually mentioned that. The period between 82-86 however is probably even more misleading in terms of my argument above re his batting (runs/inning - runs/dismissal). IIRC during that period he was averaging about 34 runs per inning...basically the same as Botham's overall career run/inning stat. That's ~11 runs difference between his average and his runs per inning stat...that's quite huge.

His batting post 86 was actually very good, with or without not-outs.

 

[JBH001]

Ah yes, I see. Less than a 1000 runs scored in that 82 - 86 period but over 1500 runs scored from 1987 - 1992 in just 4 more test matches and 7 more innings, but whilst also being more selective with regards to his bowling.

 

[zaremba]

Batsman A bats at 5-6 and scores 100, 30, 20, 0 and 40. He ends up averaging 38.
Batsman B bats at 7-8 and scores 50*, 10*, 10*, 0 and 20. He ends up averaging 45.

The average is runs/dismissal so Batsman B's average is higher. In reality, Batsman A is the better batsman in most cases (apart from if the not-outs is rescuing a draw or something) as he actually scores more runs for his side. He also bats higher indicating his prowess with the bat.

Disagree. Batsman A contributes more, because he's had more chance to do so, but it doesn't follow that he's a better batsman. On the contrary, B scores more runs than A for each time he's defeated by a bowler, so I think he's got a stronger case for being the better batsman.

The trick in the example you've given, of course, is the small sample size. It makes B look as though he's only got a few not outs. However the bowlers get A out every time, whereas B manages to remain undefeated in 60% of his innings. In real life, and over the course of a career, those two statistics would be absolutely astonishing. Given a decent career, is there a number 7 in history who's been unbeaten 60% of the innings he's played? Is there a number 6 who's never been not out?

 

[JBH001]

Fair point Zaremba. I'm not sure what Ikki was trying to state with that example, apart from the fact that averages can be misleading. Perhaps rather like the fact that despite the fact that Barrington averages 12 more than Peter May, you would find very few who would rate Barrington the better batsman. (Btw, Imran was not out in 20% of his innings while Botham was not out in less than 4% of his innings.)

 

[Ikki]

See, I disagree because you're saying Batsman B is the better bat merely for not getting out and not what he brings to the team. Whilst it's true that technically the opportunities between the batsmen are not the same, if Batsman B was really better, stats aside, he'd be batting higher up for his team.

Of course, my example had to be a bit more obvious and condensed but it still shows my main point: Imran's runs/dismissal has a big gap between his runs/inning. Much more than Botham's for example. Botham's career runs/dismissal is almost the same as his runs/inning. With Imran, there is a 7 run difference. That is very big, especially so because 7 runs is about 20-25% of the runs they are making. That can only be explained by one having many more not-outs per inning than the others. Whilst it is not 60% - obviously - it is still much higher than the likes of Botham and Miller.

 

[marc71178]

All said and done,2500+ runs in 50 odd tests @ an average of 51 is a stat that a top order bat would be proud of,let alone a world class bowler.

2500 in 50 Tests @ 51 would only be achievable by a top order bat if his side won every game by an innings.

 

[Ikki]

In fact JBH has provided the stats 20% v 4%. It's a big difference.

And as I said before, during the peak JBH was talking about, he had ~10-11 runs difference between his runs/dismissal and runs/inning. So the % of not-outs per inning would have been much bigger even then.

 

[JBH001]

Hmmm, I don't know Ikki. In that stellar 82 - 86 period 23% of his innings were not out, but from 87 - 92 he was not out in 29% of his innings whilst also batting a significant number of his innings' at 6.

However, I am not sure if a batsman should be penalised for being not out, surely one of the main components of batting is not getting out (apart from scoring runs and scoring at a good clip)?

 

[zaremba]

See, I disagree because you're saying Batsman B is the better bat merely for not getting out and not what he brings to the team. Whilst it's true that technically the opportunities between the batsmen are not the same, if Batsman B was really better, stats aside, he'd be batting higher up for his team.

No, I'm not saying B is better because he doesn't get out, I'm saying he's better because he scores more runs for every time he gets out. (And I've already acknowledged that A contributes more to the team: he has had more opportunity to do so.)

As for your second point, that's no more than saying "the captain thinks A is the better bat", which doesn't prove anything much other than the captain's opinion. Or more accurately, "the captain thinks that for whatever reason A should bat at 6 and B at 7" which proves even less (Gilchrist being an example of someone whose place in the lower middle order wasn't a reflection of how good a bat he was. It's just where he was most effective given his style of play and given the fact that he was an all-rounder).

Edit: And it's even harder to draw anything meaningful from the relative positions in their respective batting orders of two players playing in different teams.

 

[JBH001]

I'd disagree with that, I think (and Gilchrist is clearly the exception that proves the rule). If a player over the course of his career has batted more often than not at 5 - 6 then I'd take it as a good indication that his batting is of more worth than that of someone batting at 7 - 8 (all things being equal).

 

[Jacknife]

If both players were in their pomp and I had to choose one or the other, for a must win test match, it would have to be Botham.The fact is he could hit a run a ball 100 and then take a 5fer puts him ahead of Khan imo.

 

[Sanz]

Imran played 88 test compared to 102 of Botham, that too in a shorter career.

Imran Played 88 tests over a period of 20 years and last 5 years mainly as batsman, wasn't half the bowler.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Botham Played that many tests in first 9-10 years.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Also in the first 10 years(1971-80) of Imran wasn't half the batsmen he became later on.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Imran was average batsman until 1986, only after 1986 when his bowling was on decline, he started concentrating on batting. He rarely did both together , Botham did for most of his career.

I think I have repeated myself enough times here, so this is my last post on this.

 

[silentstriker]

Gilchrist is clearly the exception that proves the rule

I hate that saying.

 

[Ikki]

Hmmm, I don't know Ikki. In that stellar 82 - 86 period 23% of his innings were not out, but from 87 - 92 he was not out in 29% of his innings whilst also batting a significant number of his innings' at 6.

However, I am not sure if a batsman should be penalised for being not out, surely one of the main components of batting is not getting out (apart from scoring runs and scoring at a good clip)?

My gripe is not necessarily about not-outs, but the manner in which they're achieved. When you're batting as low as Imran often did then you have to look at them differently to when a mid-order batsman achieves them. Imran from 87-92 was clearly a good batsman in his own right. I think I've already mentioned he scored the majority of his 100s and 50s in this period and at a higher position, as you mention. I have no problem with his not-outs in this case as IIRC a lot of them were pretty high scores. The only problem I have with this period is that he clearly bowled a lot less and that detracts from him in this all-rounder discussion. So the one period I'd consider him genuinely good - as good if not better than Botham with the bat at times - is the one period he isn't much of an all-rounder.

 

[Ikki]

No, I'm not saying B is better because he doesn't get out, I'm saying he's better because he scores more runs for every time he gets out. (And I've already acknowledged that A contributes more to the team: he has had more opportunity to do so.)

As for your second point, that's no more than saying "the captain thinks A is the better bat", which doesn't prove anything much other than the captain's opinion. Or more accurately, "the captain thinks that for whatever reason A should bat at 6 and B at 7" which proves even less (Gilchrist being an example of someone whose place in the lower middle order wasn't a reflection of how good a bat he was. It's just where he was most effective given his style of play and given the fact that he was an all-rounder).

Edit: And it's even harder to draw anything meaningful from the relative positions in their respective batting orders of two players playing in different teams.

But that's my point, for a batsman that bats so far low and doesn't score a lot of runs, "every time he gets out" is not as important as "every innings he bats" in terms of helping his team. That's why in my example Batsman A is more beneficial to his team or captain - unless not getting out is what is best in that situation (since it won't likely be for Imran in the majority of cases; making more runs + getting out > making less runs + not getting out).

And Gilchrist is someone you simply can't compare to Imran, as JBH mentions he is the exception to that rule. The speed to which he bats means he can have a meaningful innings and also the team he was in meant batting 7th was much more fathomable due to the talent of his teammates. Imran wasn't in the most star-studded sides batting-wise to average 40-50+ and be essentially a tailender. The two don't equate.

 

[Black_Warrior]

At least for the last 4 years of that he barely bowled and enough has already been said about his batting. As aforesaid, that is one of the most overrated stats in cricket.

Great argument there buddy... I cannot counter that I admit..The problem with bad arguments is it is very difficult to counter them. You use statistics and they are dismissed as overrated

Subcontinental bowlers don't deserve extra praise for bowling well at home.

Nor do oh so precious all rounders for having the 'extra' pressure of having to bat at 6. If Botham deserves extra praise for having to bat at 6, then Imran deserves extra praise for snaring 40 wickets in a 6 match series against India on lifeless Pakistani pitches against the likes of Gavaskar. Many of matches in that series were high scoring draws. That should tell you how lifeless those pitches were.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I am not an expert in Pakistani cricket during the 80s or the conditions/pitches, but yep they were on the whole much more conducive to pace bowling than India.

Not true.
Pakistani pitches were just as lifeless and flat as they are now. The reason the likes of Imran, Sarfaraz, Wasim flourished was DESPITE the flat pitches..because they developed other skills.

Are you for real?6 wickets picked in 80 odd ODI's = 216 test wickets?

You know you have won the argument when someone brings up Ian Bell's bowling to counter against Imran

 

[Black_Warrior]

But not all fast bowlers are the same. There is a reason why a bowler like McGrath will have trouble and that is because he was conditioned as a seam bowler whereas Imran was conditioned as a swing bowler. The inherent difficulty McGrath had was not the same that Imran had. You can't equate the two when the way Imran bowled practically made the pitch irrelevant.

That way Imran bowled made the pitch irrelevant. And thats irrevelant in the argument is it? Its no big deal to persevere to bowl in a threatening way when you are getting no help from the pitch.

The point with his batting is that he batted lower and was a plucky tailender who was hard to remove but who made little runs and then moved up some places and was generally a decent bat but who still didn't make a whole lot of runs but was still difficult to remove. Botham on the other hand was not a tailender-caliber ever and his runs per innings show how much more valuable he was to his side as a batsman.

Ok I give up buddy.. Yepp, Imran was a plucky tailender

 

[Ikki]

You've only really made one cogent point so I'll address that. The problem is you don't give someone kudos for overcoming something that was never a problem for them/their type of bowling. Might as well laud me for always being tan.