****OFFICIAL**** Imran Khan vs Botham Debate Thread

[silentstriker]

Imran Khan and Ian Botham were both great players. However, someone in the Lara vs Tendulkar thread said that Botham and Imran were relatively equal.

That to me doesn't sound right, as I think Imran Khan was clearly better, for longer. What do you all think?


Please be civil. They were both fantastic players.

/Dons his flame-retardent suit.

[aussie]

Imran was better overall i guess..

[superkingdave]

Imran Khan, hate botham on commentary and i only caught the fat phase of his career

[steds]

Did Imran's son play for Leeds and Wigan? No. He has my vote.












































Tbf, I was a Liam Botham fan. Liked the cut of the boy's jib. Still commited the most heathen crime imaginable when he turned out for the Cherry and Whites, though.

[Goughy]

Well the question was never qualified, it is up to interpretation.

If the question was Who was the best batsman at the height of their batting career then its Imran

If the question was Who was the best bowler at the height of their bowling career then the answer is Imran

If the question was Who was the best allrounder (batting and bowling combined) at the height of their allround career then the answer in Botham.

Imrans batting and bowling peaks never really got close to coinciding for any length of time.

For a 5-6 year period Botham was the most destructive allrounder ever to have walked on the planet.

Just take a look at the 100s and 10 wkts in a match and it is obvious that Botham dominated games like no one before or since.

Imran went through phases of being predominently a batsman and other times when he was mainly a bowler. It is only looking at the stats does he look like a 'true' allrounder when all the phases of his career are added together.

One of his phases was the greatest fast bowler on the planet, but Im taking the question to mean as an allrounder so therefore it must be Botham.

[Hurst_Hattrick]

For sheer entertainment and delightful performances, I would have picked Boof.
However, fact remains that he faded away in his 'fat phase', as an earlier member put it so aptly. The Pathan on the other hand went from strength to strength towards the end of his career. He batted well enough to hold his spot as a pure batsman, and showed on occasions that he still was a great (in every sense of the word) bowler even with his battered shin. Imagine losing 2 years worth of bowling to a series of inept medical diagnoses and treatment!

[steds]

You're only saying that because Liam played for the Rhinos, goughy

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by steds

You're only saying that because Liam played for the Rhinos, goughy

Well Im not the biggest fan of either of the Bothams (Rhinos or not ) but I feel people now look at ITBs over all career stats and will never appreciate how great he was before the first serious injury.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Well the question was never qualified, it is up to interpretation.

If the question was Who was the best batsman at the height of their batting career then its Imran

If the question was Who was the best bowler at the height of their bowling career then the answer is Imran

If the question was Who was the best allrounder (batting and bowling combined) at the height of their allround career then the answer in Botham.

Imrans batting and bowling peaks never really got close to coinciding for any length of time.

For a 5-6 year period Botham was the most destructive allrounder ever to have walked on the planet.

Just take a look at the 100s and 10 wkts in a match and it is obvious that Botham dominated games like no one before or since.

Imran went through phases of being predominently a batsman and other times when he was mainly a bowler. It is only looking at the stats does he look like a 'true' allrounder when all the phases of his career are added together.

One of his phases was the greatest fast bowler on the planet, but Im taking the question to mean as an allrounder so therefore it must be Botham.

It's a bit broader - at least the way I intended it. Overall, who was the better cricket player. Obviously, thats a bit of a hairy question...but still. They both just happened to be allrounders, the question would be the same if I compared Lilee with Marshall. Who's the overall player, taking into account all phases of the cricket game (batting, bowling, fielding, wicketkeeping if applicable, captaincy, etc).

[Anil]

imran was the better bowler, imran was technically the better batsman of the two, botham the more explosive, botham was a better fielder and catcher, although the records tend to favour botham, i would say imran was the greater cricketer....

[Goughy]

Below are the stats for what I beleive are the best 20 match periods for each player in their career. I do not think there is an easy answer to the question (even if I do have my own opinion).

Imran
Mat 20
Runs 810
HS 117
Bat Av 45.00
100s 1
50s 5
Wick 106
BB 8/60
Bowl Av 15.66
5 Wkts 7
Caught 9

Botham
Mat 20
Runs 1099
HS 137
BatAv 40.70
100s 5
50s 2
Wickets 112
BB 8/34
Bowl Av 18.41
5 Wkts 10
Caught 30

Summary
Botham

• More Runs
• Better Highest Score
• More 100s
• More Wickets
• Better Best Bowling
• More 5 Wickets in an Innings
• More Catches

Imran

• Better Batting Average
• Lower Bowling Average

[FaaipDeOiad]

Botham was a better batsman, in my opinion. Imran was a useful batsman who contributed well and worked hard, but he was never a matchwinner with the bat, and never made many scores of really daunting size at test level. Botham has more runs, more centuries, and far more matchwinning performances with the bat at test level.

Imran was a better bowler, and by some distance when you consider his comparitive longevity. Botham was an awesome bowler early in his career but dropped off fairly badly, while Imran was consistent throughout and is one of the great fast bowlers in his own right, which you'd have to say Botham isn't.

Botham was obviously a far better fielder, and there's no real contest there.

As all-rounders, I'd say Botham was marginally better at his peak, simply because for a brief period he was almost unparalleled, but Imran obviously maintained his brilliance for far longer and it shows in his statistical record.

Overall I'd probably have Imran in my team first. He contributed well over the length of his career, was a good captain and a dedicated player, none of which you could say about Botham. However, Botham was the truer all-rounder at his peak, in the sense that he could turn a game with both bat and ball, or both, and did so on a fairly regular basis for a few years early in his career, and if it came down to that 79-82 sort of period of Botham's career I'd probably have him over just about anyone.

[LongHopCassidy]

The biggest difference between the two is that Imran was firing on at least one of his cylinders (batting or bowling) throughout his career, and Botham was either dominating in all facets or backpedalling alarmingly.

Also, what Botham contributed through his fielding, Imran did likewise through his captaincy.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy

The biggest difference between the two is that Imran was firing on at least one of his cylinders (batting or bowling) throughout his career, and Botham was either dominating in all facets or backpedalling alarmingly.

Also, what Botham contributed through his fielding, Imran did likewise through his captaincy.

hey

just re-posting my last msg from lara - sachin thread. didnt realize this thread had been on for some time. i was the one who suggested they are equals.

if their final figures show imran in better light check out their stats after 50 tests. botham is ahead.

After 50 test matches

Batting

Botham 50 75 3 2625 149* 36.45 10 10
Imran 50 75 12 2008 123 31.87 2 7

Bowling

Botham 50 11724 5244 229 8/34 22.89 19 4
Imran 50 12551 5316 232 8/58 22.91 16 4

And after 88 tests

Batting

Botham 88 140 4 4809 208 35.36 14 21
Imran 88 125 25 3807 136 38.07 6 18

Bowling

Botham 88 19838 9900 366 8/34 27.04 27 4
Imran 88 19458 8258 362 8/58 22.81 23 6

[Hurst_Hattrick]

Why stop at 50 tests, my friend ?