To answer the question posed, the simple answer would be – None. That’s to say, Ian Botham is the only cricketer in the history of the game to have a batting average above 40 and a bowling average below 20 after 25 test matches. Nothing wrong with that factual statement. I could have answered that first thing in the morning when I saw this thread. The reason for not doing that is simple.
I am in agreement with most of Goughy’s points in the other thread on the subject and regard Botham very highly as an all rounder. However, a simple confirmation of these figures is bound to be imply (at least it would appear to) that Botham was the greatest all rounder (statistically speaking) at the end of a fairly reasonable number of test matches during his early career. I wish to categorically state that such a conclusion would be far too simplistic and, in fact, erroneous. Here’s why.
There are three givens in the question – the number of tests played an average of 40+ with the bat and under 20 with the ball. All three are extremely subjective and with due regards to Goughy, for whom I have great respect, they seem to be chosen to show Botham in good light.
Number of test matches:
Given below are Botham’s batting averages at the end of his 15th, 20th, 25th (and so on) test matches right up to the 100th.
36.2, 39.9, 40.5, 35.8, 31.6, 33.2, 33.2, 36.5, 37.1, 36.3, 37, 37.4, 36.5, 35.9, 35.1, 35.1, 35, 33.9
There is only one figure in the 40’s in the entire series. This maybe a coincidence but even if that’s the case, it is too arbitrary. Change it to any other multiple of 5 (other than at the end of 10 tests) and Botham goes out of the 40+ figure.
As I will show later, the moment we change the number of test matches not only does Botham’s batting average drop below 40 (which is not so important really) but some other contenders come into the picture.
Batting Average:
A great or a very very good batsman by a rough (and not always accurate) yardstick, is taken today as one who averages above 50 throughout a long career. Today we are approaching the higher fifties. So what should be the average for a GOOD all rounder? Forty seems like reasonable figure though some may think that around 35 is very good for some one who contributes handsomely with the ball.
I have more of an issue, however, with the bowling average.
Bowling Average
The figure of under 20 is far too good to be used for an all rounder. It’s really the equivalent of 60+ in batting terms (again arbitrary comparison I agree). How many pure bowlers since the war have ended with a career average of fewer than 20?
In case you don’t know, let me tell you.
Only Frank Tyson and that was in a very short career of 17 test matches.
Before the 2nd WW but within the 20th century ONLY the incomparable SF Barnes (27 tests) and Colin Blythe (19 tests) even before the first WW and Ironmonger (14 tests) between the two wars.
So why should we expect an all rounder to have this average at the end of 25 test matches or even at any stage of his career ? If we think 40 is good enough (if not a tad bit too high) for a good all rounder for batting, one would feel any average around 25 would be very good indeed. Most pure bowlers would be delighted to end their careers at an average of 25. I would say around 28 would be good for an all rounder.
So what do we make of Botham’s under 20 at that stage of his career. Nothing except that he performed incredibly well at that stage of his career but if his average had been 22 it wouldn’t have made any difference I think. It would have still been fantastic and that phase of his career would still have found him hailed as the likely successor to the great Sobers and Miller who were considered the ultimate in all round skills till Botham arrived.
That brings me to the final point of this note.
There is one player who challenges Botham and rates above him in spite of Botham’s figures given to us and that is Keith Miller.
Enclosed are two charts of the comparative batting and bowling averages of Botham and Miller for 55 tests. I have ended with 55 since Miller’s career was not as long as Botham’s.
Clearly, in batting, Miller was far above Botham if we took any stage of his career except the very end where Botham and he are tied). Remember this is his entire career and Botham had another 50 tests under his belt and so was relatively young.
While in bowling, except at the end of the 10th and 15th tests, the difference between them is always under 2 runs, mostly less than one run. After the 35th test they keep exchanging the lead till Miller ends his career 0.7 runs per wicket better than Botham. I would call that a tie except that Miller was already 37 years old.
I would say if we did not give undue importance to under 20 for bowling average, Miller has better figures (we are talking pure stats all through this) than Botham at almost all stages of their comparable careers. Not less surely.
PS : This is not to say that Goughy was trying to be smart with the figures. He is absolutely spot on and Botham was the only one to achieve this remarkable feat. I just thought of putting them in perspective.
