Ian Botham vs Keith Miller

[bagapath]

botham was the best bowler in the world for the first 200 odd wickets in his career. (50 tests/ 229 wickets/ under 23 avg) at one point of time he was striking better than imran, hadlee, marshall, holding, lillee and garner and averaging better than all of them bar holding. in his first two seasons some easy wickets were taken against weak teams, yes, but that accusation is not always true. he was capable of dismissing gavaskar, border and richards more often than his peers and create panic in the opposition. and his ability to run through batting line-ups, reflected in the high number of five-fers, should put him above miller in this battle.

 

[bagapath]

Isn't Watson's point though?

If Botham couldn't do anything against good bowling attacks then how would he really perform against an ATXI bowling attack?

that is not true. his greatest moment on the cricket field, 1981 ashes, came against an excellent bowling attack. he was easily the best batsman of the four all-rounders of the 80s. hundreds against hadlee, lillee and kapil dont come easily. he is a very very good candidate for the no.7 slot in most all time xis.

 

[watson]

that is not true. his greatest moment on the cricket field, 1981 ashes, came against an excellent bowling attack. he was easily the best batsman of the four all-rounders of the 80s. hundreds against hadlee, lillee and kapil dont come easily. he is a very very good candidate for the no.7 slot in most all time xis.

Correct.

Except when you think that Trueman, Snow, Larwood, or SF Barnes are better bowlers with more clout, and are happy with Alan Knott at No.7.

 

[marc71178]

And not one century against the West Indies or a Pakistan side that had Imran Khan in it. Which is why he shouldn't bat at No.6.

However, Botham does have 3 x Michelle Pfeiffers against the West Indies and 2 against Pakistan which isn't bad.

Seeing as the thread is about bowling what's the relevance of the batting at 6 thing?

 

[smash84]

he was capable of dismissing gavaskar, border and richards more often than his peers .

I am not sure this is true. The most number of times anyone dismissed Viv was Lillee 9 or 10 times IIRC. Viv was dismissed by Imran 7 times I think. Gavaskar was most often dismissed by Derek Underwood IIRC and then by Imran. Don't remember about Border but I think your above statement is not true at all.

 

[bagapath]

I am not sure this is true. The most number of times anyone dismissed Viv was Lillee 9 or 10 times IIRC. Viv was dismissed by Imran 7 times I think. Gavaskar was most often dismissed by Derek Underwood IIRC and then by Imran. Don't remember about Border but I think your above statement is not true at all.

it is not a statistical fact i am using here smali. he got border 12 times. gavaskar and richards 7 times each (or got gavaskar 8 times if i am correct). but my point is he got them a lot of times and caused trouble to the opposition. he was a star bowler and match winner who killed the opposition regularly with his wicket taking ability. if you want to hold on to the "more often than his peers" term i have used and argue with me then remember that he got these star batters more often than his fellow englishmen who played with him. in the teams botham played in, he was the talisman (until 1984-5) bowler who was expected to get the big opposition batsmen out, which he did regularly.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Bit difficult to compare them really as Miller was well before my time. Never having seen him (apart from the odd crappy black and white picture) it is impossible to say.

 

[smash84]

it is not a statistical fact i am using here smali. he got border 12 times. gavaskar and richards 7 times each (or got gavaskar 8 times if i am correct). but my point is he got them a lot of times and caused trouble to the opposition. he was a star bowler and match winner who killed the opposition regularly with his wicket taking ability. if you want to hold on to the "more often than his peers" term i have used and argue with me then remember that he got these star batters more often than his fellow englishmen who played with him. in the teams botham played in, he was the talisman (until 1984-5) bowler who was expected to get the big opposition batsmen out, which he did regularly.

I wasn't really try to nitpick your statement but from what I recalled Botham even at his peak really wasn't as good a bowler as some of his contemporaries

I didn't follow too much of Botham's career but from all accounts he was quite ordinary against the WI even during his peak years

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[fredfertang]

I didn't follow too much of Botham's career but from all accounts he was quite ordinary against the WI even during his peak years

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In 1984 Botham was just past his peak but did reasonably well - the only occasions he was confronted with them during his pomp, 1980 and 1980/81, were the two series when he was idiotically given the burden of the captaincy to go with the pressure already created by being his team's best bowler and best batsman - had Brearley chosen to be available for those series, or anyone else been entrusted with the captaincy, I suspect we wouldn't now talk about the gap in Botham's cricketing CV, but sadly we'll never know

 

[watson]

Bit difficult to compare them really as Miller was well before my time. Never having seen him (apart from the odd crappy black and white picture) it is impossible to say.

This footage gives a pretty good idea of his bowling style;

Nugget: The best ever Aussie All-rounder :: The largest library of cricket videos

 

[bagapath]

I wasn't really try to nitpick your statement but from what I recalled Botham even at his peak really wasn't as good a bowler as some of his contemporaries

he was the best bowler in the world for a period of four years. he took more wickets and more five wicket hauls than anyone else in the world. and he had the best SR and better average than everyone else. croft had a better SR and garner had a better average but botham anyway took about 120 wickets more than them. he WAS the best bowler in the world in those seasons. forget the fact that he also scored 8 centuries during this period; he turned matches around with his bowling alone; all over the world and several times.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[smash84]

this poll so far massively in favor of miller....

 

[bagapath]

just noticed the preeminence of botham in test cricket in the period mentioned above. in those 4 years, for example, he had scored thrice as many runs as imran; taken 4 times as many five wicket hauls, taken 55 times more catches. this besides taking thrice as many wickets - in a little more than twice as many games.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval2=span;template=results;type=allround

just the sheer volume of wickets he took in these 41 games (almost 5 per test) and the about 50 runs per game he scored + more than a catch per match that he grabbed should have made him the greatest cricketer in the world at that time. i remember him being a superstar during the jubilee test, which surely must be the single greatest test for any cricketer, and during the 1981 ashes. what a cricketer he was.

but overall, as a bowler, i am going with nuggets for this poll.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

If Botham had retired before 1985, this poll would be much closer.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Botham had retired before 1985, this poll would be much closer.

Yeah probably, but it certainly wouldn't make me rate him any higher.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Yeah probably, but it certainly wouldn't make me rate him any higher.

Why not? Is he somehow less skilful because he could harness his good form better than any other Test player of his time?

 

[smash84]

just noticed the preeminence of botham in test cricket in the period mentioned above. in those 4 years, for example, he had scored thrice as many runs as imran; taken 4 times as many five wicket hauls, taken 55 times more catches. this besides taking thrice as many wickets - in a little more than twice as many games.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

just the sheer volume of wickets he took in these 41 games (almost 5 per test) and the about 50 runs per game he scored + more than a catch per match that he grabbed should have made him the greatest cricketer in the world at that time. i remember him being a superstar during the jubilee test, which surely must be the single greatest test for any cricketer, and during the 1981 ashes. what a cricketer he was.

but overall, as a bowler, i am going with nuggets for this poll.

Paddles still has more wpm I think

 

[Prince EWS]

Why not? Is he somehow less skilful because he could harness his good form better than any other Test player of his time?

It's not like he played an unusually long career, so I don't know why everyone is always so keen to give him a pass for what happened later on. If all these other players we're comparing him to had seven year careers and retired in their late 20s to keep their stats in tact then it'd be a credit to Botham that he continued to play on in service of his country for as long as the selectors deemed even if he wasn't quite at his best, but Imran played until he was 40, Miller played into his late 30s even despite wartime injuries, Sobers played Test cricket for twenty years, etc etc. His competitors managed to play on just as long or in many cases longer without becoming complete parodies of themselves; they continued to be excellent cricketers well beyond the length of their peaks, making them far more valuable as overall entities.

I don't mark Botham down for playing on past his best and declining rapidly; I just stop giving him marks for playing on after that as he was of very little value at that time. The other greats he's often compared to increased their legacy by sustaining their excellence, even if it meant becoming different cricketers as time went on and adapting to the changing limitations of their bodies and minds. You'll help your team win a lot more cricket games with long-term excellence than you will by achieving a mystical level of skill fractionally better than everyone else for a short period and then resting on your laurels while they all outperform you for years to come. If he just decided to pack it in in 1985 I'd rate him exactly the same as I do now - a clear all-time great but one who offered comparatively little over the course of his career as compared with others in the highest class.

 

[bagapath]

Paddles still has more wpm I think

may be. but look at that table smali. cant you see that he was the best bowler of them all by a fair distance?

 

[smash84]

may be. but look at that table smali. cant you see that he was the best bowler of them all by a fair distance?

Not really bagapath. I can't see that very clearly from that table. I don't see his SR there and DKL and Hadlee are close to him in the average. Paddles also has a higher wpm and had he played as much during this time I am sure he would have taken more wickets. Also I don't see the quality of batsmen dismissed in that table. Besides I think you can find bowler peaks for Hadlee and Imran from 79-82 probably being better than Botham