-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Historical Discussion- Best batting all-rounders after Sobers and Kallis
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Trolling not seemly for moderators
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
It really is a shame his body is **** (well, he's buffer than me, but y'know what I mean).A guy who averages 36 & 32 would have to come into contention, surely, especially if he batted up at the top of the order and fielded at first slip?
Unfairly treated, or further proof that stats aren't everything?
He's a bit of an "if only" in the way we think of him. If only he'd averaged 40ish with the bat, and if only his body'd allow him to take the 2 or 3 wickets per test his skill suggests he should. We'd view him a lot more kindly then.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
It's interesting to note that Watson will be equal with Miller on 55 tests soon. Their batting average is near identical. However, Miller took well over 3 wickets per test, while Watson takes just over 1. I rate Watson as a bowler, highly.
An average of 40ish plus 2 or 3 wickets per test would've made Watson a vastly better player ( and yeh, I know what I'm saying is derrrrr, but I think Watson could've done it injuries aside).
An average of 40ish plus 2 or 3 wickets per test would've made Watson a vastly better player ( and yeh, I know what I'm saying is derrrrr, but I think Watson could've done it injuries aside).
Dissector
International Debutant
I showed Botham's average against West Indies/Australia to show how lopsided his batting performance was even during his peak years. He made a lot of runs against teams like India but his performance against the top teams was well below test-class.
There is no question that Botham was a more talented batsman than Imran but the latter actually performed consistently at number 6 for a reasonable number of tests whereas Botham didn't especially against the top sides. I don't see how one could possibly pick Botham over Imran at no. 6 based on their actual performances.
I don't buy this idea that number of hundreds is more important than average. Someone who makes hundreds and has a lowish average gets out cheaply a lot which puts a lot of pressure on the tail since two wickets will have fallen quickly and the bowlers' tails will be up. Gritty 30's and 40's from a no.6/7 can be very valuable; three or four of them are at least as valuable as a hundred and three low scores.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
All very fair points. My only issue was that you used Australia/West Indies for Botham but didn't point out his several great innings against Hadlee and Chatfield, or the fact that Imran averaged 29 against West Indies, and did pretty much ****all when Australia had Lillee. As I said, I don't think either of them are good enough to bat in the top 5. They were both no more than useful lower order batsmen of very different kinds,
bagapath
International Captain
14 hundreds and 22 fifties is good enough by any standards. botham was certainy a good test batsman. there are at least 5 major and 10 minor knocks of his that redefined his team's position in tests.
cant think of even one such influential innings by imran that actually mattered. there may probably be a couple of knocks here and there. a 120 odd against windies, may be????
but for my money's worth, i never cared for his batting. he was more disciplined than hadlee and s.pollock as a batsman. but they were pretty similar in terms of their abilities. imran delivered a little more than the other two; thats all
in terms of actually making a difference with the bat, botham and kapil were far superior.
would be happy to give him the new ball any time, though.
cant think of even one such influential innings by imran that actually mattered. there may probably be a couple of knocks here and there. a 120 odd against windies, may be????
but for my money's worth, i never cared for his batting. he was more disciplined than hadlee and s.pollock as a batsman. but they were pretty similar in terms of their abilities. imran delivered a little more than the other two; thats all
in terms of actually making a difference with the bat, botham and kapil were far superior.
would be happy to give him the new ball any time, though.
Last edited:
Valer
First Class Debutant
He bowled as much as kallis, with a roughly similar level of success (per game) in a team that plays a lot more cricket. I'm not sure you can actually get that much more workload out of quicks batting in the top 6 these days.
Batting was disappointing at times, but to be fair its not like the competition was doing much either for much of his career.
Batting was disappointing at times, but to be fair its not like the competition was doing much either for much of his career.
ImpatientLime
International Regular
Granted he never performed as he should have against the West Indies, but Botham's performances against Australia, well below test class?
lol
Get out of statsguru and go and watch some of his 'below test class' performances against the Aussies ffs.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I didn't even know Imran had overtaken Botham as a batsman. When did this happen? I thought it was pretty much universally acknowledged that Botham was the best batsman of the 4 great 80s allrounders, with Hadlee and Imran the best bowlers and Kapil somewhere in the middle in both batting and bowling.
bagapath
International Captain
No way, mate. 27 five fers is no joke. it is four more than miller and pollock combined. He also averaged a healthy 3.8 wkt/match. (he was averaging more than four wickets for 91 tests). add the 4 ten-fers, that pollock cannot match despite playing in more tests, the honor should be with him.
disagree, once again.
miller and botham were better than him with the bat, i know. but imran or cairns or pollock or hadlee never played as many iconic knocks as kapil did,
his 98 and 100* against the four pronged pace attack in west indies in 1983 with a 100+ SR, the 97 and 89 in england - also at more than a run a ball - in 1982, the century in the tied test, the four sixers in row to avoid follow on in lords 1990, the century against a rampaging allan donald in SA, and the match winning hundred against west indies in the hirwani test are more than ample proof of his achievements as a batsman. name one imran innings that can come close to any of these, honestly. remember! he also maintained an 80+ SR in 131 tests, which was unheard of in his era. (the next best was richards' at 69)
Last edited:
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
Pollock is easily at the top of the pile in the field.
Nah, he's improved it these days -- 20.08. He's a genuine (albeit terrible) opening batsman now that he's above the 20 mark.
The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
Botham seems to be Bags' favourite. Fair enough but you're using stats to justify that his stats don't really measure up to others. Again that's fair enough, because it means Beefy (like others) was more than just stats.
Personally my favourite is Miller.
Personally my favourite is Miller.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He's a lot better than Hannan Sarker though, even if his average is only two hundredths better - the Banglas would be well represented in All Time Donkeys XI, and on the strength of his post 1986/87 form Sir Beefy would probably get in that too, for a bloke who is indisputably worthy of discussion as being an All Time Great, that's a unique achievement imo