archie mac
International Coach
Haha, Comedy Gold!
-
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.
Botham vs Snow - Who was a better bowler?
- Thread starter harsh.ag
- Start date
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
That's a laughable comparison.Snow played 49 tests. Here are Botham's numbers for his first 49 tests:
Why don't you take Botham's last 49 tests?
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Why would you? His prime as a bowler was early in his career. And he was amazing.
Reasonable IMO
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Lol. So comparing Snow's 12-year test career with Botham's 5-year prime is reasonable now?
Or is the question regarding who had the best 5-year prime? [In which case Waqar Younis is really the best bowler ever]
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
Nopes. The best peak belongs to Imran after John Snow helped him re-model his run up and bowling action
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Why don't you stop being trolling?
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I wasn't trolling. It was a genuine question.
Comparing Snow's career with Botham's first 49 tests is indeed laughable. Please tell me how exactly that's less absurd than comparing with Botham's last 49 tests.(...unless the whole question of the thread is regarding a better 5-year peak)
Last edited:
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I was just providing a different way to look at the thing if someone was so inclined. Note that I didn't write any analysis based on those stats. I understand it's not a good comparison as such. Snow had an eleven year career, and Botham too had played 94 of his 102 tests by the completion of his 11th year.
Snow played less cricket and was not an all-rounder. Two things in Botham's favour imo. I am still inclined towards Snow, but Botham's peak was ridiculously good. Somebody who values peaks more than entire career is not doing anything wrong imo. Just has a different way of looking at things that you do.
George Best fandom is a good example.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
It doesn't answer my question. How do you define a peak? 1-ball peak? 1-match-peak, 1-year peak, 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 11-year or 23-year peaks? The problem I have with peaks is that fans will just pick-and-choose a period according to their liking. Don't believe it? Let me try.
From 29th January 1993 to 6th January 2011 (close to 18 years), Sachin Tendulkar scored 13534 runs at an average of 59.62. How is that for a peak?
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Dude, you know full well how I picked the "peak" here. Botham's first 49 tests to match Snow's first 49 tests. So I don't know what you are talking about.
It's not like I tried to define a certain way of picking peaks in general.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
"Peaks" are a great subject for discussion but not a lot of use in objective terms - I think anything less than a series is a bit pointless, else you'd end up with people like Narendra Hirwani and Bob Massie, but its a worthwhile concept over a a series (Larwood, McDonald, Tyson and Iverson all spring to mind) but then it would be a different answer over two years or any other multiple - at the veteran end maybe Courtney Walsh would find his slot - if you're going to fix on five years then Waqar is possibly the man - but if you want to judge all bowlers over the same given period then maybe you can produce a worthwhile means of comparison - one for chasingthedon methinks!
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That Botham's last 49 matches were **** is no state secret. And anyone can figure it out by deducting his first 49 from his overall figures, both of which have been provided. So I don't know what the ****, in the context of this specific thread, are you talking about.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
When one is comparing two players, one has to look at the entire career. A lot of variables come into play. Bradman played far fewer tests than say Lara but one would rate Bradman higher as during that time, players played less and there were the War years in between. When you compare Bishop with Walsh, Bishop had a smaller career and his stats were fine but one would always put Walsh ahead as he had the longer career and made good of what he had.
If a player started tests at 31 and played on till say 37 and had a great career, one would possibly try and be objective and see who had a better career when comparing with some one who had a 10 year career. Howevever, if some one had a 20 year career, you might tend towards the player who had that 20 year career, even if the player with the 7 year career had slightly better record.
Howevever, if in those 7 years a player picked truckloads of wickets (bowlers generally tend to have smaller careers than batsmen) which holds him in good stead v full careers even, maybe the player with the 7 years gets the preference.
It is a whole lot of variables really.
Who is to say, had Botham played 10 years earlier in the era in which Snow played in, he may not have had those injuries, and a matchable or not a better career than Snow? Fact is though, Snow had a full career which was pretty good compared to Botham's brilliant segment and not so brilliant segments. It is an achievement though that Botham took nearly 400 wickets in a time when only Hadlee had surpassed 400. That does count for some thing.
If a player started tests at 31 and played on till say 37 and had a great career, one would possibly try and be objective and see who had a better career when comparing with some one who had a 10 year career. Howevever, if some one had a 20 year career, you might tend towards the player who had that 20 year career, even if the player with the 7 year career had slightly better record.
Howevever, if in those 7 years a player picked truckloads of wickets (bowlers generally tend to have smaller careers than batsmen) which holds him in good stead v full careers even, maybe the player with the 7 years gets the preference.
It is a whole lot of variables really.
Who is to say, had Botham played 10 years earlier in the era in which Snow played in, he may not have had those injuries, and a matchable or not a better career than Snow? Fact is though, Snow had a full career which was pretty good compared to Botham's brilliant segment and not so brilliant segments. It is an achievement though that Botham took nearly 400 wickets in a time when only Hadlee had surpassed 400. That does count for some thing.
Last edited:
ImpatientLime
International Regular
Botham apologists are the worst.
It was his fault he became such an out of shape mess, playing on a hope and a prayer. It should count firmly against his legacy.
It was his fault he became such an out of shape mess, playing on a hope and a prayer. It should count firmly against his legacy.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
So the back injuries were his fault were they?
Guess Bruce Reid's injuries were his fault then too.