Better batsman : Ian Botham vs Imran Khan

[Johan]

I mean, wasn't Botham a set in stone 6, unlike either of Imran or Kapil?

I would imagine that effects the conversion rate a decent bit.

Skill Issue

 

[reyrey]

I mean, wasn't Botham a set in stone 6, unlike either of Imran or Kapil?

I would imagine that effects the conversion rate a decent bit.

Botham had a far better conversation rate (and more hundreds) when batting at 7 then he did 6.

His stats batting at 6 are actually really poor and he did far better when batting at 5 or 7

 

[shortpitched713]

Botham had a far better conversation rate (and more hundreds) when batting at 7 then he did 6.

His stats batting at 6 are actually really poor and he did far better when batting at 5 or 7

Lol, interesting. One of those kinds of quirks of history I guess.

 

[ataraxia]

How will he make his quickfire 39* (38) and 24* (26) coming in at 400/6 against the old ball if he came earlier?

More easily. The main reason why not outs can be bad, especially in limited overs, is that not outs can reflect batsmen being selfish at the end of an innings rather than going for a quick declaration. In those innings, Imran did the opposite: he selflessly sacrificed his average in pursuit of quick runs (except he was so good that he remained not out anyway). In addition to Pakistan's strong batting lineup, Imran has a very high proportion of not outs in this time period because of his skill, not in spite of it.

 

[kyear2]

Daily reminder:

View attachment 48507

Botham averages 39 over his peak, which is half that length of time.

It's approaching the point of disingenuous to use that stat at this point.

Everyone here know that by output and quality he was no where near that as a batsman.

His output per match doesn't even hit 49.

And the really crazy thing is the different time lines used for him for every argument.

 

[ataraxia]

It's approaching the point of disingenuous to use that stat at this point.

Everyone here know that by output and quality he was no where near that as a batsman.

His output per match doesn't even hit 49.

And the really crazy thing is the different time lines used for him for every argument.

This is an argument about batting, so I'm using his batting peak. Evaluating Botham and Imran as all-rounders, Botham's batting is probably superior since his bowling and batting peaks fully coincided. But we're not doing that.

Also I'm really sorry for my disingenuous use of that misleading statistic, batting average.

 

[Johan]

More easily. The main reason why not outs can be bad, especially in limited overs, is that not outs can reflect batsmen being selfish at the end of an innings rather than going for a quick declaration. In those innings, Imran did the opposite: he selflessly sacrificed his average in pursuit of quick runs (except he was so good that he remained not out anyway). In addition to Pakistan's strong batting lineup, Imran has a very high proportion of not outs in this time period because of his skill, not in spite of it.

Not outs aren't bad in any scenario, average itself is runs/dismissals, when you come at the bottom you can just make 30-40 runs and then declare, if you come at the top you'd have to finish the innings, Imran didn't have to, a 60* or a 50* is good and it's probable he would score much more but he can just easily be dismissed at 70-80 as he can go and have a century. Quickfire runs are also easy to make, when you're walking in against exhausted attacks with the old ball after 400+ are on the board, the fact of the matter is his actual run-per-innings was 37 even in that timeframe, putting him on par with Atherton...which is already generous as Atherton was unquestionably a better batsman but that's besides the point, it wasn't even 10 years of averaging 50 either, He was averaging low 40s from 1982 to 1988 and had a short run of averaging 70+ after 1989 after he dropped being an AR, even then, still not close to being the best in the world.

 

[ataraxia]

Not outs aren't bad in any scenario

Thank you for admitting it. Let me ignore the utter poppycock that is the rest of your post.

 

[Johan]

Thank you for admitting it. Let me ignore the utter poppycock that is the rest of your post.

I guess your hatred for nuance makes sense considering, how else would you overhype Imran's batting?

 

[ataraxia]

I'm not saying that Imran actually deserved to average 50 in that timeframe. I'm simply rebelling against the silliness that is denigrating him for low runs per match / high numbers of not outs. Imran had the advantage of batting on flat pitches under a good batting lineup. I assume that's what you're trying to say, but using statistics that are correlated with those ideas rather than more pertinent ones like "everyone's batting average in those matches" or "average score at point of entry to the crease" is bad analysis.

 

[ataraxia]

Re: the contention that I overrate Imran's batting, there is no other 50-test peak in cricket history over which a batsman averages 50 that is rated nearly as badly as Imran's. People seem to treat it like he should have averaged under 40 – move over Samaraweera or Barrington, that's a whole new level of minimising averages due to favourable conditions. What does that say?

 

[Johan]

Bottomline

1. his RPI is too low for his average to mean anything, even at his actual batting peak of 1989-1992 it's a little low but he was an actual great batsman at the time.
2. No, people, he was not a leading Batsman of the world from 1983 forward.
3. His output from 1983 to 1988 is just mid, three total hundreds, two wanker hundreds coming in at 367-5 and 382-4, both against weak bowling, one on a road constructed for an intentional draw, only 6 fifties and a few being great but that is about it, this is not a peak at all. His actual peak is 1989-1992

I pick this bone with Steve Waugh too, so Imran is not much of an exception.

 

[Johan]

Re: the contention that I overrate Imran's batting, there is no other 50-test peak in cricket history over which a batsman averages 50 that is rated nearly as badly as Imran's. People seem to treat it like he should have averaged under 40 – move over Samaraweera or Barrington, that's a whole new level of minimising averages due to favourable conditions. What does that say?

I'm not going to be equating All-rounder Imran (1974-1988) and Batsman Imran, the prior averaged 42 from 1983 to 1988, arguably did deserve to average under 40 in this timeframe, RPI is 32 and a lack of high quality knocks. Batsman Imran from 1989-1992 can average 50-60 or whatever, his output is with the elites too and much less downhill skiing.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm not going to be equating All-rounder Imran (1974-1988) and Batsman Imran, the prior averaged 42 from 1983 to 1988, arguably did deserve to average under 40 in this timeframe, RPI is 32 and a lack of high quality knocks. Batsman Imran from 1989-1992 can average 50-60 or whatever, his output is with the elites too and much less downhill skiing.

Yeah ok in a thread about Batsman Imran I think it's much more reasonable to consider Batsman Imran than Bowler-burdened Imran.

 

[Johan]

Yeah ok in a thread about Batsman Imran I think it's much more reasonable to consider Batsman Imran than Bowler-burdened Imran.

Botham was always bowler burdened, regardless have to take Pre 1989 and also pre 1983 into account rather than a concentrated two year batting peak + 1 innings from 1991

 

[DrWolverine]

1982-1991

Imran Khan scored 2494 runs at an average of 53

 

[Johan]

lol I love how Baby Azharrudin has played the same number of innings and has 600 more runs and twice the number of hundreds.

 

[DrWolverine]

Imran Khan averaged 10 points more than Viv Richards, Desmond Haynes and Gordon Greenidge during that time period(1982-1991).

 

[DrWolverine]

Imran Khan
51 Tests. 65 innings.
2494 runs.
Avg of 53.
5 centuries

Allan Lamb
74 Tests. 131 innings.
4264 runs.
Avg of 35.
13 centuries.

18 point average difference between them

 

[capt_Luffy]

lol I love how Baby Azharrudin has played the same number of innings and has 600 more runs and twice the number of hundreds.

Azharuddin had a very strong start. In fact his peak was literally around his debut. Also averaged 48 over that period. So scoring 80% of his runs as largely a bowling allrounder batting down the order isn't too shabby.