Better batsman : Ian Botham vs Imran Khan

[shortpitched713]

Yeah, I don't know where the strawmen are coming from. I'm saying that Imran was virtually as good as Botham. Viv and Border are pretty horrible stand-ins.

Atherton on the other hand is decent shout as a stand-in for Botham, but ultimately the roles of an Atherton and Imran are so different, how do you compare them? Top order gets more scope of impact sure, but do we always assume that the top-order bat is higher quality unless the lower order one has a higher RPI? Taking an example I saw quite a bit of, I don't think Darren Bravo, for instance, was a better bat than Imran, even though he has a considerably better RPI.

Botham for me has an advantage on Imran due to his extraordinary peak, when he hit all those hundreds. But that's made up for by the fact that as his career progressed his role shifted (i.e. his performance decline, and eventually got kind of shitty). Imran started his career unremarkably, but after that he was very consistent in overperforming in his batting role. When comparing the two over their batting careers I think those features more or less offset.

I'd put Miller in a similar batting bracket as Botham and Imran, probably slightly higher due to greater career consistency. He is vastly overrated if you judge his Test performance to what he was expected to be from FC. However, given his role he more or less did his job consistently.

Gun to head Miller>=Botham>=Imran , but they are very, very small margins.

 

[Johan]

Atherton on the other hand is decent shout as a stand-in for Botham, but ultimately the roles of an Atherton and Imran are so different, how do you compare them? Top order gets more scope of impact sure, but do we always assume that the top-order bat is higher quality unless the lower order one has a higher RPI? Taking an example I saw quite a bit of, I don't think Darren Bravo, for instance, was a better bat than Imran, even though he has a considerably better RPI.

...He was, look at his away numbers.

 

[reyrey]

15 less innings wasn't it?



Yes ....

Yes.

1.3x more innings which is far more accurate than 2x matches you disingenuously tried to point out as being more meaningful

 

[kyear2]

No he isn't. Nobody thinks that. It's just that his high average is STILL impressive all said and done.

The other side is deluding themselves that since Imrans output as a lower order bat isn't matching a top order, therefore him averaging high while being mainly a bowler should be downplayed for some reason.

No one's downplaying anything.

And yes, it's literally all about the output not nearly matching the average.

 

[kyear2]

I mean that's fine but his bowling peak started in 1980 and that include a match saving ton against the WI quartet.

But again it depends how much you want to cut from his stated average to his real considered average.

For example, overall Imran is 37 but I give it around 35. His 80 to 88 bowling peak is 40 batting average but I would put that around 37 or so. So I normally deduct 2-3 points based on low output for parity with other bats.

Even for his entire career, his rpi is 30 and that's heavily influenced by the last 3.

So no, for the most part of his career, he wasn't a 35 average batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Is there an actual counterargument here, or just "lol how can this heterodox opinion possibly be valid"

I cede that Imran is not as "great" of a batsman due to the under-utilization from batting position, but he is very high quality as a bat. Something akin to Keith Miller with the ball.

You're comparing Imran with the bat to Miller with the ball?

There's literally no comparison.

Miller with the ball is a great bordering on ATG, Imran over his career was a useful lower order batsman.

 

[reyrey]

It's actually pretty easy to assess the legitimacy of Imran as a bat during the 80s until he retired. Just compare him to Saleem Malik.

Malik debuted in 82 and mostly batted at 5 or 6, and Imran batted at 6 or 7. They in played 41 matches together

Malik

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1982-1999	103	154	22	5768	237	43.69	15	29	12	Profile
filtered	1982-1992	41	53	8	1865	107	41.44	5	10	2

Imran

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1971-1992	88	126	25	3807	136	37.69	6	18	8	Profile
filtered	1982-1992	41	51	12	2040	136	52.30	5	12	4

Malik is a good yardstick and Imran during this period was clearly better

 

[ataraxia]

Is there an actual counterargument here, or just "lol how can this heterodox opinion possibly be valid"

I cede that Imran is not as "great" of a batsman due to the under-utilization from batting position, but he is very high quality as a bat. Something akin to Keith Miller with the ball.

There's some posters who would unironically rate Imran's batting higher if his peak average was 5 points lower. They ignore 53 because it looks silly, but if they saw 43 they might go "hey, that's solid". Needless to say, that makes no sense whatsoever. One cannot ignore batting average.

 

[shortpitched713]

You're comparing Imran with the bat to Miller with the ball?

There's literally no comparison.

Miller with the ball is a great bordering on ATG, Imran over his career was a useful lower order batsman.

Jesus christ, way to miss the point. I don't actually give a **** if a low utilization 23 average bowler is equivalent to a low utilization 51 average batsman during the more productive part of career. It's like you and subs have been at it so long over Imran you no longer see any nuance.

What you've stated is a straw man, and not my assertion. My assertion is that a player's utilization can be a factor in addition to their average numbers. Imran's average with the bat during the period in question is superb, even you can't deny that. But the utilization will downgrade him from other 50 average bats in terms of ranking on a list of other said batsmen. And the analogy is that this is the same way that Miller is downgraded in comparisons to other 23 averaging bowlers due to utilization. But the quality of both isn't really to be questioned because they did the job when called upon (generally speaking that's what the average indicates.) Greatness in a given discipline is a combination of quality and output.

 

[ataraxia]

It's actually pretty easy to assess the legitimacy of Imran as a bat during the 80s until he retired. Just compare him to Saleem Malik.

Malik debuted in 82 and mostly batted at 5 or 6, and Imran batted at 6 or 7. They in played 41 matches together

Malik

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1982-1999	103	154	22	5768	237	43.69	15	29	12	Profile
filtered	1982-1992	41	53	8	1865	107	41.44	5	10	2

Imran

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1971-1992	88	126	25	3807	136	37.69	6	18	8	Profile
filtered	1982-1992	41	51	12	2040	136	52.30	5	12	4

Malik is a good yardstick and Imran during this period was clearly better

I'm amazed that there's such a good analogue here. Keenly interested in how kyear is going to justify "ackshually, Saleem Malik was infinitely better in this timeframe" (or "ackshually, Saleem was total shite"). Presumably it's Imran's 4 more not outs and 2 more ducks that will sway his opinion.

 

[ataraxia]

Jesus christ, way to miss the point. I don't actually give a **** if a low utilization 23 average bowler is equivalent to a low utilization 51 average batsman during the more productive part of career. It's like you and subs have been at it so long over Imran you no longer see any nuance.

What you've stated is a straw man, and not my assertion. My assertion is that a player's utilization can be a factor in addition to their average numbers. Imran's average with the bat during the period in question is superb, even you can't deny that. But the utilization will downgrade him from other 50 average bats in terms of ranking on a list of other said batsmen. And the analogy is that this is the same way that Miller is downgraded in comparisons to other 23 averaging bowlers due to utilization. But the quality of both isn't really to be questioned because they did the job when called upon (generally speaking that's what the average indicates.) Greatness in a given discipline is a combination of quality and output.

This analogy is reasonable. My particularly high rating of Imran's batting mirrors my particularly high rating of Miller's bowling (because I'm less worried in how helpful those disciplines were to their teams compared with how they'd hypothetically perform without their all-round burden).

 

[Johan]

What you've stated is a straw man, and not my assertion. My assertion is that a player's utilization can be a factor in addition to their average numbers. Imran's average with the bat during the period in question is superb, even you can't deny that. But the utilization will downgrade him from other 50 average bats in terms of ranking on a list of other said batsmen. And the analogy is that this is the same way that Miller is downgraded in comparisons to other 23 averaging bowlers due to utilization. But the quality of both isn't really to be questioned because they did the job when called upon (generally speaking that's what the average indicates.) Greatness in a given discipline is a combination of quality and output.

I think we can all agree Imran was a very good batsman...for 3 years between 1989 and 1991, when he was a specialist batsman. His average from 1982-1988 is nothing special, his RPI is...32? alright, has a measly three hundreds, all on roads against the old ball and mediocre bowling units, has some good fifties sprinkled but at the end it's just three years from 89 to 92, you just attach 82 to 88 on it's tail to pretend the batting upgrade was a long thing he sustained alongside his bowling brilliance when they peaked completely separately. IE pretending he has longevity of batting excellence by attaching extra years to his final purple patch which lasted two years and a single test, in turn you sacrifice the actual average and run output of his purple patch for a pretty average over a long period.

on the Miller comparison, Imran managed to average 45+ in about 6 years of his 19 year long career, Miller averaged under 26 with the ball in 10 of his 11 playing years, and he didn't need to drop his batting and be a specialist bowler for two of those, so No, incomparable consistency, with the bottom line that one is a 22-23 averaging bowler and other is a 37 averaging Batsman.

 

[reyrey]

I think we can all agree Imran was a very good batsman...for 3 years between 1989 and 1991, when he was a specialist batsman. His average from 1982-1988 is nothing special, his RPI is...32?

Well let's compare him to Saleem Malik during that period in the games they played together

Malik

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1982-1999	103	154	22	5768	237	43.69	15	29	12	Profile
filtered	1982-1988	28	35	4	987	107	31.83	2	4	1

Imran

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1971-1992	88	126	25	3807	136	37.69	6	18	8	Profile
filtered	1982-1988	28	34	6	1223	135*	43.67	3	6	2

Imran is still comfortably better than the specialist bat batting 1 spot higher than him

 

[shortpitched713]

I think we can all agree Imran was a very good batsman...for 3 years between 1989 and 1991, when he was a specialist batsman. His average from 1982-1988 is nothing special, his RPI is...32? alright, has a measly three hundreds, all on roads against the old ball and mediocre bowling units, has some good fifties sprinkled but at the end it's just three years from 89 to 92, you just attach 82 to 88 on it's tail to pretend the batting upgrade was a long thing he sustained alongside his bowling brilliance when they peaked completely separately. IE pretending he has longevity of batting excellence by attaching extra years to his final purple patch which lasted two years and a single test, in turn you sacrifice the actual average and run output of his purple patch for a pretty average over a long period.

on the Miller comparison, Imran managed to average 45+ in about 6 years of his 19 year long career, Miller averaged under 26 with the ball in 10 of his 11 playing years, and he didn't need to drop his batting and be a specialist bowler for two of those, so No, incomparable consistency, with the bottom line that one is a 22-23 averaging bowler and other is a 37 averaging Batsman.

Besides for the fact that I already addressed that the bottom part isn't my point.

I think the 82-88 Imran batsman who averaged over 43 from almost 50 innings is being done a disservice here. He's not a specialist, because well he was carrying a bowling load at this time, but definitely he was one of the more useful number 7s for his team in the game's history.

Sure it's not the same as a number 3 averaging that 43, with presumably a higher RPI, but RPI isn't really what you can expect from a number 7 anyway. It's a much more situational batting role, but Imran had the quality to do it very, very well for a big chunk of his career. And to say he is propped up by his later specialist batting numbers isn't really true. It was simply a different role. Regardless of role Imran was clearly improving by leaps and bounds throughout his career from his early mediocre but occasionally handy lower order work, into solid number 7, into exceptional (albeit shortlived) specialist number 6 days.

It's a batting career track that definitely justifies comparisons with the likes of Botham and Miller, even if qualitatively very different.

 

[Coronis]

Well let's compare him to Saleem Malik during that period in the games they played together

Malik

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1982-1999	103	154	22	5768	237	43.69	15	29	12	Profile
filtered	1982-1988	28	35	4	987	107	31.83	2	4	1

Imran

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1971-1992	88	126	25	3807	136	37.69	6	18	8	Profile
filtered	1982-1988	28	34	6	1223	135*	43.67	3	6	2

Imran is still comfortably better than the specialist bat batting 1 spot higher than him

First off I’m not actually commentating on Imran’s batting in this post.

But “better than the specialist bat batting one spot higher than him” isn’t a good marker for how good a batsman a player is.

Specifically here, I don’t think anyone would say someone is a good batsman because they were better than Malik.

Or to use a modern example, I wouldn’t say one is automatically a good batsman because they’re better than Zak Crawley.

 

[subshakerz]

I think we can all agree Imran was a very good batsman...for 3 years between 1989 and 1991, when he was a specialist batsman. His average from 1982-1988 is nothing special, his RPI is...32? alright, has a measly three hundreds, all on roads against the old ball and mediocre bowling units, has some good fifties sprinkled but at the end it's just three years from 89 to 92, you just attach 82 to 88 on it's tail to pretend the batting upgrade was a long thing he sustained alongside his bowling brilliance when they peaked completely separately. IE pretending he has longevity of batting excellence by attaching extra years to his final purple patch which lasted two years and a single test, in turn you sacrifice the actual average and run output of his purple patch for a pretty average over a long period.

on the Miller comparison, Imran managed to average 45+ in about 6 years of his 19 year long career, Miller averaged under 26 with the ball in 10 of his 11 playing years, and he didn't need to drop his batting and be a specialist bowler for two of those, so No, incomparable consistency, with the bottom line that one is a 22-23 averaging bowler and other is a 37 averaging Batsman.

Again starting at 1982 doesn't make sense to me but whatever. He has a high quality hundred before that. He has several series of performing with bat and ball. He has a good average.

Ok so RPI is low but it sounds like just because of that you want to dismiss what is objectively a very impressive achievement for a lower order bat. His average for that position is very good while being a great bowler.

I believe his career batting should be looked at in three phases. 71 to 79, 80 to 88 and 89 to 92. So I don't like using the last decade entirely.

 

[kyear2]

Jesus christ, way to miss the point. I don't actually give a **** if a low utilization 23 average bowler is equivalent to a low utilization 51 average batsman during the more productive part of career. It's like you and subs have been at it so long over Imran you no longer see any nuance.

What you've stated is a straw man, and not my assertion. My assertion is that a player's utilization can be a factor in addition to their average numbers. Imran's average with the bat during the period in question is superb, even you can't deny that. But the utilization will downgrade him from other 50 average bats in terms of ranking on a list of other said batsmen. And the analogy is that this is the same way that Miller is downgraded in comparisons to other 23 averaging bowlers due to utilization. But the quality of both isn't really to be questioned because they did the job when called upon (generally speaking that's what the average indicates.) Greatness in a given discipline is a combination of quality and output.

Christ dude.

It's not utilization, it's output. Even you must be able to tell the difference between the two.

The difference between Miller and Imran, and Johan explained this, Miller on quality can be deemed ATG calibre, he just lacked quantity. Imran on quality never came close to being a 50 average bat, far less an ATG calibre as a batsman, especially when he bowled.

Miller had quality, lacked quantity.

Imran didn't have either.

As per the highlighted bit. Imran sometimes did do the job when called upon, more often though, the average was seriously boosted by, and Johan pointed out examples, by down hill skiing and some blatantly gratuitous cashing in.

There is, and I cannot stress this enough, no connection between Imran's batting and Miller's bowling.

Imran's still the better cricketer, but no comparison on the secondary.

 

[reyrey]

First off I’m not actually commentating on Imran’s batting in this post.

But “better than the specialist bat batting one spot higher than him” isn’t a good marker for how good a batsman a player is.

Specifically here, I don’t think anyone would say someone is a good batsman because they were better than Malik.

Or to use a modern example, I wouldn’t say one is automatically a good batsman because they’re better than Zak Crawley.

Well I didn't say that. I've bolded the main point I was making.

The 3 things I said should be looked at as a whole.

"It's actually pretty easy to assess the legitimacy of Imran as a bat during the 80s until he retired. Just compare him to Saleem Malik."

"Malik is a good yardstick and Imran during this period was clearly better"

"Imran is still comfortably better than the specialist bat batting 1 spot higher than him"

It's up to the individual who looks at those numbers for themselves to decide if Imrans numbers hold weight when compared to Malik.


As for your example "I wouldn’t say one is automatically a good batsman because they’re better than Zak Crawley". Malik is a batsman who averaged well over 40. Crawley isn't anywhere close.

 

[kyear2]

This analogy is reasonable. My particularly high rating of Imran's batting mirrors my particularly high rating of Miller's bowling (because I'm less worried in how helpful those disciplines were to their teams compared with how they'd hypothetically perform without they're all-round burden).

And this encapsulated so much of what's wrong with this entire argument.

Respectfully. That's nonsense.

1. Nothing beats how helpful you are to your team, it's about winning.

2. You picture some never existed picture of what they would be if they never did the other thing and rate them on the best of both?

That's literal lunacy.

I rate Imran as a top 10 bowler and a 28 volume batsman who's excellent value at the no. 8 position. ND that's good enough to make my 2nd all time XI, with consideration and some temptation for the 1st.

Now between mine and yours, which seems more reasonable.

 

[subshakerz]

And this encapsulated so much of what's wrong with this entire argument.

Respectfully. That's nonsense.

1. Nothing beats how helpful you are to your team, it's about winning.

2. You picture some never existed picture of what they would be if they never did the other thing and rate them on the best of both?

That's literal lunacy.

There's your bias again. What if the team isn't that strong and you need to draw tests?

I rate Imran as a top 10 bowler and a 28 volume batsman who's excellent value at the no. 8 position. ND that's good enough to make my 2nd all time XI, with consideration and some temptation for the 1st.

Now between mine and yours, which seems more reasonable.

Reminder again you falsified your ATG XIs to exclude Imran.