• 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. Imran as an allrounder in tests

Botham vs. Imran: test allrounder: who was better?

  • Imran Khan

    Votes: 18 85.7%
  • Ian Botham

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nonsense. It's unutterably laughable to suggest someone who did this (that's a sum-total of three good and two more pretty reasonable games out of nineteen) was "a hell of a bowler".

Purely and simply living on previous glories.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Nonsense. It's unutterably laughable to suggest someone who did this (that's a sum-total of three good and two more pretty reasonable games out of nineteen) was "a hell of a bowler".

Purely and simply living on previous glories.
laugh away....living on past glories doesnt allow you to take 8 wickets in an innings vs the best team in the world does it

you arent exactly the person I would run to if I needed an informed judgement on a player, so lets just leave it at that.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
laugh away....living on past glories doesnt allow you to take 8 wickets in an innings vs the best team in the world does it
Those past glories were being able to do such things (and, more significantly, the lesser and more regular things) often rather than just once in a blue moon.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Those past glories were being able to do such things (and, more significantly, the lesser and more regular things) often rather than just once in a blue moon.
just because he hit the highs bowlers have rarely hit in the first 5 years but didnt so much after that is more a reflection of how good he was.

In the time frame you are talking about, he was still probably Englands go to bowler in many situations, and was still a lot better than those stats suggest.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
All well and good ain't it...
1, being the best of a bad bunch is no excuse
2, stats not doing justice can be said any time and about any number of people
3, he was sensationally brilliant for quite a time... then he became decidedly on the poor side of average. Something you seem to treat as an insult to humanity, and something that no-one must ever be allowed to accept happened. If someone was at some time brilliant, you don't seem comfortable with the idea that they were ever (be it before or after) rubbish. I just don't get it.
 

Top