Botham's England Test record

[stumpski]

Fifteen years after his last Test, Ian Botham, with 383, is still comfortably England's highest wicket-taker in Tests. Yet in the same period six of the other seven 'major' Test sides have seen a new name at the top of their wicket-taking list. The exception being New Zealand who, unsurprisingly, have been unable to find anyone to surpass Richard Hadlee's 431 wickets.

So who will top Botham for England? Caddick and Gough surely won't play again. Hoggard, Harmison and Flintoff are between 200 and 250 but still well off the pace, and all, you'd think, more than halfway through their Test career. In these fixture-congested days it seems odd to speak of a Test record being insurmountable, but who's up for this one? Monty maybe?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Monty has the best chance, if only because as a spinner he has the potential to play for a long time to come. I think Hoggard may get 300 eventually but wont get near 383.

 

[Richard]

Can't see Hoggard getting 383, but you honestly never know - who'd have guessed Warne and Murali would get 700 in 2000 or 2001? Not many.

Harmison shouldn't get anywhere near, obviously, and Flintoff sadly seems unlikely to play much more to me. I seriously hope otherwise, obviously.

 

[GIMH]

If my country comes calling, I will break the record for the people of England

 

[stumpski]

Two names I haven't mentioned are Anderson and Broad - both have plenty of time on their side (but in Broad's case 384 wickets to take, as he hasn't played a Test yet). Anderson I think will find it hard to keep a reguar Test place as he seems to be in danger of becoming an ODI specialist. Panesar will be a good bet if the selectors keep faith in him for another 7-8 years. Flintoff will finish with around 270 wickets I reckon.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Anderson and Monty for mine, but if Flintoff magically mends his ankle, which isn't gonna happen, then it would be him.

 

[jammay123]

dontr see anderson getting it he has 60 at the minute and has another ten or so years at the top maybe. it means he will need to get on average 32 wickets a year barring injury which is possible. but with new platers coming through like broad i find it doubtful hell play consistently for ten or so years,

 

[Pup Clarke]

Anderson, getting more than 383 test wickets?

 

[Richard]

Two names I haven't mentioned are Anderson and Broad - both have plenty of time on their side (but in Broad's case 384 wickets to take, as he hasn't played a Test yet). Anderson I think will find it hard to keep a reguar Test place as he seems to be in danger of becoming an ODI specialist. Panesar will be a good bet if the selectors keep faith in him for another 7-8 years. Flintoff will finish with around 270 wickets I reckon.

Anderson I'd highly doubt (as Liam in the above post) and Broad would be very optimistic right now IMO. People are still prone to get a bit more excited about him than his performance to date merits, TBH.

 

[nightprowler10]

Sajid Mahmood.


Oh you meant wickets, not wides.

Seriously, though, Monty.

 

[neville cardus]

So who will top Botham for England? Caddick and Gough surely won't play again. Hoggard, Harmison and Flintoff are between 200 and 250 but still well off the pace, and all, you'd think, more than halfway through their Test career. In these fixture-congested days it seems odd to speak of a Test record being insurmountable, but who's up for this one?

No-one with a Test cap to his name at the moment.

 

[Richard]

Sajid Mahmood.


Oh you meant wickets, not wides.

Would almost see it too, if he were to keep getting picked because "he's got to come good one day".

 

[BoyBrumby]

Wouldn't rule out Hoggard, actually. He's had his 2007 truncated by injury, but in the previous three years he'd taken 47, 58 & 51 wickets. As he's only 30 currently if form & fitness allow he's a chance as he's on 240 wickets as of now. It's not like he's really reliant on pace either.

 

[Poker Boy]

No-one with a Test cap to his name at the moment.

I tend to agree - and it says something about the quality of bowlers produced in this country that between 1981 (when Botham and Willis reached the milestone) and 2001 (when Gough did) no English bowler reached even 200 Test wickets. Mind you forget Beffy and Paddles, which SL player will break Murali's tally? IMO that player isn't even born yet....

 

[aussie]

Hoggard maybe i can see him playing for England at least until age 36 as England's test swinger, Monty definately once he doesn't do a Tufnell.

 

[cpr]

hmm, dont see Hoggard doing it, he's nearly 31, 140 wickets behind. Needs at least 30 more tests to get there.

I think the main issue here is injuries. So much cricket is played nowadays that players, especially bowlers, are picking up injuries more frequently, and are getting less time to heal (perfect example being Flintoff's ankle). The chances of a player playing constantly for 5 years without any form of breakdown, no matter how minor, are slim. Only way to avoid it is through rest, which of course means your not getting those test wickets if your not on the pitch. Even spinners such as monty arnt safe from debilitating their body. Look at the shoulder problems both Muralitharan and Warne have suffered.

For me, if any player is going to top Beefy's record, there going to either have to be
A) Superstar bowler who can take 70 test wickets a year
B) 3rd/4th choice bowler who'll have a long career, taking mebbie 3 wickets a match, and probably playing 75% of the time (being rested for the extra spinner/all rounder depending on the teams needs)
C) Spinner who, like above, doesnt play overly regularly due to need for 5th seamer/all rounder.
D) Bloody lucky with injuries


Cant see Hoggard fitting that, due to the fact as the teams workhorse he puts his body through such wear and tear. Now he might still be getting selected at 36-37, but knowing the England managements lust for blooding youth i'm guessing he'll be retired out by then (if he hasnt given up already). In his favour is the fact he's not considered for ODI's, which'll help a bit.

Flintoff..... His body wont last, pure and simple. Wouldnt be surprised if in a few years he focuses soley on batting just to extend his career (think Ronnie Irani style, though obviously at a higher level). Carrying on the way he is will force him out far too early.

As for Monty, yes he might well do it. Of the players there he's got by far the best chance. But who's to say in 3 years there wont be a spinner almost as good but can bat far better....


Even if someone does break Beefy's bowling record, i doubt very much their batting will stand upto his. Cannot underestimate how great a cricketer he was for England.

 

[Richard]

Wow. Really wish cpr posted in CC a bit more.

 

[cpr]

Theres a good reason for it. I simply dont have the cricket knowledge of half you guys, and dont watch nearly enough to catch up. I dont like to comment on issues unless i can be sure i'm not gonna be woefully out of my depth. Stuff like this i can give an opinion without anyone realising i've not actually seen a game recently

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think Panesar will last that long. But if he can play another 10-11 years, he will do it of course.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I don't think Panesar will last that long. But if he can play another 10-11 years, he will do it of course.

Well with the exception of Rashid theres no young spinner that looks like coming even close to dethroning Monty. So thats at least 5 years he'll be guaranteed to be at least 1 of the top 2 spinners for England. Thats if (a big if) Rashid comes good. If not we'll be seeing Monty for a long time to come.

Dont forget Monty will improve too. He's still young and he comes across as someone who really works at his game outside of matches.