Hadlee, Khan, Dev, Botham - Who was the best allrounder?

[Avada Kedavra]

In Aus? I thought you meant the neutral tests where he retired not long after.

He played 3 separate series about 5 years apart each. He doesn't have 1 good series in Aus

His record in Aus is poorer than his record against Aus at home, regardless. Me right, you wrong, again. He was simply much better at home than away.

Stop putting words in my mouth.I did not say he does better vs Aus in Pak than in Aus.His stats in Aus are nevertheless misleading and it wasn't just the 99 tour' in which he was injured.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Anyway,the point is the fact that Wasim,Waqar and Imran ( after ignoring everyone else for whom this isn't true obv) do better at home than away should not take away from the fact that Pak pitches are much harder to bowl on for fast bowlers than any place outside the SC.The fact is they have to put in a lot more effort for their wickets as the pitch is of no help at all.And this does deserve extra praise,period.

 

[Furball]

Using that logic,Aus pitches are much better for batting than most others because Ricky has a much better average at home.

Actually true. Australia is one of, if not the worst, country for bowlers to bowl in. The only bowlers that have really done well in Australia over the last 10 years have been Australian bowlers.

Fast bowling is a markedly varied beast: the great fast bowlers, like McGrath, have the tools to succeed in all conditions: merely very good ones will generally have at least one hole in their record. Because fast bowling conditions vary from country to country and what works in one country won't work in another: see Mitchell Johnson's struggles in England, or James Anderson's struggles outside England.

However, if we're using the "OMG, Imran, Waqar and Wasim deserve a ****load of extra praise because they had to bowl so much on dead Pakistani pitches" then you're wrong. If Pakistani pitches hindered them so much you'd expect them to be a lot better away from Pakistan than at home.

Wasim: bowled worse than his career average in Australia, England, India, South Africa (admittedly only two Tests worth), West Indies and Zimbabwe,

Waqar: worse in Australia, Bangladesh, India, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies

Imran: worse everywhere except Sri Lanka.

To me that suggests that what worked for those 3 in Pakistan didn't work as successfully for them overseas. Having to bowl so much on "dead" Pakistani pitches had absolutely no effect on their overall career performance, because they were used to them and had the tools and nous to succeed on them.

edit: the two greatest Australian bowlers of their generation, Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne, both bowled worse than their career average in Australia.

 

[Ikki]

They do not play off the pitch. They run up, bowl and are primarily swingers. That is why they are so much better at home than they are away. It's no coincidence. Wasim himself said that because he bowled swing the pitch didn't matter. Whilst swing is no exact science, usually you see more movement in overcast conditions or places with humidity. That's probably why Australia doesn't have many genuine swing bowlers and why our batsmen seem to be especially weak to it.

As aforesaid, your argument breaks down completely with regards to the fact that Pakistan's bowlers in general have done much better at home and at worst only a little better away if you look at Akhtar/Sarfaraz. If bowling at home required them to be so much better than other bowlers, they should easily be replicating that in more bowler friendlier conditions. But they don't. It's simple logic.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Migara response -

And if Imran has debuted after being a fully fledged fast bowler rather than a medium pacer, would have had batting average of 45 abd bowling average of 19. Then comparing him to Sobers or Miller wouldn't have been a discussion. This is stats picking

I doubt that. Imran, simply put, was not that good a batsman.

Still no. Hadlee was the most naturally gifted bowler, and would have walked over Botham to any side just because of his bowling alone

.

Botham was a more gifted allrounder/cricketer than Hadlee. No doubt about that.

and so was Kapil's. Even more destructive batsman than Botham. Kapil in his peak beat Botham hands down with big hitting in the two series they played against each other.

Well he managed 6 centuries in 130 + tests so he certainly was not "even more destructive" than Botham. It's not soely abut strike rates. You need runs/big scores on the board. And, of course, Kapil was not Both's equal as a cricketer.

And Imran was a captain and a gentleman was waaay ahead of Botham. Having said that Kapil Dev was equally good in the field.

Imran is a self-involved bore who would marry himself if he could. And Dev was not Botham's equal in the field.

LMAO. Imran in his peak was much closer to Marshall, Hadlee or McGrath. Botham's peak does not come close to above greats. Imran in peak with the ball is few classes above Botham in his peak with the ball. Going back to your "compete / all round" theory, Imran was more complete as a fast bowler. Pace, bounce, swing, seam and reverse swing everything came in the same package.

I conceded that Imran was a better bowler. But my point that Both's peak with the ball was top class stands - over 50 matches he averaged 23 and over 4 & 1/2 wickets per test.

Cherry picking of peaks have dangerous consequences. In his peak Mushtaq Mohammed was the best all rounder. Because no on managed a 100 and five for in the same match against WI of 75 - 95 era

Fascinating.

 

[Matt79]

Severely tempted to lock this thread. Stop the bickering, stop punctuating your arguments with insults or it will be closed and further action will be looked at for those involved in it.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Actually true. Australia is one of, if not the worst, country for bowlers to bowl in. The only bowlers that have really done well in Australia over the last 10 years have been Australian bowlers.

Fast bowling is a markedly varied beast: the great fast bowlers, like McGrath, have the tools to succeed in all conditions: merely very good ones will generally have at least one hole in their record. Because fast bowling conditions vary from country to country and what works in one country won't work in another: see Mitchell Johnson's struggles in England, or James Anderson's struggles outside England.

However, if we're using the "OMG, Imran, Waqar and Wasim deserve a ****load of extra praise because they had to bowl so much on dead Pakistani pitches" then you're wrong. If Pakistani pitches hindered them so much you'd expect them to be a lot better away from Pakistan than at home.

Wasim: bowled worse than his career average in Australia, England, India, South Africa (admittedly only two Tests worth), West Indies and Zimbabwe,

Waqar: worse in Australia, Bangladesh, India, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies

Imran: worse everywhere except Sri Lanka.

To me that suggests that what worked for those 3 in Pakistan didn't work as successfully for them overseas. Having to bowl so much on "dead" Pakistani pitches had absolutely no effect on their overall career performance, because they were used to them and had the tools and nous to succeed on them.

edit: the two greatest Australian bowlers of their generation, Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne, both bowled worse than their career average in Australia.

The problem with going blindly by records is that they are very misleading.Sehwag averages 60 in Aus and 35 in Bangladesh.Do I take that as proof of Bang pitches/bowlers being better than Aussie pitches/bowlers?

The point is Pak fast bowlers have to work harder than an Aus fast bowler for their wickets given the flat nature of the pitches.Likewise the Aus bats probably have to work harder for their runs than the Pak bats.Both deserve extra credit in my book.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

The problem with going blindly by records is that they are very misleading.Sehwag averages 60 in Aus and 35 in Bangladesh.Do I take that as proof of Bang pitches/bowlers being better than Aussie pitches/bowlers?

The point is Pak fast bowlers have to work harder than an Aus fast bowler for their wickets given the flat nature of the pitches.Likewise the Aus bats probably have to work harder for their runs than the Pak bats.Both deserve extra credit in my book.

Exactly.Thats one of the reasons I rate some of the Asia's great bowlers better than that of other countries & Other countries batsmen better than the Asian ones.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Exactly.Thats one of the reasons I rate some of the Asia's great bowlers better than that of other countries & Other countries batsmen better than the Asian ones.

Agreed.If the player in question is very good/great everywhere then I don't really factor it in a comparison.If he does have a hole in his resume though (like Lillee in the SC) then I do take it into consideration.Anyway,that is just my opinion.

 

[Ikki]

The problem with going blindly by records is that they are very misleading.Sehwag averages 60 in Aus and 35 in Bangladesh.Do I take that as proof of Bang pitches/bowlers being better than Aussie pitches/bowlers?

The point is Pak fast bowlers have to work harder than an Aus fast bowler for their wickets given the flat nature of the pitches.Likewise the Aus bats probably have to work harder for their runs than the Pak bats.Both deserve extra credit in my book.

The problem is you use stats poorly. If someone plays half his career in his country and half his career out of it, across some 20 years, that is a large enough sample space to make some determinations. Especially with more assurance when said bowler's stats are like night and day. With the Sehwag example you are comparing 4 tests v Bangladesh vs 15 tests v Australia. Also, anyone having watched the two sides will use some common sense.

You keep saying the Pakistani bowlers would have to work harder on those pitches...but not necessarily so if they are SWING bowlers for if they use swing the pitch does not matter. They are getting their movement and variation in the air.

That's the last I am going to say about it because having to repeat the obvious gets frustrating and I don't want to hijack the thread any further or give the mods a reason to close the thread.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The problem is you use stats poorly. If someone plays half his career in his country and half his career out of it, across some 20 years, that is a large enough sample space to make some determinations. Especially with more assurance when said bowler's stats are like night and day. With the Sehwag example you are comparing 4 tests v Bangladesh vs 15 tests v Australia. Also, anyone having watched the two sides will use some common sense.

No I used 7 tests in Aus and 4 tests in Bang.As for common sense,I think it's common sense that bowlers have to work harder,put in more effort,on dead pitches.Batsmen have to do the same in bowling friendly conditions.The problem is you will keep insisting that you alone use common sense and only your use of stats is correct.I don't want the thread to get closed either so that is my last on this.

 

[Ikki]

Forgive me, yes, you were referring just to matches away so 7 tests. Although that actually improves my argument.

 

[JBH001]

If there is one topic that is prone to sweeping generalisations, it is pitches. And Ikki's point regarding pitches and adaptation is well made, it is one reason, for example, why Vaas was good in home conditions but terrible in England despite the fact that one would think conditions there tailor made for him.

Anyway, this thread is off the rails. Pity, as for a while there, it seemed to be a reasonable and fruitful discussion, before personal pettiness got in the way. I'm out.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Severely tempted to lock this thread. Stop the bickering, stop punctuating your arguments with insults or it will be closed and further action will be looked at for those involved in it.

This post was probably, partly, directed at my comment last night - which would be fair enough to a point. However it is difficult not to get riled on this site sometimes. There is a sort of uppity, revisionist, juvenile, student union smugness about some of the posters on here that does sometimes get under my skin a little.

In future I will make more of an effort to let it pass because this site is a good one overall and I would prefer not to be banned

Regards

GFL

 

[Teja.]

Migara response -



And, of course, Kapil was not Both's equal as a cricketer.



Imran is a self-involved bore who would marry himself if he could. And Dev was not Botham's equal in the field.

There is a sort of uppity, revisionist, juvenile, student union smugness about some of the posters on here that does sometimes get under my skin a little.

Glasshouses, stones etc.

 

[Migara]

If there is one topic that is prone to sweeping generalisations, it is pitches. And Ikki's point regarding pitches and adaptation is well made, it is one reason, for example, why Vaas was good in home conditions but terrible in England despite the fact that one would think conditions there tailor made for him

And the Duke ball didn't help him at all. Murali did not like the Readers, so SL played with Duke instead of Readers, which is preferred ball by Asian seamers due to reverse swing.

 

[honestbharani]

And the Duke ball didn't help him at all. Murali did not like the Readers, so SL played with Duke instead of Readers, which is preferred ball by Asian seamers due to reverse swing.

lol.. are you seriously suggesting a BALL will make a bowler from bloody good to bloody ordinary???? Seriously??????

 

[Migara]

lol.. are you seriously suggesting a BALL will make a bowler from bloody good to bloody ordinary???? Seriously??????

Not exactly. Whenever Vaas toured ENG he was struggling for form even in earlier series. When he got a Duke that swings less with his action problem complicate. Same for Murali who was OK with Kookaburra and Duke, but struggled to get the same results with SG. Ball is not everything. But when you have a high pressure tour or short of form, even that bit helps.

 

[Matt79]

lol.. are you seriously suggesting a BALL will make a bowler from bloody good to bloody ordinary???? Seriously??????

HB, meet Mitch.

Mitch likes Kookaburra balls, blondes, long cuddles, swapping hair and beauty tips with Shane Watson, and piercings in silly places on his face.

Mitch does not like Duke balls, moving furniture, blondes fighting with his mummy and his mummy embarrassing him in front of his friends.

 

[honestbharani]

Not exactly. Whenever Vaas toured ENG he was struggling for form even in earlier series. When he got a Duke that swings less with his action problem complicate. Same for Murali who was OK with Kookaburra and Duke, but struggled to get the same results with SG. Ball is not everything. But when you have a high pressure tour or short of form, even that bit helps.

yeah I get it, but then the same cases could be made for the other bowlers too?