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

[vcs]

I just looked up the stats of WI's tour of Pakistan in 1986. It was a three match series, drawn 1-1. The highest score by any player in that series is 88* (Haynes). He averages 37.25 which is the highest for any batsman. The bowlers, unsurprisingly had a field day.. Imran averages 11.05, Marshall, Gray, Walsh, Butts, Wasim all under 20. Seems to have been a pretty good series to be a bowler in. I don't know if that is a fair reflection of conditions in Pakistan in the '80s, though.

Cricket Records | Records | West Indies in Pakistan Test Series, 1986/87 | Series statistics | Cricinfo.com

 

[vcs]

It's also interesting how players of that era played such a low percentage of their matches at home. Imran played 38 at home, 50 away (43.18% at home). Viv played 48 at home, 73 away (39.66%). Sachin has played 74 at home, 95 away (43.7%), Ponting 79 at home, 67 away (including neutral) (54.1%), Sangakkara 52 home, 39 away (57.1%).

Hmm, interesting.

EDIT : On afterthought, that's a silly statement.. it follows that someone must have also been playing a high percentage of home matches to make up the numbers.. my money is on England and Australia.

 

[Black_Warrior]

See, here is the thing, great players, and I am talking about the absolute cream here, the Imrans and the Marshalls, the Tendulkars and the Richards tend to perform even when conditions do not suit them. Pakistan-WI series were always low scoring because of the quality of the bowling attack.
Look at Dale Steyn, he grabbed 7 wickets against a very strong Indian batting line up in India. But in the same test match Hashim Amla managed a 250, Kallis managed a 100, Sehwag managed a 100 and South Africa did not even lose 10 wickets.
Now what am I suppposed to conclude about the pitch???

Great performances are often made despite difficult conditions. Steve Waugh made a 200 against a fierce WI attack and I have seen that innings and I know how difficult it was. But if people pick the score 200 now and claim oh it must be easy for batting, thats just stupid..

The problem with people like Ikki is not that they are totally ignorant about cricketing conditions in Pakistan. That is understandable but they stubbornly refused to accept when people more knowledgable than them about cricket in Pakistan explains something.

Why would fast pitches (which are more conducive to fast bowling) favour Richards and Chappell more?

Oh, because they grew up in those conditions? Thanks for proving my point for me.

Australian pitches while offering pace and bounce to bowlers also offers fair bit of help to batsmen.
Pakistani pitches are unsporting, fast bowler's graveyard. Just look at the number of high scoring drawn test matches in Pakistan

So my response is simple, the fast Australian pitches still offered relatively more help to batsmen then the flat Pakistani pitches to fast bowlers. There is a reason why bowlers of the repute of LIllee and Botham hated playing in Pakistan

 

[Black_Warrior]

It's also interesting how players of that era played such a low percentage of their matches at home. Imran played 38 at home, 50 away (43.18% at home). Viv played 48 at home, 73 away (39.66%). Sachin has played 74 at home, 95 away (43.7%), Ponting 79 at home, 67 away (including neutral) (54.1%), Sangakkara 52 home, 39 away (57.1%).

Hmm, interesting.

.

Sri Lanka in general play more at home. They have hardly played a full 3 match/4 match series in Australia and England respectively. I dont remember the last time they toured South Africa

 

[Ikki]

The thing with the cream, the bestests ever, is that they also exploit the conditions. Imran's average jumps almost 7 points and his SR jumps 12 points. That's not a little difference...that is a massive difference. Are you arguing that one of the supposed cream couldn't bowl better when it was easier to do so?

If fast and bouncey pitches help batsmen, then logically the opposite, the flat and dead pitches, should hinder them, no?

Um, no, that doesn't make sense. Players that grow up on fast pitches generally like the ball coming onto their bat, but it doesn't suddenly become advantageous if you compare it to batting on dead/flat pitches. Batsmen score more runs when there is less in the pitch for the bowlers. Or is the world crazy about arguing over the pitches, as per your argument it's hindering them?

With all due respect, you don't make sense because you're not consistent with your argument and you're ignoring the glaringly obvious.

 

[vcs]

Sri Lanka in general play more at home. They have hardly played a full 3 match/4 match series in Australia and England respectively. I dont remember the last time they toured South Africa

Sangakkara's numbers are easily explained, yeah. I was wondering more about Imran and Viv's percentages but maybe WI and Pak used to play a lot of their cricket away back then.

 

[GIMH]

I decided today that if Ian Botham was a TV show he would be The Simpsons

 

[Black_Warrior]

The thing with the cream, the bestests ever, is that they also exploit the conditions. Imran's average jumps almost 7 points and his SR jumps 12 points. That's not a little difference...that is a massive difference. Are you arguing that one of the supposed cream couldn't bowl better when it was easier to do so?

You tend to have a very simplistic notion of things, either this or that. If you average 19 you are great, if you average 25 you are poor. With that belief, it is extremely difficult to explain to you how Imran might have bowled extremely well but still averaged 25 away because the batsmen were playing at home because you already consider that since he averages 25, he must have bowled badly. Kind of like how Ambrose bowled brilliantly but Waugh still got a 200.

With all due respect, you don't make sense because you're not consistent with your argument and you're ignoring the glaringly obvious.

You're not reading properly thats all. Try reading calmly and you will find the consistency. Pakistani pitches are called unsporting meaning they do not offer equal help to both.
Australian pitches are not unsporting, instead very sporting. Meaning despite offering bounce to bowlers, it also offers a fair bit to those who can bat. Now ofcourse the average ones will fail but the Dravids will still score a 230. But the equivalent of a Dravid in bowling, a Lillee or a Botham have poor records in Pakistan, not necessarily their fault, just the nature of the pitches.
Imran and the others had no CHOICE but to find ways to take wickets on these pitches and hence reverse swing was born. Reverse swing was born because the pitches offer no swing, and because of the dry conditions, the ball loses its shine very early. So Imran had to find ways of swinging the old ball which is what he did.
This is why I asked you to look at the number of high scoring draws in Pakistan which if you did would have given you a fair idea of the nature of pitches and how much help it really offers bowlers.

 

[Furball]

No-one's said that Imran was crap away from home.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Yeah not directly but you people keep bringing up how there is a difference of 6 runs in his average between home and away. Yeah big deal.

 

[Ikki]

You tend to have a very simplistic notion of things, either this or that. If you average 19 you are great, if you average 25 you are poor. With that belief, it is extremely difficult to explain to you how Imran might have bowled extremely well but still average 25 away because the batsmen were playing at home because you already consider that since he averages 25, he must have bowled badly.

See, we're not gonna get anywhere if you keep creating strawmen or not actually reading what is written.

Imran has a 7 point jump in average and 12 point jump in strike-rate. That is a huge difference.

If his home conditions hindered him so much, the logical thing to conclude would be that if he went away from home, he'd do better on pitches that were more helpful. But Imran didn't do as well. He didn't even replicate the same record as he had at home. He was much worse.

That doesn't mean his away record was poor, but that it was much worse compared to his home record. Therefore, arguing that his home conditions hindered him does not make any sense. As a matter of fact, they didn't.

You're not reading properly thats all. Try reading calmly and you will find the consistency. Pakistani pitches are called unsporting meaning they do not offer equal help to both.

Australian pitches are not unsporting, instead very sporting. Meaning despite offering bounce to bowlers, it also offers a fair bit to those who can bat. Now ofcourse the average ones will fail but the Dravids will still score a 230. But the equivalent of a Dravid in bowling, a Lillee or a Botham have poor records in Pakistan, not necessarily their fault, just the nature of the pitches.
Imran and the others had no CHOICE but to find ways to take wickets on these pitches and hence reverse swing was born. Reverse swing was born because the pitches offer no swing, and because of the dry conditions, the ball loses its shine very early. So Imran had to find ways of swinging the old ball which is what he did.
This is why I asked you to look at the number of high scoring draws in Pakistan which if you did would have given you a fair idea of the nature of pitches and how much help it really offers bowlers.

Dude, no. Flat pitches = easier to score runs on. Fast bouncy pitches = harder to score runs on. Why do you think batsmen disliked going to face Thommo and Lillee at the WACA? Why was Pakistan the bowler's graveyard? Because the batsmen would shellack them. But now you're arguing that neither the bowlers or batsmen had any help in Pakistan. What were there, low-scoring draws?

Lillee only played 3 tests in Pakistan and Botham failed worse on pace-friendly pitches in the WIndies. You keep trying to point to isolated guests...I am giving you a 20 year career off a home-grown. Just accept it.

The part about Imran and co finding other ways to bowl...yes, that's the whole point. They did so, and they thrived in home conditions. In more "bowler-friendlier conditions" they didn't do near as well. If they hadn't figured out a way and were hindered/did better away, then you'd have a point.

Anyway, that's it for me. Not much of a discussion as it's pretty clear what is what. You're not going to change your mind and that's fine. I have a legal memo to write.

 

[Sir Alex]

Lol @ Ikki judging pitches by numbers.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah...runs/wickets being scored/taken don't matter.

I keep trying to ignore you, but you're a clever troll. Since CW has pretty much let you run merry, I'm thinking I should put you on ignore. It would be my first ever ignore. You should feel privileged.

 

[Fusion]

Lol @ Ikki judging pitches by numbers.

Yeah...runs/wickets being scored/taken don't matter.

I keep trying to ignore you, but you're a clever troll. Since CW has pretty much let you run merry, I'm thinking I should put you on ignore. It would be my first ever ignore. You should feel privileged.

Sir Alex and Ikki, consider this an official warning to stop attacking each other. If you have a problem with a post or an argument that the other made, either report it to the mods or put each other on ignore.

I think the thread now needs a cool-off time. Shame though as I thought it did produce some good debate the majority of the time.