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

[Migara]

Thanks for those stats Bagapath, it illustrates just how amazing Botham was for 50-odd Tests.

And it shows how dire was him for the rest of the career. Imran in his latter tests beats Botham of his 50 hands down. Averages 40+ with the bat and about 25 with the ball IIRC.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yes,I believe him to be a crap bowler & I have explained it many times why.If you don't agree with someone,doesn't mean you try to snatch the right of free speech/expression away from them.

Well of course its your right to call anyone a crap bowler. But when its quite obvious that just about everyone disagrees with your opinion and even finds it borderline offensive, what purpose does it serve to bring it up over and over again? Hardly constructive IMO.

 

[Migara]

Migara,its always a good idea to come up with smilies when you don't have logical answers to write off others opinions/questions.Thats what some of the members do here whenever I post a fact relating to an all rounder.Thats why I don't give a heck to what some of these people say.I consider Sobers as a crap bowler & I have reasons for it which I have posted many times on this forum.I consider others as inferior all rounders to Imran but I at least have logic for what I say,instead of smilies.

I would get infuriated when people say Botham is a better allrounder judging by 1/3 of his career at the peak.

But I differ from you when it comes to Sobers. Sobers never bowled the "suitable style" of bowling according to the pitch. On spinning pitches he bowled as a seamer, and on seaming pitches as the second spinner. When assessing his bowling stats I like to subtract 5 from the average and then compare.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I don't understand why people are splitting Botham's career into halves or whatever and then using his best phase to say that he is Imran's superior?Shouldn't we be comparing whole careers?To say Imran merely inflated his average by playing lower down the order on flat pitches is kinda ridiculous.On the same flat pitches Imran was a much better bowler than Botham.He was also much better against the best side of his team-love how people ignore it when it doesn't suit their argument.

Botham may have been a marginally better batsman than Imran but Imran was a much better bowler.Toss in Imran's WC win as captain too.

 

[Ikki]

The thing is Botham was just so much better with both bat and ball at that peak whereas Imran tended to be a better bowler in the beginning of his career and when he started out becoming a promising batsman didn't really bowl a whole lot. On the whole, I agree that Imran probably had the better career but I do think Botham was more than a tiny bit better than Imran with the bat.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The thing is Botham was just so much better with both bat and ball at that peak whereas Imran tended to be a better bowler in the beginning of his career and when he started out becoming a promising batsman didn't really bowl a whole lot. On the whole, I agree that Imran probably had the better career but I do think Botham was more than a tiny bit better than Imran with the bat.

Not contesting what you are saying because I only got to see them at the fag end of their careers,but would you say the diff between Botham's and Imran's batting > diff between Imran and Botham's bowling?

 

[Ikki]

Not really, no. If I were picking a team I'd have Imran. For me, it does matter that Botham wasn't consistent. Only thing I've disagreed with in this thread is the assertion that Imran was a better bat than Botham. In my all-time XI I usually have Imran and Miller as my two all-rounders.

 

[bagapath]

I don't understand why people are splitting Botham's career into halves or whatever and then using his best phase to say that he is Imran's superior?Shouldn't we be comparing whole careers?To say Imran merely inflated his average by playing lower down the order on flat pitches is kinda ridiculous.On the same flat pitches Imran was a much better bowler than Botham.He was also much better against the best side of his team-love how people ignore it when it doesn't suit their argument.

Botham may have been a marginally better batsman than Imran but Imran was a much better bowler.Toss in Imran's WC win as captain too.

Imran ended up having a better career, true. And yes we should be considering whole careers. But the point I am trying to make is that Botham was the superior all rounder for a long time and that should not be forgotten just because he ended up having a bad finish. these career splits are not mere statistical games. there really was a long period, not just a season or two, when imran was chasing botham's records.

consider this for a moment... after 10 years in International cricket (leaving aside his solitary test in 1971) Imran in early 1984 had played 51 tests. His famous reverse swinging success over India in which he took 40 wickets was behind him already. He was a premier all-rounder and possibly the best fast bowler in the world. lillee had just retired. hadlee and marshall were his close competitors for the title. his bowling average already was what he finished his career with. his allround record at the time was

51 2023 123 31.12 2 232 8/58 22.91 16 16

and botham's career record at the same time was

63 3548 208 36.57 12 277 8/34 24.82 20 72 0

As you can see, if one followed cricket at that time it was perfectly legit to rate botham as the superior all rounder of the two, and most of the world did feel that way. after 10 years of world beating success imran was still behind botham. he did overtake him in the next 6 years. but he was chasing botham at that point for a long time.

botham's career was 7 years old then. from his perspective, 7 years is a long time to be ahead of someone as good as imran and that deserves a lot of respect.

beefy screwed up the last few years of his career and imran improved his batting to a more effective level. and consequently their final figures ended up the way they are now. but botham's peak was not a short one. it was as long as imran's only it happened early and then he faded; whereas imran went from strength to strength.

 

[Furball]

Imran also didn't finish his career as a particularly good bowler: check out his reverse cumulative career average.

Unlike Botham in his initial 5 or 6 years, Imran was never really the same complete package.

 

[Fusion]

beefy screwed up the last few years of his career and imran improved his batting to a more effective level. and consequently their final figures ended up the way they are now. but botham's peak was not a short one. it was as long as imran's only it happened early and then he faded; whereas imran went from strength to strength.

Hence one would be justified in saying that Imran was the better all-rounder overall. We shouldn’t stop judging a player’s career once he’s past his peak. The simple fact is that Botham did deteriorate, and did so drastically whereas Imran kept improving (at least in his batting and didn’t fall of the face of the earth in his bowling). I also think that Imran having a better Captaincy record goes in his favor. I personally think that factor figures into the “all-round” debate. Imran was able to perform better under pressure. In fact, the bigger the battles, the better he performed, as is evident by his record against the Windies and India (the pressure and expectations couldn’t be understated against Pakistan’s chief rivals).

 

[Migara]

Imran ended up having a better career, true. And yes we should be considering whole careers. But the point I am trying to make is that Botham was the superior all rounder for a long time and that should not be forgotten just because he ended up having a bad finish. these career splits are not mere statistical games. there really was a long period, not just a season or two, when imran was chasing botham's records.

consider this for a moment... after 10 years in International cricket (leaving aside his solitary test in 1971) Imran in early 1984 had played 51 tests. His famous reverse swinging success over India in which he took 40 wickets was behind him already. He was a premier all-rounder and possibly the best fast bowler in the world. lillee had just retired. hadlee and marshall were his close competitors for the title. his bowling average already was what he finished his career with. his allround record at the time was

51 2023 123 31.12 2 232 8/58 22.91 16 16

and botham's career record at the same time was

63 3548 208 36.57 12 277 8/34 24.82 20 72 0

As you can see, if one followed cricket at that time it was perfectly legit to rate botham as the superior all rounder of the two, and most of the world did feel that way. after 10 years of world beating success imran was still behind botham. he did overtake him in the next 6 years. but he was chasing botham at that point for a long time.

botham's career was 7 years old then. from his perspective, 7 years is a long time to be ahead of someone as good as imran and that deserves a lot of respect.

beefy screwed up the last few years of his career and imran improved his batting to a more effective level. and consequently their final figures ended up the way they are now. but botham's peak was not a short one. it was as long as imran's only it happened early and then he faded; whereas imran went from strength to strength.

Well take Imran's last 63 test matches and compare it to Botham's

Imran's last 63 matches
Batting average - 46.5, Bowling average - 19.4

Botham's first 63 matches
Batting average - 36.5, bowling average 24.8

Sorry, your theory is rubbish. Imran for the same period of time in his latter half of the career was several classes above Botham during his early half of the career. The differences in average is "gaping". Even at their peaks, Imran beats Botham hands down.

 

[Sir Alex]

Their yearly performances a comparison

		Imran Khan						Ian Botham				
Year	Matches	Runs	Batavg	Wickets	 BowAvg 	Matches	Runs	Batavg	Wickets	 BowAvg 
1971	1	5	 5.00 	 -   	 -   		 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   
1974	3	92	 18.40 	 5 	 51.60 		 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   
1976	4	158	 31.60 	 15 	 35.86 		 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   
1977	7	248	 19.07 	 42 	 28.38 		2	25	 12.50 	10	 20.20 
1978	3	104	 52.00 	 14 	 31.50 		12	597	 39.80 	66	 18.19 
1979	7	225	 20.45 	 22 	 29.13 		8	446	 37.16 	42	 20.73 
1980	8	351	 31.90 	 30 	 21.46 		9	437	 31.21 	35	 23.37 
1981	3	108	 27.00 	 16 	 19.50 		13	629	 28.59 	62	 25.54 
1982	9	393	 49.12 	 62 	 13.29 		14	1095	 49.77 	47	 37.23 
1983	5	324	 108.00  26 	 15.80 		5	319	 31.90 	15	 30.00 
1984	1	15	 7.50 	 -   	 -   		10	611	 35.94 	35	 37.57 
1985	3	69	 34.50 	 17 	 15.94 		6	250	 31.25 	31	 27.58 
1986	6	163	 20.37 	 33 	 14.21 		9	400	 28.57 	23	 37.13 
1987	10	515	 57.22 	 29 	 29.20 		6	248	 27.55 	7	 70.28 
1988	3	90	 22.50 	 23 	 18.08 		 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   
1989	6	402	 100.50  20 	 35.10 		3	62	 15.50 	3	 80.33 
1990	6	430	 61.42 	 8 	 27.62 		 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   	 -   
1991	2	93	 -   	 -   	 -   		2	57	 28.50 	4	 27.00 
1992	1	22	 11.00 	 -   	 -   		3	24	 6.00 	3	 45.66

 

[Sir Alex]

Botham touched heights I don't think any allrounder has managed to. But Imran Khan was gloriously consistent with the ball, sometimes simply brilliant, and was dependable as a batsman, particularly towards the end of his career. His bowling perhaps tailed off towards the very fag end of his career, but was still better than Botham's by a country mile and half. Botham was an underperformer since 1986 and managed to cling on for about 7 years. Also Botham the bowler was 5-6 good years overall and was largely **** for the rest of his career.

 

[Migara]

Here to illustrate how Imran has out done Botham in the form of a chart. Botham played 102 test compared to 88 by Imran. So Imran's 88 is spaced out to 102 of Botham. Botham's stats are in cumulative fashion. Imran's in reverse cumulative order (bur to their repective peaks).

Most of the time Imran's batting worm is over Botham's and vice versa for the bowling.
(IK - Imran Khan, IB - Ian Botham)

In conclusion Imran has been having better cumulative bowling averages for 55% of time and better batting cumulative for about 90% of the time.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Imran ended up having a better career, true. And yes we should be considering whole careers. But the point I am trying to make is that Botham was the superior all rounder for a long time and that should not be forgotten just because he ended up having a bad finish. these career splits are not mere statistical games. there really was a long period, not just a season or two, when imran was chasing botham's records.

consider this for a moment... after 10 years in International cricket (leaving aside his solitary test in 1971) Imran in early 1984 had played 51 tests. His famous reverse swinging success over India in which he took 40 wickets was behind him already. He was a premier all-rounder and possibly the best fast bowler in the world. lillee had just retired. hadlee and marshall were his close competitors for the title. his bowling average already was what he finished his career with. his allround record at the time was

51 2023 123 31.12 2 232 8/58 22.91 16 16

and botham's career record at the same time was

63 3548 208 36.57 12 277 8/34 24.82 20 72 0

As you can see, if one followed cricket at that time it was perfectly legit to rate botham as the superior all rounder of the two, and most of the world did feel that way. after 10 years of world beating success imran was still behind botham. he did overtake him in the next 6 years. but he was chasing botham at that point for a long time.

botham's career was 7 years old then. from his perspective, 7 years is a long time to be ahead of someone as good as imran and that deserves a lot of respect.

beefy screwed up the last few years of his career and imran improved his batting to a more effective level. and consequently their final figures ended up the way they are now. but botham's peak was not a short one. it was as long as imran's only it happened early and then he faded; whereas imran went from strength to strength.

Say 2 blokes are having a race of 10 laps.One bloke has the lead for 9 out of the 10 laps but the second one overtakes him in the last one to the finish line.Who is considered the winner?The bloke who led the race for 9/10 laps or the bloke who reached the finish line first?

If Imran went from strength to strength as Botham faded then that is a plus point for Imran and a negative one for Beefy,isn't it?

 

[GIMH]

The minute I see a graph in one of these threads I throw up a little in my mouth.

I think I shall be marking this thread 'read' from now on.

Shame, really as there has been some good discussion but whatever.

 

[Migara]

Some people always like to banter subjective crap. when ever they see an objective analysis, becomes uneasy.

 

[Ikki]

Well, as a stats person myself I must say your graph is...unreliable. Imran > Botham with the bat 90% of the time?

 

[Faisal1985]

Imran ended up having a better career, true. And yes we should be considering whole careers. But the point I am trying to make is that Botham was the superior all rounder for a long time and that should not be forgotten just because he ended up having a bad finish. these career splits are not mere statistical games. there really was a long period, not just a season or two, when imran was chasing botham's records.

consider this for a moment... after 10 years in International cricket (leaving aside his solitary test in 1971) Imran in early 1984 had played 51 tests. His famous reverse swinging success over India in which he took 40 wickets was behind him already. He was a premier all-rounder and possibly the best fast bowler in the world. lillee had just retired. hadlee and marshall were his close competitors for the title. his bowling average already was what he finished his career with. his allround record at the time was

51 2023 123 31.12 2 232 8/58 22.91 16 16

and botham's career record at the same time was

63 3548 208 36.57 12 277 8/34 24.82 20 72 0

As you can see, if one followed cricket at that time it was perfectly legit to rate botham as the superior all rounder of the two, and most of the world did feel that way. after 10 years of world beating success imran was still behind botham. he did overtake him in the next 6 years. but he was chasing botham at that point for a long time.

botham's career was 7 years old then. from his perspective, 7 years is a long time to be ahead of someone as good as imran and that deserves a lot of respect.

beefy screwed up the last few years of his career and imran improved his batting to a more effective level. and consequently their final figures ended up the way they are now. but botham's peak was not a short one. it was as long as imran's only it happened early and then he faded; whereas imran went from strength to strength.

Agreed....but i would also be interested in what wickets Botham mostly bowled on or what kind of bowlers Botham faced...compared to Imran...?

I.e. Was it a possibility for Botham to equal the 40 wicket Indian glory of Imran at that time? Or how did Botham do against WI or other top teams...? away from England....sheer stats are a good way to analyze but if you add the factors of conditions and opposition strength...then that's what really will set them apart....

 

[Matt79]

Dire how these conversations always end up with people talking players down. I thought Bagapath's post was excellent and highlighted what should be the starting point for every post on the subject - Botham and Imran (and Sobers, Hadlee, Kapil for that matter) were amazingly, ridiculously good cricketers - all of them were. Imran having a better career overall, or Botham being ahead of him for a long time when their careers were in progress doesn't affect the others claim to greatness one iota. It's close enough that I think we should relax and accept people might hold different views to us without being willfully biased or stupid.