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

[BhupinderSingh]

He was a significantly better batsman than Botham, also a significantly better bowler and captain. Only place Imran was behind is catching.
I am sorry but comparing someone who maintains a 50+ batting ave. for over 50 matches and 27-28 batting ave against the WI to someone who never even averaged 40+ with the bat for 50 matches and 19-20 batting ave against the WI is just ridiculous.Saying that Botham was a better batsman than Imran simply because he scored more tons is like saying Azhar was a better batsman than Gillchrist because he scored more tons.
Ie, utter tosh.

Great Post.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Not many batsmen did well against the west indies in west indies back in those days.
Botham averages 14.17 in West Indies.....in other words, Imran averages one and half times what botham does in WI.
Botham simply failed miserably compared to the other 3 allrounders of that era when it came to the big daddies of that era- the West Indies.
If you cannot perform against the best of the best, you are not the best. Simple as that.
That is why i consider him inferior to Kapil as a batsman as well- both have similar stats overall in batting but Kapil has a far better average against the West Indians.
As per Imran Khan and Botham goes in batting, the question doesnt arise.
Imran averaged 50+ with the bat for over 50 tests...botham barely averaged 40 for like 20-25 tests or somethign.
Overall, Imran shades botham handsomely with the bat and even against the top bowling attack of that time(WI), he shades botham- home, away and overall.

Imran Khan, IMO is the second best allrounder ever, narrowly after Gary Sobers.
For those who argue that Imran didnt bowl and bat well at the same time, well for one, nobody bowled and batted well at the same time for a long while..
For two,Imran averaged 52.77 with the bat and 19.00 with the ball over the last 53 tests of his career.
For three, he carried a hefty bowling load till end of 1989 ( bowled 1733 balls in 6 tests- that is 48 overs per match... full time bowling, i would say!).

So, from 1982 to 1989, that is, for eight years, he averaged 49.27 with the bat while averaging 18.76 with the ball.
This was his bowling load for that span- in 1982, he bowled on average 43 overs per match, in 1983, he bowled 33 overs per match, in 1984 he played only one match with a broken foot and didnt bowl. In 1985, he bowled 40 overs per match, 1986 he bowled 37 overs per match, in 1987 he bowled 30 overs per match, in 1988 he bowled 43 overs per match and in 1989 he bowled 48 overs per match.
And before people start jumping around for 1987, Pakistan didnt bowl in 4 outta 20 innings in that year and in 3 other innings Pakistan didnt bowl more than 50 overs.

Considering that MOST pace bowlers average between 35 and 40 overs per match, to say that Imran's batting magnificence was due to reduced bowling workload would be inaccurate.
For, through eight years, Imran bowled just as much as McGrath-Ambrose etc. bowled, averaged 18.76 with the ball and 49.27 with the bat.

Simply speaking, Imran was the best batsman and the second best bowler outta those four and the third best bowler of the 80s behind Marshall and Hadlee ( in that order).

Honestly speaking,after above 2 quoted posts of C_C,only bias could motivate someone to say that any other of the three was a better allrounder than Imran.

 

[GIMH]

 

[Ikki]

Imran a better bat than Botham is highly debatable. But a "significantly" better bat is ********.

 

[Matt79]

Ikki - no call for that kind of language.

Bhupinder - no need to impugn others motives if they disagree with you.

Feel free to discuss the issue all you want but please do so in a civil way guys.

 

[Ikki]

Come on Matt; I am talking about the argument being ********, not the poster.

 

[Matt79]

And hence the fairly gentle request to consider your language to each other - prefer the thread not to descend into bickering.

Pick a better word - it's a term that is likely to cause offence and lead to the thread being derailed. Not seeking to interfere with you being able to disagree, vehemently if you want to, but there are lots of alternative ways that would make your point equally strongly without being as likely to upset the recipient.

 

[Furball]

Honestly speaking,after above 2 quoted posts of C_C,only bias could motivate someone to say that any other of the three was a better allrounder than Imran.

Imran may have been a better batsman and bowler, but no-one in the history of the game has combined the two as well as Botham has, which is why I regard him as the superior all rounder. A true all rounder should be capable of winning matches with bat and ball - and Botham did that better than anyone.

 

[Furball]

Impression that I've got is that the last stat is affected by the lack of opportunities that a Pakistani player would have to play in five match series.

Imran played in quite a few tbf: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Migara]

Imran may have been a better batsman and bowler, but no-one in the history of the game has combined the two as well as Botham has, which is why I regard him as the superior all rounder. A true all rounder should be capable of winning matches with bat and ball - and Botham did that better than anyone.

Imran and Hadlee were better match winners just by the ball than Botham's full package. What are we comparing? Very good bowler to two all time greats of fast bowling. I'd pick Hadlee just for his bowling over Botham everyday.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Only watched them at the fag end of their careers.I used to buy the Botham is a better match-winner theory sometime ago but the pro-Imran arguments seem to be more convincing now, tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran may have been a better batsman and bowler, but no-one in the history of the game has combined the two as well as Botham has, which is why I regard him as the superior all rounder. A true all rounder should be capable of winning matches with bat and ball - and Botham did that better than anyone.

Except against the West Indies.

 

[Sanz]

Except against the West Indies.

That's clearly nit-picking the stats to invalidate what GF is trying to convey.

In the 33 matches that England won with Botham, Botham scored 1950 @43.35 with 8 100s and 7 50s, and took wickets 172 @20 with 15 5ers and 2 10+ hauls.

In the 26 matches that Pakistan won with Imran, Imran scored 900 @36 with only 1 100+ and 4 50+ scores and took wickets 155 @14.5 with 11 Fifers and 6 10+ hauls.

For Imran Out of those 900runs, 624 were @ home@ 44.5 276 away @25 (Let me know if you want Botham's record pulled up).

 

[Furball]

2 random players, each with their last 20 innings worth of batting and bowling figures (figures are completely at random btw, this isn't a reflection of anyone in particular)

Player A               Player B

Batting     Bowling     Batting    Bowling
100         0/40         30         3/50
 26         6/60         60         3/30
 22         5/100        37*        3/80
  7         4/40         46         4/70
  0         1/70        114         2/28
 17         3/75         28         5/90
 57         4/120        53*        2/45
 45         6/80         68         2/65
134         6/50         19         4/100
 14         4/90         82         4/70
  6         0/70          3         2/50
 28         1/80         32         2/60
 52         1/90         90         3/20
 22         2/120        11         2/70
  2         4/140        66*        2/15
105         5/90         10         2/65
  0         0/100        34         5/95
 12         3/70         23         3/80
 68         2/90          9         0/35
  4         3/40         25*        2/50
----------------------------------------
36.05       26.92        52.50      21.63

Player B clearly has the better all round record. However, I'd consider Player A the better all rounder, because there's more Tests in that pile where Player A is contributing with both bat and ball. Player A is also the better match winner, with more 5fors and more centuries.

 

[Teja.]

2 random players, each with their last 20 innings worth of batting and bowling figures (figures are completely at random btw, this isn't a reflection of anyone in particular)

Player A               Player B

Batting     Bowling     Batting    Bowling
100         0/40         30         3/50
 26         6/60         60         3/30
 22         5/100        37*        3/80
  7         4/40         46         4/70
  0         1/70        114         2/28
 17         3/75         28         5/90
 57         4/120        53*        2/45
 45         6/80         68         2/65
134         6/50         19         4/100
 14         4/90         82         4/70
  6         0/70          3         2/50
 28         1/80         32         2/60
 52         1/90         90         3/20
 22         2/120        11         2/70
  2         4/140        66*        2/15
105         5/90         10         2/65
  0         0/100        34         5/95
 12         3/70         23         3/80
 68         2/90          9         0/35
  4         3/40         25*        2/50
----------------------------------------
36.05       26.92        52.50      21.63

Player B clearly has the better all round record. However, I'd consider Player A the better all rounder, because there's more Tests in that pile where Player A is contributing with both bat and ball. Player A is also the better match winner, with more 5fors and more centuries.

Player B = the better cricketer without a shadow of doubt?

 

[Sanz]

Player B = the better cricketer without a shadow of doubt?

No.

 

[subshakerz]

2 random players, each with their last 20 innings worth of batting and bowling figures (figures are completely at random btw, this isn't a reflection of anyone in particular)

Player A               Player B

Batting     Bowling     Batting    Bowling
100         0/40         30         3/50
 26         6/60         60         3/30
 22         5/100        37*        3/80
  7         4/40         46         4/70
  0         1/70        114         2/28
 17         3/75         28         5/90
 57         4/120        53*        2/45
 45         6/80         68         2/65
134         6/50         19         4/100
 14         4/90         82         4/70
  6         0/70          3         2/50
 28         1/80         32         2/60
 52         1/90         90         3/20
 22         2/120        11         2/70
  2         4/140        66*        2/15
105         5/90         10         2/65
  0         0/100        34         5/95
 12         3/70         23         3/80
 68         2/90          9         0/35
  4         3/40         25*        2/50
----------------------------------------
36.05       26.92        52.50      21.63

Player B clearly has the better all round record. However, I'd consider Player A the better all rounder, because there's more Tests in that pile where Player A is contributing with both bat and ball. Player A is also the better match winner, with more 5fors and more centuries.

Would have player B in my side. One player is a good batsman, good bowler, and sometimes a devastating combination of both, while the other is a very good batsman, world class bowler, but rarely a powerful combination of both.

 

[Furball]

Would have player B in my side. One player is a good batsman, good bowler, and sometimes a devastating combination of both, while the other is a very good batsman, world class bowler, but rarely a powerful combination of both.

Over the 10 Tests, there's only 119 runs of a difference, and Player A has more wickets to his name.

Player B is a steady performer with exceptional stats, but isn't likely to win you many Tests by himself. Whereas Player A can be a matchwinner with bat, ball, or both. With all-rounders, you have to be careful when you're analysing stats.

 

[vcs]

Also depends on the type of wickets Player B is picking up. If it's the crucial middle-order wicket/partnership breaker (Kallis), it adds to his case.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Imran and Hadlee were better match winners just by the ball than Botham's full package. What are we comparing? Very good bowler to two all time greats of fast bowling. I'd pick Hadlee just for his bowling over Botham everyday.

Exactly.Imran,Hadlee,Wasim & Davidson ahead of any other allrounder in history on bowling alone.With an exception of Garry"I bowl every style crap"Sobers probably.People keep saying how good Ian"Let me bowl & you just hope"Botham was at his peak but dodn't understand that he had a very short peak of 4 years whereas Imran maintained a batting averaging of 50+ with the bat & under 20 with the ball for last 53 matches of his career.And its all about performing in a single series or 2,Mushtaq Muhammad would be the greatest allronder ever.