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

[vic_orthdox]

I think some people miss a point when people refer to Botham's start and how good it was, and then say, "Have a look at Imran's peak, over his last ten years, etc. etc.".

Part of the Botham phenomenon was that he did it from the start; he burst onto the scene in such a manner. You'd expect most players to have a peak after settling into test cricket, and have a peak like Imran after they have collated a fair bit of experience.

I guess that there's two aspects to the Botham stat; not only how good his peak was but that he managed to do it from the beginning of his career, which is an exception in most cases.

 

[Migara]

I think some people miss a point when people refer to Botham's start and how good it was, and then say, "Have a look at Imran's peak, over his last ten years, etc. etc.".

What I think is some people miss the point that whole career stats are much stronger predictates of a class of a player than his peak. And when speaking of Botha's peak, they tend to glorify it and disregard Imran's peak which was few years later. If you are talking about peaks, compare to the peaks of the other player, not to the troughs. That is called intellectual dishonesty.

Part of the Botham phenomenon was that he did it from the start; he burst onto the scene in such a manner. You'd expect most players to have a peak after settling into test cricket, and have a peak like Imran after they have collated a fair bit of experience.

I would say part of the Imran phenomenon was he was co consistent with the finishing sparks produced at his latter end of the career where most people become immobile unfit lumps of lard.

I guess that there's two aspects to the Botham stat; not only how good his peak was but that he managed to do it from the beginning of his career, which is an exception in most cases.

Would say the same about Imran's latter part of the career. When lesser mortals fall apart he excelled.

 

[Migara]

Imran Played 88 tests over a period of 20 years and last 5 years mainly as batsman, wasn't half the bowler.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

I think you have missed my point . Imran played for a much longer time than Botham. So to keep the form over many seasons was a much bigger achievement.

Botham Played that many tests in first 9-10 years.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Still has a batting average inferior to that of Imran's whole career. Bowling is a non issue here.

Also in the first 10 years(1971-80) of Imran wasn't half the batsmen he became later on.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

And Botham wan't half the all rounder he was in his first half of the career. Your point being?

Imran was average batsman until 1986, only after 1986 when his bowling was on decline, he started concentrating on batting. He rarely did both together , Botham did for most of his career.

I think I have repeated myself enough times here, so this is my last post on this.

From 1981 to 1986, which is before the peak you speak about, Imran averaged 47.8 with the bat and 15 with the ball. Off his batting peak, he was still better batsman and a bowler few classes above Botham

 

[Matt79]

lol, Black Warrior, you've just used your yearly allotment of in one page of a single thread.

The other point about why people like to look at Botham's peak is that there is an obvious reason for the discrepency between the two halves of his career - injury. It's a case of 'imagine if...' that people use for a variety of players, such as Waqar Younis, Jeff Thomson, and Shane Bond.

(And before anyone on "Imran's side" feels the need to retort, I'll add that this factor has no relevance whatsoever to how you rate Imran - it merely helps explain the high regard Botham is held in by some).

 

[Migara]

lol, Black Warrior, you've just used your yearly allotment of in one page of a single thread.

The other point about why people like to look at Botham's peak is that there is an obvious reason for the discrepency between the two halves of his career - injury. It's a case of 'imagine if...' that people use for a variety of players, such as Waqar Younis, Jeff Thomson, and Shane Bond.

(And before anyone on "Imran's side" feels the need to retort, I'll add that this factor has no relevance whatsoever to how you rate Imran - it merely helps explain the high regard Botham is held in by some).

The same could be said about Imran. The injury prone medium pacer bowling with classical side on action who did little batting took 6-7 years for transformation in to open chested, quick as anything in the era and a very good bastman. So Imran's career also has two halves and with huge discrepancy. Buts and Ifs raised here also.

The fact is when we compare "fruitful" halves of each all rounders, Imran beats Botham hands down.

 

[Ikki]

Not true.
Pakistani pitches were just as lifeless and flat as they are now. The reason the likes of Imran, Sarfaraz, Wasim flourished was DESPITE the flat pitches..because they developed other skills.

Should have addressed this also.

Apart from Sarfaraz, the other Pakistani pacemen (Wasim, Waqar and Imran) did much better at home than they did away. That's the best argument you can give against giving them extra praise for bowling on home conditions. That is what they were suited to bowling and it yielded the best results for them.

 

[nightprowler10]

The point with his batting is that he batted lower and was a plucky tailender who was hard to remove but who made little runs

Or it could be that he batted with the tail a lot, leading to less runs scored and many not outs?

In any case, its not hard to see the argument for Botham. The man was THE all rounder of his time at the beginning of his career and seemingly the most gifted of the four, a more 'natural' all rounder where the other three were only great at one discipline but worked hard to be really good at the other. This doesn't make Botham the best all rounder of that era, and I'll cite TC's reasoning here, i.e, he just didn't work hard enough and apply himself when compared to Imran, Kapil, and Hadlee, resulting in an inferior career than he should have by all rights achieved.

 

[Top_Cat]

Imran, in fairness, had more than enough injuries. Missed plenty of Tests mid-career with shin stress fractures, for example. Late career was blighted by back injuries, hence why he had to ease up on the bowling. And, wouldn't ya know it, this just happened to coincide with some excellent batting.

Coincidence, etc.

 

[Ikki]

Or it could be that he batted with the tail a lot, leading to less runs scored and many not outs?

He was the tail, so that's not a big argument for him IMO. If he were a #5-6 batsman then that becomes a talking point. 63 of his 88 tests he batted at 7 and lower. He only really became a middle-order batsman towards the end of his career and that's when I think your point matters most. And that's when he bowled least.

 

[nightprowler10]

Coincidence, etc.

Could be due to the easier workload or could be because he worked his ass off to improve his batting during that time so he could justify to himself his place in the team.

 

[Matt79]

The same could be said about Imran. The injury prone medium pacer bowling with classical side on action who did little batting took 6-7 years for transformation in to open chested, quick as anything in the era and a very good bastman. So Imran's career also has two halves and with huge discrepancy. Buts and Ifs raised here also.

The fact is when we compare "fruitful" halves of each all rounders, Imran beats Botham hands down.

Imran, in fairness, had more than enough injuries. Missed plenty of Tests mid-career with shin stress fractures, for example. Late career was blighted by back injuries, hence why he had to ease up on the bowling. And, wouldn't ya know it, this just happened to coincide with some excellent batting.

Coincidence, etc.

Seriously guys, which part of the bolded section of my post below was too difficult to understand?

lol, Black Warrior, you've just used your yearly allotment of in one page of a single thread.

The other point about why people like to look at Botham's peak is that there is an obvious reason for the discrepency between the two halves of his career - injury. It's a case of 'imagine if...' that people use for a variety of players, such as Waqar Younis, Jeff Thomson, and Shane Bond.

(And before anyone on "Imran's side" feels the need to retort, I'll add that this factor has no relevance whatsoever to how you rate Imran - it merely helps explain the high regard Botham is held in by some).

This is going to be a VERY tedious thread from here on in if no-one came make any comment at all without getting an immediate retort of "Yeah, but Imran was better".

Obviously Imran's ability to overcome injury and come back at least equal to what he was before is hugely impressive and a major vote in his favour. I'm not suggesting that he be penalised in any comparison because he did so and Botham did not - if anything, it would go the reverse direction. That said, there is a romance about the player cut off in his prime, and the lost potential greatness that sticks in people's mind and helps explain why people, when speaking subjectively, love guys who fall into this category.

 

[Top_Cat]

Could be due to the easier workload or could be because he worked his ass off to improve his batting during that time so he could justify to himself his place in the team.

tbh, from what I saw and have read about the guy's career, he was always a decent bat. M'thinks it was a combo of both. Immensely talented he was, like Botham. But at his core, he had a big, big engine and knew how to put in the miles.

Not many guys can up their pace from med swingers to express. Ryan Harris did it, it took a few years and some serious gym work in between some harsh injury setbacks too.

 

[Sir Alex]

He was the tail, so that's not a big argument for him IMO. If he were a #5-6 batsman then that becomes a talking point. 63 of his 88 tests he batted at 7 and lower. He only really became a middle-order batsman towards the end of his career and that's when I think your point matters most. And that's when he bowled least.

Yep and when he started batting up, his average also increased. Which says had he batted at no. 6 fora major part of his career, he'd have made more runs than he did in finality.

 

[nightprowler10]

tbh, from what I saw and have read about the guy's career, he was always a decent bat. M'thinks it was a combo of both. Immensely talented he was, like Botham. But at his core, he had a big, big engine and knew how to put in the miles.

Most likely. Based on what he's said (IIRC) on his own batting ability, Imran always saw himself as a tailender who could stick around but had very few shots in his arsenal. He apparently worked very hard to rectify this midway through his career when he realized his body wasn't always going to hold up for bowling, and started seeing results towards the end.

 

[Goughy]

Ill leave Imran out of this for a second as I dont want to directly compare players. I just want to quickly talk about Botham for a second.

After his first 25 Tests he averaged 40.48 with the bat and 18.52 with the ball. I am not aware of anyone who had >40 and <20 at that stage of their career. They are other worldly numbers.

Just to also put that in context, in his first 25 tests only, he had more fifers than Michael Holding had in his entire career (14 vs 13) and the same number of 100s as Jimmy Adams had in his career (6 vs 6)

This is also before and not including his career defining series mirabilis in 1981 "Bothams Ashes"

Looking at career figures he has more Test 5fers than Wasim and the same number of Test 100s as Ian Chappell. That is remarkable.

And that is just stats. Botham also went past pure stats in the way he changed games and the way he played the game. His decline was unfortunate but for a period of time it is possible that he was one of the greatest cricketers to have ever walked onto a field. The same could also be said of Imran so I am not saying one over the other. Just that Botham was a freak of a cricketer that we will have to wait a long time before seeing the likes of again.

This is a tiny look at Botham. Books could, and have, be written about his achievements. I cannot think of a more remarkable cricketer than Ian Botham or one that could change games and series in the way he did. I am not saying he is better than Imran but I am saying that an argument could be made that for a period of time Ian Botham was the greatest allround cricketer the world has seen.

 

[Black_Warrior]

lol, Black Warrior, you've just used your yearly allotment of in one page of a single thread.

.

LOL What can I do...People are calling Imran Khan a tailender.. There is very little I can do but

 

[Ikki]

Yep and when he started batting up, his average also increased. Which says had he batted at no. 6 fora major part of his career, he'd have made more runs than he did in finality.

No it doesn't. We don't know how well he would have done had he to bowl and bat (to that standard) if he had done so earlier and for how long he would have maintained it. We don't know if he'd ever had the time to concentrate on his batting, to improve it, if he didn't reduce his bowling load.

I rate Imran ahead of Botham, but I just bring this point for those that can't understand why Botham is rated so highly.

 

[Cevno]

I don't get this period of career argument. That he was better in x matches.

Ultimately longevity of performance matters and Imran win's it on that count for me if we are making a comparison and on ODI performance + Captaincy.

Both are great players,infact all the four are,so to judge is tough between them as all are legendary players of the game.

 

[GIMH]

I love the way Jack makes a post about how people are missing the point...and then a heap of people misss the point.

 

[zaremba]

But that's my point, for a batsman that bats so far low and doesn't score a lot of runs, "every time he gets out" is not as important as "every innings he bats" in terms of helping his team. That's why in my example Batsman A is more beneficial to his team or captain - unless not getting out is what is best in that situation (since it won't likely be for Imran in the majority of cases; making more runs + getting out > making less runs + not getting out).

Well as you put the question now - ie "who is more beneficial to his team or captain?" - then I would agree with you. As I've acknowledged all along, Batsman A makes a greater contribution than Batsman B and in that sense is more beneficial.

However that's a separate question to what we were discussing before, ie who is the better batsman. And to me, batting average is a pretty good measure of ability. Not perfect, but pretty good.