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

[weldone]

Sachin didn't have to bowl 20 overs a day on top of batting though.

Oh, now I get why he, too, isn't part of this comparison thread

 

[Ikki]

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.

To me who the better batsman is, is the batsman that does most and is of greatest benefit for the team. Average is only one way to gauge who that is; but IMO, as I've shown with Imran, it can be a very flawed way of judging.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

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.

87 of Gilchrist's 96 tests he batted at number 7 or lower.

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.

You didn't understand my point then. Warne has done well against those teams or not done well against India or Sri Lanka...but he still did it on pitches not suited for spin. Understand?

No matter how much you twist it, half your tests (being at home) will result in a big difference if you're playing in one place which aids your type of bowling opposed to playing half those tests in a place where it doesn't.

 

[Migara]

^^Classic double standards of Ikki

 

[Cevno]

87 of Gilchrist's 96 tests he batted at number 7 or lower.

Owned.

 

[Sir Alex]

87 of Gilchrist's 96 tests he batted at number 7 or lower.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The moment he said Imran Khan was a tailender..I knew I had to get out...How do you argue with something like that

 

[Ikki]

87 of Gilchrist's 96 tests he batted at number 7 or lower.

Clearly, if you compare Gilchrist to a middle order batsman, i.e. Dravid, the same applies. Gilchrist's not-outs are propping up his average. Gilchrist, however, averages 40 runs per inning, even when you disregard his not-outs, so he is certainly no real tailender. He batted lower because Australia's middle-order was so strong, not because he wasn't good enough.

Obviously, reading isn't your greatest strength. In the above part I am arguing that the bowlers did better at HOME than away so you can't say they were disadvantaged by their pitches...because they were much better at home than away . Warne on the other hand bowled better AWAY than at home, which is the exact opposite and shows he was hindered by his home conditions.

What an embarrassment.

The moment he said Imran Khan was a tailender..I knew I had to get out...How do you argue with something like that

I said Imran WAS a tailender in that, that is what he started out as.

 

[Migara]

Away and home is a relative term. Conditions differ very much in the "away" category to be unified under one bracket.

 

[Ikki]

Away and home is a relative term. Conditions differ very much in the "away" category to be unified under one bracket.

Haha, we were talking about Warne v Murali and IIRC the point was how much harder it was to bowl spin in Australia and how much better it was to bowl in Sri Lanka. You know this and you still tried the "Ikki double standards" tripe. Your mate got caught out, and so did you. As you have been numerous times. The high-fiving each other is even more hilarious since you all missed the fact that I am making different points. You couldn't make this **** up.

 

[Sir Alex]

Clearly, if you compare Gilchrist to a middle order batsman, i.e. Dravid, the same applies. Gilchrist's not-outs are propping up his average. Gilchrist, however, averages 40 runs per inning, even when you disregard his not-outs, so he is certainly no real tailender. He batted lower because Australia's middle-order was so strong, not because he wasn't good enough.

Imran Khan averages 30 per innings disregarding notouts.. Is that tailender stuff??

 

[Ikki]

That's his overall career figure. When I said he was a tailender I was referring to his earlier part where he was a strong tailender but a tailender nonetheless - I think after his first 10 years in Test cricket he was averaging in the low 20s. It was only later that he turned into a genuinely good batsman, who easily held his own in the middle-order. The juxtaposition between him and Gilchrist is just silly.

Do you guys ever take care to read the posts properly? Honestly?

 

[Sir Alex]

You said this:

63 of his 88 tests he batted at 7 and lower.

There would be no confusion if you did not try to put that stat and imply as if he played as a tailender for most of his career. It helps if you make up your mind on something and stick on that atleats for sometime.

BTW Imran Khan started averaging above 30 with the bat by 1983, he played his 5th match only in 1976 when he became a regular. So your 10 years thing is a bit misleading...

 

[Sir Alex]

Obviously, reading isn't your greatest strength. In the above part I am arguing that the bowlers did better at HOME than away so you can't say they were disadvantaged by their pitches...because they were much better at home than away . Warne on the other hand bowled better AWAY than at home, which is the exact opposite and shows he was hindered by his home conditions.

Lol, now trying to cope out.. if anything they deserve MORE credit for persevering in those conditions despite the seemingly unfavorable conditions.. You are just playing with numbers here, and pretty clumsily. Just because those Pakistanis managed to do well in Pakistan doesnt mean the conditions were favorable.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Clearly, if you compare Gilchrist to a middle order batsman, i.e. Dravid, the same applies. Gilchrist's not-outs are propping up his average. Gilchrist, however, averages 40 runs per inning, even when you disregard his not-outs, so he is certainly no real tailender. He batted lower because Australia's middle-order was so strong, not because he wasn't good enough

Stop shifting your goalposts.You claimed that Imran was a tail-ender using the fact the had batted at 7 or below for the majority of his career.I showed you that Gilchrist did the same.Btw do you know that this tail-ender also batted at 3 in some of the matches in WC 1992 for Pak?

Obviously, reading isn't your greatest strength. In the above part I am arguing that the bowlers did better at HOME than away so you can't say they were disadvantaged by their pitches...because they were much better at home than away . Warne on the other hand bowled better AWAY than at home, which is the exact opposite and shows he was hindered by his home conditions.

What an embarrassment.

You are just clutching at straws as usual.Warne averages roughly the same home and away,around 26.

The point is that you claimed Murali had an advantage in that SL pitches are better for spin bowling....yet you refuse to acknowledge that Pak pitches are much harder to bowl on for fast bowlers than,say,Aus or SA pitches (some ATG great fast bowler averaged 100 in Pak ).

If Murali should get less credit for bowling on spin friendly pitches then Pak/SL/Ind fast bowlers should equally get extra credit for bowling on pitches that are graveyards for fast bowlers.

Otherwise it is nothing but double standards and you know it.

 

[Ikki]

You said this:



There would be no confusion if you did not try to put that stat and imply as if he played as a tailender for most of his career. It helps if you make up your mind on something and stick on that atleats for sometime.

BTW Imran Khan started averaging above 30 with the bat by 1983, he played his 5th match only in 1976 when he became a regular. So your 10 years thing is a bit misleading...

My statement was portraying that Imran grew into a batsman, into a middle order bat, whereas Botham was the real deal out of the blocks.

The point of the mass of his tests being played at 7 or lower was to show that Imran batted so low it was obvious that he was staying not out because he was batting directly with the tail. If a middle order batsman was gaining a lot of not-outs because they had batted with the tail that's a different argument. That's one where not-outs are going to be more important. If you had actually looked at the post I was referring to, this would all be clear. Because I had then mentioned that the period where he was a genuine middle-order batsman is when his not-outs become impressive. The discussion was about not outs.

 

[Ikki]

Lol, now trying to cope out.. if anything they deserve MORE credit for persevering in those conditions despite the seemingly unfavorable conditions.. You are just playing with numbers here, and pretty clumsily. Just because those Pakistanis managed to do well in Pakistan doesnt mean the conditions were favorable.

But they are not unfavourable, in fact they favoured them...they are the pitches they grew up on. Look at their home and away figures...their records are much better at home. If bowling at home disadvantaged them, why are they worse away? 3 of Pakistan's best bowlers did much better at home than they did away...do you think that is a coincidence?

 

[Avada Kedavra]

But they are not unfavourable, in fact they favoured them...they are the pitches they grew up on. Look at their home and away figures...their records are much better at home. If bowling at home disadvantaged them, why are they worse away? 3 of Pakistan's best bowlers did much better at home than they did away...do you think that is a coincidence?

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

 

[Sir Alex]

My statement was portraying that Imran grew into a batsman, into a middle order bat, whereas Botham was the real deal out of the blocks.

The point of the mass of his tests being played at 7 or lower was to show that Imran batted so low it was obvious that he was staying not out because he was batting directly with the tail. If a middle order batsman was gaining a lot of not-outs because they had batted with the tail that's a different argument. That's one where not-outs are going to be more important. If you had actually looked at the post I was referring to, this would all be clear. Because I had then mentioned that the period where he was a genuine middle-order batsman is when his not-outs become impressive. The discussion was about not outs.

Ok none is denying Botham had a godly start. You are just saying the same thing here.

 

[Sir Alex]

But they are not unfavourable, in fact they favoured them...they are the pitches they grew up on. Look at their home and away figures...their records are much better at home. If bowling at home disadvantaged them, why are they worse away? 3 of Pakistan's best bowlers did much better at home than they did away...do you think that is a coincidence?

Stupid argument.

So I can argue Indian pitches support fast bowling than spin because Dale Steyn averages 20 here, while visiting spinners like Warne, Murali etc average in the 40s and 30s??

Fact is despite the unfavorable conditions, these 3 managed to do well.. that is a credit to their ability. You are taking exceptions and making them the rule, these 3 were exceptions, and exceptional at that as well.