How good was Imran Khan?

[Zinzan]

Dude, Miller was not a bowling all rounder. Stop peddling this myth. Batting was his stronger suit even if his bowling average is suitably low. He barely has 3 wpm and just 1 10 wicket haul in his career.

Yeah, we were referring to Test cricket, not First class cricket.

Post WWII - Batting average of 36 & bowling average 22 (with 170 wks) makes that player a Test bowling allrounder.

The myth is to say otherwise.

First class batting average of 48 & bowling of 22 - makes it's really hard to definitively say either way.

 

[ankitj]

How good was Imran? Legitimately should be in the top five 5 cricketers of all time.

Top 3 for mine. On odd days, I would deliberate top 2 too.

 

[ankitj]

Well yeah, that's one of many ways to look at it, although I would say looking at their numbers over the same time period would be a little fairer. Botham's era of 1978-91 was a stronger Windies period than Imran's 1971-1977 part period. I'd also what to look at the make up of the opposition they both faced, dismissed etc as well as where those games were played. In other words a decent dissection.

But sure, in general Imran has a better record against the Windies.

Imran did not play WI between 71 to 77.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah think Imran is a bit short charged here. He is definitely not as good a batsman as some of his series averages might suggest and he definitely improved as he went on in test cricket as a batsman rather than being a genuine quality all rounder all along, but he definitely turned himself into a very good batsman, someone who can hang in there for a long time, get runs without being too flashy, sticking to what works for him and if he had a batsman at the other end, there was always the potential to get a big partnership going. Surely worth playing as your #8 and maybe #7 if you are playing 5 bowlers and got a good keeper/batsman.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah think Imran is a bit short charged here. He is definitely not as good a batsman as some of his series averages might suggest and he definitely improved as he went on in test cricket as a batsman rather than being a genuine quality all rounder all along, but he definitely turned himself into a very good batsman, someone who can hang in there for a long time, get runs without being too flashy, sticking to what works for him and if he had a batsman at the other end, there was always the potential to get a big partnership going. Surely worth playing as your #8 and maybe #7 if you are playing 5 bowlers and got a good keeper/batsman.

That's fair. Someone else, could have even been you made the point that he's wasn't a natural batsman, even though he could hit a long ball when he really got it. but mentally he was very strong.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran did not play WI between 71 to 77.

5 tests in 75-76 in WI.

 

[Zinzan]

Incidentally, I've never really thought too much about it, but I'm guessing when SC fans debate the 'All-time greatest Asian cricketer', Pakistan fans make the case for Imran or Akram, Indian fans, Tendulkar & Sri Lankan fans, Murali.

 

[honestbharani]

That's fair. Someone else, could have even been you made the point that he's wasn't a natural batsman, even though he could hit a long ball when he really got it. but mentally he was very strong.

Funnily enough, those very attributes helped turn Steve Waugh from a mug to an ATG test match batsman. Surely reason to ponder that Imran could have hit higher peaks as a batsman if he was not such a good and main bowler for Pak.

 

[wpdavid]

5 tests in 75-76 in WI.

I think Pakistan toured WI in early 1977, so ankitj was probably right. Famously it was the first time Croft and Garner joined their attack, which must have come as a heck of an unpleasant surprise.to Pakistan's batsmen.

 

[Zinzan]

Funnily enough, those very attributes helped turn Steve Waugh from a mug to an ATG test match batsman. Surely reason to ponder that Imran could have hit higher peaks as a batsman if he was not such a good and main bowler for Pak.

Understand your point, but that's not strictly true about Steve Waugh. He did have raw talent at a young age. Look for footage between 85-90. It was only the 2nd half of his career, he gave up the hook & relies on the backfoot drive & the slogsweep as main areas to score.

 

[wpdavid]

Understand your point, but that's not strictly true about Steve Waugh. He did have raw talent at a young age. Look for footage between 85-90. It was only the 2nd half of his career, he gave up the hook & relies on the backfoot drive & the slogsweep as main areas to score.

Obviously his batting in 1989 is a painful memory for England fans. Was it some point after then that he was briefly dropped?

 

[Tromperie]

How good was Imran? Legitimately should be in the top five 5 cricketers of all time.

A ridiculously good all-rounder who just got better and better . His formative period was 71-79. From 1980 onwards, he was just a superstar. The closer you study his career record from 1980 onwards, the more it leaves you in awe. He never really failed collectively in a test series with bat and ball since 1980 onwards till retirement.

An underrated pacemen, given that at his peak, he was the greatest bowler ever (check this out if you do not believe me: Blogs: Anantha Narayanan: Test streaks: 52 and 27 matches long | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo). He outperformed all of his peers in his bowling against the best batting side of the time, the WI. His bowling against India in 1983 was arguably the best fast bowling series performance. Won matches on his own singlehandedly against the big boys and was the first to show the true devastating potential of reverse swing (after Sarfraz discovered it)

And yes, despite what some of you may say, he was an underrated batsman. Yes, his career average was helped by not-outs, but even if you remove some to make it a normal range, he would end up with an average of 35 or so, which is around the Gus Logie/Gatting level. You forget what an average of 35 meant in the 80s when bowling standards were super high. And no, he didnt just become a batsman at the final stage of his career. In 1983 at his bowling height, when he broke his shin and couldnt bowl, he stayed in the team for two years as a pure batsmen, and did quite well.

And of course, as captain, he was one of the very best if not the best. Built his team, introduced an attacking mindset, made youngsters into worldclass cricketers, scored some landmark victories.

I cant think of anyone with the possible exception of Bradman who had as much impact on their team.

Hadlee's not too far away in that respect. I don't think he's on the same level in terms of talent as Khan, but consider New Zealand's record prior to him coming onto the scene and then their win record after he hung up his boots.

Sobers, in purely allrounder terms, is slightly overrated to me as well. One of the top five batsmen of all time, at a minimum, but Flintoff, of all people, has a better bowling average (especially if one decides to correct for era) and no sane person would suggest Flintoff is a better allrounder. I'd consider Sobers to be more of a batsman that bowls than a genuine allrounder. Clearly, I say that as someone who believes that an allrounder's bowling should be valued more than their batting; some will no doubt disagree.

 

[marc71178]

For me Imran's bowling gets considerably under-rated because of the over-rating of his batting and trying to call him an all-rounder when he was never able to perform with both bat and ball in a series, it was always either one or the other (usually the ball until the tail end of his career when he put up a lot of better numbers with the bat but didn't bowl a ball).

 

[Migara]

Keith Miller the ultimate ****pit all-rounder in Messerschmitt and lady kills tbh.

Ha, Imran was not far behind in that aspect too.

 

[Migara]

The ranking of all rounders in tiers

1st tier
Sobers and Khan

2nd tier
Kallis, Botham and Hadlee

3rd tier
Dev and Miller

All tiers are within the framework of greatness and each of these all rounders are great but there was truly something special of Khan and Sobers from what I've seen, read and heard.

Botham was without a doubt the most naturally gifted but he faded whereas Khan and Hadlee got better with age. Sobers was the purest batsman of the lot and a great utility bowler, slow, spin, medium, fast whatever was needed.

Botham and Dev are in same tier. No way Botham is a better AR than Dev.

 

[indiaholic]

Realized that Ben Stokes was just 25 and decided to compare his numbers to Botham's when he was 25.

Batting: Tests Runs HS Avg.
Stokes: 30 1824 258 35.07
Botham: 41 1977 149* 32.40

Bowling: Wkts BBI Avg 5
Stokes: 78 6/36 33.52 3
Botham: 202 8/34 21.20 17

 

[ankitj]

How many hundreds?

 

[OverratedSanity]

How many hundreds?

8

 

[listento_me]

Botham and Dev are in same tier. No way Botham is a better AR than Dev.

How so?

 

[AndrewB]

And yes, despite what some of you may say, he was an underrated batsman. Yes, his career average was helped by not-outs, but even if you remove some to make it a normal range, he would end up with an average of 35 or so, which is around the Gus Logie/Gatting level. You forget what an average of 35 meant in the 80s when bowling standards were super high. And no, he didnt just become a batsman at the final stage of his career. In 1983 at his bowling height, when he broke his shin and couldnt bowl, he stayed in the team for two years as a pure batsmen, and did quite well.

On this one point - he didn't "stay in the team for two years as a pure batsman": Pakistan played 19 Tests in the spell in the mid-80s when Imran couldn't bowl, and he played in 2 of them. (Possibly because he wasn't fit enough, rather than because they didn't rate his batting highly enough, but the fact is he was barely in the team then).