Ian Botham vs Kapil Dev

[Richard]

TBH, have been thinking to say this before now but haven't - agree with Anil that Botham's sensational period was not long enough to consider this above all else. As I said, had he had the injuries at certain points (never bowled again after the First Test in 1981\82, and never batted again after the first-innings of the Third Test in 1984) and (maybe) had he never been given the captaincy, his career would be considered an absolutely brilliant one, but too short to draw any particular conclusions - rather as would be the case with Michael Hussey should he repeat his performances so far once again this season, then fall down with some form of career-ending injury. I doubt many would be calling him 2nd-best-after-Bradman in such circumstances.

4 years and 40-odd (30-odd if you consider that he was generally pretty poor while he had the captaincy) Tests is not enough to have what I'd call a notable Test career. Therefore, however brilliantly you do in such a career, you can't be considered in the same league as those who played for a decade and more and\or managed 70 or 80-odd Tests.

 

[Anil]

Meh, strangely I don't think we're that far apart on our thinking here tbh, and I've said that I don't consider Botham to be the second greatest cricketer in history - his failure against the Windies and the fact that he wasn't able to sustain his phenomenal performances over a longer period of time sees to that. I've just said that an argument can be made that for those 4-5 years he was playing just about as well as anyone ever has. Which I stand by.

But we're going around in circles here (on CW? Never!) so I'll just leave it at that.

i understand what you are saying, but i guess i am just uncomfortable with the idea of comparing 1/3rd of one player's career to the entirety of the other's and then saying the former was 2nd to the latter for that period...especially when both played in totally different eras...doesn't add up for me, sorry...

 

[Ikki]

Average of 25 as a batsman & 28 as a bowler is fine tbh but we're talking about peaks here.Imran played much more cricket in the part of his career I mentioned.

Considering how much his average is boosted by his not-outs, it would be rather rare for him to be getting 45s - even the possibility of just getting 45s so many times falling short of 50?

 

[Ikki]

actually no i didn't...most of the greats have had such brilliant stretches...tendulkar was once considered 2nd to bradman when he was at his peak in the late 90s...being considered the 2nd greatest cricketer in history even for a brief period is a significant bump-up for any player however great he is and flashes/periods of brilliance where he might have even played better than bradman is just not enough as far as i can see.....you might as well say something like, for those 15 overs/2 games etc, he was even more brilliant than bradman would've been...extrapolating that to 3-4 years would mean the player sustained his brilliance for a significant period of time, that's all...

Yeah...but people are just not going to be so quick to compare you to Bradman for such a lousy sample. You have to achieve some great feat to be considered that highly.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Considering how much his average is boosted by his not-outs, it would be rather rare for him to be getting 45s - even the possibility of just getting 45s so many times falling short of 50?

Its possible if you consider that he batted at 7 for most of his career & he would often be there not out while the tail getting wrapped up quickly at the other end.

 

[Ikki]

Its possible if you consider that he batted at 7 for most of his career & he would often be there not out while the tail getting wrapped up quickly at the other end.

Look at his not-outs, a lot of them aren't just the tail enders getting wrapped up quick, it's just the match ending because Pakistan were so good in the 1st innings.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Look at his not-outs, a lot of them aren't just the tail enders getting wrapped up quick, it's just the match ending because Pakistan were so good in the 1st innings.

So,its his fault that other batsmen played well & he didn't get a chance toplay longer innings there?

 

[Ikki]

So,its his fault that other batsmen played well & he didn't get a chance toplay longer innings there?

Not his fault, neither his credit. But to say he would average 50+ in the context we usually discuss batting is just plain misleading.

 

[subshakerz]

But it doesn't make him worthy of a fifty-plus average. In my lousy opinion, a fifty-plus average almost automatically pops you up there with the greats (or near-greats) of all-time -- and that Imran most certainly wasn't.

I agree, which is why I found people contesting that Miller was an all-time great bowler simply because he averaged 23 silly as well.

 

[Anil]

Yeah...but people are just not going to be so quick to compare you to Bradman for such a lousy sample. You have to achieve some great feat to be considered that highly.

and that would be having a comparable career, surely?

 

[subshakerz]

Meh, strangely I don't think we're that far apart on our thinking here tbh, and I've said that I don't consider Botham to be the second greatest cricketer in history - his failure against the Windies and the fact that he wasn't able to sustain his phenomenal performances over a longer period of time sees to that. I've just said that an argument can be made that for those 4-5 years he was playing just about as well as anyone ever has. Which I stand by.

But we're going around in circles here (on CW? Never!) so I'll just leave it at that.

Exactly, Botham, even in his peak period, failed against the West Indies with both bat and bowl. That does tell me something about his ability against the best.

 

[Ikki]

I agree, which is why I found people contesting that Miller was an all-time great bowler simply because he averaged 23 silly as well.

, would you care to explain that? There is actually no correlation between those 2 observations.

I just added Botham's scores in batting and bowling - when he got at least 5 wickets a match - they are as follow:

Batting: 2110 runs (2 not-outs) @ 38.36
Bowling: 251 wickets @ 19.33 and an SR of 41.

Everytime I do more of these it just astounds me how good Miller was. He compares with 44 with the bat and 16 avg. 46 SR with the ball.

 

[Richard]

Exactly, Botham, even in his peak period, failed against the West Indies with both bat and bowl. That does tell me something about his ability against the best.

He was captain at the time, though, and we'll never know whether or not being captain had some dragging-down influence there.

 

[Ikki]

and that would be having a comparable career, surely?

Sure, if it ended up being true. I know what you're saying, whilst some outlandish comparisons end up being misplaced, it's not for no reason that they're even whispered - or shouted rather, since everyone heard it.

 

[subshakerz]

He was captain at the time, though, and we'll never know whether or not being captain had some dragging-down influence there.

Still, he played 9 matches against them in that period. You would have thought he had the capacity for one match-winning performance. Even after captaincy was relieved he failed against them.

 

[subshakerz]

, would you care to explain that? There is actually no correlation between those 2 observations.

I just added Botham's scores in batting and bowling - when he got at least 5 wickets a match - they are as follow:

Batting: 2110 runs (2 not-outs) @ 38.36
Bowling: 251 wickets @ 19.33 and an SR of 41.

Everytime I do more of these it just astounds me how good Miller was. He compares with 44 with the bat and 16 avg. 46 SR with the ball.

That seems a pretty arbitrary set of stats to use, why just matches with over five wickets?

There is a correlation between what I suggested. You have posters who claim someone is a great just because of a 50 plus batting average, and you have posters claiming someone is great just because of a 23 average. At least you have provided some evidence more than "he had an average of 23, ergo he's a great."

 

[Richard]

Still, he played 9 matches against them in that period. You would have thought he had the capacity for one match-winning performance. Even after captaincy was relieved he failed against them.

By the time he next faced West Indies after ceasing to be captain he had already become a much lesser player, though.

And the fact that the very game after he was relieved of captaincy he produced his greatest performance of all makes me think that just maybe the captaincy might have had some sort of impact.

 

[Ikki]

That seems a pretty arbitrary set of stats to use, why just matches with over five wickets?

I agree, but it just goes out to all the guys who count how many matches a player contributed with both bat and ball. 5 wickets a match is hardly a tough feat for a bowling all-rounder so with that and his runs it gives a better indication - although not the best - as to how 'all-round' they were. Instead of counting instances where they took 5 wickets and scored 50 an innings, we take the average. These innings compared with other all-rounders' adds a great insight.

There is a correlation between what I suggested. You have posters who claim someone is a great just because of a 50 plus batting average, and you have posters claiming someone is great just because of a 23 average. At least you have provided some evidence more than "he had an average of 23, ergo he's a great."

Um, you can't inflate your bowling average as you can your batting average by getting a huge number of not-outs.

Miller isn't just great because he averaged 23, but also because he had a very very fine SR for his time.

 

[silentstriker]

Jesus, this thread is about Botham and Dev.....

 

[Richard]

Nah, you're a Mod, you should know the most important rule of CW at present - Every Thread Where There Is The Slightest Of Chance Shalt Become About Imran Khan Eventually.