In terms of match impact, is Botham better than Tendulkar and McGrath?

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think Hammond the slip is close to Imran the bat in term of match impact but with considering his decent pace bowling and leg spin, all combined into one, maybe during IK's all rounder days.

Imran isn't far behind Botham as an overall batsman. I don't think you can say Hammond's slipping and bowling can be compared with Botham's batting?

 

[Johan]

Imran isn't far behind Botham as an overall batsman. I don't think you can say Hammond's slipping and bowling can be compared with Botham's batting?

As I specified, during his All rounder days there's certainly an argument as I think he was pretty clearly inferior to Botham in that time, he pulls ahead and close to Botham via when he switched to being a full time batsman but I made that distinction in my post.

 

[subshakerz]

As I specified, during his All rounder days there's certainly an argument as I think he was pretty clearly inferior to Botham in that time, he pulls ahead and close to Botham via when he switched to being a full time batsman but I made that distinction in my post.

Um no that's totally not true.

Imran basically became the no.1 AR in the world in 1982/83, when Botham had hit post peak. He outperformed Botham in England and won Wisden Player of the Year. If you read the entry it's pretty clear Botham wasn't seen as clearly ahead at all. Even Lillee who published his book around that year called him the best AR in the world.

 

[Johan]

Um no that's totally not true.

Imran basically became the no.1 AR in the world in 1982/83, when Botham had hit post peak. He outperformed Botham in England and won Wisden Player of the Year. If you read the entry it's pretty clear Botham wasn't seen as clearly ahead at all. Even Lillee who published his book around that year called him the best AR in the world.

Botham's peak was over and in that year it's very probable that Imran was the better batsmen, I'm saying had Imran retired in say 1988 before switching to batting as his primary, I don't think I'd rate him as very close to Botham in term of batsmanship.

 

[subshakerz]

Botham's peak was over and in that year it's very probable that Imran was the better batsmen, I'm saying had Imran retired in say 1988 before switching to batting as his primary, I don't think I'd rate him as very close to Botham in term of batsmanship.

I mean, obviously Imran's last three years helped his record but I already consider Botham a slightly better bat anyways. On the flip side, if Imran retired in 1988 he would have been seen by many here as a Hadlee level bowler while averaging better with the bat.

But to suggest that Imran was only seen as a better AR than Botham until late career is wrong. Botham was a joke when they played in 1987 in England when Imran took a tenfer and scored a ton in the same series.

 

[Johan]

I mean, obviously Imran's last three years helped his record but I already consider Botham a slightly better bat anyways. On the flip side, if Imran retired in 1988 he would have been seen by many here as a Hadlee level bowler while averaging better with the bat.

But to suggest that Imran was only seen as a better AR than Botham until late career is wrong. Botham was a joke when they played in 1987 in England when Imran took a tenfer and scored a ton in the same series.

I never implied Botham was a great player in 1987 and was a better batsman at the time.

also, Imran's average went up by just 0.9 in his last year, IE insignificant, why do you think it changed his perception as a bowler?

 

[subshakerz]

I never implied Botham was a great player in 1987 and was a better batsman at the time.

Botham was inconsistent with bat and ball 81 onwards.

I agree though that his last career boost took him into Botham territory.

 

[Johan]

Botham was inconsistent with bat and ball 81 onwards.

I agree though that his last career boost took him into Botham territory.

Nice, then we are in agreement.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

1977-1982

58 Tests.

3229 runs @ 37.8 and 11 centuries

262 wickets @ 24.53 and 20 5-Fer

Botham - A genuine match winner with bat & ball

Botham
Career first half - Mike Procter
2nd half - Azhar Mahmood

 

[subshakerz]

Botham
Career first half - Mike Procter
2nd half - Azhar Mahmood

No. First half, best AR ever, then 1/3rd Kapil, then the rest complete crap.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

No. First half, best AR ever, then 1/3rd Kapil, then the rest complete crap.

No.
Botham was like 38 avg batsman + 22 avg bowler, nothing more than that.
And how is that any better than 63 avg batsman + 28 avg bowler?

 

[subshakerz]

No.
Botham was like 38 avg batsman + 22 avg bowler, nothing more than that.
And how is that any better than 63 avg batsman + 28 avg bowler?

You mean who had a better peak, Botham or Sobers? I did a thread on that. It's close.

Also depends on which peak you take. Bothams first 25 tests were averaging 40 and 18.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ian Botham was a genuine match winner with both the bat and ball at the same time - scoring 11 centuries and taking 19 5-Fers in his first 51 Tests.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You mean who had a better peak, Botham or Sobers? I did a thread on that. It's close.

Also depends on which peak you take. Bothams first 25 tests were averaging 40 and 18.

40 / 18 = 63 / 28

 

[kyear2]

Whatever my point still stands.

Literally doesn't.

 

[kyear2]

That's a bogus comparison because Punter/Waugh are elite slips and Warne is a normal no.8. if you have an elite no.8 like Pollock or Vettori, then he matters more.

I've given plenty of examples here why the tail made a difference. You never properly addressed this.




So you really think a single slip quality matters more than a 30 average bat at no.8?

Not only are you grossly overestimating how many catches he will take compared to a normal slip, you fail to ever quantify an estimate at all.

Which means your opinion is half baked and Ill-informed.

Very simple then.

Do you think they would have given up their cordon to upgrade Warne and Gillespie to Pollock and Vettori?

Yes you have examples of partnerships, Waugh had 181 catches, Taylor 157, 196. Very literally each of them a wicket. Now not all of those were blinders, but each one critical.

I've also never tried to say that lower order batting doesn't hold value and has its place. In my opinion and that of many (at least a 1/3) of the forum however, that place is on par with, or below slip fielding.

Yes, having a Mark Waugh, who covers the most important slip position to pace and spin holds an at least equally valuable and more consistent role on a team.
And again, you like to pretend that it's only me saying this. Kimber, the gentleman you often reference in these debates, basically says the same thing.
Not to add that you've often called Pollock's batting inflated and not particularly valuable.

In a game where taking 20 wickets is the ultimate goal, and dating back through the BGT, WTC final and the two ongoing test series, multiple instances of catches not only determining matches, but series and championships... Is it really my opinion that's half baked and ill-informed, or as usual, most of your takes and assertions directly linked to your favorite player?

When you look at the best teams of decent memory, there are 3 that stands out. None had great no. 8's, as you just pointed out. All 3 had quite a few things in common, not least of which were the best cordons in the history of the game. That's how you efficiently take 20 wickets. And if you can't do that, all the batting at 8, means **** all.

You're literally dismissing a view just as viable and accepted as yours, but since it goes against your primary cause, it's ignored.

Jarrod Kimber on Instagram: "India and the number 8s #cricket #testcricket #indiacricket #westindiescricket #australiacricket"

399 likes, 10 comments - ajarrodkimber on June 26, 2025: "India and the number 8s #cricket #testcricket #indiacricket #westindiescricket #australiacricket".

www.instagram.com

Jarrod Kimber on Instagram: "India needs an attack that can take 20 wickets #cricket #testcricket #indiacricket #englandcricket #kimappa"

1,747 likes, 7 comments - ajarrodkimber on June 22, 2025: "India needs an attack that can take 20 wickets #cricket #testcricket #indiacricket #englandcricket #kimappa".

www.instagram.com

Not everyone sees it as important as you do.

 

[subshakerz]

Very simple then.

Do you think they would have given up their cordon to upgrade Warne and Gillespie to Pollock and Vettori?

Yes you have examples of partnerships, Waugh had 181 catches, Taylor 157, 196. Very literally each of them a wicket. Now not all of those were blinders, but each one critical.

I've also never tried to say that lower order batting doesn't hold value and has its place. In my opinion and that of many (at least a 1/3) of the forum however, that place is on par with, or below slip fielding.

Yes, having a Mark Waugh, who covers the most important slip position to pace and spin holds an at least equally valuable and more consistent role on a team.
And again, you like to pretend that it's only me saying this. Kimber, the gentleman you often reference in these debates, basically says the same thing.
Not to add that you've often called Pollock's batting inflated and not particularly valuable.

Several points:
- Please don't bring Mark Waugh in as a specialist slip, he was all over actually.

- Again, please compare elite slips like Taylor with the normal decent slip. For example, Taylor took 157 catches in 104 catches, Hammond 110 in 85 games, Viv 122 in 121 games. Yet decent good slips like Lara took 164 catches in 130 odd games, Younis Khan 139 in 118 games. Not a big difference at all in real terms.

- Compare that to elite versus decent good no.8s. Vettori and Pollock who have scored a lot more runs in far few tests than Warne, as well as scored tons, etc. The difference is far more. It isn't even close.

When you look at the best teams of decent memory, there are 3 that stands out. None had great no. 8's, as you just pointed out. All 3 had quite a few things in common, not least of which were the best cordons in the history of the game. That's how you efficiently take 20 wickets. And if you can't do that, all the batting at 8, means **** all.

First off, Lindwall was an excellent no.8/9 for the Invincibles.

I have shown you many examples of a decent good 2000s Aussie tail consistently bailing out Australia which you earlier denied. So the tail batting quality does matter it is just that Australia didn't have an elite no.8 available.

And to be clear: STOP COMPARING A SINGLE NO.8 TO AN ENTIRE SLIP CORDON.

 

[Coronis]

Do you think they would have given up their cordon to upgrade Warne and Gillespie to Pollock and Vettori?

wtf is this

 

[kyear2]

So like over a 5-match Series, 10 catches. An average one will take 7 of those while an elite will 9. And on average that costs a team around ~70 runs. An elite no 8 who scores 30 RPI and an average does, let's say 16. That's an advantage of around ~140 runs. That's almost twice as valuable, on the mean.

Very interested in responding to this.

Let's say 10 chances in a 10 test series, Mark / Hooper / Kallis / Sobers / Taylor takes between 9 and 10, the average today is much less, think we all watched cricket the last few months, so let's say the average takes 6.

But two of those missed four goes into hit match winning innings.

In the BGT, I think Khawaja dropped I think 3 or 4? One if those was Jaiswal that led to India winning that test. It doesn't take as many as you think.

Smith dropped 2, one led to India avoiding the follow on and Australia losing the opportunity to win that game.

In the WTC final, SA caught all of there chances, two in particular in the first innings were excellent if not spectacular.
The teams had 2 very much above average no. 8's, neither fired for the match.

It's not always about raw numbers, it's about situations and moments. Again I say, watch the damn game.

I referenced some examples for slip catchers just now, how about lower order batters. Yes, occasionally they do fire when needed. More often than not though, the nature of the position generally dictates that most lower order bats, tend to cash in during drawn / high scoring matches, where the impact is minimal, but they sure do make the average look great. While they meekly fold the vast majority of times difficult or critical conditions.

Sadly not all runs are the same, and most of those 140 difference were in less than heroic conditions. Even Subz has consistently said over the years, that most of Pollock's runs lacked impact.

But this is what happens when you read the sport through spread sheets.

But if you want to play that game. The elite no. 8 is at about 30 rpi as you put it (definitely single digit number of players from history). If a dropped chance cost ~33, isn't that the value of a taken one as well? We're already matching the value of a no. 8, and the no. 8 (the few capable of this in the first place), isn't hitting that total consistently.

I've seen Waugh JR, Hooper, Richardson, Viv, Sobers etc take chances others just aren't. I've seen Smith take chances that the avenge slip is taking as a half volley and they're saying good stop.

Interesting post from an article I previously shared




Stats doesn't cover everything.

But just for a few mins look back at the teams that have won, and how they won, the strengths they shared and the keys to their victories, a stronger trend appears.

 

[subshakerz]

wtf is this

Just another BS hypothetical courtesy Kyear.