No,I believe stats do make them greatest ever batsmen.All I meant is that I hate this hypocrisy when people rank certain players(who are their favourite ) very highly because of their stats but when it comes to other players,same people come up with arguments like "stats don't really matter".
Even that doesn't add anything to Botham's favour as Imran was ordinaary in early years of his career but then just got better & better but Botham was also very ordinary for more number of years at the end of his career .
Yes,6.8 tests per year is too much of a burden for someone who didn't even play much ODI cricket.
.But if he had ever got a chance to play on a bowling friendly wicket,who knows he might've done better.
No he would not have. He was a very ordinary cricketer and very lucky to play for Pakistan especially in the era of Wasim/Waqar/Imran.
In his first 10 years Botham played about 91 tests, which makes 9 tests in a year both as a bowler and as a batsman, Add to it the games he played for Somerset and the ODIs, I would say no player has played so much cricket in 10 years. Someone like Tendulkar who has supposedly played more cricket than anyone else in last 20 yeas played only 71 tests in hist 1st 10 years and that is only as a batsman. Agreed SRT played a lot more ODIs but he hardly played any domestic cricket and hardly had to share the major bowling role.Yes,6.8 tests per year is too much of a burden for someone who didn't even play much ODI cricket.
So in which season WG averaged 60+ and everyone else averaged in 20s/30s ?
My friend whatever I say about Lillee,Sobers or any other players is based on their stats in a particular discipline.And whatever I've said about "Imran vs Botham" is also based on stats mostly.Imran was statistically a much better allrounder than Botham.And everything else I say like "Sobers was not a better allrounder than Imran & Miller etc" & "Lillee was not a better bowler tham Imran,Marshall,Hadlee,Wasim,McGrath,Ambrose etc" is also based on stats.And I've admitted before that carefully analyzed stats are not ideal but best possible way of judging players.
He averaged that much in FC cricket,not in tests.
Imran not only played tests & ODIs but also regularly played county cricket for 14 years,Australian state cricket for 6 years & very little domestic cricket in Pakistan too.So,I don't think Imran played any less cricket than Botham in all those years.
Excellent post & you deserve an Afridi for it
.
'Tis a bugbear of mine, too, Bhupinder.
You are merely making clear your supreme dearth of cricketing knowledge. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the game could tell you, off hand, that, in 1871, W.G. scored in excess of 2,700 runs at an average of nearly eighty. Of those who trailed in his glorious wake, Richard Daft, with an average well below forty, comes closest. Not even Bradman outdid his peers to that extent.
Agreed. Mullets suck.
The Don certainly had a few series or seasons where he approached that level of dominance over his peers. You're right though - Grace's performances on pitches that would today be written off as cow paddocks utterly unfit for any level of serious cricket were nothing short of phenomenal.
Thats enough for Sanz to know how much cricketing knowledge he possess about one of the greatest cricketers of alltime.
