Rank the 4 great all rounders of the 1980s from best to worst

[Lillian Thomson]

But in cricket, longetivity does count when judging greatness. If Hussey never gets back to his previous heights, will he go down as a great? Certainly, he was almost Bradmanesque for a few years there.

Botham had a six year peak where he carried the England team on his back and achieved a level of performance rarely, if at all, seen before or since. Beyond that he was the best and fastest bowler on either side in the 1985 Ashes Series, broke the world record number of wickets in 1986 and contributed a century and a 5-fer on the successful 86/87 Ashes Tour. That's a ten year period. The inference was that if he'd retired then he could be talked about as an all time great but because he carried on he can't be, which is nonsense.
Hussey's three prolific years and one iffy one so far is neither comparable or relevant.

 

[The Sean]

For this question, are we rating them as all rounders or as cricketers?

As all rounders:

Imran / Botham
Kapil
Hadlee

As cricketers:

Imran
Hadlee
Botham
Kapil

IMO, obviously.

 

[Uppercut]

Botham had a six year peak where he carried the England team on his back and achieved a level of performance rarely, if at all, seen before or since. Beyond that he was the best and fastest bowler on either side in the 1985 Ashes Series, broke the world record number of wickets in 1986 and contributed a century and a 5-fer on the successful 86/87 Ashes Tour. That's a ten year period. The inference was that if he'd retired then he could be talked about as an all time great but because he carried on he can't be, which is nonsense.
Hussey's three prolific years and one iffy one so far is neither comparable or relevant.

Yeah, but it's Imran and Hadlee. Seriously stiff competition.

I suppose I'm picking them based on who I'd most want to be Irish if we played tests.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, but it's Imran and Hadlee. Seriously stiff competition.

I suppose I'm picking them based on who I'd most want to be Irish if we played tests.

The point at issue was whether Botham can be considered an All Time Great having gone so far past his prime. The post I originally replied to implied that if Botham had retired in 1988 he could be considered an all time great but because he carried on he can't be, which I don't agree with.
The merits or otherwise of any other cricketer whether it be Imran, Hadlee or Hussey has nothing to do with it.

 

[Uppercut]

Really? Who said Botham couldn't be an all-time great?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Really? Who said Botham couldn't be an all-time great?

Like Uppercut, I don't know quite how to rate Beefy. If he'd retired in the early- to mid-80s we'd be talking about one of the greatest players of all time. But he didn't and therefore we're not.

.............

 

[ret]

This is a tough one as one can judge this based on talent, peak, longevity, performances, career and so on (WC wins)

Batting:

I have always believed that Kapil was the most talented batsman of the four. His record against WI speaks, along with his 100 in SA in 1992 .... He was much like Sehwag is in ODIs i.e. very talented but didn't transform that talent in to performances 100% of the time (but had amazing SR for his time) .... If you take ODIs then his 175* in 1983 WC is one of the all time classics!

Botham and Imran would be a tie. With Botham being more talented (but reckless) and with Imran being the most sensible of them all with the bat .... Hadlee though good was at the 4th place

Bowling:

Hadlee was above the other three in my book

Fielding:

Kapil Dev again tops the list. Followed by others


It's difficult to rank them for me considering that all four have different strengths. For example, if peak is considered than Botham was the most devastating of the 4. For reliability, Imran takes the cake. For extra ordinary performances (but not that consistently), Kapil takes it as he had the ability to come up with magical innings with the bat like 100 in WC, hitting 4 sixes to help save the follow-on. And also with the ball like his 9 wkts in an inning. For bowling, Hadlee tops

If I had to pick one, it would probably be Hadlee as these 4 played as bowling all-rounders (and strike bowlers for most parts of their career) and that's where I place more weight age

 

[zaremba]

.............

Yep, and I stand by it, but I think that with respect you're getting your knickers in a bit of a terminological twist. I should clarify that by "one of the greatest cricketers of all time" I'm talking about him having had a realistic claim to be an all-time World XI player. And yes by going on past his sell-by date (which, criminally, he himself accelerated) Botham denied himself a spot in that particular pantheon.

BTW I'm not talking about him retiring in 1988, or even 1986/7, by which time he was already a bloated has-been (the spawniest 5-fer in history at (?) Melbourne, and a lone hundred at (?) the Gabba notwithstanding). For me, Both's best ("All-time world XI") years were up to about '82 or '83 and the decline was rapid after that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yep, and I stand by it, but I think that with respect you're getting your knickers in a bit of a terminological twist. I should clarify that by "one of the greatest cricketers of all time" I'm talking about him having had a realistic claim to be an all-time World XI player. And yes by going on past his sell-by date (which, criminally, he himself accelerated) Botham denied himself a spot in that particular pantheon.

BTW I'm not talking about him retiring in 1988, or even 1986/7, by which time he was already a bloated has-been (the spawniest 5-fer in history at (?) Melbourne, and a lone hundred at (?) the Gabba notwithstanding). For me, Both's best ("All-time world XI") years were up to about '82 or '83 and the decline was rapid after that.

My knickers are perfectly straight. I just made a simple point in response to your post but kept on having to repeat it as other people kept on quoting it and making comments that were nothing to do with it.

 

[JBH001]

Yep, and I stand by it, but I think that with respect you're getting your knickers in a bit of a terminological twist. I should clarify that by "one of the greatest cricketers of all time" I'm talking about him having had a realistic claim to be an all-time World XI player. And yes by going on past his sell-by date (which, criminally, he himself accelerated) Botham denied himself a spot in that particular pantheon.

BTW I'm not talking about him retiring in 1988, or even 1986/7, by which time he was already a bloated has-been (the spawniest 5-fer in history at (?) Melbourne, and a lone hundred at (?) the Gabba notwithstanding). For me, Both's best ("All-time world XI") years were up to about '82 or '83 and the decline was rapid after that.

Thats fair enough. Although if he had retired in 86/87 his overall record would have been substantively better.

Edit/ Just had a look at it now. 89 tests - 4825 runs - 35 average - 63 SR - 14 tons - 366 wickets - 27 average - 54.5 SR - 27 5 fers - 106 catches.

The problem with Botham, and with other players of a similar ilk, is that its the most recent memories we recall. I think that should be taken into consideration when assessing a player. Assuming his career trajectory had been reversed, I sometimes wonder if this conversation would be happening.

But come to that, Zaremba, do you believe that Botham qualified for an All Time England XI?

 

[zaremba]

Thats fair enough. Although if he had retired in 86/87 his overall record would have been substantively better.

Do you believe that Botham qualified for an All Time England XI?

The pre-beard, and bearded, Botham is a shoo-in.
The mulleted Botham no.
The helmeted Botham nowhere near.

 

[JBH001]

The pre-beard, and bearded, Botham is a shoo-in.
The mulleted Botham no.
The helmeted Botham nowhere near.

I doubt many would disagree. When did the beard disappear and the mullet appear? 85? 86?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I doubt many would disagree. When did the beard disappear and the mullet appear? 85? 86?

I think the beard disappeared because the waitress he was bonking complained that it tickled her - so around 84ish.

 

[zaremba]

My knickers are perfectly straight. I just made a simple point in response to your post but kept on having to repeat it as other people kept on quoting it and making comments that were nothing to do with it.

OK I withdraw the knickers remark. I will never again question the straightness of your knickers. Anyway hopefully my clarification sets the record straight.

I also see exactly the point you're making about how the later years cannot change the reality of the early years, and I admit it's a good one. George Best is a very close equivalent in football. Even though GB's stratospheric peak was shorter-lived than Botham's, in a way he suffers less for his own Fat Pig years because football is so much less of a statistical game than cricket. It's hard to avoid judging a cricketer by his overall record, and when you look at Botham - well, 33 with bat, 28 with ball - ho-hum, above-average but not incredible. The reality of his early years was of course very different.

 

[zaremba]

I think the beard disappeared because the waitress he was bonking complained that it tickled her - so around 84ish.

And what she had to say about his helmet cannot be posted on a family chat forum.

 

[JBH001]

I think the beard disappeared because the waitress he was bonking complained that it tickled her - so around 84ish.

Ah, in that case he had one more good year left in him, 1985. No doubt the remnants of the beard carried him through. Upto 86 he was still a force with the bat, and even if expensive, at times, with the ball, tended to pick up wickets. After 85 it was a steep slide down, and after 87, a plunge into the abyss.

 

[zaremba]

Ah, in that case he had one more good year left in him, 1985. No doubt the remnants of the beard carried him through. Upto 86 he was still a force with the bat, and even if expensive, at times, with the ball, tended to pick up wickets. After 85 it was a steep slide down, and after 87, a plunge into the abyss.

TBF, and rather amazingly, he had a pretty good World Cup in 92. I was at the SCG to see his final hurrah as he almost single-handedly dispatched the hosts with both ball and bat. I remember, as he smacked Craig McDermott (who had bowled brilliantly at him and Gooch) for another boundary, one Aussie in the crowd turning to another and saying "you gotta admit, the guy can play". I remember thinking, "you obviously haven't seen him play for a while".

 

[JBH001]

Yeah, I remember that game. Was watching it on TV as a boy. From recollection he scored a 50 and took 4 for 30 odd to pretty much beat Australia on his own and make their path to the semi- final (iirc) much harder. Pretty isolated and sporadic instances by then though, wasnt it? Like the brief splutter of a flame before it winks out. It was a fantastic performance though - no denying that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, I remember that game. Was watching it on TV as a boy. From recollection he scored a 50 and took 4 for 30 odd to pretty much beat Australia on his own and make their path to the semi- final (iirc) much harder. Pretty isolated and sporadic instances by then though, wasnt it? Like the brief splutter of a flame before it winks out. It was a fantastic performance though - no denying that.

Australia had no path to the Semi-Final. The shame was the Botham was sawn off for a duck in the final by poor umpiring when he was opening the batting.

 

[aussie]

With respect, Aussie, I know all that. My point was that Botham - or for that matter Waqar - had still played a sufficient number of tests and achieved enough to merit assessment. Its all well and good that O'Reilly played 30 or so tests in 10 years but that also has to be guaged against less wear and tear and easier opportunities to recuperate and recover. It is by no means a one way thing. Botham, after all, played close to 50 tests at his peak from 77 to the (serious) onset of his back injury in 1982. That is one hell of a lot of cricket. Should not that be taken into account if we are talking about longevity and player loads? And, as Sanz notes, Botham (along with Kapil) was the go to man with bat and ball for their respective teams during that perod and even for a considerable while after that.

As I said, I dont mind the criteria being used. It will always differ. But it needs to be clearly stated and consistently held. Neither do the achievements of great players have to be denigrated in order to make other great players look better. Jeez, the man (Botham, that is) scored 5000 runs, took 350 wickets, 100 catches, 14 centuries, 27 half centuries, a 100 and a 10 fer once, a 100 and a 5 fer 4 times, and a 50 and a 5 fer 8 times. That is simply astounding.

I agree 100%. I certainly rate Botham as great player based on his peak period which was very long by any standard.

But when in comparison to the other all-rounders of his era who didn't fell off like how Botham did at the end but who got better - shouldn't his later years count againts him when comparing him to some degree?.

Which as i asked you before. Do you think a player who started of like a train then crashed (Botham & Waqar), is better than a player who evolved from a worm to butterfly/peaked late (Imran Khan, Steve Waugh)?