The great 1980s all rounders

[AndrewB]

England wasn't his strongest opponent, they were his only strong opponent. By far the strongest attack in his day was his own and obviously can't hold that against him.

He averaged 74 against West Indies.

 

[bagapath]

Marshall did average 30 something in NZ (only a small sample size though). Bradman's 10% deviation from his average does explain why Eng was the strongest opponent in his era. I wouldn't hold it against them anyway

he averaged 26 against them in NZ; one innings in which he went wicketless and conceded some 70 runs pushed it to to a 30+ average. It is just not fair to hold it against him

 

[h_hurricane]

he averaged 26 against them in NZ; one innings in which he went wicketless and conceded some 70 runs pushed it to to a 30+ average. It is just not fair to hold it against him

omg ! I have explained to like 5 folks here that I am not holding it against him

 

[kyear2]

He averaged 74 against West Indies.

Going strictly from.memory, think our best bowler was Martindale.

I also mentioned in that or a subsequent post that while.we went a great attack we did give Bradman and Hammond some difficulties with the short ball.

 

[Chrish]

I don't think that this anecdote supports your case. Walcott's uncle gave him out LBW for 98 in a 1953 Test against India.

That's very interesting. Thanks.

Do you have any info on how good was Walcott as a keeper? Who would you pick as a keeper in WI Xi ?

 

[kyear2]

That's very interesting. Thanks.

Do you have any info on how good was Walcott as a keeper? Who would you pick as a keeper in WI Xi ?

He was very good to Ramdin and Valentine never really kept to high class pace attack if my memory serves correct

 

[steve132]

That's very interesting. Thanks.

Do you have any info on how good was Walcott as a keeper? Who would you pick as a keeper in WI Xi ?

Those who saw Walcott rated him quite highly as a keeper. However, as kyear2 pointed out, he never had to deal with high quality fast bowling. In any event, Walcott was forced to give up keeping fairly early in his career after sustaining a back injury.

I would go with Jeff Dujon as the keeper in an all-time West Indian XI, partly because of his batting. Dujon is narrowly ahead of Jackie Hendriks, who was probably the best pure wicketkeeper produced by W.I.

 

[kyear2]

Those who saw Walcott rated him quite highly as a keeper. However, as kyear2 pointed out, he never had to deal with high quality fast bowling. In any event, Walcott was forced to give up keeping fairly early in his career after sustaining a back injury.

I would go with Jeff Dujon as the keeper in an all-time West Indian XI, partly because of his batting. Dujon is narrowly ahead of Jackie Hendriks, who was probably the best pure wicketkeeper produced by W.I.

100% agree with everything here.

Quality post

 

[Slifer]

Going strictly from.memory, think our best bowler was Martindale.

I also mentioned in that or a subsequent post that while.we went a great attack we did give Bradman and Hammond some difficulties with the short ball.

And Herman Griffith

 

[Migara]

yeah, Kallis. To be honest, people like Pollock, Cairns, and Flintoff had their moments, but it's only Freddie who'll be spoken in superlatives and in the same vein (from a sheer match-impacting pov) as the big 4 from the 80s.

Freddie has hyphe that's it. if it is performance it's Kallis, Pollock and Shakib.

 

[Migara]

Tests , as players

Hadlee > Imran > Kapil > Botham > Kallis > Pollock

ODis
Kapil > Hadlee > Pollock > Imran > Kallis > Botham

Kallis and Pollock are way up than Kapil or Botham as players. Fantastic ATG slipper and an out fieldsmen. Only Sobers can match these two on the field.

 

[Migara]

Going strictly from.memory, think our best bowler was Martindale.

I also mentioned in that or a subsequent post that while.we went a great attack we did give Bradman and Hammond some difficulties with the short ball.

May be WI had slightly different actions, making the short ball to be difficult to spot. Bradman played much quicker bowlers than Martindale and Constantine, so I would put it to slight difference in action. It may even ba non repetitive action while one comes to you at knee height and the next the bowler gets it right, pitches on the same spot and flies chest high. I have seen quite a number of WI bowlers who had that issue.

 

[kyear2]

May be WI had slightly different actions, making the short ball to be difficult to spot. Bradman played much quicker bowlers than Martindale and Constantine, so I would put it to slight difference in action. It may even ba non repetitive action while one comes to you at knee height and the next the bowler gets it right, pitches on the same spot and flies chest high. I have seen quite a number of WI bowlers who had that issue.

Besides Larwood, who did he face who was faster in Test cricket?

 

[Migara]

Besides Larwood, who did he face who was faster in Test cricket?

He played Larwood with ease. Didn't he? Pace was not the problem. Brett Lee caused less problems than Akthar when it comes to picking up the trajectory of the ball despite being consistently quicker (Akthar had quicker deliveries, but Lee maintained it over time), and Malinga was even harder to face despite being 5- 8k slower than Lee. The terror of Thompson was mainly due to his action, and difficulty in picking up the trajectory, Haven't seen Martindale bowling, but have seen later WI quicks. Other than for few like Holding, Ambrose, Bishop (pre injury) and Garner, others are not that orthodox.

Of course it is only a theory.

 

[the big bambino]

England wasn't his strongest opponent, they were his only strong opponent. By far the strongest attack in his day was his own and obviously can't hold that against him.

On the comparative statistics between the countries pre war, England's attack was stronger. Even with the handicap of bowling to Bradman. Without that handicap the difference between the two would have been quite a gulf.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Besides Larwood, who did he face who was faster in Test cricket?

Not test cricket, but Eddie Gilbert was probably as quick if not quicker.

Sad story that

 

[Redsok]

An all rounder is only as great as his primary skill which gets him into the team. In that regard to me that makes Hadlee the greatest of the 4. I will also add through that Botham was arguably the most well rounded of the bunch, he won matches with the bat, ball and was superb in the cordon. That being said, he never did it against the very best and his career had two very different halves.

I think it must be said though that there are three types of all rounders and it may not be fair to compare them.

The batting all rounders of which none of these fits the bill. Legitimate top order batsman who can capably fill the role of 5th bowler.

Next up we have the golden child of the CW community, the bowling all rounder. They should be be opening / front line bowlers who are capable of contributing with the bat in the lower order.

Finally, the jack of all trades. The genuine all rounders who are neither legitimate top order batsman or Frontline bowlers, but can combine both disciplines good enough to contribute to the team. Miller and Botham probably best fits this description (neither was suited as to carry the load as one of the 4 main bowlers as the man) or had the batting averages as ATG batsmen. They both though added further value with their skill in the slips.

Back to topic, Hadlee was the the sole ATG for a team who punched above it's weight and he performed well at home and abroad at that same level. He didn't have different halves to his career and his batting average of 27, though the lowest of the Fab 4 was more than good enough for this role. He didn't cheat, he didn't rely on home assistance, didn't wilt against the very best of his time and he proved going it alone wasn't a detriment. For me he wasn't the very best bowler ever, but he was close and the best all rounder the '80's had to offer.

You are either dumb as hell, or utterly biased. Either way, it's embarrassing.. Sounds like some millennial horse****



You really just said BOTHAM was "not suited to carry the load of one of the 4 main bowlers or had the batting averages as ATG batsmen"??


Ian Botham was literally the best bowler and batsman for England, and no one carried MORE LOAD than him.. He was considered the greatest game changer, up until he suffered that back injury. That's when everything started to go downhill for him.

The problem with Botham, was his insane work load and the sheer number of games he kept on playing, filling BOTH roles as a batsman and bowler.

He was bowling mad amount of spells, as a fast bowler. Then batting.. winning games for his team. Utterly ridiculous


Ian Botham was the Fastest player to reach 1000 Test Runs and 100 Test Wickets. Botham did it in 21 games..



In Botham's first 25 Tests, he scored 6 hundreds and took 140 wickets. 14 5-wicket hauls and 3 10-wicket hauls. Then scored runs for fun, including centuries after centuries..


Wankhede 1980 is possibly the greatest feat by any cricketer. Just Ian Botham being Ian Botham..



HE WAS LITERALLY THE MAIN STRIKE BOWLER, AND THE MAIN BATSMAN.. That's not just an All Rounder, but the EPITOME of a complete all rounder. A freak of nature



There's a reason why Botham, Sobers and Imran are considered the Gods of All Rounders. Almost every single legends and players and everyone with proper knowledge, always has these 3 in their list. Not just the Greatest All Rounders, but the Greatest Cricketers, in general.




If Botham had not played so many games, doing so bloody much all at once.. at the extreme high level. Then he would have had a much better ending to his career. Especially those Final years. That's why "total average Numbers" don't tell the full story. Especially not when it comes to someone like him.



Context matters lad.. Don't act like a disrespectful child

 

[h_hurricane]

Ian Botham should have retired at 29, an age when everyone else retires. That fact that he played until 36 shouldn't be held against him as no professional cricketer plays cricket beyond 30.

 

[mr_mister]

You are either dumb as hell, or utterly biased. Either way, it's embarrassing.. Sounds like some millennial horse****



You really just said BOTHAM was "not suited to carry the load of one of the 4 main bowlers or had the batting averages as ATG batsmen"??


Ian Botham was literally the best bowler and batsman for England, and no one carried MORE LOAD than him.. He was considered the greatest game changer, up until he suffered that back injury. That's when everything started to go downhill for him.

The problem with Botham, was his insane work load and the sheer number of games he kept on playing, filling BOTH roles as a batsman and bowler.

He was bowling mad amount of spells, as a fast bowler. Then batting.. winning games for his team. Utterly ridiculous


Ian Botham was the Fastest player to reach 1000 Test Runs and 100 Test Wickets. Botham did it in 21 games..



In Botham's first 25 Tests, he scored 6 hundreds and took 140 wickets. 14 5-wicket hauls and 3 10-wicket hauls. Then scored runs for fun, including centuries after centuries..


****hede 1980 is possibly the greatest feat by any cricketer. Just Ian Botham being Ian Botham..



HE WAS LITERALLY THE MAIN STRIKE BOWLER, AND THE MAIN BATSMAN.. That's not just an All Rounder, but the EPITOME of a complete all rounder. A freak of nature



There's a reason why Botham, Sobers and Imran are considered the Gods of All Rounders. Almost every single legends and players and everyone with proper knowledge, always has these 3 in their list. Not just the Greatest All Rounders, but the Greatest Cricketers, in general.




If Botham had not played so many games, doing so bloody much all at once.. at the extreme high level. Then he would have had a much better ending to his career. Especially those Final years. That's why "total average Numbers" don't tell the full story. Especially not when it comes to someone like him.



Context matters lad.. Don't act like a disrespectful child

Slight overreaction to his post dont you think

 

[a massive zebra]

You are either dumb as hell, or utterly biased. Either way, it's embarrassing.. Sounds like some millennial horse****



You really just said BOTHAM was "not suited to carry the load of one of the 4 main bowlers or had the batting averages as ATG batsmen"??


Ian Botham was literally the best bowler and batsman for England, and no one carried MORE LOAD than him.. He was considered the greatest game changer, up until he suffered that back injury. That's when everything started to go downhill for him.

The problem with Botham, was his insane work load and the sheer number of games he kept on playing, filling BOTH roles as a batsman and bowler.

He was bowling mad amount of spells, as a fast bowler. Then batting.. winning games for his team. Utterly ridiculous


Ian Botham was the Fastest player to reach 1000 Test Runs and 100 Test Wickets. Botham did it in 21 games..



In Botham's first 25 Tests, he scored 6 hundreds and took 140 wickets. 14 5-wicket hauls and 3 10-wicket hauls. Then scored runs for fun, including centuries after centuries..


****hede 1980 is possibly the greatest feat by any cricketer. Just Ian Botham being Ian Botham..



HE WAS LITERALLY THE MAIN STRIKE BOWLER, AND THE MAIN BATSMAN.. That's not just an All Rounder, but the EPITOME of a complete all rounder. A freak of nature



There's a reason why Botham, Sobers and Imran are considered the Gods of All Rounders. Almost every single legends and players and everyone with proper knowledge, always has these 3 in their list. Not just the Greatest All Rounders, but the Greatest Cricketers, in general.




If Botham had not played so many games, doing so bloody much all at once.. at the extreme high level. Then he would have had a much better ending to his career. Especially those Final years. That's why "total average Numbers" don't tell the full story. Especially not when it comes to someone like him.



Context matters lad.. Don't act like a disrespectful child

Oh no!

Not another Cricket Savant!