Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, don't disagree with anything there.
But i still don't see how Botham makes the cut ahead of Gower, Thorpe, Gooch, Boycott, Barrington, Cowdrey and KP as a pure batsman. Just to name a few.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The true all-rounder
- Thread starter Debris
- Start date
But i still don't see how Botham makes the cut ahead of Gower, Thorpe, Gooch, Boycott, Barrington, Cowdrey and KP as a pure batsman. Just to name a few.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
So you reckon Gooch would get a batting slot ahead of Botham only by virtue of being an opener? Crikey.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Yep - that he was hard to dismiss.
The "not out" fallacy winds me up as much as it does Uppercut.
rivera213
U19 Vice-Captain
Not completely, but it doesn't make sense to rate someone you've never seen above someone you have just because their stats are better.
Still playing. I only named retired players since their career can be viewed in full.
Different role though. You can't have an all-time XI whose top 6 batsmen are all openers.
Disregarding KP cos he's still playing, but I'd put Both ahead of Thorpe in the middle order. I haven't seen much of Barrington. The others I agree with.
That he was a stonewaller, not that he was a quality batsmen who bowlers couldn't get out no matter how hard they tried. He wasn't Boycott. It's hard to dismiss someone who plays 1 shot every 5 overs. I hated watching Thorpe bat, though I knew he wouldn't give his wicket away. Maybe I just hate him too much. Ha ha
He was no better a batsman than Atherton & I think he was over-rated.
Last edited:
rivera213
U19 Vice-Captain
No, but to complete my top 6.
EDIT- Re-read my post and I agree it doesn't make sense. I've got 3 forums open at the moment and seem to be writing in faux-English on all 3. Lol.
Last edited:
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
*sigh*
I was simply trying to illustrate the point.
Well if you want middle-order batsman who I've seen play and who are / were better batsmen than Botham,
Thorpe
Stewart
Gower
Lamb
Smith R
Pietersen
Maynard
Gatting
Fairbrother
Hussain
To name just a selection of those who've played Test cricket and whom I've seen.
I don't mean to be insulting but to try to claim that Botham is in the top 6 English batsmen of all time really is pretty laughable.
rivera213
U19 Vice-Captain
Not for me by a long stretch with those players, but we're not going to agree so I'll agree to disagree.
Of the modern era (1970 onwards).
It's laughable to me that you think the names above are better than Botham during his golden period of 1978 to 1985.
I admit I'm 1 step down from being a Botham fanboy, but come on his stats just as a batsman were impressive during that time frame.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Yes they were, because he was an all-rounder. They weren't paticularly outstanding for a pure batsman.
As I've said, he'd never have been picked for England in the first place were it not for his bowling.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Sorry to interrupt your chuckling, but given your earlier-mentioned views about judging players without watching them, may I ask how much of Botham you saw during the period 1978 to 1985?
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
From an NZ point of view, I'd also throw in John R Reid. The only problem with including him is that his bowling average was slightly inflated (over 30) due to him having to often carry the attack/bowl plenty of overs and also occasionally wicket-keep. In fact, his bowling average is .07 higher than his batting average, which isn't ideal in such a comparison.
Cricinfo - Players and Officials - John Reid
Cricinfo - Players and Officials - John Reid
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Bit of both. Taylor and Collinge debuted in early 1965, while Reid retired in mid-65.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
It doesn't make sense to automatically rate them below either, just because you haven't seen them. Which seems to be what you're doing.
rivera213
U19 Vice-Captain
Not at all.
But when it comes to me picking my all-time XI, it's illogical to put players who have better stats that I haven't seen above those who have "worse" or equivalent who I have.
Statistically, the old boys like Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Headley, Sutcliffe, Weekes, Walcott & Barrington have run averages above 50 which is phenomnal in any era (I think in my era, only Yousef Youhanna and Brian Lara have run averages above that) but I question the bowling they faced.
I've seen film of some of those batsmen at the crease playing a shot but not much of the bowler, so it may as well be a bowling machine set @ 85mph.
I normally prefix "All Time XI" with "Modern Era" so people are aware I'm excluding those I haven't seen.
My Grandad would put the old boys he saw in his all time XI. Len Hutton being THE best (probably because he was a Yorkshireman rather than being better than Hammond, Barrington & Compton. Lol) and of course Statham was good but "not as good as Fred".
Even he didn't see Hobbs or Sutcliffe though and I'm sure would exclude him on the basis that he never saw him- not because he can't be as good as the batsmen of his era.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, it's stupid. If the opposition couldn't get a guy out when he was batting in the top order it's not his fault. NO's are supposed to inflate an average as the other option would be to penalise the guy an innings when they other team weren't good enough to remove him.
If it's a lower order bat then you could possible say "Well he batted 10 times at 10 runs a pop and only got out once so his average is inflated". His average of 100 obviously doesn't equate to him being a master batsman, but he's still done well to remain not out.
rivera213
U19 Vice-Captain
No. 5 is middle-order. A LOT of NO innings and the average doesn't show how good/bad a player was in reality.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Over a large number of innings I'd say it does, especially if the not outs are in established innings and not 1's and 2's...this is an argument against Thorpe right? A guy who was incredibly difficult to dismiss when we played England in the Ashes.
If it's that easy to stay not out batting at 5 and thus accumulate a great average how do you explain not everyone doing so? And would you agree no.5 is closer to the top of the order than the bottom? He's generally still considered a batsman, not a place filled by a w/k batsman or an all-rounder.
Here's a list of Thorpe's not outs: 114*, 15*, 47*, 12*, 17*, 50*, 30*, 82*, 0*, 36*, 84*, 21*, 25*, 64*, 113*, 32*,
200*, 1*, 18*, 13*, 119*, 23*, 51*, 104*, 31*, 118*, 42*, 66*.
Given a lot of his not outs were in declarations or when overtaking a team's score in 3rd or 4th innings I don't think you could say it reflects badly on him as a player. And as you can see from the scores, he's not exactly scratching around for 10's and 20's. If teams aren't good enough to get him out then that should reflect favourably on him surely. In nearly all of his not out innings Thorpe batted long enough to be set.
I have my doubts anyone who actually watched Thorpe bat would call into question his ability.
I can't believe I just spent that time producing evidence for an Englishman's ability
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
There's actually an argument to suggest that not outs actually artificially deflate a batsman's average. In cases where it's actually a batsman we're talking about and he doesn't have a concentration problem or a tendency to throw away starts, I'm actually inclined to agree.
Batsmen are most vulnerable early in their innings. It's easier to bat when you're on 20 than when you're on 0 and the stats back this up. In the history of Test cricket, top-six batsmen average 36.99.. but only taking into account scores above 20 they average 66.02... which means that from the moment batsmen get to 20 they average a further 44.02 - roughly 7 more than at the start of their innings.
Ergo, getting 20 not out actually robs you of the chance to bat when batting is at its easiest.. you have to continue your "innings" back at the vulnerable stage and get set all over again.
Last edited:
Your proposed standard is far more favorable to bowling all-rounders than it is to batting all-rounders. There are MANY bowlers who have enjoyed long and distinguished Test careers despite posting bowling averages of over 30. The list includes Harbhajan Singh, Vettori, Brett Lee, Abdul Qadir, Harmison, Prasanna, Sarfraz Nawaz, Valentine, etc - and, before the war, such names as Gregory, McDonald and Mailey.
By contrast, averaging 30 runs per innings is not a notable achievement. EVERY Test batsman of note has averaged 40 or more, except for a tiny minority of players in the Golden Age (W.G. Grace, Trumper) who did not have the opportunity to play much Test cricket.