- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,980
Remove green/st george tinted glasses and vote on this poll!
Who was the better all-rounder!?
Who was the better all-rounder!?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kapil, Botham, IK are all in the same league. Dev & Botham were dangerous batsmen while Imran was the standout bowler among them. Overall if you have to pick one i guess it comes down to the team balance. Dev clearly takes the spot in any limited overs format over the other 3. Imran's my choice in test cricket due to his bowling. At their best Botham was the most deadliest while when it came to facing the best team of their era Dev beats the other two which is why the 3 are all in the same tier for me. All have unique attributes.
Imran and it's not even close.
IK could adapt to the situation with bat and ball. If it was needed to defend, he could grind out and was diffcult to get out.
All around contribution by Botham was higher in his first half of career. He contributed heavily with both skills and he was also a good fielder. He went down hill from there.
IK's over all career was better than Botham. IK had a better career, but if we are talking about some one bringing both skills at the same time in many series then it's Botham for me.
Imran over a career was a more effective bowler. About equal as batters - one was more a worker who would build an innings and stop the tail being blown away and got better with age, the other could tear any attack apart on his day. Imran was a competent fielder, Botham one of the best slip fielders in history. Imran was a very good leader while Botham’s game fell apart when they made him skipper - ten tests in a row against WI at their peak.
From 1977 to 1982 Botham was unstoppable, about the quickest to 100 and 200 test wickets - but after that various small injuries wore him down. He lost bowling speed and swung it less and started buying wickets. He should not have played tests after the 1987 Ashes, but they kept picking him and a string of poor performances degraded his figures.
Lol, please. Imran's competition is Gary Sobers, not Ian Botham. Any team would love to have a Botham play for them but no team would pick Botham over Imran.
To me in peak part of career Botham was arguably the best after Gary Sobers and at his best as a pure match-winer ahead of everyone be it Sobers,Imran or Miller.Has anyone equalled Botham's 1981 Ashes performance or 1981 Jubilee test one.To ressurect a team from the depths of despair to reach the pinnacle of glory Botham was the ultimate cricketer .He could exude energy on a cricket field in the all-round sense nonone could in his era and could create a sensational twist or turn in game whether batting bowling or fielding .His only flaw was under performing v West Indies and being overshadowed when playing against both Kapil Dev and Imran Khan in 2 test series each.
Imran was definitely the better bowler throughout but I would rate Botham marginally better as a batsmen and fielder.Botham could take a bowling attack to the sword more than Imran and pull off more spectacular catches.Imran was more in the defensive mould as a batsmen.What distinguished them mainly was that Botham was at peak with both bat and ball simultaneously while Imran was not at his best with both ball and bat at the same time.In his peak era from 1981-87 he was almost the equal of Botham from 1977-82 but was still more of fast bowing allrounder with ability to bat .Botham would win matches and series equally with ball and bat while Imran was mainly a match-winner as fast bowler.
Remember when Botham batted all day against Imran, Wasim and Qadir for fifty not out? That was real grinding!
IK without a doubt.
He captained Pakistan to a world cup win.
After 1983 or so when it because clear that his bowling was in decline, Botham should have really worked at his batting, becoming a supporting medium pacer or even taking up offspin - he had a fivefer in that style.
His batting failures against WI count against him. He didn’t seem to realise that he couldn’t flog them like he did a tiring Aussie attack. I did see him get eighty at Lords - he took them apart for a while, but the hundred eluded him. That was after he took an eightfer, running in hard and bowling genuinely fast.
He was technically excellent against pace and spin and could have become a top-line test #4, but didn’t have the work ethic.
Ah well, shoulda woulda coulda are the last words of a fool, as the song goes.
IK, Dev and Botham are not in the same league for me as far as their career goes.
IK is the only one here who was an ATG bowler and an ATG all rounder. Dev and Botham were ATG all rounders, but not ATG bowlers.
383 wickets, 4 10 fers and 27 5fers is ATG to me.
McGrath only took 3 10fers, Waqar and Wasim 5, but each have fewer 5 fers than Botham. The only thing that dulls the sheen is the, Ave 28, but Botham's SR at 56 compares well with Wasim, at 54, and is the same as James Anderson, who has not taken as many 5fers and 10fers as Sir Beefy, though playing over 30 more Tests. What is extraordinary is that these numbers account also for a long period of decline in Botham's form. If there was a ever a player to whom statistics could not do justice it would have to be Botham.
Imagine if I was calling some one ATG batsman if batting average was 43 with lots of tons and double tons. Imagine the same batsmen averaged very low against the best team of his era. It will be mighty hard to make a case for ATG in that scenario.
Not to mention, Packer reject sides contributed to those 5-fers as well. When all said and done, I won't call some one averaging 28-29 in his career an ATG pacer. Yes, Botham was a better all around player than IK in his first half due to bringing all skills for his first 50 tests, but that will make him an ATG all rounder. I don't think he had a good enough career as a bowler to go down as an ATG bowler.
They picked him out of nostalgia, after he stopped being effective. Without those last terrible 20 tests he would have had 340 wickets at 26 each.
Definitely better than Anderson and Broad.
Captaining a team to a world cup should not be a benchmark for a player to be considered as an ATG, although it plays a major role in that.If that is the sole criteria, then Kapil Dev captained a weaker India team in 1983 ( a decade before IK) to a world cup win over the West Indies who were indisputably the best team in the world that point of time. So nope your argument point is not so valid eh?
I do rate him higher than Anderson and Broad as a bowler, but just short of ATG bowler. Gillespie was in ball park of avg 26 with SR of 53-54 and I won't think about putting him in ATG bowler category. Yes, if we take only first half then Botham's bowling performance was surely an ATG level for me despite packer reject issue and not doing good against best team of his era.
I do rate him higher than Anderson and Broad as a bowler, but just short of ATG bowler. Gillespie was in ball park of avg 26 with SR of 53-54 and I won't think about putting him in ATG bowler category. Yes, if we take only first half then Botham's bowling performance was surely an ATG level for me despite packer reject issue and not doing good against best team of his era.
Sure he faced Pakistan short of Packerstanis, and Australia shorn of the Chappells / Lillianthomson. It was interesting to see England get hammered three-nil in Australia when the latter came back, but compare Botham’s bowling in the tests where he competed against real hardman quick Lillee.
Both’s second century of wickets came up fast, against the full batting sides.
And he did get that 13 haul in Mumbai against Sunny, Vishy and Vengsarker.
Imran over a career was a more effective bowler. About equal as batters - one was more a worker who would build an innings and stop the tail being blown away and got better with age, the other could tear any attack apart on his day. Imran was a competent fielder, Botham one of the best slip fielders in history. Imran was a very good leader while Botham’s game fell apart when they made him skipper - ten tests in a row against WI at their peak.
From 1977 to 1982 Botham was unstoppable, about the quickest to 100 and 200 test wickets - but after that various small injuries wore him down. He lost bowling speed and swung it less and started buying wickets. He should not have played tests after the 1987 Ashes, but they kept picking him and a string of poor performances degraded his figures.
Overall who do you rank the better allrounder between Botham and Imran?
Was Botham in peak era from 1977-82 better than Imran in his peak from 1981-88?Imran because he was a better bowler in unhelpful conditions, and because he sustained his performance for longer and while skipper, and he won test series in India and England - firsts for Pakistan - and ran WI close in their backyard.
Right, if you look at only one measure, like Average, many kinds of curious comparisons come into play. But Gillespie did not take a single 10fer, and only 8 5fers. He was a backup act his entire career. Ended with 250+ wickets to Botham's 380. Again, to put it in perspective, Botham reaped more 5fers than either Wasim and Waqar, and only one 10 fer less than they did. He was among the top bowlers in the world of his era. An era which had better bowlers than today.
The batsman analogy would be interesting to think with. Sachin and other bonafide ATGs averaged 51-55, so 43 would be at least 10 points difference to the best of the best. Botham averaged 28 with the ball, whereas Wasim averaged 23. That is a 5 point difference but as a percent roughly comparable. However, how many batsmen have there been who have averaged 43 and scored as many centuries as a Ponting or a Sanga? Someone like Laxman would come to mind average wise, but he scored but 17 centuries, only 3 more than Botham.
I am genuinely curious, is there a bowler who compares with Botham for sheer weight of massive hauls who is not ATG level?
Was Botham in peak era from 1977-82 better than Imran in his peak from 1981-88?
43 average was just a random number, but there are batsmen who averaged higher than 43 with lots of tons and yet not widely regarded as an ATG batsmen due to having many holes in their career.
Jayawardene with 34 tons
Shiv with 30 tons.
Coming back to Botham, it's not just about his career average being 28-29. WI and Pakistan were the two best sides in his time. He played more than 1/3rd of matches against them with average of 33-34.
Meanwhile in India, a graveyard for pace bowlers, and a challenge for many Western batsmen unaccustomed to playing spin, he was better than Imran, ave 61 with the bat and 25 with the ball, and stamping his authority in Mumbai like arguably no other player, ever.
Over the years Dev was part of strong Indian batting lineups which included Gavasker, Patil, Vengsarkar, Amarnath, Azharuddin, Srikanth, Shastri and later Tendulkar etc. With such accomplished batsmen Dev could play his natural aggressive game. On the other hand Imran for most of his career since 1982 was part of young and inexperienced batting lineups, on most occasions he had to lead by example. Most of the time he had to play in a crisis like his 136 against Australia. But he also had the ability to switch gears and play according to the situation which the other 3 all rounders lacked. Most importantly he helped Pakistan win matches. He took only 7 wickets in the 1987 series in India and made some crucial runs in the 1989 Nehru Cup and on both occasions he was the Man of the Series for his batting and captaincy.
He was as good a player of spin as Gooch and Gower. English batters of that era could play spin, unlike most of their modern successors.
Botham first 25 tests were awesome average of 18 with the ball and 40 with the bat last 25 tests 42 with the ball 23 with the bat it tells a story of his career it started of with a bang but gradually regressed.
Imran got better and better with age averaging 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat in the last 10 years of course he wasn't a great batsman but still he did well ended up as an all time great bowler and a decent batsman which puts him ahead easily apart from Bothams first 25 tests which were awesome.
I think both Jaywardene and Shiv would be considered ATG-level by most, if not outright ATG. But my point was that it is difficult to find players with big hauls without matching averages, and both of them averaged around 50.
And I think one need to expand the stats under consideration also when it comes to Pak and Windies. 33-34 is not great, but also not exactly a cosmic chasm, whether it be with ball or bat. That is what an ATG level legspinner like Abdul Qadir averaged across his career with the ball.
But it is not that Botham didn't perform, and perform exceptionally, against Pakistan and the Windies.
He scored a 100 and took 8 wickets against Pakistan in 1978 at Lords, 9 wickets and a 50 in 1982 in Leeds; against Windies 7 wickets in 1981 at Bridgetown, 8 wickets and 81 runs in 1984 at Lords.
Meanwhile in India, a graveyard for pace bowlers, and a challenge for many Western batsmen unaccustomed to playing spin, he was better than Imran, ave 61 with the bat and 25 with the ball, and stamping his authority in Mumbai like arguably no other player, ever.
It is absolutely not true that Imran got better and better with both bat and ball. He faded away very strongly as a bowler in his last three years, had a bowling average of 33 between 1989 and 1992; in many Tests he played de facto as a batsman and specialist captain.
Imran's endlessly referenced 50 batting average in the last ten years of his career also flatters him quite a bit, the product of many dogged not outs at the end of the order.
What the scorecards tell you is that when Imran scored centuries it was often relatively easy runs, an extra bonus on top of hundreds by top order batsmen the likes of Javed or Zaheer.
Botham came in and bashed 100s when the rest of the order was crumbling around him, seizing matches and series by the scruff of the neck countless times with the bat.
To borrow a classic Pakpassion weasel word, of the two one would have to say Botham was the most "naturally talented."