Was Ian Botham a better allrounder than Imran Khan in his peak era?

[WebGuru]

that is why a lot of cricket followers firmly believe that the Don wouldn't have averaged 99.94 in today's dense schedules with added burden of limited overs cricket .in Don's case longevity too is much small. only 52. but what does in his favour overshadowing all other draw backs is this 99.94 .

and Sobers

Well for me Imran career starts from 1974 and i don't think it's 21 years.

 

[Buffet]

w.r.t Kapil's test bowling i made a probablity analysis and concluded that had Kapil played
only 88 tests in a long span of 21 years and at the same tests/year rate as Imran did and with other advantages too that he could have ended with 330 wkts, ie 330/362 = .9116 or 91.16 % as effective bowler as Imran.so only at a slightly lower level for me.but
you still think that the gap is not so small.what are your reasons?

I don't agree with this 90% effectiveness. I am not sure if there is way to quantify such things. You need to see how cheaply they picked those wicket and not only number of wickets. Kapil picked his wickets at an average of 29.40 in his first 88 test matches. IK did is far cheaply and quickly.

also keen to know as to where do you disagree with the 3 points i put forward for rating Kapil's bowling much higher than what his stats reveals.

I already admitted that he may be better bowler than his stats suggests but I am not going to give lone warrior or other intangibles so much weight to put him very close to IK in bowling and that's what you are trying to prove.

Now with regard to batting i find his str: rate of 80.91 out of the world. to be frank i was not aware of this till an year back or so.all i knew was he was an aggressive player just like Botham.another thing that i rate really high was his ability to raise his str: rate to unbelievable levels once he crossed 75.he posses 15 scores of above 75 with 105.2 as runs/inns and 96.45 str: rate.only Gilchrist was on a par with him in this regard.this is literally butchering bowling attacks.and the most damage he did was to the best team of his era.and for this reason ie: his huge str: rate, i feel that he was a much better batsman than Imran.how do you evaluate this str: rate? in other words why do you feel there is only a small gap in this regard?

Yes, due to that SR and his ability to destroy any attack is the reason I put him above IK. I will be lot more scared of Kapil than IK coming at number 7 even though they contributed similar amount of runs per innings. Now I am not going to rate that SR factor that high to say that he was far ahead of IK in batting. Anyway, it's not just SR. Kapil had an ability to dictate terms and I will pick a number 7 who can dictate terms against any attack.

I do rate Sehwag the second best opener from SC comfortably due to his ability to change games and having effect on games but his unparalleled record as an opener, as far as SR is concerned, doesn't mean that I will rate Sehwag as the best opener to ever play the cricket.

In Kapil's case, he was not even in top order so coming at 7 and playing freely was his style. Over all I don't think he was too far ahead of IK. He was far ahead of IK if you take IK's first half but IK did very well in second half. These things are subjective so let's agree to disagree.

As far as performing at top level while playing lot of non-stop cricket is concerned, I agree. It's extremely difficult and IK performance might have taken some hit if he was playing lot more cricket but I am not ready to believe that he would have been at same level as Kapil if he was playing that much cricket. Kapil was surely much fitter cricketer but you need to remember that IK used to bowl fast. It's not easy to bowl fast and not get injured as well. Anyway, there is no way to extrapolate such things.

 

[Bilal7]

Imran had a batting average of over 50 and bowling average of 19 during the latter part of his career.

 

[amax]

w.r.t Kapil's test bowling i made a probablity analysis and concluded that had Kapil played
only 88 tests in a long span of 21 years and at the same tests/year rate as Imran did and with other advantages too that he could have ended with 330 wkts, ie 330/362 = .9116 or 91.16 % as effective bowler as Imran.so only at a slightly lower level for me.but

Kapil's average for his first 88 tests matches is 29.40 with a strike rate of almost 60 and just 2 10fers.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...7;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Only taking wickets into account and converting them to numbers will not give you a complete picture, in addition to average, strike rate is very important in test cricket, it gives you an idea how quickly a bowler can change course of a match.

For me biggest weak point in Kapil's career is not his average but his strike rate(64 is bit spinner-ish) and low number of 10fers(despite being only strike bowler in his team for long time), both suggest lack of penetration ability a hall mark of ATG bowlers.

 

[Buffet]

Kapil's average for his first 88 tests matches is 29.40 with a strike rate of almost 60 and just 2 10fers.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...7;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

IK in 88 test match has SR rate of 54 vs Kapil's 60. So Kapil used to take 10 overs to pick a wicket and IK used to take 9 overs. Not a earth-shattering difference here unless you randomly want to pick a SR as a dividing line. If SRs are in the range of 40's and 60's only then it's a meaningful gap. If one bowler picks a wicket in 8 overs and another does it in 11-12 overs, then it is worth pointing out.

This logic is going in same direction as other poster's point about Kapil's SR in batting and that gap is actually a huge one. I think it's useless to debate about IK vs Kapil as far as test bowling is concerned. IK was a much better bowler and we don't need too many data points to prove that.

 

[Robert]

Sobers played 93 matches in 20 years means less thn 5 matches a year while Bradman played 52 matches in 20 years means less thn 3 matches a yeard.

Remember that Bradman's career was interrupted by World War Two, so it was really 52 matches in 14 years.

 

[amax]

IK in 88 test match has SR rate of 54 vs Kapil 60. So Kapil used to take 10 overs to pick a wicket and IK used to take 9 overs. Not a earth-shattering difference here unless you randomly want to pick a SR as a dividing line. If SR difference is in the range of 40's and 60's only then it's a meaningful gap.

This logic is going in same direction as other poster's point about Kapil's SR in batting and that gap is actually a huge one.

bowling SR rate is viewed bit differently from batting , bowling strike rate is often used as a cutoff along with average e.g. under 55 for top ATG fast bowlers etc. Saying that there is also a big difference b/w number of 10 fers .

 

[WebGuru]

Remember that Bradman's career was interrupted by World War Two, so it was really 52 matches in 14 years.

That's true i was just showing it as an example because 3 years of IK career are added by someone to make it 21 even though he only played 1 match in 1971 and thn next in 1974.

 

[akheR]

IK in 88 test match has SR rate of 54 vs Kapil 60. So Kapil used to take 10 overs to pick a wicket and IK used to take 9 overs. Not a earth-shattering difference here unless you randomly want to pick a SR as a dividing line. If SRs are in the range of 40's and 60's only then it's a meaningful gap. If one bowler picks a wicket in 8 overs and another does it in 11-12 overs, then it is worth pointing out.

This logic is going in same direction as other poster's point about Kapil's SR in batting and that gap is actually a huge one. I think it's useless to debate about IK vs Kapil as far as test bowling is concerned. IK was much better bowler and we don't need too many data points to prove that.

You should look at their peak form to compare, that's when they went in their full potentiality as bowlers, and the thing is that even then Kapil Dev averaged a bit over 25 with a SR of 52.8 (79'-82'), whereas Imran Khan averaged slightly less than 15 with the SR at 40 (81'-86').
That career SR (53) of Imran Khan barely represents his post-86 form, when he worked on his batting and even if he maintained a decent average (mid-high 20s), the SR (how penetrative he was) went into the 60s because he lost his pace (he kept the average low with a low ER.)

Imran Khan is an ATG for his bowling only, and could make a team based on that, his +50 batting average in his later (late 80s/beginning of the 90s) persona being a sheer bonus if you're sceptical of his abilities with the bat, whereas Kapil Dev couldn't make a XI for his batting alone (so a higher SR for batsmen who come at 6-7 isn't that relevant).
Amongst the 80s fantastic four, the one who has a strong case against Immy as a bowler is Sir Richard Hadlee, and interestingly they literally peaked at the same time (the second half of the decade belonged to Malcolm Marshall.)

 

[Feroz Rawther]

I don't agree with this 90% effectiveness. I am not sure if there is way to quantify such things. You need to see how cheaply they picked those wicket and not only number of wickets. Kapil picked his wickets at an average of 29.40 in his first 88 test matches. IK did is far cheaply and quickly.



I already admitted that he may be better bowler than his stats suggests but I am not going to give lone warrior or other intangibles so much weight to put him very close to IK in bowling and that's what you are trying to prove.



Yes, due to that SR and his ability to destroy any attack is the reason I put him above IK. I will be lot more scared of Kapil than IK coming at number 7 even though they contributed similar amount of runs per innings. Now I am not going to rate that SR factor that high to say that he was far ahead of IK in batting. Anyway, it's not just SR. Kapil had an ability to dictate terms and I will pick a number 7 who can dictate terms against any attack.

I do rate Sehwag the second best opener from SC comfortably due to his ability to change games and having effect on games but his unparalleled record as an opener, as far as SR is concerned, doesn't mean that I will rate Sehwag as the best opener to ever play the cricket.

In Kapil's case, he was not even in top order so coming at 7 and playing freely was his style. Over all I don't think he was too far ahead of IK. He was far ahead of IK if you take IK's first half but IK did very well in second half. These things are subjective so let's agree to disagree.

As far as performing at top level while playing lot of non-stop cricket is concerned, I agree. It's extremely difficult and IK performance might have taken some hit if he was playing lot more cricket but I am not ready to believe that he would have been at same level as Kapil if he was playing that much cricket. Kapil was surely much fitter cricketer but you need to remember that IK used to bowl fast. It's not easy to bowl fast and not get injured as well. Anyway, there is no way to extrapolate such things.

but one thing with regard to that imaginary '330wkts in 88 tests' for Kapil is that the str: rate, bowl avg:,econ etc would have naturally got better based on the conditions i earlier put forward. actually Kapil had 311wkts in first 88 tests. 19 more would not have been a practical impossibility had the things i earlier mentioned worked in his favour.that is what i firmly believe from going thru the motions of the game for a lot of years. any way
i respect your opinions though i shall stick with mine.

 

[Buffet]

bowling SR rate is viewed bit differently from batting , bowling strike rate is often used as a cutoff along with average e.g. under 55 for top ATG fast bowlers etc. Saying that there is also a big difference b/w number of 10 fers .

Surely it's viewed differently but generally accepted rough cut off for ATG fast bowlers is below 25 average. SR is more of a secondary data point. Also, these cut off's are not to say that all below 25 are ATG and all above 25 are not-ATG.

Kapil picking a wicket in 10 overs vs IK's 9 overs doesn't reflect the difference in their skill as a bowler but a huge difference in average does indicate difference. Also, I think 5-fer is better indication of penetration due to providing larger & meaningful sample size.

10-fer is mostly rare for even ATG bowlers( I don't even consider Kapil as an ATG bowler). You are asking for two 5-fers in the same match. No one judges the quality of batsmen by back to back century in same test match because it's very rare. Simple count of centuries provides much more meaningful sample for any batsman's ability to score big. Similarly, 5-fer provides much more larger sample size to be meaningful for bowler's penetration ability.

 

[Buffet]

You should look at their peak form to compare, that's when they went in their full potentiality as bowlers, and the thing is that even then Kapil Dev averaged a bit over 25 with a SR of 52.8 (79'-82'), whereas Imran Khan averaged slightly less than 15 with the SR at 40 (81'-86').
That career SR (53) of Imran Khan barely represents his post-86 form, when he worked on his batting and even if he maintained a decent average (mid-high 20s), the SR (how penetrative he was) went into the 60s because he lost his pace (he kept the average low with a low ER.)

Imran Khan is an ATG for his bowling only, and could make a team based on that, his +50 batting average in his later (late 80s/beginning of the 90s) persona being a sheer bonus if you're sceptical of his abilities with the bat, whereas Kapil Dev couldn't make a XI for his batting alone (so a higher SR for batsmen who come at 6-7 isn't that relevant).
Amongst the 80s fantastic four, the one who has a strong case against Immy as a bowler is Sir Richard Hadlee, and interestingly they literally peaked at the same time (the second half of the decade belonged to Malcolm Marshall.)

I wasn't actually comparing them as bowler at all. Two posters were talking about Kapil's first 88 vs IK's whole 88 test matches and SR for these two sample size came into the picture. Then my comments followed about SR difference not being meaningful in 88 test matches.

As far as comparing Kapil and IK as a bowler goes, I think IK was a far better bowler than Kapil. Hadlee and IK are ATG bowlers. I don't consider Botham and Kapil as ATG bowlers. I consider them only as ATG all-rounders.

 

[Buffet]

but one thing with regard to that imaginary '330wkts in 88 tests' for Kapil is that the str: rate, bowl avg:,econ etc would have naturally got better based on the conditions i earlier put forward. actually Kapil had 311wkts in first 88 tests. 19 more would not have been a practical impossibility had the things i earlier mentioned worked in his favour.that is what i firmly believe from going thru the motions of the game for a lot of years. any way
i respect your opinions though i shall stick with mine.

Agreed. There was good chance of getting it better. We differ in degree of improvement and there is no way to debate that objectively.

I didn't argue effectiveness based on number of wickets so Kapil hypothetically picking 19 more wickets in his first 88 test matches doesn't dent my arguments by much. Surely it would have improved his average etc but improvement wouldn't have been too drastic due to additional 19 wickets and gap with IK would have been pretty big one even with those additional 19 wickets. You can calculate the average with additional 19 wickets and check yourself.

Added later: Quick calculation shows that if Kapil had picked additional 19 wickets in hypothetical case , he would have still averaged 27.71.

 

[Haroon786]

This shouldn't even be a debate, IK by a landslide.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Kapil's average for his first 88 tests matches is 29.40 with a strike rate of almost 60 and just 2 10fers.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...7;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Only taking wickets into account and converting them to numbers will not give you a complete picture, in addition to average, strike rate is very important in test cricket, it gives you an idea how quickly a bowler can change course of a match.

For me biggest weak point in Kapil's career is not his average but his strike rate(64 is bit spinner-ish) and low number of 10fers(despite being only strike bowler in his team for long time), both suggest lack of penetration ability a hall mark of ATG bowlers.

as i earlier pointed i am no way saying that Kapil is a test bowling equivalent of Imran. i made a probablity analysis that had Kapil ended only playing 88 tests in a long span 18 years(as some one pointed Imran played only 1 test in first 3 years) with quality bowlers to support him as in Imran's case he would have ended with 330 wkts.then quite naturally all the 3, bowl avg:, econ: rate and str: rate would have come down too.i think this is quite simple to understand.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

Kapil's average for his first 88 tests matches is 29.40 with a strike rate of almost 60 and just 2 10fers.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...7;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Only taking wickets into account and converting them to numbers will not give you a complete picture, in addition to average, strike rate is very important in test cricket, it gives you an idea how quickly a bowler can change course of a match.

For me biggest weak point in Kapil's career is not his average but his strike rate(64 is bit spinner-ish) and low number of 10fers(despite being only strike bowler in his team for long time), both suggest lack of penetration ability a hall mark of ATG bowlers.

Since you put an emphasis on SR how about you indulge me for a quick statistical argument? I swear I am not plenty good with stats.

Lets take the milestone of 200 wickets.

IK reaches it in 81 innings (46 Tests), Kapil reached it in 83 innings (50 Tests). Imran's SR 56.1 while Kapil's 55.3

Around the same tests Kapil has scored 2129 runs@32.25 while Imran has scored 1801@29.5

Around the same time Kapil has already won the WC.

Meaningless stats perhaps but does it prove, rather conclusively, that for the first half of their career Kapil had better bowling SR (his average was still higher than IK), had better batting average and runs, and WC win and thus a much better all-rounder than IK?

IK picked his game up and his run between 200-300 wickets was fabulous but to consider him as being miles ahead of KD from day 1 is huge misnomer.

Fair?

 

[amax]

Since you put an emphasis on SR how about you indulge me for a quick statistical argument? I swear I am not plenty good with stats.

Lets take the milestone of 200 wickets.

IK reaches it in 81 innings (46 Tests), Kapil reached it in 83 innings (50 Tests). Imran's SR 56.1 while Kapil's 55.3

Around the same tests Kapil has scored 2129 runs@32.25 while Imran has scored 1801@29.5

Around the same time Kapil has already won the WC.

Meaningless stats perhaps but does it prove, rather conclusively, that for the first half of their career Kapil had better bowling SR (his average was still higher than IK), had better batting average and runs, and WC win and thus a much better all-rounder than IK?

IK picked his game up and his run between 200-300 wickets was fabulous but to consider him as being miles ahead of KD from day 1 is huge misnomer.

Fair?

I picked first 88 tests for Kapil as some poster posted a comparison of kapil's 88 tests with Imran's whole career of 88 tests. No one will deny that Imran was not far ahead of Kapil at start, what Kapil lacks is an astronomical peak a trademark of ATG bowlers, time when their fitness is at peak, all Imran, Lillee, Wasim, Marshal, Waqar, Steyn, Hadlee. Donald, Ambrose, Trueman etc have clear peaks of considerable duration when they have avg in teens/early 20s, surreal strike rates, good numbers of 10fers etc as evident form table below . For me Kapil is one of the top bowlers of his era, an ATG gun all rounder, but not an ATG bowler.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

I picked first 88 tests for Kapil as some poster posted a comparison of kapil's 88 tests with Imran's whole career of 88 tests. No one will deny that Imran was not far ahead of Kapil at start, what Kapil lacks is an astronomical peak a trademark of ATG bowlers, time when their fitness is at peak, all Imran, Lillee, Wasim, Marshal, Waqar, Steyn, Hadlee. Donald etc have clear peaks of considerable duration when they have avg in teens/early 20s, surreal strike rates, good numbers of 10fers etc as evident form table below . For me Kapil is one of the top bowlers of his era, an ATG all rounder, but not an ATG bowler.

You kind of skirted my question on who was the better all-rounder in the first half of their respective careers, didn't you?

I can see where you can deduce that Kapil's numbers are not exactly earth shattering, partially due to his own doing specially towards the tail end of his career. What also needs to be looked at is of the players you mention (Marshall, Lillee, Wasim, Waqar, Steyn etc.) they always had a supporting cast. Even Imran had Sarfaraz and later Wasim. Kapil was a one man band. Most teams would see him off safely and plunder the Madan Lals and Sandhus of this world. It would be imprudent to overlook that. Hadlee was the one who stands out in term of delivering without a support cast.

 

[akheR]

You kind of skirted my question on who was the better all-rounder in the first half of their respective careers, didn't you?

I can see where you can deduce that Kapil's numbers are not exactly earth shattering, partially due to his own doing specially towards the tail end of his career. What also needs to be looked at is of the players you mention (Marshall, Lillee, Wasim, Waqar, Steyn etc.) they always had a supporting cast. Even Imran had Sarfaraz and later Wasim. Kapil was a one man band. Most teams would see him off safely and plunder the Madan Lals and Sandhus of this world. It would be imprudent to overlook that. Hadlee was the one who stands out in term of delivering without a support cast.

I think that both Kapil and Botham (especially) were more talented all round cricketers (he himself likes to say that he was the least talented, but the most ambitious), but I call Immy a good "statistical Test batsman" because you can't deny that he worked hard on his batting (good defence even if he didn't had the flamboyance of a Bothan and mainly Kapil), whereas for the bowling, that's a consensus, he's an all time great (I measure and compare the peak because, as pointed out, that reflects the best as a bowlers they could deliver).
Imo, the 80s were Immy's decade - few years which preceded '81, both Kapil and Botham were better cricketers.
To put it simply, before the 80s he wasn't impressive with either bat or ball ; from 80 to 88, with both (and from 81 to 86 particularly, statistically the best averaging fast bowler ever) ; after 88, mainly with the bat (rated the second best after Martin Crowe for the transitional period between the 80s and 90s.)

But Imran Khan could be an attacking batsman in ODIs too... refer to his 67* off 46 @ SR +160 against a strong WI to win the match (against the likes of Marshall-Ambrose-Bishop @ Brisbane).

At Brisbane, January 7. Pakistan won by 55 runs. Toss: West Indies. Although Pakistan scored only 42 runs from the bat in their first 25 overs, these were augmented by 35 extras, which provided them with just the boost they needed. In the end West Indies conceded 59 extras, a record for a one-day international, with some very undisciplined bowling. Altogether they gave Pakistan the benefit of an extra 5.4 overs. This, together with another admirable innings from Aamer Malik and a burst of fierce hitting from Imran, whose 67 not out from 46 balls was chiefly responsible for Pakistan scoring 106 from their last ten overs, left West Indies needing to score at 5.18 runs an over to win. Although never far behind the clock, they found no-one to play the big innings that was necessary. When, in successive overs (the 27th and 28th), Greenidge was bowled off his pads and Richards, sent back by Hooper, was run out, Pakistan moved a little edgily to a victory which put them level with Australia in the WSC table. With his first scoring stroke, Richards became the first batsman to reach 6,000 runs in one-day internationals.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65444.html

^to put that performance in perspective, apart from Aamer Malik with a SR of over 60, no one touched 50 (the premier batsman, Javed Miandad, in the 40s... lol @ number of extras )

 

[amax]

You kind of skirted my question on who was the better all-rounder in the first half of their respective careers, didn't you?

I can see where you can deduce that Kapil's numbers are not exactly earth shattering, partially due to his own doing specially towards the tail end of his career. What also needs to be looked at is of the players you mention (Marshall, Lillee, Wasim, Waqar, Steyn etc.) they always had a supporting cast. Even Imran had Sarfaraz and later Wasim. Kapil was a one man band. Most teams would see him off safely and plunder the Madan Lals and Sandhus of this world. It would be imprudent to overlook that. Hadlee was the one who stands out in term of delivering without a support cast.

I agree with you on the point when you take into account factors other than stats than Kapil looks most disadvantaged of all members of 300+ club, but the reality is you have to apply some sort of blind cutoffs.
BTW,for me the most underrated aspect of Kapil is not his bowling but his batting, he has played some of the best knocks (from SC batsman) against pace bowling on difficult pitches. As for your question till 1981 ashes both Botham and Kapil were ahead of Imran as all rounders.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

I think that both Kapil and Botham (especially) were more talented all round cricketers (he himself likes to say that he was the least talented, but the most ambitious), but I call Immy a good "statistical Test batsman" because you can't deny that he worked hard on his batting (good defence even if he didn't had the flamboyance of a Bothan and mainly Kapil), whereas for the bowling, that's a consensus, he's an all time great (I measure and compare the peak because, as pointed out, that reflects the best as a bowlers they could deliver).
Imo, the 80s were Immy's decade - few years which preceded '81, both Kapil and Botham were better cricketers.
To put it simply, before the 80s he wasn't impressive with either bat or ball ; from 80 to 88, with both (and from 81 to 86 particularly, statistically the best averaging fast bowler ever) ; after 88, mainly with the bat (rated the second best after Martin Crowe for the transitional period between the 80s and 90s.)

It is hard to argue that Imran worked very hard on his game. Although as a batsman he was just a shade behind Botham and Kapil, of all the 4 all-rounders Imran was the batsman who put the most value on his wicket. Botham and Kapil were more swasbucklers which was their star appeal but also costed their team at times.

With regards to Imran coming into his own in 80s, one need to put in perspective the fact that Imran had the luxury (for lack of better word) of time to develop into a class act while for Kapil it was the case of delivering from day 1. Do keep in mind that before Kapil Dev made his debut Sunil Gavaskar was opening India's bowling. The first time Kapil bowled Pakistani openers had to ask for their helmets, they have never played against India with helmets. To change all that from day 1 is something that is extremely hard to quantify. I wont take anything away from Imran who was a terrific bowler but lets agree that he took a good decade to develop into world class.

But Imran Khan could be an attacking batsman in ODIs too... refer to his 67* off 46 @ SR +160 against a strong WI to win the match (against the likes of Marshall-Ambrose-Bishop @ Brisbane).

No disagreement with that at all. Imran could belt lusty sixes when he wanted to. He belted Bedi for multiple sixes and pulled a miraculous victory alongside Miandad in 78-79. Also he must be one of the only batsman I have seen who have really massacred Curtly Ambrose.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

I agree with you on the point when you take into account factors other than stats than Kapil looks most disadvantaged of all members of 300+ club, but the reality is you have to apply some sort of blind cutoffs.
BTW,for me the most underrated aspect of Kapil is not his bowling but his batting, he has played some of the best knocks (from SC batsman) against pace bowling on difficult pitches. As for your question till 1981 ashes both Botham and Kapil were ahead of Imran as all rounders.

And I have no problems with that. Having seen all these 4 greats in action I would pitch for anyone in my team. Indeed they transformed their country so much that after their retirement their respective countries are still searching for replacements. England tried Dominic Cork, Gaugh, DeFreitas, White and others with only FLintoff coming close to Botham. Pakistan looked at Akram, Afridi and Razzak. India at Robin Singh, Agarkar, Pathan. Only NZ seemed to have a good case with Chris Cairns (I rate him ahead of Flintoff)

I thought Richie Benaud had it exactly right. Instead of making all time XI he made 3 teams. Imran was part of the final team, Botham 2nd and Kapil 3rd. All great players who were terrific to watch.

 

[kamranwasti]

Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
Lillee
Garner
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Holding
Willis
Botham

A good list - ranking does not matter as everyone has his own views but here are some catches which, in my humble opinion, you dropped:

For the West Indies:

• Roberts did quite well till his retirement. In fact his 5 for 39 in that dramatic first test against India (Kapil Dev's first as captain) and another match-winning show in England in 1980 are two shows I recall instantly.
• Holding was a far superior performer than Kapil Dev or Wasim Akram. I can easily recall some of his stand-out performances, like his 11 for 107 in the game in which Lillee had his career best or his 6 for 21 at Perth - unbelievable performance. My favourite though is his 5 for 43 at the Oval - venue of the greatest fast bowling performance ever (by Holding himself). Cannot forget the bouncer that got Chris Broad.
• Courtney Walsh and Patrick Patterson were quite effective in the 1980s also - in fact Patterson's best years were his first three. However, one unfortunate victim of this whole pace bowling culture was Tony Gray, a lethal fast bowler who generated crazy Joel Garner-like bounce at genuine pace. He took 22 test wickets at 17 or 18 in Pakistan and New Zealand in 1986-7 but would never play again - partly because the West Indians had a lot of options but mainly because he was not in Viv Richards' good books. I remember he debuted in the Faisalabad Test in which Walsh broke Salim Malik's arm. He used to come running in with his right-hand making circles around the left and had a very easy action.
• At times, when others didn't deliver, Winston Benjamin used to step up. Not as fast as Gray, Marshall or Holding but bowled a heavy ball and could be a very slippery customer
• Croft and Clarke were history in 1981 and Winston Davis, though genuinely fast and quite nasty, was not consistently good. Still wonder why was he persisted with even when Tony Gray was available.
• Wayne Daniel - a victim of the riches. Just did not play enough. Too good a bowler.

Regarding West Indies, there was a point in 1983, when Daniel, Marshall and Holding were ripping India apart with Davis and Robers as backup. Garner wasn't playing. That's six fast bowlers. In South Africa, a rebel team had its pace attack, led by Clarke destroying the hosts. In theory, you could actually field an XI of world class fast bowlers.

For Pakistan

• Wasim Akram only became a consistent world-beater in the 1990s - by 1989 he had just 94 wickets from 29 tests at 29.
• Pakistan's other successful bowler was the limited but extremely hard-working left-armer Azeem Hafeez who just could not swing the ball back into the right-handers. When he did manage that somehow, like against India in Lahore in 1984, he got decent wickets. During the time when Imran was away, he manfully took 63 test wickets at 33 or 34 in 18 tests - a very Umar Gul-like performance.

For Australia

• There is no mention of Geoff Lawson who was Australia's stand-out fast bowler in the post-Lillee era till a severe injury in 1985 hampered his effectiveness though he was still good enough to take 25-odd wickets in the summer Ashes and returned to take 29 Ashes wickets in 1989. Very, very good bowler - genuine pace - angular fast bowler with good outswing.
• Terry Alderman had a better record than Kapil Dev and Botham as a bowler and was the most lethal bowler in England and of course in Perth or Brisbane.
• Towards the end of the 1980s, Merv Hughes too was delivering.
• I would have added Bruce Reid - excellent bowler. In the 1980s though, he was struggling with injuries. When he recovered a bit, Reid's return was telling and the suffering England and Indian batsmen can confirm.
• Then there was Craig McDermott too - however, like Reid, his best years came in the 1990s.

For India:

• Although his figures are not so impressive and he is much maligned because of Javed Miandad's six and Wasim Akram's sixes in Nagpur, Chetan Sharma was actually not a bad bowler at all and did quite well for a while for India. In fact, he at times outbowled Kapil Dev like in England in 1986 and against the West Indies in 1987 at Delhi. He was unfortunate never to consistently get conditions that suited him as Indians around that time had a string of not-so-great spinners who needed dustbowls - Sivaramakrishnan, Maninder, Arshad Ayub, Hirwani. Sharma had no chance.

For England:

• England struggled with bowlers - Botham was in terminal decline after the summer of 1982 although he did get wickets in 1984 and 1985. However, Graham Dilley and Neil Foster were not too bad although definitely not in the top league. A bowler of their pedigree would readily be snapped up by India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
• I am at pains to include Angus Fraser - however he only played one test in the 1989 Ashes. I think he was the first one to dismiss Steve Waugh in that series. Brilliant bowler.

For New Zealand:

• The wonderful Even Chatfield - today, any team would love to have a guy like him who is not flambouyant and patiently delivers ball after ball to ensure things stay under control and delivers when the chips are down, like in the West Indies in 1985.

For Sri Lanka:

• I wouldn't really rate Ashantha De Mel that highly - even though they included him in Cricinfo's All-Time XI. He used to leak runs like anything. However, Sri Lankans briefly played a bowler called Vinothen John who was very, very good. He was toyed around with in the 1987 World Cup but that was when he was making his return after his test career had already come to an end at the age of 24 due to injury or something.

 

[Robert]

For England:

• England struggled with bowlers - Botham was in terminal decline after the summer of 1982 although he did get wickets in 1984 and 1985. However, Graham Dilley and Neil Foster were not too bad although definitely not in the top league. A bowler of their pedigree would readily be snapped up by India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
• I am at pains to include Angus Fraser - however he only played one test in the 1989 Ashes. I think he was the first one to dismiss Steve Waugh in that series. Brilliant bowler.

England were crippled in those days because so much domestic cricket was played that the bowlers could not stay fit. They would go from a three-day match straight into a test and hen straight back into another three-dayer without a break.

Dilley was properly quick and had a good outswinger and I concur about Fraser, a proto-McGrath who had two eightfers in WI. Imran seriously rated Foster after his good series against Pakistan in 1987.

 

[kamranwasti]

England were crippled in those days because so much domestic cricket was played that the bowlers could not stay fit. They would go from a three-day match straight into a test and hen straight back into another three-dayer without a break.

Dilley was properly quick and had a good outswinger and I concur about Fraser, a proto-McGrath who had two eightfers in WI. Imran seriously rated Foster after his good series against Pakistan in 1987.

Yes Robert - Dilley was an genuinely fast outswing bowler when he started and he was a handy bat too early on. From the 1986 Ashes onwards till his demise as an international cricketer, he was an outstanding all-round performer. There were times when he would patiently work his way through the opposition's batting line up (against Pakistan in 1987) or could simply run through them if things suited him like in New Zealand in 1988 and against the West Indies later that year.

I admire Dilley because he was not the most outstanding talent and yet he was ready for days when no help existed.

Foster was far more naturally talented. I wish he had not had that surgery in 1983. I remember reading an issue of The Crickter (Pakistan) that had an article, 'Surrey 14 All Out!' - who did it? Messrs Foster and Philip (Norbert Philip - a former West Indian pace-bowling all-rounder who played for them during the Packer era).

Foster also took 8 for 107 against us in the Leeds test in 1987. I remember Mushtaq Muhammad, the adjudicator for the match, mentioning 'young Neil Foster' as one of the candidates in that game. However, a more telling spell was the one in the very next game at Birmingham when he took 4 for 66 in Pakistan's second innings to spark a collapse and ignite hopes of a shock English win. I also remember watching him send Geoff Marsh's stumps cartwheeling in the 1987 World Cup Final. Javed Miandad felt that in1987, he was generally quicker than Dilley.

Angus Fraser was a world-class performer. He could walk into any test team today. The best part was his quiet humility - he bowled some outstanding spells in the West Indies in 1990. His 5 for 30 actually landed England their first win over the West Indies in almost 20 years. Later that summer, the one in which Gooch scored over 1000 test runs, he was the quiet star who bowled those critical series-winning spells before injury struck. Out of nowhere, he was recalled in 1993 and delivered England their first Ashes test win in 7 years. After England's 46 all-out Ambrosification, he got 8 wickets in an innings to enable England to become the first team to win in Barbados and then went out again before getting an emergency recall for the Ashes. I remember there was a particular test in Australia which ended in a draw - Fraser's first game in a while. He did not do much in the first innings but bowled manfully in the second innings to take a five-fer - only to be denied by Phil Tufnell's stupidity (he kept bowling flat into the rough outside leg stump from over the wicket). Off he went again before another recall three years later - and he had, I think, 20 wickets in the first two tests in the West Indies. I remember him bowling Carl Hooper behind his legs with the leg stump flying. There was a test that England won - Caddick got a five-fer in that first innings sparking a collapse but the other five went to Fraser. He again took a ten-fer later that year and I think it was in that game in which Donald and Atherton had that famous battle.
Absolutely beautiful bowler.

 

[Robert]

Foster also took 8 for 107 against us in the Leeds test in 1987. I remember Mushtaq Muhammad, the adjudicator for the match, mentioning 'young Neil Foster' as one of the candidates in that game. However, a more telling spell was the one in the very next game at Birmingham when he took 4 for 66 in Pakistan's second innings to spark a collapse and ignite hopes of a shock English win. I also remember watching him send Geoff Marsh's stumps cartwheeling in the 1987 World Cup Final. Javed Miandad felt that in1987, he was generally quicker than Dilley.

Brilliant match! I think England would have won had Gooch been there, but he had lost confidence and made himself unavailable.

Foster also got a tenfer in India to secure Gower's series win there.

 

[Gigii]

Wasn't Neil Foster the guy that had so many injuries he apparently used to set off airport metal detectors?

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Agreed. There was good chance of getting it better. We differ in degree of improvement and there is no way to debate that objectively.

I didn't argue effectiveness based on number of wickets so Kapil hypothetically picking 19 more wickets in his first 88 test matches doesn't dent my arguments by much. Surely it would have improved his average etc but improvement wouldn't have been too drastic due to additional 19 wickets and gap with IK would have been pretty big one even with those additional 19 wickets. You can calculate the average with additional 19 wickets and check yourself.

Added later: Quick calculation shows that if Kapil had picked additional 19 wickets in hypothetical case , he would have still averaged 27.71.

and a str: rate of 56.2 too based on the the number of balls bowled in 88 tests and 330 wkts taken.we can see that the 2 measures have reduced some what.but the problem i find here is that the number of balls and the runs conceded used for this calculation are the actual numbers he bowled after 88 tests.that is 'longevity' factor alone has been considered. now the other 2 factors 'work density' and 'support bowler' factor also has to be taken into account. in other words he would have taken this 19 more wkts(a probability amount) in fewer balls and by conceeding less runs(both really we can't actually quantify but in some amounts for sure).in such case his bowl average and str: rate would have fallen by 3 fold.hope you got my point.
so as per my earlier assumption of 330 against Imran's 362(91.16%) in the case of wkts
Kapil bowl avg: = 22.71(Imran's)*100/91.16= 24.91
his str: rate = 53.7(Imran's)*100/91.16 = 58.9(though as per first calculation it is only 56.2) .

 

[Robert]

Wasn't Neil Foster the guy that had so many injuries he apparently used to set off airport metal detectors?

Yeah, he had this big steel plate in his back at one point. He was a cyborg.

 

[kamranwasti]

Brilliant match! I think England would have won had Gooch been there, but he had lost confidence and made himself unavailable.

Foster also got a tenfer in India to secure Gower's series win there.

Gooch has done that a lot but England made other major blunders too. Like not selecting Defreitas and Lamb etc.

In bowling they banked a lot on Botham and Emburey and they didn't deliver. So they were always going in with at least one bowler short. I think Emburey did not get a single wicket in the series.

For Pakistan, Wasim Akram emerged as a genuinely fast bowler - I remember listening to the commentary on the Old Trafford test on radio, the one in which Tim Robinson got 166. He bowled throughout a session and according to the commentators there was no let up in speed. It was there and then again at Leeds when Trevor Banister (or another similar-sounding but different-accented commentator) exclaimed, 'My word! How fast can he get?'. He had been hitting batsmen earlier too but it was in England where he was officially recognised as a genuine fast bowler.

It was definitely a big turning point for him - he was not doing very well financially. It can be seen from his photos from the series that the poor man could not even afford a haircut. By the end of the World Cup 1987, he finally managed to have that.

 

[Robert]

Gooch has done that a lot but England made other major blunders too. Like not selecting Defreitas and Lamb etc.

In bowling they banked a lot on Botham and Emburey and they didn't deliver. So they were always going in with at least one bowler short. I think Emburey did not get a single wicket in the series.

Your'e right. He seemed to be more interested in bowling maidens than getting wickets, but by the Oval he wasn't even economical. Never had time for the guy - the only one to go on both rebel tours to SA.

England were a side in sharp decline by 1987. They couldn't bowl anyone out. Botham was well over the hill, while the two bowlers who were good enough (Dilley and Foster) couldn't stay fit. Next summer they managed to hold the WI for one test, but thereafter got slaughtered 4-0 in "The summer of four captains" and were lucky to get away with 4-0 against Australia next year - with better weather it would have been 6-0. Selection was by scattergun, nobody except Fraser was coming up - it was horrible.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

and Sobers

Well for me Imran career starts from 1974 and i don't think it's 21 years.

Sobers how ever great a cricketer he might had been , his stats would almost definitely have been affected had he played more tests and one days in much shorter time span than he actually played. i am using the term 'almost' here because there are exceptions too to any criteria, but yet by normal cricketing sense we can assume that the more no: of matches a player plays in the same time duration the more his stats are bound to suffer.

 

[Haroon786]

Sobers how ever great a cricketer he might had been , his stats would almost definitely have been affected had he played more tests and one days in much shorter time span than he actually played. i am using the term 'almost' here because there are exceptions too to any criteria, but yet by normal cricketing sense we can assume that the more no: of matches a player plays in the same time duration the more his stats are bound to suffer.

You're posting as if Imran didn't play 15-20 first class county seasons in a high intensity, high class manner alongside those matches.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Kapil Dev after 88 tests had 3668 runs at 32 with 5 hundreds and 311 wickets at 29
Imran after 88 tests had 3807 at 37 with 6 hundreds and 362 at 22

Also in Imran's case, he had 282 wickets (4.7 per test) after 60 tests (around 2/3 of his career) - in his case the fall was from 4.7 to 4.11 - in Kapil Dev's case it was from 3.5 to 3.3



Throughout his career, Kapil Dev never was a sub-25 bowler ever - even at the very beginning when he at times was playing 18 tests a year.

Kapil Dev retired at 35 - Imran at 35 actually won a test match in the West Indies which Kapil Dev could not achieve - in fact it is 5-0 against his name over there.

As far as workload is concerned, it has a lot to do with the schedules and for Imran's crippling shin injury which, any fast-bowling expert would tell you, had to do with effort.

Finally, Kapil Dev remained a medium-pacer and Imran was one of the fastest in the world, the fastest in 1982 if you go by what Mike Brearley had to say when you had Roberts, Holding, Marshall and the likes bowling in England as well.



Imran had 282 from 60 tests at 21.

And for the record, Imran actually bowled with his injury during the 1983 season - ended up with 12 wickets at 7 including a spell of 6 for 6 (with a hat-trick) - comparing Kapil Dev's case with Imran is mind-boggling to say the least. Imran actually kept trying to be available as a batsman (and delivered). By that count, you should dismiss Dennis Lillee too.



Imran only had a steady support bowler in Sarfraz till 1983 - and at times Abdul Qadir till 1988 before Wasim Akram developed. That still does not justify why, for example, Kapil Dev averages 40 with the ball in England in conditions suited to swing bowling and when he had a good outswinger.



Actually not a fair assessment - basically comparing a sampe with a population which is anamolous. Instead, if you look at the matches won -

Kapil Dev had 90 wickets in 24 tests
Imran had had 155 wickets in 26 tests



Lots of suppositions actually - except that they did not happen.

Significantly lower actually as far Kapil Dev's calibre is concerned. He was never taken as someone who would win a test match for India through his bowling - he was always considered as someone to be respected and he could contribute with the ball but to consistently be rated as a test-match winning bowler, you need to do more that take 3.75 wickets per test in won matches.




The multiplier is pointless - can you compare the number of matches that Richards won compared with those that Kapil Dev won?
Imran's not outs are more because of the difficulty that bowlers found in dismissing him than anything else.

That is why he could play any sort of innings - like bludgeoning the opposition (117 including 21 off a Kapil Dev over) or that quickfire 32 not out or his 136 (when Pakistan were effective 6 for 5 and facing defeat) or 73 when shepherding the tail against the West Indies or his counterattack when he was hit twice on finger (including a beamer) by Marshall at Faisalabad.



The difference was that that Imran could play the innings that the team needed. India always had a decent batting line-up throughout Kapil Dev's career. Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Amarnath and later Azharuddin, Tendulkar and Manjrekar.

Where they all failed, Kapil Dev failed too - like in the West Indies in 1989 etc. When he did deliver, it was rarely in victory.

Imran's role was that of a proper batsman once he became captain and he invariably delivered and mostly in crisis. For the second half of the 1980s, Pakistan only had Miandad who averaged above 40 for most of the time.

A classic example is the 1987 Bangalore test on a rank turner where every run mattered and Imran ground out 39. Kapil Dev, on the other hand, was cleaned up early as India collapsed to defeat.





Actually 54 is not mediocre - it merely shows that Imran was the more proper batsman.




Agreed that none passed 50 - but it is about being more effective. Imran dominated the West Indians with the ball and won 2 tests. Kapil Dev lost 5. Imran had 4 for 64 in the first innings of the 1977 test that Pakistanis won and had 11 wickets in the Guyana test in 1988. He won - Kapil Dev didn't.




I respect your right to hold on to your opinions.


Kapil Dev was a better all-round fieldsman no doubt but do not underrate Imran’s ODI exploits – remember he did not bowl in 22 games.
If batting alone is the criterion, India won 101 out of the 227 matches that Kapil Dev played - 45%

Kapil Dev scored 1653 runs - 16 runs per match - averaging 28 with 1 hundred and 7 fifties - strike rate 101

Pakistan won 93 out of the 175 matches that Imran played - 53.14%

Imran scored 2066 runs - 22 runs per match at 47 with 1 hundred and 14 fifties - strike rate 80

Compared to Kapil Dev's 84 innings, Imran batted in 73

You can understand who is more competent and effective with the bat – to many even Shahid Afridi would be a better ODI all-rounder than Kapil Dev but that is not the point.

your reply contains some statistical data w.r.t win loss ratio of Kapil and Imran, Imran's
wkts tally at the end of certain tests , Imran could play any type of inns etc.i agree with all of this.but what does they actually reveal? for eg: their performance in matches India and Pakistan won did not entirely influence the outcome of those matches.these matches had other factors too which eventually resulted in those matches concluding the way as they turned out to be.

now Imran too had a surgery and might had played some matches when not fully fit.but then going by what actually happend in that Kapil did not miss a single test and Imran taking entirely 2 years rest and then missing certain series,Kapil suffered much more in this regard. i do not fully agree with 'workload is concerned, it has a lot to do with the schedules' either. Imran skipped certain series, what ever the reasons might had been.
another thing is even if your statement w.r.t to schedule of Imran is correct, that doesn't alter the fact that Kapil's workload had its influence on his final stats.

i also do not agree with support bowler statement too. Only Sarfraz ? What about Quadir and Iqbal qasim? Pls check their career stats. another thing is who ever the support bowlers might had been for the two players, from the calculation i did, their bowl avg: (that of support bowlers of the 2 players) differed by 11. this showed Imran's support bowlers combined where way better. that being the case the name of the bowlers involved are irrevalent in the first case.

'Actually 54 is not mediocre - it merely shows that Imran was the more proper batsman. '
- w.r.t this statement they only differed about 5 in avg: but around 42 in str: rate. so 'Imran might had been a proper batsman or not' is not the vital point here, but Kapil's dominating aspect which is out of the ordinary

 

[Sakss]

Imran would be an automatic choice for any Pakistan fan..

Botham wasnt too far behind tbh

 

[zabalestmsm]

Was Ian Botham a better allrounder than Imran in his peak era?

Imran Khan at his peaks i.e after 80s was better than Botham. Botham just had one good peak as an all rounder. So NO. According to stats. Note: I havent seen them play

 

[IndianWillow]

Stats wise Imran would take this easily. But stats don't decide every thing do they?

Botham is perhaps the only all rounder I have personally seen, who could win with the bat or the ball when he was at the peak of his prowess in the early 80s. Botham could turn a match on its head in the matter of a session with either the bat or the ball. Imran was either very good with the ball, or solid with the bat, but rarely both at the same time. You could rely on Imran to draw matches for you with the bat, but he was rarely capable of playing swashbuckling knocks that Botham was capable of. Botham was capable of absolutely brutal batting that swept away opponents, and Kapil was capable of even more destruction, as indicated by Kapil's batting S/R of 81 against Botham's 65.

But Botham had some major weaknesses as well. He could not hold his own against the best side of the era, the West Indies - the other three all rounders - Imran, Kapil and Hadlee were all better against WI compared to Botham, in particular Kapil and Imran who displayed their best against the WI.

Taken over the entire career, Botham and Kapil were neither great batsmen or bowlers, while Imran and Hadlee were genuinely world class bowlers so these two are much more likely to make an All time XI compared to Botham or Kapil.

 

[Bilal7]

50+ with the bat. < 20 with the ball. 10 years. Probably the best statistical peak accomplished by a guy not named Bradman.

Why don't we start comparing Hafeez's peak to Imran's as well?

 

[Mamoon]

50+ with the bat. < 20 with the ball. 10 years. Probably the best statistical peak accomplished by a guy not named Bradman.

Why don't we start comparing Hafeez's peak to Imran's as well?

What an ignorantly rubbish post.

How you manage to link Botham and Hafeez together is beyond me.

There is no doubt that Imran was definitely a better allrounder and his peak like you mentioned was amazing, but you cannot bring Hafeez into the equation.

Botham was a world class allrounder himself and is an ATG. He wasn't an ATG with the bat or with the ball, like Imran was with the ball but collectively, he definitely ranks in the top 5.

Hafeez is a mediocre cricketer who is at best, simply decent. This has to go down as one of the worst posts of all time on Pakpassion.

 

[Bilal7]

What an ignorantly rubbish post.

How you manage to link Botham and Hafeez together is beyond me.

There is no doubt that Imran was definitely a better allrounder and his peak like you mentioned was amazing, but you cannot bring Hafeez into the equation.

Botham was a world class allrounder himself and is an ATG. He wasn't an ATG with the bat or with the ball, like Imran was with the ball but collectively, he definitely ranks in the top 5.

Hafeez is a mediocre cricketer who is at best, simply decent. This has to go down as one of the worst posts of all time on Pakpassion.

Totally misinterprets my post and then goes on a silly rant. No need to reply to something you don't understand.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

A lot of cherry picking going on here. Imran was clearly the superior all rounder compared to Botham. Hadlee - Imran would be a better comparison but I think Imran might have been better than him too.

 

[Mamoon]

Totally misinterprets my post and then goes on a silly rant. No need to reply to something you don't understand.

I perfectly understood your post and your mentioning of Hafeez was completely out of place. You cannot compare the peaks of Hafeez and Imran because they are two cricketers who are a in completely different class.

 

[Bilal7]

I perfectly understood your post and your mentioning of Hafeez was completely out of place. You cannot compare the peaks of Hafeez and Imran because they are two cricketers who are a in completely different class.

No, you did not. I wasn't comparing the quality of their peaks but its quantity. Imran had a period of sustained excellence which lasted a decade. Botham had only a couple of years in which he was great, just like Hafeez and even our other all-rounders like the Razzler and Afridi.

Anyone can have a great year or two but that isn't a peak, its a purple patch. A peak is sustained over a longer period of time, in my opinion.

 

[Mamoon]

"Just like" Hafeez, Razzaq and Afridi LOL.

You cannot compare Botham with these three mediocre allrounders in any way, be it their respective lengths of peak or whatever.

A comparison is only possible when the two players are of considerably similar in skill-set and quality.

 

[Bilal7]

"Just like" Hafeez, Razzaq and Afridi LOL.

You cannot compare Botham with these three mediocre allrounders in any way, be it their respective lengths of peak or whatever.

A comparison is only possible when the two players are of considerably similar in skill-set and quality.

Ha Ha. Yes, i can compare them in the respect that their peaks lasted for a similar amount of time. Skill-set has nothing to do with that.

 

[IndianWillow]

No, you did not. I wasn't comparing the quality of their peaks but its quantity. Imran had a period of sustained excellence which lasted a decade. Botham had only a couple of years in which he was great, just like Hafeez and even our other all-rounders like the Razzler and Afridi.

Anyone can have a great year or two but that isn't a peak, its a purple patch. A peak is sustained over a longer period of time, in my opinion.

Are you imagining that Botham's batting was similar to a hack like Afridi? Botham was a genuine batsman at the peak of his batting prowess, easily good enough to make most sides on his batting or bowling alone. And we are talking of test format here, not the shorter formats where Razzler and Afridi had some decent years.

 

[Mamoon]

Ha Ha. Yes, i can compare them in the respect that their peaks lasted for a similar amount of time. Skill-set has nothing to do with that.

You cannot compare their peaks in any fashion because there was a world of difference in terms of quality of cricket.

 

[Bilal7]

Are you imagining that Botham's batting was similar to a hack like Afridi? Botham was a genuine batsman at the peak of his batting prowess, easily good enough to make most sides on his batting or bowling alone. And we are talking of test format here, not the shorter formats where Razzler and Afridi had some decent years.

Read my posts, not Mamoon's. I'm not comparing the quality of their peaks but the lengths.

You cannot compare their peaks in any fashion because there was a world of difference in terms of quality of cricket.

 

[Mamoon]

Read my posts, not Mamoon's. I'm not comparing the quality of their peaks but the lengths.

Comprehension fail. I clearly stated that you YOU CANNOT COMPARE THEIR PEAKS IN ANY FASHION because of the massive gulf in quality.

You cannot say that a Honda is more durable than Ferrari because it has a longer life. You can compare Ferrari to other sports cars only because it is a completely different category.

 

[battler]

Read my posts, not Mamoon's. I'm not comparing the quality of their peaks but the lengths.

Strangely all of hafeez peaks only come against zim, bang and sl

 

[Bilal7]

Comprehension fail. I clearly stated that you YOU CANNOT COMPARE THEIR PEAKS IN ANY FASHION because of the massive gulf in quality.

You cannot say that a Honda is more durable than Ferrari because it has a longer life. You can compare Ferrari to other sports cars only because it is a completely different category.

Yes I can. Thankyou very much. What an awful analogy.

 

[Bilal7]

Strangely all of hafeez peaks only come against zim, bang and sl

Peaks? There was only one that lasted a couple of years, just like Botham.

 

[Mamoon]

)

You cannot compare attributes of two different classes. Well you can if you want but it doesn't make sense.

 

[battler]

Even mentioning hafeez in the same sentence as Imran and Botham is blashphemy

 

[IndianWillow]

Read my posts, not Mamoon's. I'm not comparing the quality of their peaks but the lengths.

The length of the peak is irrelevant, due to Botham's quality. It is not as if Botham had a 2 year peak and vanished altogether after that. His overall stats are very good for the all rounder category, though not in the same league as Imran due to Imran's bowling superiority.

 

[Buffet]

No, you did not. I wasn't comparing the quality of their peaks but its quantity. Imran had a period of sustained excellence which lasted a decade. Botham had only a couple of years in which he was great, just like Hafeez and even our other all-rounders like the Razzler and Afridi.

Anyone can have a great year or two but that isn't a peak, its a purple patch. A peak is sustained over a longer period of time, in my opinion.

It's absurd to talk about Botham's peak and drawing a parallel with useless players. Botham was superior among 4 all rounders when it came to bringing it on with the bat and ball both in this first 50 tests. 50 tests is not a purple patch

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=6113897&postcount=71

Try to pick a period of 50 tests and see how many tests IK made an impact with bat and ball both. Compare that with Botham.

 

[Yossarian]

To put Botham the batsman into perceptive on why he was rated so highly in his peak , he made 11 Centuries during "78-82" (over 3000 runs) . Second highest after Gavaskar (12) during that time frame.

Is that not roughly the period when virtually the entire Australian and West Indies teams, along with the majority of the Pakistani players were playing in Kerry Packers World Series? , ie from the 3 strongest teams at the time if all the players were available.

In other words, during this period, Botham was scoring all these centuries and taking all these wickets against the likes of a weak India, a NZ without Hadlee, Pakistan's 2nd XI, West Indies 3rd XI and Australia's 4th XI.

Here is a list of the players playing in Packers World Series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_Cricket_squads

 

[Third Umpire]

IMO best all rounders of all time:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Botham
4. Kallis
5. Hadlee
6. Akram
7. Flintoff
8. Afridi
9. Dev

 

[jeetu]

According to Reliance Ranking , Botham was better at peak
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/...803&graph=rating&name=botham&name2=Imran khan

Here are the highest test rating among 80's all-rounders.
Botham - 646
Imran - 518
Hadlee - 483
Kapil - 433

For ODI's
Kapil - 632
Imran - 480
Hadlee - 471
Botham - 469

Highest test rating of other famous allrounder's
Sobers - 669
Kallis - 616
Keith Miller - 573
Richie Benaud - 532
Toni Greig - 509
Flintoff - 501
Chris Cairns - 500
Shaun Pollock - 490

Among the current lot
Ashwin - 419
Vettori - 412
Shakib - 404
Watson - 394
Broad - 382

 

[Yossarian]

According to Reliance Ranking , Botham was better at peak
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/...803&graph=rating&name=botham&name2=Imran khan

Here are the highest test rating among 80's all-rounders.
Botham - 646
Imran - 518
Hadlee - 483
Kapil - 433

For ODI's
Kapil - 632
Imran - 480
Hadlee - 471
Botham - 469

Highest test rating of other famous allrounder's
Sobers - 669
Kallis - 616
Keith Miller - 573
Richie Benaud - 532
Toni Greig - 509
Flintoff - 501
Chris Cairns - 500
Shaun Pollock - 490

Among the current lot
Ashwin - 419
Vettori - 412
Shakib - 404
Watson - 394
Broad - 382

In that case, just shows how rubbish these rating are.

For example, according to the above, Richie Benaud was rated higher than Imran Khan, whilst Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns were only marginally lower than IK, but still higher than both Hadlee and Kapil.

Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns comparable to Imran Khan? )

Heck, according to the above, Kapil is only marginally higher than Ashwin !!

 

[Buffet]

In that case, just shows how rubbish these rating are.

For example, according to the above, Richie Benaud was rated higher than Imran Khan, whilst Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns were only marginally lower than IK, but still higher than both Hadlee and Kapil.

Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns comparable to Imran Khan? )

You didn't understand it. Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns were surely not better all rounders than IK. It's clear when you look at rating's graph over their entire career.

Poster listed only the peak ratings of each all rounder. Peak rating of one all rounder may be higher but that hardly means that he is better than others. IK having lower peak rating is not very difficult to understand. He was a good batsman in later part of his career but he was a gun bowler in his middle part. I am not surprised to see Botham's peak rating being much higher than other all rounders.

Kapil was a much better all rounder than others in ODIs but I am surprised to see his peak rating being drastically above other 3.

 

[jeetu]

Is that not roughly the period when virtually the entire Australian and West Indies teams, along with the majority of the Pakistani players were playing in Kerry Packers World Series? , ie from the 3 strongest teams at the time if all the players were available.

In other words, during this period, Botham was scoring all these centuries and taking all these wickets against the likes of a weak India, a NZ without Hadlee, Pakistan's 2nd XI, West Indies 3rd XI and Australia's 4th XI.

Here is a list of the players playing in Packers World Series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_Cricket_squads

Its a half baked assumption not backed up by facts.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;template=results;type=allround;view=series

Packer series was held from 1977 to 1979. Botham peak was between from 1978-82. During which time when Botham played , Hadlee played v/s England and in only 1 series Australia fielded below par side. WI never played England during that time frame.

 

[jeetu]

In that case, just shows how rubbish these rating are.

For example, according to the above, Richie Benaud was rated higher than Imran Khan, whilst Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns were only marginally lower than IK, but still higher than both Hadlee and Kapil.

Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns comparable to Imran Khan? )

Heck, according to the above, Kapil is only marginally higher than Ashwin !!

Thread - "Was Ian Botham a better allrounder than Imran in his peak era?"

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/...803&graph=rating&name=botham&name2=Imran khan

Imran is called ATG because he was able to sustained his peak for a long time. Its shown in rating graph. Imran has 450+ rating from 82-92.
In comparison Botham peak of 450+ rating only lasted from 1979 to 1983. Then it followed a continuous dip getting even below 250 from 1989.

 

[Yossarian]

Thread - "Was Ian Botham a better allrounder than Imran in his peak era?"

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/...803&graph=rating&name=botham&name2=Imran khan

Imran is called ATG because he was able to sustained his peak for a long time. Its shown in rating graph. Imran has 450+ rating from 82-92.
In comparison Botham peak of 450+ rating only lasted from 1979 to 1983. Then it followed a continuous dip getting even below 250 from 1989.

Yes, and I too am talking about 'peak era' in relation to the tables you posted.!!

And the notion that Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns at their peaks being at a similar level to Imran Khan at his peak, and higher than the peaks of Hadlee and Kapil, is, frankly, ludicrous.

And same goes for Ashwin being at a similar level to Kapil at their respective peaks.

 

[jeetu]

Yes, and I too am talking about 'peak era' in relation to the tables you posted.!!

And the notion that Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns at their peaks being at a similar level to Imran Khan at his peak, and higher than the peaks of Hadlee and Kapil, is, frankly, ludicrous.

And same goes for Ashwin being at a similar level to Kapil at their respective peaks.

Any decent player can have high peak from time to time , great players sustain it. ATG sustain it much longer.



For example
Lets compare Flintoff v/s Imran Khan

Andrew Flintoff's peak came in 2005 where he reached 501 points and was ranked best allrounder above Kallis etc.

His record from 2003-05
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

35 tests - 2000 runs. batt avg - 40 , 4 centuries , bowling avg - 27.54, 130 wickets.
But it follows a downward curve soon after.

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/...d=1508&name_selected2=1803&name_selected=2230


In case of Imran from 81-83. He reached rating of 518.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

He played only 17 tests during that time. While his batting average at 55 was great he scored only 825 runs with just 1 century. He took 105 with average of less than 15.

Allrounder peak shows players performance with both bat and ball at the same time. The weak suit tend to drag down stronger suit.

Regarding Ashwin.
Its a good record helped by the fact that he played lots of matches in India where he bowls well. Now that he is playing away more , the rating curve is going down.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/26421.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround

 

[Feroz Rawther]

You didn't understand it. Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Flintoff and Chris Cairns were surely not better all rounders than IK. It's clear when you look at rating's graph over their entire career.

Poster listed only the peak ratings of each all rounder. Peak rating of one all rounder may be higher but that hardly means that he is better than others. IK having lower peak rating is not very difficult to understand. He was a good batsman in later part of his career but he was a gun bowler in his middle part. I am not surprised to see Botham's peak rating being much higher than other all rounders.

Kapil was a much better all rounder than others in ODIs but I am surprised to see his peak rating being drastically above other 3.

here i think no need of surprise w.r.t Kapil's peak rating.because in the 83 world cup he was easily the allrounder of the tournament with 303 runs at 60 avg: and 109 str: rate.
he picked 12 wkts too at around 20 avg: . then that 175* , being the captain of the team lifting the cup etc etc all contributed to it.... i suppose.

 

[as-95]

Generally, in the cricket World Gary Sobers is considered the best all-rounder ever ,closely followed by Jaques Kallis.Howevere there was never an era when there were so many great all-rounders as the 1980's with Imran,Botham,Kapil and Hadlee.Of the 4 Hadlee and Imran were great fast bowlers ,while Kapil Dev and Ian botham combined batting ability more in their peak years as a fast bowler. Only Imran was genuinely quick of the 4.

Imran Khan eclipsed Botham as a bowler but did not amass as may runs as Botham in the peak of his batting career. The highlight of Botham's career at his peak was his performance in the 1980 Jubilee test match in Mumbai and the 1981 home Ashes series.He made the impact of a tornado in those editions, singlehandedly winning games for England. Above all Botham rescued England from the most precarious positions like when scoring 114 runs from 58-5 in the Jubilee test and 149 not out at 133-7 at Leeds after England followed on 227 runs behind .He literally ressurected England from the grave and his 1981 Ashes performance is arguably the best ever by a cricketer.However Imran Khan was a far more consistent fast bowling match-winner as he displayed in Australia, West Indies,England and at home.In both series he played against Ian Botham in England in 1982 and 1987 he overshadowed his rival in every department. In his paek period in 1982 Botham was outclassed by Imran who averaged 53 with that and captured 21 wickets at an average of 18.53 runs. Above all he led his team and only bad umpiring decisions cost Pakistan the series in 1982 which he almost single-handedly would have won. Against India in 1982-83 he gave the best performance ever by fast bowler in a series in the sub-continent or arguably anywhere in the world taking 40 wickets at 13.93 and averaging over 60 with the bat.At his best Botham has not equalled Imran as a pace bowler in England, Australia or West Indies.The factor in favour of Botham was that he turned matches and silmunataneously with both bat and ball considerably more than Imran.Botham, took 5 wickets and scored a century in 5 test matches-a record. He also scored 14 test hundreds, against Imran Khan's 6.Botham was a better match-winner with the bat and could dominate bowling more than Imran could who became a very good batsman late in his career.Then again at his peak as a batsman from 1988-1992 Imran Khan averaged around 60 runs with the bat.Botham also had an adavantage of playing 2nd class Pakistani and Australian teams whose star players signed in for Kerry Packer cricket. He would not have otherwise had such impressive statistics in the 1978 series against Pakistan or the 1978-79 tour of Australia. Above all Botham,unlike Imran Khan hardly succeeded in the West Indies and even at home gave only one or two great performances. Imran has a test hundred against the West Indies to his credit.Although Botham has more aggregate runs and better strike rate ,Imrarn has a better batting average than Botham in his peak years as an all-rounder or as a batsman in his peak period.Imran's bowling almost won Pakistan their 1st series in the Caribbean in 1988 ,but dubious umpiring decisions cost his team victory in the series. Neverthless he played an instrumental role in Pakistan's 1st ever series wins in India and England. His batting with a consistent string of scores played a crucial role in 1987 in India while in England in 1987 his bowling of 10-77 at Leeds and 118 runs at Oval played a decisive part.

The most important question is not who was the better cricketer or all-rounder overall.Imran Khan would win the issue as a cricketer with his captaincy record and arguably as an all-rounder. However was the Ian Botham of 1977-92 a better all-rounder than Imran Khan of 1980-88? Personally if Gary Sobers was already in the team then I would prefer Imran to join him than Botham.As Alan Davidson stated that it is fast bowlers who are the real match-winners and great fast bowling allrounders were better match-winners than batting all-rounders.However without Gary Sobers at no 6 position I may prefer Botham with his ability to turn games with both bat and ball. Then again Imran Khan was arguably the best skipper of the 1980’s so he would win a place on that merit. It may be fair to say that the Botham of the 1981 Ashes and the 1980 Jubilee test at Mumbai was the only time he morally won over Imran Khan.

In Richard Sydenham’s book of all-time xi’s selected by 100 legends about 5 players have chosen both Imran and Botham like Saeed Anwar,Dilip Vengsarkar,Abdul Qadir etc.Most West Indian cricketers chose Imran while South Africans and Englsih stalwarts chsoe Botham like Mike Procter,Shaun Pollock,Alan Donlad,Barry Richards.Jeff ThomsonetcIt is significant that Richi.e Benaud chose Imran Khan as well as Kapil Dev,Ravi Shastri .

Ian Botham’s career stats are below


A career of two distinct halves
Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM
First 51 Tests 2833 38.80 11/ 10 231 23.06 19/ 4
Next 37 Tests 1976 31.36 3/ 11 135 33.85 8/ 0
Last 14 Tests 391 20.57 0/ 1 17 57.52 0/ 0
Career (102 Tests) 5200 33.54 14/ 22 383 28.40 27/
During the six years when Botham was at his peak, he was the best of the four allrounders going around during that period. Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee were tremendous too - though Hadlee's best was to come later - but none of them matched Botham's consistency with bat and ball. During this period, the difference between Botham's batting and bowling average was 12.59. Imran and Hadlee had better bowling averages, but neither matched Botham as a batsman (though Imran's best as a batsman was to come later).
The four leading allrounders between Jan 1977 and Dec 1982
Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM Diff in ave
Ian Botham 58 3229 37.11 11/ 13 262 24.52 20/ 4 12.59
Imran Khan 37 1429 29.16 1/ 4 186 21.79 13/ 3 7.37
Kapil Dev 44 1904 32.82 2/ 11 172 29.68 13/ 1 3.14
Richard Hadlee 23 767 21.91 1/ 4 114 23.22 11/ 2 -1.31


During his peak years in Test cricket, Imran was easily the best allrounder among his peers. In the nine years between 1980 and 1988, his bowling average of 17.77 was almost 22 lesser than his batting average - the difference was clearly the best among those with 1500 runs and 100 wickets during this period. Hadlee's bowling performances were exceptional during this period, but he couldn't quite match up to Imran with the bat, while both Botham and Kapil had far lesser success with the ball.
Statistics of Imran Khan
Top allrounders between 1980 and 1988 (Qual: 1500 runs, 100 wickets)
Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM Diff in ave
Imran Khan 48 2028 39.76 4/ 10 236 17.77 18/ 5 21.99
Richard Hadlee 51 1987 31.04 2/ 10 284 19.03 28/ 7 12.01
Ian Botham 72 3989 34.38 10/ 19 255 31.83 15/ 2 2.55
Kapil Dev 72 3103 31.98 5/ 16 242 30.05 14/ 2 1.93
Ravi Shastri 61 2702 34.64 7/ 10 132 38.24 2/ 0 -3.60

Highest batting averages between Jan 1, 1987 and Jan 6, 1992 (Qual: 1500 runs)
Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Martin Crowe 24 2186 60.72 8/ 8
Imran Khan 28 1552 59.69 4/ 9
Graham Gooch 32 3282 55.62 8/ 18
Andrew Jones 20 1703 54.93 5/ 6
Javed Miandad 35 2512 54.60 8/ 10
Mark Taylor 28 2565 53.43 7/ 17
Robin Smith 28 2118 52.95 6/ 15
Shoaib Mohammad 32 2175 50.58 7/ 8
One of the highlights of Imran's career was his battles against the best team of his times, West Indies. As a batsman he wasn't as effective against them, but as a bowler he was superb, taking 80 wickets at 21.18. Comparing the stats of the four superstar allrounders of that era against West Indies, it's clear that three of them raised their games against them - Hadlee and Kapil too had terrific numbers against them - but the disappointment was Botham, who struggled with both bat and ball.
The four allrounders against West Indies
Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM
Imran Khan 18 775 27.67 1/ 3 80 21.18 6/ 1
Richard Hadlee 10 389 32.41 1/ 1 51 22.03 4/ 1
Kapil Dev 25 1079 30.82 3/ 4 89 24.89 4/ 1
Ian Botham 20 792 21.40 0/ 4 61 35.18 3/ 0
Perhaps even more impressive than his individual performances against West Indies was the manner in which Imran inspired his team to raise their level against them. He led them on three occasions versus West Indies between 1985 and 1990, and each series was a classic, with each team winning a Test every time. Imran the bowler was outstanding in two of those series, taking 18 wickets at 11.05 in 1986, and 23 wickets at 18.08 in 1988. During that period Pakistan was the only team to win more than one Test against West Indies. (In complete contrast, England won one and lost 11 Tests against them during this period.)

Nice try pal, Kallis doesn't come close to Imran. It is Imran ad Sobers competing for the top spot. In answer to your title, no, Botham is not even close to Imran. Sobers and Inran are on a different level to Botham, Hadlee and the rest.

 

[Buffet]

Generally, in the cricket World Gary Sobers is considered the best all-rounder ever ,closely followed by Jaques Kallis.

Nice try pal, Kallis doesn't come close to Imran. It is Imran ad Sobers competing for the top spot.

It's an opinion and it may differ vastly as soon as you go outside of PP.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=193992

 

[Jo_Don]

Nice try pal, Kallis doesn't come close to Imran. It is Imran ad Sobers competing for the top spot. In answer to your title, no, Botham is not even close to Imran. Sobers and Inran are on a different level to Botham, Hadlee and the rest.

Uhm, sure. Although you might find yourself in for some disappointment once you venture outside these forums.

Imran Khan, while great in his own right, is elevated by many Pakistanis, much the same way the Indians have elevated Tendulkar.

 

[Buffet]

Imran Khan, while great in his own right, is elevated by many Pakistanis, much the same way the Indians have elevated Tendulkar.

100% true.

 

[IndianWillow]

Sober's bowling seems to be hyped as well. He is more regarded for his variety in bowling rather than the results. Kallis was probably a more effective bowler overall.

 

[Jo_Don]

Was Ian Botham a better allrounder than Imran in his peak era?

Sober's bowling seems to be hyped as well. He is more regarded for his variety in bowling rather than the results. Kallis was probably a more effective bowler overall.

Sobers' bowling strike rate is shocking. Doesn't matter if he was bowling leg spin and fast medium with both arms, he wasn't picking up wickets regularly, despite being one of their frontline bowlers. His batting flair seems to have hidden this to an extent.

 

[Robert]

Is that not roughly the period when virtually the entire Australian and West Indies teams, along with the majority of the Pakistani players were playing in Kerry Packers World Series? , ie from the 3 strongest teams at the time if all the players were available.

In other words, during this period, Botham was scoring all these centuries and taking all these wickets against the likes of a weak India, a NZ without Hadlee, Pakistan's 2nd XI, West Indies 3rd XI and Australia's 4th XI.

Here is a list of the players playing in Packers World Series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_Cricket_squads

The weakness of Botham's opponents during his first fifty tests is exaggerated IMO.

According to your link there were no Indians playing for Packer at all, so Botham would have been playing their full side all the time and he ripped it to bits.

Hadlee played in NZ's 1978 home series against England.

WI did not play England during the Packer schism.

Pakistan were certainly weakened in their series against England in 1978, missing Imran and Zaheer.

The Aussie XI lost a lot of players to Packer for the 1978/9 Ashes, but their fast attack was still sufficiently good to dismiss England several times for low scores. Then in 1981 Botham faced Lillee, Alderman and Lawson - among the very best fast attacks ever to tour England - and smashed it for two blistering centuries.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally Posted by Robert
Viv Richards: You felt that England could achieve anything with Ian in the side, even when we were winning all those games. He has such a serious, serious passion for the Three Lions and he was the ultimate all-rounder. He had such magnificent will-power and a never-say-die attitude. There was his bowling first and foremost. But he was also the cleanest hitter of a cricket ball I’d seen at that stage.

He would ignore the coaching manual as a slip fielder but he was one of the best catchers I ever saw, too. He stood there with his hands on his knees but his reflexes were incredible.

We took time in our team meetings to make sure he wouldn’t get away. We knew how destructive he could be. He was the spirit of England. He was like a pied piper.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cri...r-Hussain.htmlquoting

Viv proves what exactly?
He was probably showing respect for a man who was toothless against them. Only won 1 game vs Windies and that too in the 90's.
Lets not kid ourselves here, he was a non entity as far as the Windies were concerned. Even Tendulkar once hailed Cronje, what does that prove?



) get real.

Perhaps Viv being a team-mate at Somerset for many years, as well as the two being best friends, could partly explain Viv's remarks? It is said that the reason for Botham leaving Somerset to join Worcestershire was in protest against the sacking of his friends Viv Richards and Joel Garner.

 

[Robert]

Perhaps Viv being a team-mate at Somerset for many years, as well as the two being best friends, could partly explain Viv's remarks? It is said that the reason for Botham leaving Somerset to join Worcestershire was in protest against the sacking of his friends Viv Richards and Joel Garner.

Not just said - it's the truth. I remember the news coverage.

Sir Ian and Sir Vivian were the Best Man at each other's weddings.

Botham was the only Englishman who would definitely have got into that 1984 WI side, and Sir Vivian said as much. Maybe Gower would have got in too.

 

[Yossarian]

Not just said - it's the truth. I remember the news coverage.

Sir Ian and Sir Vivian were the Best Man at each other's weddings.

Botham was the only Englishman who would definitely have got into that 1984 WI side, and Sir Vivian said as much. Maybe Gower would have got in too.

Not saying that Sir Viv is wrong, but overly praising the qualities and abilities of your best friend is not exactly unheard of.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

IMO best all rounders of all time:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Botham
4. Kallis
5. Hadlee
6. Akram
7. Flintoff
8. Afridi
9. Dev

quite a bit surprised that you are placing Dev at 9th position.i think there are a lot more of 'Afridi like' or much more capable players you forgot to place above Kapil.Sanath Jayasurya, Abdul Razzak, Shane Warne,Vas etc etc

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Sober's bowling seems to be hyped as well. He is more regarded for his variety in bowling rather than the results. Kallis was probably a more effective bowler overall.

yes definitely.the basic problem here is that a lot of these matters are based on conventional
beliefs carried on and on from time to time when there were no modern facilities like computer and all associated things.as a result deep analysis of players careers were not possible at all.and now even when these facilities are available a lot of cricket followers are hesitant to think against these conventions. that is the case with Sobers over rated bowling str: rate of 94.yet people especially old timers keep on harping about his bowling variety and all those things.another hyped up player is Keith Miller. this man played only 55 tests. only 1 test in subcontinent. yet he is hyped up as the 3rd or even 2nd allrounder of all time.i just can't digest as to how this can be

 

[Robert]

yes definitely.the basic problem here is that a lot of these matters are based on conventional
beliefs carried on and on from time to time when there were no modern facilities like computer and all associated things.as a result deep analysis of players careers were not possible at all.and now even when these facilities are available a lot of cricket followers are hesitant to think against these conventions. that is the case with Sobers over rated bowling str: rate of 94.yet people especially old timers keep on harping about his bowling variety and all those things.another hyped up player is Keith Miller. this man played only 55 tests. only 1 test in subcontinent. yet he is hyped up as the 3rd or even 2nd allrounder of all time.i just can't digest as to how this can be

Just read books about cricket history and you'll learn context.

I would take Miller over Botham and Kapil every day. His career was interrupted by WW2 so he did not play a test until age 27. He came into the side as a #6 batsman who did not bowl. One day he was asked to bowl, and suddenly the world realised that he was world-class at that. I'd put him a little behind Imran as a fast bowler, but in front as a batter. ATG England players Hutton and Compton found him very difficult to play. He was, for me, the most naturally gifted player that ever was.

He came out with a marvellous quote about handling stress which I try to live by: "Pressure, son, is a Messerschmidt 109 on your tail."

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Just read books about cricket history and you'll learn context.

I would take Miller over Botham and Kapil every day. His career was interrupted by WW2 so he did not play a test until age 27. He came into the side as a #6 batsman who did not bowl. One day he was asked to bowl, and suddenly the world realised that he was world-class at that. I'd put him a little behind Imran as a fast bowler, but in front as a batter. ATG England players Hutton and Compton found him very difficult to play. He was, for me, the most naturally gifted player that ever was.

He came out with a marvellous quote about handling stress which I try to live by: "Pressure, son, is a Messerschmidt 109 on your tail."

i don't think your statements are enough to prove that had he played some 100 tests in a variety of playing conditions that included Asia he would have maintained the same averages like those he achieved at the end of 55 tests.this is because normal norms in cricket forces me to think so.
these are the general norms - the higher the longevity tougher it will be to maintain your standards till the end of the career. the larger the no: of playing countries , more difficult will it be to maintain your avg: in all countries.there may be exceptions to these but then exceptions are always much rarer from normal.

eg: Ponting for all his brilliance couldn't even avg: 30 in India
FAB 4 all rounders all had their bogey countries be it in batting or bowling or both.
Botham's first part of career was brilliant, 2nd half exactly the opposite.
similarly a lot of examples can be traced out