Who was the most impactful cricketer? Glenn McGrath, Brian Lara or Ian Botham?

[Harsh Thakor]

Glen Mcgrath,Brian Lara and Ian Botham were all superstars making a profound influence on the game.


Brian Lara had the greatest natural cricketing genius and creativity and was on the top as a pure artist.No batsmen had a greater prowess for registering mammoth scores or being as mercurial and artistic silmuntaneously.At his best Botham was the greatest match-winner turning the complexion of matches to win them for his country from the depths of despair more than any cricketer.Whether bowling ,batting or fielding at his best Botham made a Herculean impact on a game.His 1981 Ashes and 198o Mumbai jublilee test effort remain unequaled in the history of the game where he ressurected England from the grave to reach the pinnacle of glory.Glen Mcgrath was simply a bowling metronome with accuracy and control personified and an epitome of consistency.No paceman ever equalled Mcgrath's intelligence in asessing the weaknesses of opponents.


Mcgrath had phenomenal stats as a match winner taking more wicket in test wins than any fast bowler ever .Contributed almost as much as Warne in Australia reaching the top of test and ODI pedestal with arguably even a greater contribution than Malcolm Marshall in his team becoming an al-time champion test team.Had an outstanding haul of 414 scalps out of an overall 463 in test matches won Howevever often he was predictable and not as explosive or versatile as the likesof Wasim Akram or Dennis Lillee.Botham lost his peak after 1982 and was never at his best against West Indies,the best team of his day.Lara had patches of inconsistency but bore the brunt on his shoulders of one of the weakest batting line ups and at his best turned games more than any batsmen of his era,more than even Sachin Tendulkar.Arguably in test cricket after Bradman no batsmen scaled the heights of Lara who resembled a magician when batting.His top scores of 400 and 375 versus England and match-winning innings of 213 and 153 not out in the 1999 Frank Worrell trophy are proof of this.

Although Botham had staggering all-round figures he lacked the longevity of Mcgrath and the consistency of Lara in lifting a weak team from the depths of despair.Mcgrath was more consistent but lacked the flamboyance of Lara or all-round agression of Botham .My final verdict would be Lara at no 1.,Botham at no 2,and Mcgrath at no3.Ofcourse statistically Mcgrath is the giant as a match-winner but stats does not tell the true story.From 1977-82 ,at his peak,Botham was the best but Lara is rated ahead because of his being at the top of the mantle for so long.What influence my ranking of Lara at no 1 was the average percentage score of his team's runs he scored combined with his phenomenal strike rate. .Botham and Mcgrath had considerably more support.Glen had the advantage of playing amongst truly great stalwarts.

STATISTICS COMPILED FROM S.RAJESH OF CRICINFO

BRIAN LARA

won match 1992-2005 32 52 4 2929 213 61.02 4387 66.76 8 16 1 389 30 view innings
lost match 1992-2006 63 126 0 5316 226 42.19 9283 57.26 14 22 13 712 34 view innings
drawn match 1990-2006 36 54 2 3708 400* 71.30 6083 60.95 12 10 3 458 24


GLEN MCGRATH

won match 1993-2007 84 168 3296.4 1010 7945 414 8/24 10/27 19.19 2.41 47.7 18 3 view innings
lost match 1994-2004 20 39 793.1 237 2079 87 7/76 9/220 23.89 2.62 54.7 7 0 view innings
drawn match 1993-2005 20 36 784.5 223 2162 62 8/38 9/103 34.87 2.75 75.9 4 0 view innings


IAN BOTHAM

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

 

[Executioner]

Glenn McGrath

Arguably one of the greatest cricketers ever. World class in all formats and a true match winner. Winning world cups only add to his credentials.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Glenn McGrath

Arguably one of the greatest cricketers ever. World class in all formats and a true match winner. Winning world cups only add to his credentials.

Statistically.But not as dynamic as Lara or Botham to me.Both were more mercurial and turned games more.

 

[Hitman]

Statistically.But not as dynamic as Lara or Botham to me.Both were more mercurial and turned games more.

Neither one of them were as impactful as McGarth. You'd be hard pressed to find one player (a batman or a bowler) who performed everywhere, in all conditions, against all great/good batsman, in both forms of the game, in all stages of ODI cricket (World Cups or Tournament Finals or any other criteria) better than McGrath. Some people might have found him boring to watch, but no other player produced superior results.

And McGrath turned more games than both of those 2 other names combined.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Neither one of them were as impactful as McGarth. You'd be hard pressed to find one player (a batman or a bowler) who performed everywhere, in all conditions, against all great/good batsman, in both forms of the game, in all stages of ODI cricket (World Cups or Tournament Finals or any other criteria) better than McGrath. Some people might have found him boring to watch, but no other player produced superior results.

And McGrath turned more games than both of those 2 other names combined.

Had advantage of playing for a champion team.Lara did not have half that support .Lara was more attacking or mercurial.Botham at his best was a genius whose best effors are unequalled In that period in the Sobers class or Viv Richards.

 

[Saksham]

I think this discussion is not very convincing. You are comparing the impact of a Batsman, Bowler and All Rounder which is not possible . You can compare Lara with Tendulkar, Dravid, Waugh and Kallis . You can compare McGrath with Akram, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock, Lillee and Marshall . You can compare Botham with Imran, Kapil, Hadlee and Sobers . I feel all of them have achieved significantly for their respective countries in their departments . Any team would dream to have McGrath, Lara and Botham in their team .

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Neither one of them were as impactful as McGarth. You'd be hard pressed to find one player (a batman or a bowler) who performed everywhere, in all conditions, against all great/good batsman, in both forms of the game, in all stages of ODI cricket (World Cups or Tournament Finals or any other criteria) better than McGrath. Some people might have found him boring to watch, but no other player produced superior results.

And McGrath turned more games than both of those 2 other names combined.

Exactly. McGrath is unbeatable. Underrated and possibly the greatest of all time.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Mcgrath, the greatest fast bowler of all time easily, he wouldve owned any batsmen regardless of the era, here he owns David Warner after retirement:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/drYspbvaD3w" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Botham, what the heck is he doing in this list ? the guy that was a deer in front of headlights vs the best side if his ERA ???? He is an atg at performing vs weakened avg sides agreed...

 

[Robert]

Impact? Over the first six years of his career, Botham by miles. But he succumbed to numerous cumulative injuries and became a shadow of himself. It’s very sad to see the lack of respect afforded to this giant by people who never saw him in his pomp.

Lara had a fantastic career but faded like Botham.

McGrath isn’t the best fast bowler I have seen - Marshall is - but sustained his excellence throughout his career,

 

[Robert]

Botham, what the heck is he doing in this list ? the guy that was a deer in front of headlights vs the best side if his ERA ???? He is an atg at performing vs weakened avg sides agreed...

Clive Lloyd was asked: if he could pick one overseas player to improve his mighty team, whom would he pick? His answer was Ian Botham.

 

[Hitman]

Had advantage of playing for a champion team.Lara did not have half that support .Lara was more attacking or mercurial.Botham at his best was a genius whose best effors are unequalled In that period in the Sobers class or Viv Richards.

I'm speaking of McGrath's performance. Not that of his team. Using the same logic that you used, Viv Richards too had an advantage over his contemporaries for obvious reasons.

 

[Hitman]

Exactly. McGrath is unbeatable. Underrated and possibly the greatest of all time.

I have my highest regards for other great bowlers from his era. Akram, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose, Pollock .... I have extremely high regards for every one of them. And Allan Donald has always been my favorite fast bowler ever.

But when it came to producing results in every criteria, no other bowler could match McGrath.

 

[Hitman]

Clive Lloyd was asked: if he could pick one overseas player to improve his mighty team, whom would he pick? His answer was Ian Botham.

Strange that a cricketer's opinion means so much to you siddently.

 

[Swashbuckler]

McGrath, he was like a Boa Constrictor in his approach to the game. He had a measure over everyone, won't see that happen anytime soon.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Clive Lloyd was asked: if he could pick one overseas player to improve his mighty team, whom would he pick? His answer was Ian Botham.

Fool's homage given by a friend of Botham, nothing more...

 

[Buffet]

McGrath is arguably the best cricketer. He had an huge impact in both formats and had it for long period.

 

[Ab Fan]

Glenn McGrath.

He was a World Cup winner and he won pretty much everything those two won in test cricket.

 

[anoop]

Ian Botham at his peak was more impactful but only for first 50 test matches( significant amount of tests) but McGrath did it for longer duration.

 

[Chrish]

Bowlers would always be bigger match winners than batsman

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Clive Lloyd was asked: if he could pick one overseas player to improve his mighty team, whom would he pick? His answer was Ian Botham.

Very significant

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Ian Botham at his peak was more impactful but only for first 50 test matches( significant amount of tests) but McGrath did it for longer duration.

sound answer

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Impact? Over the first six years of his career, Botham by miles. But he succumbed to numerous cumulative injuries and became a shadow of himself. It’s very sad to see the lack of respect afforded to this giant by people who never saw him in his pomp.

Lara had a fantastic career but faded like Botham.

McGrath isn’t the best fast bowler I have seen - Marshall is - but sustained his excellence throughout his career,

Agree.Good post

 

[Last Monetarist]

Impact? Over the first six years of his career, Botham by miles. But he succumbed to numerous cumulative injuries and became a shadow of himself. It’s very sad to see the lack of respect afforded to this giant by people who never saw him in his pomp.

Lara had a fantastic career but faded like Botham.

McGrath isn’t the best fast bowler I have seen - Marshall is - but sustained his excellence throughout his career,

Yup, this covers my sentiments exactly. Most of these posters can only be treated with derision.

 

[anoop]

Ian Botham for first 51 test matches took 231 wickets with 19 fifers and 4 10fers. That alone will put him in league with McGrath and then add 11 centuries in those matches too. Not too mention 9 man of the matches in those 51 matches too. At his peak he was probably the greatest cricketer who walked ever.

 

[The Viper]

Ian Botham for first 51 test matches took 231 wickets with 19 fifers and 4 10fers. That alone will put him in league with McGrath and then add 11 centuries in those matches too. Not too mention 9 man of the matches in those 51 matches too. At his peak he was probably the greatest cricketer who walked ever.

Have you got his batting and bowling average for the first 50 Games?

 

[anoop]

Have you got his batting and bowling average for the first 50 Games?

His bowling AVG was 23 and batting was probably near 40.

 

[The Viper]

His bowling AVG was 23 and batting was probably near 40.

Very impressive.

 

[Tusker]

Yup, this covers my sentiments exactly. Most of these posters can only be treated with derision.

With due respect I strongly disagree on that. [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] here has a tendency to dismiss anything new and will never ever engage in any kind of meaningful conversation on these topics. Be it Barry Richard's, Viv or anyone else from the past. I have countered every single of his dogmatic opinions and invariably when this happens he goes into hiding. If anybody here is being disrespectful its him and his like minded cronies who cannot stomach the fact that cricket standards have improved significantly from 40 yrs ago when Botham started his FC career.

If you are interested I will most certainly explain why ... let me know .

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Mcgrath by some distance.
But botham is underrated here, he may not have better stats than other allrounders but he was a pure allrounder in true sense of the word.
He was a better batsman than kapil, imran, hadlee. On his day he was as good as a top order batsman and as good as a spearhead.
He has the most balanced stats as far as allrounders are concerned. Equally good with the bat and ball.

 

[Last Monetarist]

With due respect I strongly disagree on that. [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] here has a tendency to dismiss anything new and will never ever engage in any kind of meaningful conversation on these topics. Be it Barry Richard's, Viv or anyone else from the past. I have countered every single of his dogmatic opinions and invariably when this happens he goes into hiding. If anybody here is being disrespectful its him and his like minded cronies who cannot stomach the fact that cricket standards have improved significantly from 40 yrs ago when Botham started his FC career.

If you are interested I will most certainly explain why ... let me know .

Mate, I know your viewpoint on the quality of cricket four or five decades ago, you don't need to explain it to me. I agree wholeheartedly that cricket skills have improved markedly in most aspects since then, it's just natural evolution. What I don't agree with is this tendency to denigrate cricketers like Botham and write-off their feats, I find that completely tasteless. Discussing the history of a sport is meant to be enjoyed, without getting dragged into a mud slinging contest.

I know it happens on both sides, and I can see why it annoys you. You and I had a debate on Barry Richards a few months ago, and although we were on opposite sides of the terrace, I wasn't surprised to find that a lot of the older posters don't really wish to engage in this (old vs new) debate. The debate will forever wage on, because as humans we will all hold dear to our hearts the things that we associate with our youth. It's just common sense.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

But this comparison isn't valid.

 

[Robert]

Ian Botham for first 51 test matches took 231 wickets with 19 fifers and 4 10fers. That alone will put him in league with McGrath and then add 11 centuries in those matches too. Not too mention 9 man of the matches in those 51 matches too. At his peak he was probably the greatest cricketer who walked ever.

Then add in all the slip catches he took, standing two yards in front of the cordon, leaping around in front of first and third slips.

He was as good a slipper as anyone I ever saw.

 

[Tusker]

Mate, I know your viewpoint on the quality of cricket four or five decades ago, you don't need to explain it to me. I agree wholeheartedly that cricket skills have improved markedly in most aspects since then, it's just natural evolution. What I don't agree with is this tendency to denigrate cricketers like Botham and write-off their feats, I find that completely tasteless. Discussing the history of a sport is meant to be enjoyed, without getting dragged into a mud slinging contest.

That happens when the likes of [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=144456]bujhee kom[/MENTION] [MENTION=452]Majid Khan[/MENTION] etc try to peddle how EVERYTHING was soo much better in their Days and keep lamenting about the sad state of affairs today by ridiculing modern players who don't confirm to their dogmatic view of how cricket must be played ( A Great example is Sehwag )

Now my point is very simple : If you are sooo goddamn confident that things were so far superior in the days gone by then stand up and debate like a man instead of behaving like teenager. I know my cricket and you guys claim to know as much if not more. Why the reliance of Troll like behavior when you cannot handle harsh indisputable facts ?

I know it happens on both sides, and I can see why it annoys you. You and I had a debate on Barry Richards a few months ago, and although we were on opposite sides of the terrace, I wasn't surprised to find that a lot of the older posters don't really wish to engage in this (old vs new) debate. The debate will forever wage on, because as humans we will all hold dear to our hearts the things that we associate with our youth. It's just common sense.

And this is what I don't get. Perhaps maybe because of my choice of profession where there is no scope for anything other than relying on hard facts, data , science and such like. If you are stuck in the past you are a goner. Change is the only constant. How do people not realize these things in this day and age? Almost as though they have been living under a rock.

As far as Barry Richards Technique is concerned - Nobody today will bat with a stance like that. It just wont work. As I said Hard facts can be very stubborn. You cannot simply deny this. So the choices are pretty cut and dry - Either agree and move on or take the route of nostalgia and re-hashing the same tired old methods of producing Certificates of Excellence signed by ex-cricketers which are not worth the piece of paper that they are written on.

 

[Tusker]

Then add in all the slip catches he took, standing two yards in front of the cordon, leaping around in front of first and third slips.

He was as good a slipper as anyone I ever saw.

You forgot the main ingredient - The blood alcohol content while diving around and slogging. Naturally none of the cricketers today can prove you wrong so you win !!

 

[Hasan123]

McGrath takes this 1 for me.

 

[austerlitz]

Mcgrath.The only bowler i feared as an indian fan.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Statistically.But not as dynamic as Lara or Botham to me.Both were more mercurial and turned games more.

Doesn't matter, McGrath is head and shoulders above both in performance. McGrath is arguably GOAT in both tests and ODIs.

 

[Hitman]

And it's funny some people here have said that Lara and Botham turned more games on their own. Did they even see McGrath's entire career? No other fast bowler made a fool out of almost every great/good batsman as consistently as McGrath did. Not a single batsman won their battle against McGrath in the long run.

 

[Executioner]

Statistically.But not as dynamic as Lara or Botham to me.Both were more mercurial and turned games more.

McGrath was indomitable. Yes he played for a great team but he faced some quality batsmen like Tendulkar Dravid Fleming Lara Smith Kallis and if my memory serves me right he got the better of almost anyone.

McGrath has turned the tide so often. Infact he was voted as the greatest Australian cricketer at a poll in an Australian portal. Greatest cricketer from the greatest cricket playing nation.

 

[James]

That happens when the likes of [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=144456]bujhee kom[/MENTION] [MENTION=452]Majid Khan[/MENTION] etc try to peddle how EVERYTHING was soo much better in their Days and keep lamenting about the sad state of affairs today by ridiculing modern players who don't confirm to their dogmatic view of how cricket must be played ( A Great example is Sehwag )

Now my point is very simple : If you are sooo goddamn confident that things were so far superior in the days gone by then stand up and debate like a man instead of behaving like teenager. I know my cricket and you guys claim to know as much if not more. Why the reliance of Troll like behavior when you cannot handle harsh indisputable facts ?



And this is what I don't get. Perhaps maybe because of my choice of profession where there is no scope for anything other than relying on hard facts, data , science and such like. If you are stuck in the past you are a goner. Change is the only constant. How do people not realize these things in this day and age? Almost as though they have been living under a rock.

As far as Barry Richards Technique is concerned - Nobody today will bat with a stance like that. It just wont work. As I said Hard facts can be very stubborn. You cannot simply deny this. So the choices are pretty cut and dry - Either agree and move on or take the route of nostalgia and re-hashing the same tired old methods of producing Certificates of Excellence signed by ex-cricketers which are not worth the piece of paper that they are written on.

Totally get your perspective and understand your points.

I do think Botham was a brilliant athlete though, by far the best cricketer that England, the home of cricket, has ever produced - an ATG of the sport - and arguably one of the best cricketers to come from the nations who have fielded predominantly “white” teams (England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa)

 

[Robert]

And it's funny some people here have said that Lara and Botham turned more games on their own. Did they even see McGrath's entire career? No other fast bowler made a fool out of almost every great/good batsman as consistently as McGrath did. Not a single batsman won their battle against McGrath in the long run.

Yeah they did - Lindwall, Lillee, Imran and Marshall for examples.

McGrath had the advantage of coming into an already great team with excellent batting and another champion bowler in it. Botham and Lara carried their nation sides on their backs for years which is perhaps another reason for their respective declines.

 

[Robert]

McGrath was indomitable. Yes he played for a great team but he faced some quality batsmen like Tendulkar Dravid Fleming Lara Smith Kallis and if my memory serves me right he got the better of almost anyone.

McGrath has turned the tide so often. Infact he was voted as the greatest Australian cricketer at a poll in an Australian portal. Greatest cricketer from the greatest cricket playing nation.

Nonsensical poll result from the land which produced Bradman. Probably a bunch of kids voting who can’t remember a time before the internet and mobile phones.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

McGrath. Easily.

 

[Executioner]

Nonsensical poll result from the land which produced Bradman. Probably a bunch of kids voting who can’t remember a time before the internet and mobile phones.

The final round was between McGrath and Don Bradman actually. McGrath got more votes at the end.

 

[Robert]

The final round was between McGrath and Don Bradman actually. McGrath got more votes at the end.

Extraordinary. To have the same position in the pantheon as Bradman, McG would have to have a bowling average of 11.

 

[anoop]

Extraordinary. To have the same position in the pantheon as Bradman, McG would have to have a bowling average of 11.

No Bradman simply won't have that average after 1970's. Half of his career he batted in an era of different lbw rules which were changed in 1937.

 

[Executioner]

Extraordinary. To have the same position in the pantheon as Bradman, McG would have to have a bowling average of 11.

Let's see how Bradman would average 100 after playing 3 formats and 10+ teams, and the changes in rules too

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Let's see how Bradman would average 100 after playing 3 formats and 10+ teams, and the changes in rules too

Very pertinent sir.agree

 

[Tusker]

Totally get your perspective and understand your points.

I do think Botham was a brilliant athlete though, by far the best cricketer that England, the home of cricket, has ever produced - an ATG of the sport - and arguably one of the best cricketers to come from the nations who have fielded predominantly “white” teams (England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa)

Thanks for the reply. But as I said ... please prove that with some real evidence and deep technical analysis not just words. I'am very well aware of Botham's stature and standing in the game but the words dont match the action. The less said the better about his totally un-professional attitude.

 

[Tusker]

Let's see how Bradman would average 100 after playing 3 formats and 10+ teams, and the changes in rules too

Perhaps you havent read his posts from the past ... he is one of those who claims that players in the 30s were professionals too and anytime soon he will bring out the idiotic chain comparison ( Bradman Played with someone who played with someone ..... and someone who eventually played with a current player ) but all except Bradman avg 50 therefore Bradman = nearly twice the modern player

I kid you not.

 

[PakLFC]

Lara, McGrath then Botham in that order. Lara was easily the best batsman where as McGrath is an all time great bowler. Beefy did not fulfil his potential always being in trouble for one reason or another. Was brilliant in the 1981 Ashes then declined at an incredible pace. I would prefer having Lara in my side then McGrath although it's a very close call.

 

[Robert]

Lara, McGrath then Botham in that order. Lara was easily the best batsman where as McGrath is an all time great bowler. Beefy did not fulfil his potential always being in trouble for one reason or another. Was brilliant in the 1981 Ashes then declined at an incredible pace. I would prefer having Lara in my side then McGrath although it's a very close call.

Hmmm, there was the 200 in 1982, then a century against NZ a year later. He got an eight-fer against WI in 1984, then was the leading wicket-taker in the 1985 Ashes.

His performances didn’t really start to fall off sharply until 1986. He should not have played tests after the 1986/7 Ashes but they kept picking him until 1992. He was a better ODI bowler in the latter part of his career, bowling economical medium pace in the middle overs.

Had he wanted to he could have really worked on his batting, and played as a #4 batter and bowled offspin. That would have prolonged his career. But he was too instinctual, always living in the moment.

I think he got a bit distracted by fame and adulation. He would get a standing ovation as soon as he came out to bat, then a second one when he got to fifty, then a third when he got out. He fell under the spell of that silly fellow who was trying to get him cast as the new James Bond.

 

[Robert]

Let's see how Bradman would average 100 after playing 3 formats and 10+ teams, and the changes in rules too

No way to test this, so it is meaningless. We’ll never know, will we?

 

[Tusker]

No way to test this, so it is meaningless. We’ll never know, will we?

Sure there is .... lets construct a fanciful chain of players and arrive at Bradman = Twice Current Player. ohh wait you have already done that ...

 

[PakLFC]

Hmmm, there was the 200 in 1982, then a century against NZ a year later. He got an eight-fer against WI in 1984, then was the leading wicket-taker in the 1985 Ashes.

His performances didn’t really start to fall off sharply until 1986. He should not have played tests after the 1986/7 Ashes but they kept picking him until 1992. He was a better ODI bowler in the latter part of his career, bowling economical medium pace in the middle overs.

Had he wanted to he could have really worked on his batting, and played as a #4 batter and bowled offspin. That would have prolonged his career. But he was too instinctual, always living in the moment.

I think he got a bit distracted by fame and adulation. He would get a standing ovation as soon as he came out to bat, then a second one when he got to fifty, then a third when he got out. He fell under the spell of that silly fellow who was trying to get him cast as the new James Bond.

He did perform okay from time to time after 82 but not as well as a playerof his ability should have. Indeed, he was a major under achiever partly due to his off field antics. In his autobiography "Don't Tell Kath" he admits many things himself. Between 1982-86 he should have much better then what he should have done.

"Had he wanted to he could have really worked on his batting, and played as a #4 batter and bowled offspin. That would have prolonged his career. But he was too instinctual, always living in the moment." I could have been Indiana Jones if I had some acting experience as well

 

[Hitman]

Let's see how Bradman would average 100 after playing 3 formats and 10+ teams, and the changes in rules too

Plus the modern day hectic cricket schedule and having to adjust in various conditions.

 

[giri26]

If you are talking about impact, Lara clearly isn't. West Indies hardly won anything when Lara played for them, not entirely his fault though. Ian Botham and Glenn McGrath are the only two in contention. I will put Botham ahead of McGrath though because of his impact with both bat and ball especially in the first half of his career. McGrath is a legend though, either way we cannot go wrong.

 

[Robert]

He did perform okay from time to time after 82 but not as well as a playerof his ability should have. Indeed, he was a major under achiever partly due to his off field antics. In his autobiography "Don't Tell Kath" he admits many things himself. Between 1982-86 he should have much better then what he should have done.

"Had he wanted to he could have really worked on his batting, and played as a #4 batter and bowled offspin. That would have prolonged his career. But he was too instinctual, always living in the moment." I could have been Indiana Jones if I had some acting experience as well

There was a drop off in performance after the 1983 Kiwi series but it was more of a gradual slide until it really fell off in 1987. He got very big round the middle and had stopped swinging it much.

Perhaps you could have been a film star, but it was obvious to anyone who watched Botham that he had serious skill with the bat. He was the best technician in the England side for much of the time, but too often threw his wicket away out of a desire to dominate. But he could dig in too - I saw him bat all day against Pakistan for just fifty. He could have averaged in the mid-forties easily, with a bit more restraint.

He also took one of his many fivefers bowling offspin so with a bit of work I think he could have done a job for England.

 

[PakLFC]

There was a drop off in performance after the 1983 Kiwi series but it was more of a gradual slide until it really fell off in 1987. He got very big round the middle and had stopped swinging it much.

Perhaps you could have been a film star, but it was obvious to anyone who watched Botham that he had serious skill with the bat. He was the best technician in the England side for much of the time, but too often threw his wicket away out of a desire to dominate. But he could dig in too - I saw him bat all day against Pakistan for just fifty. He could have averaged in the mid-forties easily, with a bit more restraint.

He also took one of his many fivefers bowling offspin so with a bit of work I think he could have done a job for England.

Point here is Beefy should have done far better then what he did. He should have achieved much more seeing the incredible talent he possessed. Talent wise he was probably the highest ranked in a generation of top all rounders. He'd always be in some sort of trouble being caught with Jamaican models or having to many late nights for a Cricketer.

English All rounders who came after him were no way near his class. Now what point of mines do you disagree with?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Extraordinary. To have the same position in the pantheon as Bradman, McG would have to have a bowling average of 11.

Bradman wouldn't average 60 in modern era. Amla averaged 110+ in India before 2015 tour. It came down to 60. McGrath has achieved more than Bradman who bashed a single team for 2 years in just 2 countries.

 

[Robert]

Point here is Beefy should have done far better then what he did. He should have achieved much more seeing the incredible talent he possessed. Talent wise he was probably the highest ranked in a generation of top all rounders. He'd always be in some sort of trouble being caught with Jamaican models or having to many late nights for a Cricketer.

English All rounders who came after him were no way near his class. Now what point of mines do you disagree with?

I have explained which points I disagreed with - how fast his decline was and when it started.

Yes, his ability was such that with more application - or more red ink hunting - he would have averaged 40 with the bat and 25 with the ball with maybe 450 wickets. But he didn’t.

“Always” is an exaggeration - he got into some strife for about a year and a half.

 

[Robert]

Bradman wouldn't average 60 in modern era. Amla averaged 110+ in India before 2015 tour. It came down to 60. McGrath has achieved more than Bradman who bashed a single team for 2 years in just 2 countries.

Actually fourteen years though his test career was over twenty years long. He batted on a very wide variety of wickets, not the homogenous covered ones of today.

We have no idea what he would average in the modern era, on flat decks and none of the sticky dogs which were his one weakness.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Actually fourteen years though his test career was over twenty years long. He batted on a very wide variety of wickets, not the homogenous covered ones of today.

We have no idea what he would average in the modern era, on flat decks and none of the sticky dogs which were his one weakness.

Homogeneous? Are you implying pitches in Sri Lanka are similar to those found in South Africa? Bradman batted on mostly 2 different kind of surfaces 90% of his career against select few bowlers.

Pitches in India alone varies more than all cricket playing nations in 1930s combined. You seem to vastly underrate the challenge of playing in alien conditions. Whatever sticky wicket Bradman batted on, it was familiar to him. I would love to see him bat on dustbowls of India against Ashwin and Jadeja. He will be a dancing bunny like Amla.

 

[PakLFC]

I have explained which points I disagreed with - how fast his decline was and when it started.

Yes, his ability was such that with more application - or more red ink hunting - he would have averaged 40 with the bat and 25 with the ball with maybe 450 wickets. But he didn’t.

“Always” is an exaggeration - he got into some strife for about a year and a half.

His decline was as I stated at a rather early age compared to his compatriots at the time. You have to read his autobiography to see the many troubles he was in that was partly the reason why he often failed to perform. Once he walked to the cease with a bat in his hand, half drunk!!

 

[Robert]

Homogeneous? Are you implying pitches in Sri Lanka are similar to those found in South Africa? Bradman batted on mostly 2 different kind of surfaces 90% of his career against select few bowlers.

Pitches in India alone varies more than all cricket playing nations in 1930s combined. You seem to vastly underrate the challenge of playing in alien conditions. Whatever sticky wicket Bradman batted on, it was familiar to him. I would love to see him bat on dustbowls of India against Ashwin and Jadeja. He will be a dancing bunny like Amla.

I’m saying that every kind of wicket you see today, and more, would be encountered in England and Wales. Bradman played on dustbowls, at Sydney and the Oval. Headingley was a big spin wicket in those days too. In England alone there were many types of wicket until around 2000 when they became homogenous. Fliers, roads, Bunsens, green mambas. As late as 1998 Surrey was daft enough to give Murali a dustbowl for the test and he took fifteen wickets. England should have given Bradman a sticky every time because he couldn’t bat on them, but then neither could anybody else except Len Hutton. They started covering the wickets to get rid of stickies. Nobody below the age of 70 knows what they were like. Boycott might, just.

Fact is that Bradman was almost twice as good as the other champions of his time such as Headley and Hammond, who are considered ATG in their own right. The game changes yet fifty average has always been the benchmark for a top player and Bradman averaged double that. Nobody has ever dominated any sport like he did.

And low twenties has always been the benchmark average for a bowler. That’s why I say to have the same distinction as Bradman, McGrath would have to average 11 with the ball.

 

[Robert]

His decline was as I stated at a rather early age compared to his compatriots at the time. You have to read his autobiography to see the many troubles he was in that was partly the reason why he often failed to perform. Once he walked to the cease with a bat in his hand, half drunk!!

I read it when it was released.

As a young man his skipper Brian Close told him his batting could get better, but his bowling would get no better and probably decline. He was no longer a test class opening bowler by age 27 but England had to keep opening with him because of the dearth of good bowlers after Willis retired and the SAB rebels were banned. How England missed Lever and Old then.

 

[PakLFC]

I read it when it was released.

As a young man his skipper Brian Close told him his batting could get better, but his bowling would get no better and probably decline. He was no longer a test class opening bowler by age 27 but England had to keep opening with him because of the dearth of good bowlers after Willis retired and the SAB rebels were banned. How England missed Lever and Old then.

Exactly, so he declined far before he should have done. He just didn't put in the effort other all rounders of that generation like Immy, Paddles and Kaps did.