Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[Richard]

There's no way Imran for much of his career was a better batsman than Botham for much of his career.

Only for about 1\3 of Imran's and Botham's career (both at round about the same periods) was Imran better than Botham.

Botham between '78 and mid-'84 was better than anything Imran ever was.

 

[aussie]

Based on my past research & eye witness of the two greats from the site, cricket following family etc.

Botham the great all-rounder at his peak from 78-84 averaged 37 with the bat & 25 with the ball. With the achillies heel being his failures againts WI.

Imran the great all-rounder at his peak from 80-88 averaged 40 with the blade & 17 with the ball. With no real issues.

So he was the better bat for longer..

 

[NUFAN]

In our draft thread Imran was picked within the first 10 picks, Botham hasn't been picked after 42 picks.

Does this tell a story or are we all poor judges?

 

[JBH001]

Probably the latter. In any case, this imaginative exercise is based on players at their best.

As Richard points out, Botham had two stages, 77 - 81 and then 82 to 84 where in diminishing degree he was upto it with both bat and ball. After 84 his performances with the ball were poor, while with the bat (apart from occassional flashes) he was merely mediocre. The less said about post 86 the better - he should have never played again.

In his golden era 77 - 81 he played 2 series for England vs the WI burdened with the captaincy which, all judges at the time state, affected his play with bat and ball. As soon as he relinquished the captaincy he was back to his best in the 3rd test of the Ashes series of 1981 (after having gotten a pair at Lords). In 1984 he played against WI and averaged a more than respectable 35 (iirc) with 3 half centuries and a SR of over 60.

Nothing against Imran, he made himself into a very good batsman by dint of hard work, but Botham at his best was a genuine (and attacking) middle order batsman who would walk into an all-time England XI at number 6 (and was a better batsman than Imran).

 

[archie mac]

Based on my past research & eye witness of the two greats from the site, cricket following family etc.

Botham the great all-rounder at his peak from 78-84 averaged 37 with the bat & 25 with the ball. With the achillies heel being his failures againts WI.

Imran the great all-rounder at his peak from 80-88 averaged 40 with the blade & 17 with the ball. With no real issues.

So he was the better bat for longer..

Stats

I did watch a lot of both players, and although both were greats, I would take Botham everytime

 

[aussie]

Stats

I did watch a lot of both players, and although both were greats, I would take Botham everytime

Well that statistical breakdown is based on eye-witness of them playing though.

If it was all just based on stats i would ended Botham peak @ 1986 & Imran @ 92.

You are not the first older (non-asian lol) person that has seen both greats i've heard say they take Botham over Imran also at there respective peaks, mainly due to Botham's dynamic batting.

What i should have said though at the end of that post which i believe most would agree, is than Imran longevity as an all-rounders outshines Botham.

 

[archie mac]

Well that statistical breakdown is based on eye-witness of them playing though.

If it was all just based on stats i would ended Botham peak @ 1986 & Imran @ 92.

You are the first older (non-asian lol) person that has seen both greats i've heard say they take Botham over Imran also at there respective peaks, mainly due to Botham's dynamic batting.

What i should have said though at the end of that post which i believe most would agree, is than Imran longevity as an all-rounders outshines Botham.

But I imagine in an all time team, you are picking the players at their best?

Botham could win you a game with an hour of batting, 5 overs of bowling or even a great catch in the slips.

Imran could win you a game with the ball, but not too many with the bat. Still a great player, and as you say over the whole career better then Both

 

[Richard]

Based on my past research & eye witness of the two greats from the site, cricket following family etc.

Botham the great all-rounder at his peak from 78-84 averaged 37 with the bat & 25 with the ball. With the achillies heel being his failures againts WI.

Imran the great all-rounder at his peak from 80-88 averaged 40 with the blade & 17 with the ball. With no real issues.

So he was the better bat for longer..

There was never much between Botham and Imran as bowlers, in fact Imran was eventually superior.

However, batting averages aren't all there is to it. Botham was a better batsman than Imran Khan in the time in question, no doubts about that to my mind.

 

[Richard]

In our draft thread Imran was picked within the first 10 picks, Botham hasn't been picked after 42 picks.

Does this tell a story or are we all poor judges?

Some are poor judges, though obviously there's absolutely nothing wrong with the former.

Botham clearly pays for playing on after '87, which he should never have done as he was precisely no use after that summer. To those judging him purely in hindsight and overtly simplistically, he suffers for what was in reality a minor error and, if you look properly, doesn't actually undo anything he did before.

 

[Richard]

Stats

I did watch a lot of both players, and although both were greats, I would take Botham everytime

Purely as a batsman, I hope?

 

[Richard]

If it was all just based on stats i would ended Botham peak @ 1986 & Imran @ 92.

Umm... why? Botham did precious little between mid-'84 (with bat or ball) and '87 and had he gone down with some injury after the first-innings of the Third Test in '84 his career figures would be much better than they are. And as I say, he should never have played at all after '87, and it's disappointing no-one recognised that.

Imran too did nothing with the ball after the '88/89 season and was notable only as batsman in that time. For those couple of years, he might just have been a better batsman than Botham ever was, but it was only that - a couple of years.

 

[archie mac]

Purely as a batsman, I hope?

1977-81 I would take Botham the bowler as well

 

[Richard]

Well, yeah, but Imran '76/77-'88/89 had 12 years of excellence, Botham a mere 4. Botham at his best might've been the better bowler, though he might not have, but I'd prefer (to oversimplify it because of neccessity) 91\100 for 12 years to 96\100 for 4.

The point of picking "an XI" is to pick on the premise of a 10-year "series", or along the lines of. If you were picking for a one-off game, there'd be countless hundreds of players who'd come into consideration, like Bob Massie and Narendra Hirwani.

 

[archie mac]

Well, yeah, but Imran '76/77-'88/89 had 12 years of excellence, Botham a mere 4. Botham at his best might've been the better bowler, though he might not have, but I'd prefer (to oversimplify it because of neccessity) 91\100 for 12 years to 96\100 for 4

He was still a fair bowler after that period, he did take quite a few wickets, and also Imran had that shin trouble.

Still if we are going to choose them at their best I think Botham the bowler was better then Imran at his peak, but not much in it

 

[Richard]

I don't agree with choosing between players at their peak, more their plateau. I don't like blurring the Botham of '77-'81 with the Botham of '81/82-'84 or '84-'87 because they patently weren't the same player, but if you want Imran on his plateau of '76/77 to '87 (where broadly speaking he was a brilliant all-rounder throughout with the odd up and down), which is the only time anyone should judge him on, anything before then is irrelevant and anything after then he was a specialist bat only, then you need a comparable period for Botham to compare.

And if you were to take Botham of '77-'87, then Imran of '76/77-'88/89 would trump him, no two ways about. Botham was brilliance followed by half-brilliance (with bat and not with ball) followed by considerable paucity. Imran was consistent excellence and often brilliance.

 

[archie mac]

I don't agree with choosing between players at their peak, more their plateau. I don't like blurring the Botham of '77-'81 with the Botham of '81/82-'84 or '84-'87 because they patently weren't the same player, but if you want Imran on his plateau of '76/77 to '87 (where broadly speaking he was a brilliant all-rounder throughout with the odd up and down), which is the only time anyone should judge him on, anything before then is irrelevant and anything after then he was a specialist bat only, then you need a comparable period for Botham to compare.

And if you were to take Botham of '77-'87, then Imran of '76/77-'88/89 would trump him, no two ways about. Botham was brilliance followed by half-brilliance (with bat and not with ball) followed by considerable paucity. Imran was consistent excellence and often brilliance.

I don't think a player should be marked down simply because he went on longer then he should have, and also why are there restraints when picking an all time XI

I often choose Iverson, he would be unknown to most other AT XI

 

[Richard]

I don't think a player should be marked down simply because he went on longer then he should have, and also why are there restraints when picking an all time XI

Well clearly you can choose on whatever credentials you like, but the most sensical one would seem to be a team to play for 10 years. If I wanted something for a year or a series, I'd have the Frank Tyson of '54/55 every time thanks very much. Fourth name on the teamsheet.

I don't think a player who had a long career should be marked down because he played on longer than he should have either, nor was picked before he should've been, nor games where he was clearly massively handicapped by lack of fitness, that's why I take precisely no notice of games which I consider fall into such categories. Two of many, many examples are Imran's first 4 Tests and Botham's from '89 onwards.

However, I do think that to be a contender for an XI where excellence is being considered, be it all-time, 1930-1970, or whatever, a career of 10 years or the best part of is a must. I'd never give much consideration to someone who played for just 4 years, nor someone who was only that good for 4 years and was pretty moderate for a lot of the time thereafter, like Botham and Waqar Younis.

 

[The Sean]

I don't think a player should be marked down simply because he went on longer then he should have, and also why are there restraints when picking an all time XI

I often choose Iverson, he would be unknown to most other AT XI

Fair call, as long as he wouldn't be bowling to Morris or Miller standing out of their crease...

 

[archie mac]

Fair call, as long as he wouldn't be bowling to Morris or Miller standing out of their crease...

Bloody NSW

BTBF I would already have them two in my team

 

[The Sean]

Bloody NSW

BTBF I would already have them two in my team

Ha ha, got all your bases covered then mate!

I've always wondered whether those two would have done things differently that day had they known that by destroying Big Jack they might just have been losing Australia the Ashes.