Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[Lillian Thomson]

Lol, i did not say Moin Khan is good enough to bat number 7 in a Pakistan All-time XI.

I said him batting @ 7 for PAK ATXI would be a similar presumtive notion to Stewart's situation given at his best as a batsman he was good very complete test match #7 & would be a good tactical option if likely PAK captain Imran Khan theoretically wanted to play 5 bowlers in an away test for example. (Imran himself being good enough to bat @ 6 againts All-time attacks unlike Botham further solidifies to fictional tactical decision)

But as the situation with Knott @ 7 for England, Moin batting @ 7 doesn't give PAK ATXI the best competitive balance overall. Given that the best balanced PAK All-time XI is:

Anwar
H Mohammad
Abbas
Miandad
Inzamam
M Mohammad
Imran
Moin/Latif
Wasim
Qadir/Shoaib

So now Imran is good enough to bat at 6 and Botham isn't? Excellent.

 

[archie mac]

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.

It makes you wonder, I think the fact that Hassett would not let Iverson bowl to the NSW batsman in the nets was the reason they did it, but his action to the onslaught may explain why he died the way he did

 

[G.I.Joe]

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?

Nah, it just tells us pure numbers played a part. It is noticeable that all the players picked at the start were those who were good enough to hold their spot in the team on the basis of one skill atleast. Imran was a far better bowler overall than Botham, and so was picked earlier. Also helps that his batting average is artificially inflated to 37 compared to Botham's 33(?). Numbers did play a part, or we'd have seen Knott, Taylor or Healy picked ahead of Sangakkara, Walcott or Flower.

IMO, Imran was the better bowler overall than Botham or Kapil, but as all-rounders Botham and Kapil score above him easily in my book. We have that thread about players who should have averaged 50. If we had one about players who shouldn't have averaged as much with the bat as they did, Imran would be one of the first names there as far as I'm concerned. He had the luxury of playing as a pure batsman towards the end of his career, Botham just got fat and poor Kapil didn't have Wasim or Waqar or Sarfaraz to pass on the bowling responsibilities to. In a perfect world, the batting assessment would go Kapil = Botham >> Imran >>> Hadlee, and the bowling assessment would go Imran >> Hadlee >> Kapil > Botham.

 

[Goughy]

In a perfect world, the batting assessment would go Kapil = Botham >> Imran >>> Hadlee, and the bowling assessment would go Imran >> Hadlee >> Kapil > Botham.

An interesting assessment overall but I cant agree with the quoted part above.

Botham was a far better batsman and a far more complete batsman than Kapil. Ignoring the difference in records and centuries scored (we are talking Tests), Botham batted at 6 whilst Kapil batted at 7 and 8.

I cant see there being any argument on how Kapil was Bothams equal with the bat.

The ball could be more debatable but also think Botham was clearly superior. Botham got old, fat and injured and was terrible towards the end and Kapil had admirable consistency and longevity but even with that Botham finished with a better record and at his best he was a different class to Kapil.

 

[aussie]

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.

Yea i know all of this thats why i said if it was stats based, i would have ended Botham at 86/87 ashes somewhere around when he scored that 138 because statistically after then he is really awful. The reason i end Botham peak precisely at Lord's 1984 is basically because my popps told me that was the last time Botham looked his legendary self (while have a fairly decent series overall as well).

With Imran i remember in past all-rounder debates people used to say Imran averaged 50 batting @ 6 (which i think is statistically right). But after doing my checking, along with eye-witness of the man from this site mainly & reading articles. I realised that Imran "the all-rounder" only averaged 40 or so with the blade @ it peak & that 50 average batting is inflated from NZ 1988, where his bowling was not the same devastating self after WI 1987.

 

[aussie]

So now Imran is good enough to bat at 6 and Botham isn't? Excellent.

I admit i was a bit of the mark with the hammering of the idea that "Botham isn't good enough @ 6 in ENG ATXI". Even though he did fail vs WI at his peak, but i under-rated the effect captaincy had on him in. So maybe one can presume he could done a bit better with the blade if he free in his mind given how he played in 1984 vs WI. I'm more than willing to take that view, but others undoubtebly (especially in comparisons to Imran i guess) may not since such a reasoning hand down makes Botham better.

But the next part of our argument basically comes down to personal preference here between Knott & Stewart. Firstly regardless of the all the presumtive notions i have argued it is clear Stewart was clearly the better batsman than Knott under any circumstance (expect probably starting againts spin).

So basically you either pick Stewart: The better batsman & solid keeper or Knott the great keeper & good batsman.

A tempting reason to go for Stewart to bat @ 6 is given Botham at his magnificent self in 1981 did all his damage as a batsman from # 7.

 

[G.I.Joe]

An interesting assessment overall but I cant agree with the quoted part above.

Botham was a far better batsman and a far more complete batsman than Kapil. Ignoring the difference in records and centuries scored (we are talking Tests), Botham batted at 6 whilst Kapil batted at 7 and 8.

I cant see there being any argument on how Kapil was Bothams equal with the bat.

The ball could be more debatable but also think Botham was clearly superior. Botham got old, fat and injured and was terrible towards the end and Kapil had admirable consistency and longevity but even with that Botham finished with a better record and at his best he was a different class to Kapil.

TBH, putting some more thought into the results they produced with the bat, I can agree that Botham be considered a better batsman than Kapil. Kapil was considered by his peers as more being more talented with the bat than his performances suggest, but yeah, can't disagree with end results. As you say, it is debatable who was the better bowler. Home pitches and bowling support were significant factors for me there. It really is a matter of what one assigns more weightage to - peak performance or consistency over a career. Question of preference, I guess.

 

[Richard]

With Botham vs Kapil, it's less a case of consistency over a career than consistency to a stage of beyond-the-normal. Kapil kept going and going and going and was still a fine bowler and batsman at an age when precious few would be one, never mind both.

As I've said a good few times, if Botham had retired at the end of the summer of '87, his record (which would still need breaking-down into at least 3 different parts) would have been batting average fraction under 35, bowling-average fraction under 28. And no-one would've suggested for a second that the retirement was premature.

Botham's peak had long since passed by the time August 1987 rolled around, but he was still worth a place in the side until then - still just about on plateau. Kapil's career essentially was one long plateau, though there were various standout performances. However, Kapil doesn't really have a peak as such to be compared to Botham's, and even if he did Botham's was obviously so good that it'd almost certainly trump it.

Essentially, for me, it's a case of Botham was at best miles better than Kapil was all career, and even after Botham's best had passed he was still not a million miles behind Kapil how he was all career (though few would dispute that Botham '84-'87 was definately notably behind Kapil).

Imran, however, was almost as good for 12 years - as a bowler - as Botham was for 4. That says to me that Imran was undoubtedly the one I'd prefer in that department and though I think that most of Botham's career saw him be a better batsman than Imran was for pretty much all of Imran's (in the time Imran was a serious bowler), I've still never hesitated to say I'd rather Imran of the two.

Kapil is definately a bit behind both Imran and Botham.

 

[JBH001]

I admit i was a bit of the mark with the hammering of the idea that "Botham isn't good enough @ 6 in ENG ATXI". Even though he did fail vs WI at his peak, but i under-rated the effect captaincy had on him in. So maybe one can presume he could done a bit better with the blade if he free in his mind given how he played in 1984 vs WI. I'm more than willing to take that view, but others undoubtebly (especially in comparisons to Imran i guess) may not since such a reasoning hand down makes Botham better.

Kudos for admitting you may have been mistaken, Aussie. Big ups. _b

Its a fair point regarding how to interpret that information too. While admitting I may be a little bit biased towards Botham, I think it comes down to:

1. The opinion of observers at the time.
2. That Botham's poor form continued right into the Ashes.
3. That his 'old self' miraculously returned the next test after he relinquished the captaincy.
4. That in his last year as a world class all-rounder (84) he did well with bat and ball against WI.

I would like to think he would have done well against the WI in those two series (80 - 81) if he were not captain, although perhaps not as well as he did against other nations at that time (they were the best side in the world after all) but the fact of the matter is that we simply dont know. But I do like to think that if a judgement call has to be made, there is considerable weight of evidence that Botham's existing record against WI should at least be judged carefully.

But the next part of our argument basically comes down to personal preference here between Knott & Stewart. Firstly regardless of the all the presumtive notions i have argued it is clear Stewart was clearly the better batsman than Knott under any circumstance (expect probably starting againts spin).

So basically you either pick Stewart: The better batsman & solid keeper or Knott the great keeper & good batsman.

A tempting reason to go for Stewart to bat @ 6 is given Botham at his magnificent self in 1981 did all his damage as a batsman from # 7.

Already said my piece about this, that Stewart was not good enough a w/k to merit selection, so I will leave it at that.

Wrt to Kapil, I think even Kapil held on a little too long with the ball towards the end of his career. I recall reading about the Indian tour of Australia in 90/91 in Sportstar and, iirc, that was Kapil's last good series with the ball, 25 wickets I think and he ended with crossing the 400 wicket mark. After that it was a long trudge to Hadlee's 431 where, again iirc courtesy of Sportstar, he took something like 20 odd tests to get there.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But the next part of our argument basically comes down to personal preference here between Knott & Stewart. Firstly regardless of the all the presumtive notions i have argued it is clear Stewart was clearly the better batsman than Knott under any circumstance (expect probably starting againts spin).

So basically you either pick Stewart: The better batsman & solid keeper or Knott the great keeper & good batsman.

A tempting reason to go for Stewart to bat @ 6 is given Botham at his magnificent self in 1981 did all his damage as a batsman from # 7.

Alec Stewart just isn't a wicketkeeper, and his selection is just based on the current recently acquired fad of selectors who think if they pick enough keepers one of them will morph into Adam Gilchrist. Hopefully this will soon go full circle and selectors will actually have the wisdom to realise how important a high quality keeper is.

 

[aussie]

Alec Stewart just isn't a wicketkeeper, and his selection is just based on the current recently acquired fad of selectors who think if they pick enough keepers one of them will morph into Adam Gilchrist. Hopefully this will soon go full circle and selectors will actually have the wisdom to realise how important a high quality keeper is.

How can you say Stewart isn't wicket-keeper?.

Along with Gilchrist, Sangakkara, Flower, Ames, Lindsay. Stewart is definately in the category of the games few quality batsmen/genuine keepers. No illusions here at all.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How can you say Stewart isn't wicket-keeper?.

Along with Gilchrist, Sangakkara, Flower, Ames, Lindsay. Stewart is definately in the category of the games few quality batsmen/genuine keepers. No illusions here at all.

I don't think he's a Test quality wicketkeeper. If you do then your entitled to that opinion - either way I've no intention of rehashing the same discussion.