****OFFICIAL**** Imran Khan vs Botham Debate Thread

[FRAZ]

Did you miss Kapil Deliberately because he happens to be from a country you love so much or it's just that you dont consider him an allrounder ?

If you had left the country diss then it certainly was a Good point , Kapil was a great contributor to the game . He was a great batsman and I know one thing for sure that his out-swinger was unplayable at times and , I saw his matches and I guess he had this out-swinger which was a true, true true weapon .
But again I will say that , Leadership is the only thing which seperates Botham , Hadlee and Imran and Kapil and Kapil and Kapil Dev from India and Kapil Dev from Punjab India and Dave Mohammad and McNamara .

 

[Swervy]

At the same time to say that Botham was unlucky with captaincy is also inappropriate.

he was unlucky to have been made captain when his first assignment was to play against not just the best team in the world, but the best team in the world by an absolute mile...but i accept the fact that he wasnt up to the job at the time

This is completely flawed and it seems that you don't want to give credit to Imran on anything, not even when it comes to leadership.Imran was tactically sound as a skipper and your earlier post suggesting that Imran was criticized for not being tactically sound is also totally untrue.The only time Imran got criticized as far as captaincy was concerned was on the issue ignoring cricketers from Karachi.Also its a laugh to read that Imran was lucky to have such a talented team,when the fact happen to be EXACTLY THE OPPOSSITE.Imran led a team that had only a few class players and the rest were just ordinary cricketers.The famous test serieS b/w Pak and WI in 80's (one the was drawn and one the Pak won) were regarded as series b/w a champion team with champion players in WI and a determined team in Pakistan that had a few class players who match their rivals by sheer gut and determination.
Imran only had Miandad (even Miandad mostly struggled against WI), Qadir and later on Akram as class players, the rest were anything but ordinary.They were against a team that would easily beat their rival if man to man comparison was done.The team that was led by Akram later on was much much more gifted and had much more talent that the one led by Imran, yet it didn't yield good results.Also i believe you make your own luck, atleast this is true as far as Imran is concerned as afterall it was Imran who drafted Qadir in the team from the streets of lahore (desite strong prostest and accusation of nepotism), it was Imran who drafted Waqar younis in the team when he was nobody and it was Imran who drafted Inzi from the steets into the team.Imran had an eye for spotting talents and he gifted the cricket world with atleast 3 greats in Waqar,Qadir and Inzi , which would certainly not have been possible without IMran Khan.
Also captaining a team like Australia is much more easier than a team like Pakistan that is known for being rowdy and indisciplined.Imran did the almost impossible task of gelling the team togeather, and making the fight like tigers even when they were up against a vastly superior opponents..

I will give credit to Imran as I have done before, he was an all time great fast bowler, a decent bat, and a captain who contributed to Pakistan becoming one of the strongest teams in the world.
You can dispute it all you want, Imran wasnt a tactical genius and I would put him as average on that front. What he was good at was inspiring his team to perform to its best, which is a thouroughly commendable attribute for any captain to have.
I do completely disagree with the notion that the pakistan team in the late 80s was full of ordinary players bar the few you mentioned. The teams of the late 80s were littered with talent of true international class, and then you had the real greats in there as well (Imran,Miandad,Akram,Qadir and then later Waqar...any team that can boast 4 all time greats at any one time has to be considered a powerful team).
Sure Pakistan in the mid 90s were full of stars, it is debatable whether there was more talent than the Imran era Pakistan team though...down to opinion again I guess....it could be said that the Akram led teams were even more successful than the Imran led test teams, considering Akram won near half the games he captained, Imran won no where near that
By the way, I dont actually think the definition of an allrounder is good batsman, good bowler, good fielder, good captain and good talent scout. Whether Imran spotted Inzy and co. is irrelevant to the discussion.
I was wondering when the 'fight like tigers' bit would come out of the woodwork...but at no point during the late 80s and early 90s were Pakistan up against VASTLY superior opposition...Pakistan tended to be the most talent team in pretty much every series they played with the possible exception of some of those West Indies teams (even then a strong arguement COULD be made for Pakistan actually being more talented than some of those WI teams).
And as I say, full credit to Imran for doing an almost Worrell-esque job of uniting his team

What is your point here ?? Noone is saying that Botham was a bad person coz he spent time in nightclubs while Imran was an angle as he prayed in temple all night.Lots of cricketers goes to nightclub, i see no harm in it unless such activities starts to effect one's performance.Imran never let his off the field activities effect his game, however someone like Shoaib Akhtar is notorious for losing focus on the game after spending night in night club, so now they have a night curfew for him .
Botham's rapid decline had a lot to do with the wild life he led, he could have done much more with the talent he had, but he achieved less.Akhtar is another example of a guy who has not done justice with his talent..

Bothams 'wild life' was actually occuring when he was in his prime and before. I think what you mean is Botham could have acheived for longer, which he could have done, but I think his back also had something to do with the problem as well. For sure, Bothams talent wasnt fully realised later on, but quite simply he proably wasnt physically able to carry out his full potential (which can be accurately measured by his performances in the first 5 years of his career)

Rubbish! Miandad had a great cricketing mind, but what he lacked was man-management skills, to blame other players for Miandad's misfortune is totally wrong.Man-management is basics of leadership, if you aren't good in one then you can never succeed as a captain.

Absolutley Miandad handled his players poorly..when did I blame others for his lack of man management. I did state that he had a flawed character....in short, he was a complete knob head. But Miandad was tactically more astute than Imran, especially in Imrans early captaincy days

 

[Swervy]

Well said IBH but you cant expect people to change their notions on their heroes.
People refuse to accept the painfully obvious fact that Imran was an allrounder second only to Sobers and Botham is miles(yes miles) behind- I'd rate him behind not only imran and Sir Gary but also Mankad,Kapil, Miller and soon, even Flintoff.

painfully obvious my ****....

The fact that the thread was even started would suggest that its a debatable issue...why on earth would anyone discuss it otherwise!!!!

 

[Swervy]

Great response. I agree with almost all your points. I specially think that Swervy's arguments have now degenerated into "I'll dispute ANY good points that favor Imran to simply boost my case for Botham". I mean to rubbish Imran's captaincy, which is regarded by the overwhelming observers as being ROCK SOLID is too much! And then to turn around and say "Botham was just unlucky" and almost imply that had he been given the Captaincy later he would've been better than Imran is again ridiculous. You can favor one player over another, that's fine. But people would give your arguments more respect if they have a sense of fairness in them, and not just "let's attack everything about the player I don't favor".

I wont accept that I will dispute ANY good points that favour Imran , I fully accept that Imran was a complete genius, mostly with the ball, one of the very best. But there does seem to be this sort of mythical thing about it all, like Imran was one of the best batsmen around etc...he wasnt...or that Imran could do no wrong as captain...it just does sit quite right with me, when the same people are dismissing Bothams acheivements in the game, saying he was worked out later on, or he couldnt play defensively or whatever.

I havent rubbished Imran as a captain, I merely tried to bring down to a more realistic level his tactical awareness on the field. In this way, he wasnt anything overly special, in test cricket anyway. The team he captained was of a supremely talented level, and he did fantasically well to stop the internal friction (mostly anyway..I seem to remember Qasim Omar wasnt to happy with Imran)...but on the field he wasnt particularly inventive or attacking for what I can remember.

I do seem to think I have elsewhere said that Bothams temprement got in the way, his overt aggressiveness with both bat and ball often contributed to his poor perfomances..he had his playing flaws, but not many in those first 5 years..but they were there...is that evening out the arguement enough for you to take my opinions seriously???

 

[Fusion]

I wont accept that I will dispute ANY good points that favour Imran , I fully accept that Imran was a complete genius, mostly with the ball, one of the very best. But there does seem to be this sort of mythical thing about it all, like Imran was one of the best batsmen around etc...he wasnt...or that Imran could do no wrong as captain...it just does sit quite right with me, when the same people are dismissing Bothams acheivements in the game, saying he was worked out later on, or he couldnt play defensively or whatever.

I havent rubbished Imran as a captain, I merely tried to bring down to a more realistic level his tactical awareness on the field. In this way, he wasnt anything overly special, in test cricket anyway. The team he captained was of a supremely talented level, and he did fantasically well to stop the internal friction (mostly anyway..I seem to remember Qasim Omar wasnt to happy with Imran)...but on the field he wasnt particularly inventive or attacking for what I can remember.

I do seem to think I have elsewhere said that Bothams temprement got in the way, his overt aggressiveness with both bat and ball often contributed to his poor perfomances..he had his playing flaws, but not many in those first 5 years..but they were there...is that evening out the arguement enough for you to take my opinions seriously???

I have read your earlier comments in this thread and I respect them. I disagree with them, but nevertheless you presented a logical argument and had stats to back them up. But later on, IMO you started attacking any and all positive points that people brought up in Imran's favor. Imran was certainly not a perfect player, nor a perfect Captain. But the fact that you attacked his captaincy qualities suggests to me that you have lost impartiality in this argument. The way I read your comments, you claim that Imran was lucky enough to have world-class players on his team, and his only good quality as a Captain was to unite the team. And you state he wasn't very good tactically. On the other hand, you claim that Botham was unlucky during his tenure and pretty much the reason he failed was because of his age. Do you not think that you're reaching there? IMO, your logical and well thought-out points from before have disappeared and you're simply now in an attack mode on Imran. I'm sorry if I'm reading the situation incorrectly. Like I said, I respect your comments on Botham (excluding the views on his Captaincy tenure), but I believe your comments on Imran are no longer fair. I hope this doesn't come out as me attacking you either!

 

[bagapath]

Well said IBH but you cant expect people to change their notions on their heroes.
People refuse to accept the painfully obvious fact that Imran was an allrounder second only to Sobers and Botham is miles(yes miles) behind- I'd rate him behind not only imran and Sir Gary but also Mankad,Kapil, Miller and soon, even Flintoff.

CC! you are joking, right?

how on earth are mankad and flintoff better than botham? kapil and miller at least can be compared with him. but, IMO, even they will lose out.

mankad's bowling average is higher than his batting average. and he needed, on an average, 90+ deliveries to take each of his wickets. terrific cricketer. but not a patch on beefy!

flintoff has taken 1 five-fer in 62 matches. botham had taken more than 20 by then and also scored 10+ centuries, more than twice as much as flintoff. flintoff is not going to end up with 14 centuries and 27 five-fers after 102 tests like botham. not even imran would have got there!!

come on CC! it is about imran and botham because they both are ahead of all these guys. miller has a strong case but his bowling strike rate of 70 balls per wicket and 3 wickets per test fall below the lofty standards of imran and botham. lets just stick to them.

I have a strong suspicion that you probably started follwing cricket seriously in the late 80s when imran ruled and botham struggled. believe me, it was a very different scenario a few years before that.

 

[Xuhaib]

A lot is being said about Imran captaincy, here is my 2 cents on it.

Imran tactically was a brilliant ODI captain. He was so far ahead in terms of one-day mentality, people talk about Sanath and Kaluwitharna changing the face of odi cricket but Imran did it years before with Saeed Anwar and Salim Yousuf. He was helped by the fact that he had the best ODI bowler of all time Wasim and one of the best ODI batsman of all time Javaid in his lineup.

Imran as a test captain was merely average, if you look at his record apart from West indies its nothing special really. His record against windies is so good becaus Imran thrived on challenges and playing westindies motivated him to great heights (just like Botham and Australia) and add to the fact Windies use to struggle against Qadir and so together with Qadir they use to nullify the advantage Windies had with their superior batting lineup.

 

[Swervy]

I have read your earlier comments in this thread and I respect them. I disagree with them, but nevertheless you presented a logical argument and had stats to back them up. But later on, IMO you started attacking any and all positive points that people brought up in Imran's favor. Imran was certainly not a perfect player, nor a perfect Captain. But the fact that you attacked his captaincy qualities suggests to me that you have lost impartiality in this argument. The way I read your comments, you claim that Imran was lucky enough to have world-class players on his team, and his only good quality as a Captain was to unite the team. And you state he wasn't very good tactically. On the other hand, you claim that Botham was unlucky during his tenure and pretty much the reason he failed was because of his age. Do you not think that you're reaching there? IMO, your logical and well thought-out points from before have disappeared and you're simply now in an attack mode on Imran. I'm sorry if I'm reading the situation incorrectly. Like I said, I respect your comments on Botham (excluding the views on his Captaincy tenure), but I believe your comments on Imran are no longer fair. I hope this doesn't come out as me attacking you either!

I havent attacked Imrans captaincy, I have merely stated he wasnt the captain genius mythology would suggest. Any captain who has world class players throughout his team is lucky...Steve Waugh was lucky in that respect, Ricky ponting is lucky in that respect, Clive Lloyd was lucky in that respect,its not to say I am attacking their ability as captains.

Botham may well be considered to be unlucky as a captain, simply because he was given the job at a young age, captained 80% of the games vs the best team of the last 30 years, and the other 2 or three games vs probably the second best team in the world at that time. I am willing to accept that Botham wasnt up to the job whilst maintaining his levels of performance. the main reason he was sacked/resigned was because of this slump in form, not really because of his ability as a captain....I cant see how it is wrong for me to say that the circumstances in which Botham was captain were a tad unlucky for him..I cant think of another captain who has skippered for as long as Botham did (what was it ..15 tests???) and all the games be against the very best teams in the world...that is a very stern test for any captain, let alone someone who hadnt even reached 25 and had never captained his county.

Re: me not being fair to Imran, i think I have been totally even handed on this, remember most of the people I am addressing here are the ones who dont seem to have that much respect for Botham and seem to have an elevated opinion on Imran. My memories of these players dont correlate with what some of the people are saying, some of these people werent even born probably when Botham was in his pomp.

 

[Fusion]

Lol. At Sky Sports, they are discussing Imran legacy and also having a discussion about who was the best all rounder during the lunch session on the 3rd day. Sky Sports gets their ideas from Cricket Web!

 

[silentstriker]

Lol. At Sky Sports, they are discussing Imran legacy and also having a discussion about who was the best all rounder during the lunch session on the 3rd day. Sky Sports gets their ideas from Cricket Web!

What's their opinion?

 

[Fusion]

What's their opinion?

They were non-committal really. I had a laugh at Atherton asking "is he (Botham) listening next door?" before commenting.

 

[C_C]

how on earth are mankad and flintoff better than botham? kapil and miller at least can be compared with him. but, IMO, even they will lose out.

mankad's bowling average is higher than his batting average. and he needed, on an average, 90+ deliveries to take each of his wickets. terrific cricketer. but not a patch on beefy!

Well if you are gonna directly compare stats of a spinner with a pacer, Shane Warne wouldnt be even in running for an alltime world 3rd XI.

Spin bowling was different in its goals and objectives before the 90s- and i consider it an insult to Miller to be rated below Beefy.
Botham has far too many holes in his resume- career based on a few good years, failure against the best of the best and behind Imran in both allrounder and bowling peaks while batting peaks are very debatable.

 

[Goughy]

Well if you are gonna directly compare stats of a spinner with a pacer, Shane Warne wouldnt be even in running for an alltime world 3rd XI.

Spin bowling was different in its goals and objectives before the 90s- and i consider it an insult to Miller to be rated below Beefy.
Botham has far too many holes in his resume- career based on a few good years, failure against the best of the best and behind Imran in both allrounder and bowling peaks while batting peaks are very debatable.

What have spinners got to do with anything?

 

[C_C]

What have spinners got to do with anything?

Right so you believe that comparing bowling averages of spinners and pacers at face value has no problems.
As i said, with that kinda thinking, Warne (or any other spinner barring Murali) wouldnt get a sniff at even the alltime world third XI.

 

[Goughy]

Right so you believe that comparing bowling averages of spinners and pacers at face value has no problems.
As i said, with that kinda thinking, Warne (or any other spinner barring Murali) wouldnt get a sniff at even the alltime world third XI.

Well we are obviously talking about Mankad. The point I would like to make about his average is that you are ignoring eras. You are saying that because Mankad was a spinner his average of low 30s should not be looked at unfavourbly as most spinners have higher averages than equivelent seamers.

I would certainly agree with you if he had playing in the 1980s (as we are talking about Botham etc). However, he played mainly post-war and in the 1950s.

In the 1950s there were 5 spinners that averaged 24 or below (min 50 wkts) during the decade and in the 1980s only one averaged under 28.

A 30 plus average in the 50s is decent but you cannot start adding question marks to comparing averages in the type of bowler a player is without also including other factors such as the era.

You say you cannot compare the averages of spinners and seamers (implying that spinners have higher averages) so what does that mean for Jim Lakers test average of 21? and what about the fact that of all bowlers with 100+ test wickets born during the 20th Century the bowler with the lowest average is Johnny Wardle @ 20.39.

You see its not about spinners or seamers but about when they played.

 

[C_C]

I would certainly agree with you if he had playing in the 1980s (as we are talking about Botham etc). However, he played mainly post-war and in the 1950s.

In the 1950s there were 5 spinners that averaged 24 or below (min 50 wkts) during the decade and in the 1980s only one averaged under 28.

A 30 plus average in the 50s is decent but you cannot start adding question marks to comparing averages in the type of bowler a player is without also including other factors such as the era.

Yes, Which is in the 50s, England was a spin haven ( like India in the 70s onwards) and Mankad had the worst support of the lot.

There were 5 spinners in the 50s who averaged below Mankad-well there were a dozen bowlers or more who averaged less than Botham in the 70s-early 90s period.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, Which is in the 50s, England was a spin haven ( like India in the 70s onwards) and Mankad had the worst support of the lot.

There were 5 spinners in the 50s who averaged below Mankad-well there were a dozen bowlers or more who averaged less than Botham in the 70s-early 90s period.

But that was not what your point was!! You were saying you cannot compare tha averages of spinners to seamers and I was showing you that in the period of the person in question, ie Mankad, you could.

 

[C_C]

But that was not what your point was!! You were saying you cannot compare tha averages of spinners to seamers and I was showing you that in the period of the person in question, ie Mankad, you could.

No you cannot- spinners and pacers cannot be compared average-wise.
And your point that Mankad's average as a spinner is worse than 4-5 other spinners of his era largely misses the point about pitches and support in bowling and the fact that by the same barometer, Botham's average as a pacer was worse than over a dozen bowlers through his career

 

[AussieDominance]

Khan is much better

 

[Jasim]

Khan is far ahead of Botham...