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

[Swervy]

So basically Imran was putting up empty numbers? It's funny how people knock down his record. First they claim he was never good with the bat and ball at the same time. Then when stats are shown displaying the opposite, they are merely "empty numbers". However, it's ok to selectively pick a period for Botham when he was at his best and ignore his massive decline. How's that fair?

We all know Botham slipped from his peak quite quickly, but for me in those first 5 years no-one had dominated the game in multiple disciplines at the same time over a longish period like Botham had, since the turn of the 20th century. He was for a while the most destructive bowler in the world, and in terms of 'match-winning' there was no-one in the world bar Viv Richards to compare to Botham with the bat...and that is that really. As an all round force, Imran didnt come too close to Botham at his peak.

Of course, a part of what made Imran great was that he overcame a decidedly average first half of his career, and matured into one of the real great bowlers and that form lasted say from about 82ish to 87/88 I would say. But he was no more than a good test batsman , very very handy to have coming in at 7, but he tended to suceed when the higher order had already piled on the runs anyway.

The runs Botham score in those first say 7 years were worth more than Imrans, because they came very often in situations where England were in trouble or if not certainly not in a dominant position. Bothams runs quite often were the difference. So Bothams average of say 38 in those first few years was worth more as far as I am concerned than Imrans 51.

In answer to this: However, it's ok to selectively pick a period for Botham when he was at his best and ignore his massive decline. How's that fair

OK, lets play 'lets pretend'....imagine if in 1982 an allrounder of greater ability came onto the England scene, and it was seen that maybe there wasnt a place for two allrounders of similar batting style, and bowling style, and Botham got the flick from the team , never to play again, simply because he wasnt needed. He would have left the game with a healthy batting average, plenty of centuries in about 50 odd tests, and something like 250 test wickets. His reputation by that point was already that of legend. Would that actually mean he was a better allrounder than we think he was now, because his end stats were so brilliant, but his team didnt want him???? So is it fair to down grade him simply because England needed him for longer than maybe he should have continued (because they certainly needed him!!!). To me it seems very unfair on Botham. And the thing is, it seems to be that people who didnt really see Botham play that much dont really understand the Botham effect, and go off using averages and stats. It would appear that those who watched him play there and then (forget the highlights, they only give a fraction of the feeling and context of what was going on) understand how good he was.

 

[funnygirl]

Not a brainer at all . Imran Khan by a country mile .

Imran one of the greatest fast bowlers , a very fine batsman , great captain( one of the best ever) .The guy is just cricket itself .

Botham ..a good fast bowler (lucky ,used to get wickets for crap deliveries) ,Very good batsman.captain ,..forget it .

 

[Sanz]

I pretty much agree with Swervy's last post entirely except the part that Botham was the most destructive bowler in the world at his peak as a bowler. IMO was a very fine bowler at his peel but no where the most destructive.

But as an allrounder, he was the best of the 80s. This is why I dont like stats, because stats dont tell you the story of how Good actually Botham was. As one has watched Botham and Imran both at their peak and I have no hesitation in picking Botham as the better allrounder and trust me I am a huge Imran fan.

 

[Sanz]

So basically Imran was putting up empty numbers? It's funny how people knock down his record. First they claim he was never good with the bat and ball at the same time. Then when stats are shown displaying the opposite, they are merely "empty numbers". However, it's ok to selectively pick a period for Botham when he was at his best and ignore his massive decline. How's that fair?

No Imran wasn't putting empty number, but I agree with Swervy that the last 50 test stats has been beaten to death and it means nothing to prove his prowess as an allrounder.In last 15 test matches Imran barely bowled and mainly played as a batsman. During this period he averaged 73 as batsman and 34 as bowler. That kind of inflates his batting average in last 50 test matches.

Besides I dont remember any single series where Imran stood out as an allrounder at any point in his career and changed the course of the series by his allround skills, whereas Botham did that frewuently at his peak.

That his decline came sooner than fans all over the world wanted is a pity but it doesn't in anyway change my opinion that he was a better allrounder than anyone that played cricket in Late 70s and 80s.

 

[Dissector]

So what did Botham do at his "peak" against the best side in the world. Very little. And as I mentioned earlier his early performances were flattered by Packer-weakened sides. He did have a handful of great series but none were against a great side.

 

[Sanz]

It doesn't matter what he did against a particular team.

 

[Swervy]

So what did Botham do at his "peak" against the best side in the world. Very little. And as I mentioned earlier his early performances were flattered by Packer-weakened sides. He did have a handful of great series but none were against a great side.

well, you are arent really talking the truth there. The only team really weakened by WSC was the Australian team in 78/79, and that series didnt boost his bowling average, given that his bowling average in that series was the worst he had had throughout his early career (about 24)

Anyway, did Imran ever do particularly well vs WI with the bat. I know Botham wasnt outstanding, but he played some decent knocks against them. Imran from memory was merely ok vs WI with the bat

 

[Chubby Rain]

Kapil was superb against the West Indies.

 

[Swervy]

I pretty much agree with Swervy's last post entirely except the part that Botham was the most destructive bowler in the world at his peak as a bowler. IMO was a very fine bowler at his peel but no where the most destructive.

But as an allrounder, he was the best of the 80s. This is why I dont like stats, because stats dont tell you the story of how Good actually Botham was. As one has watched Botham and Imran both at their peak and I have no hesitation in picking Botham as the better allrounder and trust me I am a huge Imran fan.

aww Sanz, hehehe.....maybe we should talk about Kapil Dev vs Botham then!!! Just like the good old days mate

 

[Dissector]

I think performances against the top teams definitely counts for a lot more than against average teams. Botham did little against the strong Pakistan team of the 80's either. Imran certainly performed with the ball against the West Indies.

Botham didn't play that as much against Packer-weakened sides as I had thought but the point remains that his early years were against some fairly weak teams for the most part. He had a couple of good series against a declining Aussie team but he was mostly terrible against the West Indies. IMO that counts for a lot against him.

 

[Swervy]

I think performances against the top teams definitely counts for a lot more than against average teams. Botham did little against the strong Pakistan team of the 80's either. Imran certainly performed with the ball against the West Indies.

Botham didn't play that as much against Packer-weakened sides as I had thought but the point remains that his early years were against some fairly weak teams for the most part. He had a couple of good series against a declining Aussie team but he was mostly terrible against the West Indies. IMO that counts for a lot against him.

did you watch the fella play, may I ask?

 

[umair_103pk]

In 1982 Imran was declared wisden cricketer of the year. At that time he was unplayable reverse swinging the ball from the very first over with shear pace. Destroyed india in pakistan on dead pakistan pitches taking 40 wickets in a series which is a world record only equalled by the great Shane Warne in 2005 ashes than in england he toped with bat with an average of 50 and took 21 wickets and was the player of the series which he repeated in in 1987. In 1990 i saw one of his match which i still remember against the ausies he defended 4 score in the last over and taking 2 wickets in the same over. Without him there would have been no Wasim or Waqar. Wasim didn't even make it to his college team but got direct entry in the team and emerged as one of the finest left arm bowler of all time thanks to Imran khan. Imran Khan left the ever lasting impression on the young pakistani bowlers even a youngester starting his cricket as a bowler sees Imran Khan as his role model. Even when i started playing cricket back in 1993 i was a batsman but with time changed into fast bowler only because seeing Imran Khan. He was too elder to play cricket as a Fast bowler but he proved it wrong at the age 39.

 

[Sanz]

In 1982 Imran was declared wisden cricketer of the year. At that time he was unplayable reverse swinging the ball from the very first over with shear pace. Destroyed india in pakistan on dead pakistan pitches taking 40 wickets in a series which is a world record only equalled by the great Shane Warne in 2005 ashes than in england he toped with bat with an average of 50 and took 21 wickets and was the player of the series which he repeated in in 1987. In 1990 i saw one of his match which i still remember against the ausies he defended 4 score in the last over and taking 2 wickets in the same over. Without him there would have been no Wasim or Waqar. Wasim didn't even make it to his college team but got direct entry in the team and emerged as one of the finest left arm bowler of all time thanks to Imran khan. Imran Khan left the ever lasting impression on the young pakistani bowlers even a youngester starting his cricket as a bowler sees Imran Khan as his role model. Even when i started playing cricket back in 1993 i was a batsman but with time changed into fast bowler only because seeing Imran Khan. He was too elder to play cricket as a Fast bowler but he proved it wrong at the age 39.

That has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[JBH001]

I think performances against the top teams definitely counts for a lot more than against average teams. Botham did little against the strong Pakistan team of the 80's either. Imran certainly performed with the ball against the West Indies.

Botham didn't play that as much against Packer-weakened sides as I had thought but the point remains that his early years were against some fairly weak teams for the most part. He had a couple of good series against a declining Aussie team but he was mostly terrible against the West Indies. IMO that counts for a lot against him.

Yeah, he did not play much against Packer weakened sides at all. In fact, in this thread I think, someone brought up his bowling figures, and he did worse against Packer weakened sides than against normal/usual Test XI's. Something that was pleasantly surprising.

Also, it should be noted that he had the misfortune of playing 10 tests against the WI (during his peak) as a captain, which - like all his captaincy efforts - were abysmal.

 

[Dissector]

Well Botham's abysmal captaincy is part of the reason why Imran was the better cricketer. But you can't use his captaincy as an excuse for why he failed as a player against the West Indies. Particularly when he continued failing after he lost the captaincy.

And Swervy, yes I did watch Botham play on TV in the 80's. He was obviously a more exciting batsman than Imran but that doesn't mean much. Ultimately it's performance that counts. As a pace bowler Imran was more formidable by far.

 

[JBH001]

Er, I am not using it as an excuse. I thought it was commonly accepted (and certainly the stats bear it out) that captaincy had an awful effect on Botham's ability.

(Also, I would say that it is arguable to demand that a cricketer be judged also on his captaincy ability, it certainly is possible to state that it does enhance a cricketer, but I dont think it is a necessary condition or prerequisite for judgement, as you seem to be implying)

As for Botham vs WI post captaincy, I assumed that was when he was past his absolute best, and then again (post 85) when he was utter crap.

I dont know if you are arguing in terms of peak, post peak, or overall (neither do I really care tbh, I already did this discussion last year before it was resurrected) - I am merely pointing out that in criticizing his performance against the WI in his peak you are not taking into account the burdens of captaincy at that time, certainly iirc, when he did play against the WI between 82 - 85 (post peak/pre crap) he did better than in his peak.

 

[Dissector]

I thought it was commonly accepted (and certainly the stats bear it out) that captaincy had an awful effect on Botham's ability.

Well if it did, that is a mark against him as a player. Even if you don't want to consider his captaincy per se, you have to take into account his record as a player while captain. After all Imran had to bear the burden of captaincy as well.

I think it's more than a little contrived to ignore a whole bunch of tests against the West Indies just because he was captain and to ignore the remaining tests because he was past his peak. The bottom line is that Botham had plenty of opportunities against the West Indies and failed consistently.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

As one has watched Botham and Imran both at their peak and I have no hesitation in picking Botham as the better allrounder and trust me I am a huge Imran fan.

Imran Khan was 1.5 times the allrounder Ian Botham Botham was & trust me I'm a huge Botham fan(and rate him is the 2nd best allrounder ever).

 

[BhupinderSingh]

So basically Imran was putting up empty numbers? It's funny how people knock down his record. First they claim he was never good with the bat and ball at the same time. Then when stats are shown displaying the opposite, they are merely "empty numbers". However, it's ok to selectively pick a period for Botham when he was at his best and ignore his massive decline. How's that fair?

Well,all these people criticizing Imran Khan know that he was the superior allrounder but they are not accepting it openly because Imran Khan was a ********* .

 

[neville cardus]

Well,all these people criticizing Imran Khan know that he was the superior allrounder but they are not accepting it openly because Imran Khan was a ********* .

That sums it up for me (albeit a trifle less gracefully than I would've liked), but I feel that Botham's mercurial miracle-working must also have made a profound impact on the romantic schoolboys in all of us.