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

[Beleg]

^

Not really. On a suitable pitch and with the conditions in their favour, a supposedly lower-class team can easily be more dangerous then the 'best' would be on a standard pitch. Case in point is Inzamam's innings against Bangladesh at Multan to win the test for Pakistan. It was one of the best knocks I have seen him play against some skillful bowling on a troublesome pitch. Yet, if the selective-stat-champs had their way, it would be dismissed off-hand in an assessment of Inzamam's worth because it came against a 'minnow'.

The emphasis on 'minnows' and 'best' is often misplaced. Looking at stats and shrugging off a player is risky at best, since you aren't actually assessing the quality of the game itself (which itself is subjective). Bowlers specially are often unlucky because their worth is judged by their strike-rates and/or averages which are a direct function of the wickets taken and not necessarily the quality of the bowling itself. Shoaib Akhtar against England recently would be a text-book example as far as I am concerned.


I guess my overall point is that generalization are bad bad bad for your health and if you are actually serious about determining a player's ability then you'll be best served by actually watching him in the field of play and judging based on that (with statistics as an accessory, not the focal point).

anything else is just wisearse snarking and should be treated accordingly.

YMMV.

 

[marc71178]

Well, it shouldn't be the sole criteria, but it should definatly be a huge part of your overall assessment - how do you play against the best?

In which case, you remove games when the best aren't actually playing against you...

 

[silentstriker]

In which case, you remove games when the best aren't actually playing against you...

Huh?

 

[silentstriker]

^

Not really. On a suitable pitch and with the conditions in their favour, a supposedly lower-class team can easily be more dangerous then the 'best' would be on a standard pitch.

Yes, but the "best" win games on all types of pitches, and they are a challenge everywhere. Sure, once in a while the minnow might end up being dangerous, but you can never write off Australia on any surface.

 

[C_C]

Maybe by people who want things overly simplistic and bite sized answers. Its far to easy to draw misplaced conclusions when conducting such limited and basic investigation.

there is nothing misplaced about it. It is called consistency- many good players get slated for not performing against the best of the best and i am merely holding the same standards for everyone.
My criterias are simple and i apply them evenly to all.
Which is why i think Botham is an overrated allrounder and ranks below Imran,Kapil, Sobers, Miller, Mankad, etc etc.

 

[marc71178]

Huh?

The West Indies side were not always of the same strength - think Packer for one thing.

 

[silentstriker]

The West Indies side were not always of the same strength - think Packer for one thing.

Yes, but if the side still kept winning, then they were still better than everyone else. All that should be taken into account.

 

[Goughy]

there is nothing misplaced about it. It is called consistency- many good players get slated for not performing against the best of the best and i am merely holding the same standards for everyone.
My criterias are simple and i apply them evenly to all.
Which is why i think Botham is an overrated allrounder and ranks below Imran,Kapil, Sobers, Miller, Mankad, etc etc.

At the end of the day there are a hundred reasons why someone may not perform against another team. It could even just be a simple match-up issue.

Again I would like an explanation why Kapil was terrible against New Zealand? Why is Botham being poor against the BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD more of an issue than Kapil being rubbish against NZ.

Surely it would follow that if you are going to perform below par that it will logically be against the best?

If I misunderstand please kindly give me a reasonable and logical answer for Kapils failure against NZ, apart from using things like loss of form, bad luck etc that could also be applied to Botham.

Again the whole Kapil thing is silly and Im not going to get into it. Just to point out the productivilty analysis I did of allrounders and overall rating.

Overall Ranking (of 20 great allrounders)

4th Imran
6th Hadlee
8th Botham
Gap
Gap
16th Kapil

Productivity Per Test (of 20 great allrounders)

2nd Hadlee
4th Botham
5th Imran
Gap
Gap
14th Kapil

Data taken from Post #85
http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=18339&page=6

 

[silentstriker]

At the end of the day there are a hundred reasons why someone may not perform against another team. It could even just be a simple match-up issue.

Again I would like an explanation why Kapil was terrible against New Zealand? Why is Botham being poor against the BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD more of an issue than Kapil being rubbish against NZ.

Surely it would follow that if you are going to perform below par that it will logically be against the best?

Dravid performs badly against Bangladesh and does well against Australia, which do you think is an abberration and which is based on skill?

 

[C_C]

Again I would like an explanation why Kapil was terrible against New Zealand? Why is Botham being poor against the BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD more of an issue than Kapil being rubbish against NZ.

The same reason no one gives that much of a toss if you get 0/10 in an assignment but lot of attention is focussed on the finals- quality is measured against the best of the best. Not against substandard opposition.

I consider Kapil to be a better allrounder than Botham, who i find is terribly overrated by 3-4 years of sunshine and then diddly squat. Not to mention, he didnt get it done against the best team of his era- either with the bat or ball.
In short, he was and still remains overrated but thats about par for British sporting media who even had the temerity of comparing Beckham with Zidane during his RM transfer.

I've already argued this a long time before and i am not gonna rehash this again- of the four allrounders fo the 80s,Imran would be my first choice and Botham my last choice. Kapil or Hadlee would fight it out for the second choice depending on whether i felt like a bonafide alltime great bowler or an alltime great allrounder.

 

[Goughy]

Dravid performs badly against Bangladesh and does well against Australia, which do you think is an abberration and which is based on skill?

New Zealand were and are not similar to Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. They were a good team just not great. They posed different questions to the WI but still had Hadlee and hard working batsmen. If Bothams issue is one of ability it is ridiculas to say Kapils against NZ was an abberation.

I would personnaly suggest both were abberations but you guys want to make comments one way and then another.

 

[Goughy]

The same reason no one gives that much of a toss if you get 0/10 in an assignment but lot of attention is focussed on the finals- quality is measured against the best of the best. Not against substandard opposition.

WTF? How are NZ in the 80s a substandard opponent? That comment just shows what your opinion is worth.

Kapil....a bonafide....alltime great allrounder.

How overvalued the word great has become.

 

[C_C]

WTF? How are NZ in the 80s a substandard opponent? That comment just shows what your opinion is worth

Because one great bowler plus 3-4 nobodies dont equate to an excellent attack exactly.

How overvalued the word great has become.

Indeed. Afterall, Botham is classed as an 'alltime great' allrounder despite doing f-all against the best team of his time and having 4-5 great years followed by a decade or so of medioctrity.

Botham loses marks for failing miserably against the best team of his time( West Indies)- the same reason why Kallis is not in the same echelon as Lara or Tendulkar either because he's done very little versus Australia.
You cant show consistency and you cant do it against the best of the best- you get rated below someone who does. Its just that simple as far as i am concerned.

 

[Goughy]

Because one great bowler plus 3-4 nobodies dont equate to an excellent attack exactly.

What a joke. During the 1980s (the period we are roughly speaking about)-

NZ won 17 tests and lost only 15, including series wins against Australia in Aus and WI
compared to
India won 11 and lost 21

How dare you suggest (no change that to state) that NZ were a substandard team!

 

[Goughy]

Indeed. Afterall, Botham is classed as an 'alltime great' allrounder despite doing f-all against the best team of his time and having 4-5 great years followed by a decade or so of medioctrity.

Well I agree with you in this regard. Botham was poor for a long time. However, when he was good early he was great (your words not mine).

This is the difference between Botham and Kapil. Botham was special for a period and then faced a dramatic decline. Kapil was a consistent but average batsman and bowler throughout his career. Bowling Av never dropped below 26 and stayed at around 29 most of his career.

Botham- Spectacular and unique followed by rubbish
Kapil- Steady but average with bat and ball over a long career

When it comes to rating who is the more special there is no comparison

 

[Anil]

This is absolutely not borne by facts.

Botham's captaincy woes led to complete breakdown of the cricketer and a devastating slump in his performance with bat as well as ball. It just so happened that 9 of these 12 tests (in which he captained England) were against West Indies.

He did not play them again till 1984. Then in the 5 test matches he scored

1st test : 64 (top scorer out of 191) and 38
2nd test :30 and 81 (second top scorer)
3rd test : 45(second top scorer) and 14
5th test :14 and 54 (top scorer)

Only in the 4th test he did not make a substantial contribution with the bat.

He was England's second highest scorer in the series and also had the second highest average (347 runs at 34.7). Only Lamb was above him and marginally so with 386 runs.

Gower 19.0, Gatting 16.2, Randall 0.5, Chris Broad 24.4, Fowler 26.0 were among the batsmen below him as England sere decimated 5-0 by an attack that included :-
Marshall, Garner, Holding and Davis !!

If this (Botham's batting in this series) is a display of inept batting againsy fast bowling I have nothing to say.

so everyone(as in the whole team crashed and burned) failed in an utterly pathetic team display, among all the players you listed up there, lamb was the only really good player of fast bowling(i'm sorry but gower and gatting and randall never were comfortable against it...and as for broad and fowler...not even worth mentioning in this context) and botham scraped together an average of 34.7 and it's supposed to prove that he was good against solid pace???

The next series IN WEST INDIES, cxertainly saw a worse performance with an average of 16.8 with the bat. But remember England were again decimated 5-0 with regular batsmen averaging as under :-

Gooch 27, Lamb 22, David Smith 20, Peter Willey 17, Gating 8.0. Gower was slightly better at 37. England did not hit a single century in the series.

If you tell me that Gooch could not play fast bowling, I will willingly concede Botham couldnt too.

interesting...what you are implying is the opposite of that statement right? gooch, obviously a magnificent player of fast bowling failed in one series, so did botham, so to follow the "logic" through, botham must be a great player of genuine pace too right? sjs, seriously, i expected better from you....

Besides what I mentioned about the 1984 series, here are some of his innings against very good pace attacks.

1. 103 and 30 not out against NZL at Jade Stadium Feb 1978 : Bowlers were Hadlee, Collinge and Chatfield
2. 119 not out (out of 273) vs Australia at Melbourne 1980Bowlers - Lillee, Pascoe, Dymock
3. 50 and 149 not out vs Australia Headingley July 81Lillee Alderman, Lawson
4. 118 vs Australia at Old Trafford Aug 1981Lillee, Alderman and Whitney
5. 103 vs NZL at Trentbridge Aug 1983Hadlee, Cairns, Snedden
6 and 7. 138 and 70 vs NZL Basin Resrve and Eden Park Jan 1984Hadlee, Cairns, Snedden, Chatfield
8 & 9. 60 at Headingly and 85 at Lords vs Aussies in summer 1985Mcdermott, Jeff Thomson, Lawson
10. 138 in Nov 1986 vs Aussies at BrisbaneMerv Hughes and Bruce Reid.

Surely these are very good new ball attacks. Not many current world sides wouldnt kill for such attacks. Every one of them (barring maybe the last one) has one great/near great fast bowler and one or more other very good ones at the other end.

i was talking about fast bowling attacks and reid(good in parts), collinge(average), dymock(don't know much about him but don't think he was fast), whitney(average), cairns(average), snedden(average), chatfield(military medium, accurate at best, average), alderman(good swing bowler, but medium pace), hadlee for most of his career and even mcdermott beyond a certain point in his career were not genuine quicks and that's what i was talking about....and as for the '81 tests, they were part of botham's ashes after he was cleared of captaincy burdens and was in the zone under brearley....he was absolutely brilliant in that series with both bat and ball...look you seem to think that i am saying he couldn't put bat to ball...not saying anything half as ridiculous, he was a wonderful all-round player, i am just saying that he had some serious weaknesses against liquid pace(if you look at your list most of the attacks listed were not relentless pace from both ends most of the time)...i also stated that imran was a much better bowler than him and later in his career evolved into a much more compact and technically refined batsman as well...don't understand why it is so difficult to accept that...just comparing two greats of the game and saying one edges the other, that's all....

 

[Autobahn]

In Summary:

They just peaked at different times of their lives.

 

[silentstriker]

What a joke. During the 1980s (the period we are roughly speaking about)-

NZ won 17 tests and lost only 15, including series wins against Australia in Aus and WI
compared to
India won 11 and lost 21

How dare you suggest (no change that to state) that NZ were a substandard team!

But India were also a substandard team. No one is denying that.

 

[Anil]

In Summary:

They just peaked at different times of their lives.

no that's not the summary of what i said...

 

[SJS]

Anil, I will try to answer in brief and not in any order

1. When I gave the bowling attacks I just gave the names of the new, ball, pace, medium pace bowlers in that innings. I never rated or intended to rate them. I did say that most of those innings included 'has one great/near great fast bowler ' and I think Hadlee, Lillee and Thomson qualify for anyone's short list and McDermott for many and that there was at least one 'very good one at the other end' and I stick by it. If you differ from it, thats okay. I could quote what 'pundits' think of someo of those bowlers but its not important.

2. I did not chose those innings because they were specially good against fast bowling. Actually I took ALL his major innings except those against India (and I think Pakistan) to show that he could score against teams where the attack was dominated mainly by fast bowlers and included at least one fast (nearly great) bowler. Not many teams in history have four fast bowlers as the West Indies had in the 80's and if we are going to call all attacks other than such as ordinary and, by inference, all performances against them as not a proof that these batsmen could play fast stuff, we have a problem

3. Everyone agrees that Botham peaked early (his first 25 tests' performance is remarkable) and tapered off later. Most people agree that he could not handle captaincy pressures. It is also clear that during this phase of his career his personal performance did not just suffer, he broke down completely as a performer. So, if two of his series against West Indies came at that time, it IS a relevant point.

4. The fact that others could not score in the same series is as relevant as the argument given by Tendulkar fans (and rightly in my opinion) that Sachin's performance in New Zealand in that fateful series before the world cup should be seen in perspective of what happened over all,

Now coming back to how good was Botham against fast bowling. He was better against spinners and medium pacers for sure but he was not a fast bowlers bunny as it would sound reading some stuff here. Fortunately, quite a few of Botham's innings are on tape. Get some and see for yourself. This is no Ganguly struggling at the crease. He was neither scared nor looked incompetent to handle pace when he was batting well which was a mlot of times.

Coming to the other three all rounders of his time, the only one who played express pace bowling better was Kapil though that alone make doesnt make him a better batsman than Botham. And here comes a vital point. When comparing two batsmen we compare them overall not against a particular type of bowling.

I rest my case.