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

[Anil]

sjs, i agree with you about kapil, he was absolutely fearless against pace, in my opinion imran towards the end of his career was better than botham as well against pace, and no i am well aware that he was not a scared bunny like ganguly against pace, but he was still not half as good against fast bowling as he was against the medium pacers and spinners of his era and his performances against the best pace attacks of his time and his stats against pace prove it(notwithstanding some isolated innings here and there....)....and as for your list, i was talking all along about express pace and most of your list were fast medium to military medium bowlers....you will notice that i did not comment on the quality of hadlee's or even mcdermott's or alderman's(he wasn't that great but always bowled superbly in the ashes) bowling, merely that they were mostly medium pace and not express pace, the only really fast bowlers in that list were lillee, thommo(although by '85 he had lost a lot of pace after coming back from injury), lawson, pascoe and hughes.....anyway whether you agree with it or not, hope you get the point i am trying to make....

 

[Swervy]

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

all these substandard teams..and yet people seem to think the statndard was high back then!!!!

 

[C_C]

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

Aye. And the consistent guy wins everytime.
The objective of a player in cricket is to contribute to the team as often and as consistently as possible. Not be a superstar for a moment and an extra in the set for the next 2 hours and 25 minutes.
Someone who's scored five fifties in a row has done better than someone who's scored two tons and three ducks in my books.

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!

Simply because a bowling attack of Hadlee,my mum, your mum and Hadlee's mum equates to substandard bowling.Kapische ?

 

[C_C]

all these substandard teams..and yet people seem to think the statndard was high back then!!!!

Because substandard then is still near the top of the pile today.

 

[Goughy]

Simply because a bowling attack of Hadlee,my mum, your mum and Hadlee's mum equates to substandard bowling.Kapische ?

No and I don't want to. Being in your head must be a scary place.

 

[Goughy]

Aye. And the consistent guy wins everytime.
The objective of a player in cricket is to contribute to the team as often and as consistently as possible. Not be a superstar for a moment and an extra in the set for the next 2 hours and 25 minutes.
Someone who's scored five fifties in a row has done better than someone who's scored two tons and three ducks in my books.

Refer you to the fact that Botham was far more productive than Kapil. In far less Tests he scored the same amount of runs.

Kapils productivity and contribution was not close to that of Botham, Kapische ?

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

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Aye. And the consistent guy wins everytime.
The objective of a player in cricket is to contribute to the team as often and as consistently as possible. Not be a superstar for a moment and an extra in the set for the next 2 hours and 25 minutes.
Someone who's scored five fifties in a row has done better than someone who's scored two tons and three ducks in my books.

No it isn't. The objective of a player in cricket is to win matches for his team. That may involve scoring 50s or it may involve making centuries when it's needed and not making runs when it's not. If one guy scores two centuries in five matches and they are both in the fourth innings chasing 300 to win, I'd rate him ahead of someone who makes a bunch of 50s out of 400+ first innings scores or whatever. It's ridiculously simplistic to suggest that a player who contributes in every match is automatically more valuable than one that contributes to a greater degree on rarer occasions.

Regarding the topic, Imran may have maintained a more even record with regard to scoring runs, but he certainly didn't win many games for Pakistan with the bat, while Botham certainly did for England. And incidentally, Imran may have maintained a more even spread of scores, but as he scored far less runs per test he clearly didn't contribute as much on a consistent basis (as your choice of example would suggest), he simply maintained a better ratio of runs to dismissals whilst batting lower in the order.

For instance, your example suggests that for an average of 40 the guy who makes scores of 50, 30, 25, 55, 40 is of greater value than the guy who scores 100, 0, 0, 0, 100. I'd disagree with that to begin with, but what about if the first player scores 20, 20*, 25*, 25, 30? Obviously the second player is likely to have had a far bigger impact, insofar as one can judge these things without taking into account match scenarios.

 

[bagapath]

No it isn't. The objective of a player in cricket is to win matches for his team. That may involve scoring 50s or it may involve making centuries when it's needed and not making runs when it's not. If one guy scores two centuries in five matches and they are both in the fourth innings chasing 300 to win, I'd rate him ahead of someone who makes a bunch of 50s out of 400+ first innings scores or whatever. It's ridiculously simplistic to suggest that a player who contributes in every match is automatically more valuable than one that contributes to a greater degree on rarer occasions.

Regarding the topic, Imran may have maintained a more even record with regard to scoring runs, but he certainly didn't win many games for Pakistan with the bat, while Botham certainly did for England. And incidentally, Imran may have maintained a more even spread of scores, but as he scored far less runs per test he clearly didn't contribute as much on a consistent basis (as your choice of example would suggest), he simply maintained a better ratio of runs to dismissals whilst batting lower in the order.

For instance, your example suggests that for an average of 40 the guy who makes scores of 50, 30, 25, 55, 40 is of greater value than the guy who scores 100, 0, 0, 0, 100. I'd disagree with that to begin with, but what about if the first player scores 20, 20*, 25*, 25, 30? Obviously the second player is likely to have had a far bigger impact, insofar as one can judge these things without taking into account match scenarios.

Well said, mate. I could never have put that across so nicely. The argument started when there was a disagreement about whether imran and botham were comparable at all. i for one never thought imran was an automatic winner in the race for the title of the best all rounder in the last three decades. he was the better bowler, by miles. but botham's batting and his ability to contribute with both bat and ball in the same game more often than any other cricketer in history makes him an equally strong canditate. the master bowler hadlee is no match for these two and kapil dev when it comes to scoring runs and, cosequently, overall all-round abilities. and kapil himself lags behind by a few paces in the race with imran and beefy. it boils down to one's personal choice between these two. but this has definitely been an exciting discussion so far.

 

[SJS]

all these substandard teams..and yet people seem to think the statndard was high back then!!!!

 

[C_C]

Refer you to the fact that Botham was far more productive than Kapil. In far less Tests he scored the same amount of runs.

Kapils productivity and contribution was not close to that of Botham, Kapische ?

Botham batted higher up the order than Kapil, therefore he has a better runs/innings rate. However, both have around the same average. And Kapil was productive throughout his career both with bat and ball and didnt go MIA like Botham did for the bulk of his career.
Kapil also has similar bowling record despite bowling with far less support and on pitches far less conductive than Botham did.
Not to mention, he was a significantly better captain.
All in all, Kapil was a better allrounder than beefy.

 

[C_C]

No it isn't. The objective of a player in cricket is to win matches for his team. That may involve scoring 50s or it may involve making centuries when it's needed and not making runs when it's not. If one guy scores two centuries in five matches and they are both in the fourth innings chasing 300 to win, I'd rate him ahead of someone who makes a bunch of 50s out of 400+ first innings scores or whatever. It's ridiculously simplistic to suggest that a player who contributes in every match is automatically more valuable than one that contributes to a greater degree on rarer occasions.

Regarding the topic, Imran may have maintained a more even record with regard to scoring runs, but he certainly didn't win many games for Pakistan with the bat, while Botham certainly did for England. And incidentally, Imran may have maintained a more even spread of scores, but as he scored far less runs per test he clearly didn't contribute as much on a consistent basis (as your choice of example would suggest), he simply maintained a better ratio of runs to dismissals whilst batting lower in the order.

For instance, your example suggests that for an average of 40 the guy who makes scores of 50, 30, 25, 55, 40 is of greater value than the guy who scores 100, 0, 0, 0, 100. I'd disagree with that to begin with, but what about if the first player scores 20, 20*, 25*, 25, 30? Obviously the second player is likely to have had a far bigger impact, insofar as one can judge these things without taking into account match scenarios.

Batsmen do not win games. Batsmen save games. Bowlers win em.
Imran batted lower down the order and thus didnt contribute the same sheer # of runs. Not to mention, it is ridiculously simplistic to dismiss awesome batting performances by people simply because the rest of the batsmen or the bowlers screwed up and the team dint win.
Cricket is a team sport. As in any team sport, your job is to play your part- which is put your team in a good position as often as you can. Consistency is the benchmark above all from excellence because consistency is what really seperates the cream from the crop.

As far as i am concerned, Imran and Kapil are ahead of Beefy and Hadlee in allrounder stakes and i'd be include Hadlee in my lineup ahead of Botham any day of the week.

 

[Swervy]

Botham batted higher up the order than Kapil, therefore he has a better runs/innings rate. However, both have around the same average. And Kapil was productive throughout his career both with bat and ball and didnt go MIA like Botham did for the bulk of his career.
Kapil also has similar bowling record despite bowling with far less support and on pitches far less conductive than Botham did.
Not to mention, he was a significantly better captain.
All in all, Kapil was a better allrounder than beefy.

and yet most people who saw both Kapil and Botham play would say Botham was the best....its all down to opinion I guess, its just that mine is with the majority.

I just go back to the arguement that if Botham retired after 83, his record would have put him up there in probably 99% peoples mind with the very very best players of all time. And yet because of his unrivalled competitiveness he is penalised in peoples eyes because he played on with injuries that would have ended many a players career.

I find it strange that you (CC) say that Devs batting average was basically the same as Bothams and Dev had to bowl on unresponsive pitches in India etc...well surely that means Dev had to bat on decent pitches and so maybe Devs average was inflated by that.
And Botham proved beyond doubt that he could perform with both bat and ball on the subcontinent.

It is utter rubbish (IMO ) that anyone could consider Dev to be a better allrounder than Botham!!!!

By the way CC, did you actually see Botham captain England at all

 

[C_C]

well surely that means Dev had to bat on decent pitches and so maybe Devs average was inflated by that.

Typical mentality about subcontinental pitches despite the facts being otherwise.
Unresponsive to pace doesnt equate to a batting strip.

IMO Kapil was better because he was more consistent and his batting/bowling record is just as good as Bothams(just less tons) despite having less support in the bowling stakes and batting lower in the order.
Not to mention,Dev was class against the best of the best while Botham was hopelessly mauled by the best of the best of his time.
As i said, you flop against the best available opposition of your time, you lose a big chunk of rating in my books.
For you aint top quality if you dont perform against top quality.

 

[silentstriker]

and yet most people who saw both Kapil and Botham play would say Botham was the best....its all down to opinion I guess, its just that mine is with the majority.

I just go back to the arguement that if Botham retired after 83, his record would have put him up there in probably 99% peoples mind with the very very best players of all time. And yet because of his unrivalled competitiveness he is penalised in peoples eyes because he played on with injuries that would have ended many a players career.

I find it strange that you (CC) say that Devs batting average was basically the same as Bothams and Dev had to bowl on unresponsive pitches in India etc...well surely that means Dev had to bat on decent pitches and so maybe Devs average was inflated by that.
And Botham proved beyond doubt that he could perform with both bat and ball on the subcontinent.

It is utter rubbish (IMO ) that anyone could consider Dev to be a better allrounder than Botham!!!!

By the way CC, did you actually see Botham captain England at all

OK, how about we end this debate and agree that I was the best all rounder of the 80's, except I never played. I mean, I batted like Bradman and bowled pace like Lilee and bowled spin like Warne, and had the reflexes of Jonty in the field and Sobers in the slips.

 

[Swervy]

Batsmen do not win games. Batsmen save games. Bowlers win em.
Imran batted lower down the order and thus didnt contribute the same sheer # of runs. Not to mention, it is ridiculously simplistic to dismiss awesome batting performances by people simply because the rest of the batsmen or the bowlers screwed up and the team dint win.
Cricket is a team sport. As in any team sport, your job is to play your part- which is put your team in a good position as often as you can. Consistency is the benchmark above all from excellence because consistency is what really seperates the cream from the crop.

As far as i am concerned, Imran and Kapil are ahead of Beefy and Hadlee in allrounder stakes and i'd be include Hadlee in my lineup ahead of Botham any day of the week.

Cliche galore....neither batting nor bowling wins games, both when done well will contribute to a team getting into a winning position.

Willis' 8 vs Australia at Headingley in 81 wouldnt have happened without Bothams 149*...its why Botham winning MoM in that game was a popular choice....

For some people consistancy doesnt show how talented or great a player is. How you perform at the peak of your abilities shows how far your potential can go. Neither Imran or Dev shone as brightly as Botham did for that 5 year period in both disciplines at the same time. For me, if Bothams back had have held out for a another 3 years, he would have been possibly first to 400 test wickets, and may well have gone beyond 6000 runs..as it is, we can only be content with 383 test wickets, over 100 catches and a mere 5000 runs coming in at 6 or 7, 14 hundreds,22 fifties, 27 times taking 5 wickets in an innings, 4 times 10 in the match, taken 13 wickets and scoring a hundred in a match,...etc

Out of the last 10 times any player has taken 5 wickets and scored a hundred in a match, Botham did it 5 times, of the last 8 times a player has taken 15 wickets in a series and scored over 300 runs, Botham did it 3 times

And yet with Botham it goes beyond the stats (why must people be so reliant on them to prove a point..I have gone with the fight fire with fire appraoch)....I guess only those who are old enough to have watched how he played can really know the effect he had on every single game he played, on both the opposition and the crowd

 

[Swervy]

Typical mentality about subcontinental pitches despite the facts being otherwise.
Unresponsive to pace doesnt equate to a batting strip.

so you are saying then that in general, scoring on the subcontinent, esp. 25 years ago wasnt higher than elsewhere

 

[Sanz]

and yet most people who saw both Kapil and Botham play would say Botham was the best....its all down to opinion I guess, its just that mine is with the majority.

I just go back to the arguement that if Botham retired after 83, his record would have put him up there in probably 99% peoples mind with the very very best players of all time. And yet because of his unrivalled competitiveness he is penalised in peoples eyes because he played on with injuries that would have ended many a players career.

I find it strange that you (CC) say that Devs batting average was basically the same as Bothams and Dev had to bowl on unresponsive pitches in India etc...well surely that means Dev had to bat on decent pitches and so maybe Devs average was inflated by that.
And Botham proved beyond doubt that he could perform with both bat and ball on the subcontinent.

It is utter rubbish (IMO ) that anyone could consider Dev to be a better allrounder than Botham!!!!

By the way CC, did you actually see Botham captain England at all

Not that I think Kapil is better Allrounder than Botham but why should one consider hypothetical situations of when Botham would have retired or consider only his performances at peak of his career. Botham was definately a better batsman but I dont think Botham was a better bowler than Kapil. Kapil was definately the better captain and as good in the field (atleast when I watched them play 1984-5 onwards).

On the unresponsive pitches - Kapil had to bowl on the pitches that were unresponsive to fast/Medium fast bowling (although that doesn't prove anything coz If my memory serves me right Kapil does avg better on Indian pitches). Those pitches were not necessarily flat or easy to bat. IMO Kapil always batted @ 7/8 position that probably is one of the reasons why didn't score more runs or centuries.

 

[C_C]

so you are saying then that in general, scoring on the subcontinent, esp. 25 years ago wasnt higher than elsewhere

Consider this, for all yer ' subcontinent = batting paradise' notion :

1. There have been no triple hundreds made anywhere in India for 75+ years of test cricket with only 4 scores of 250+ ever scored ( which is a lower ratio than in ANY bonafide test nation/region barring South Africa due to their inactivity for 20-30 years).
2. Nobody has ever scored 300+ in the 4th innings of a test in India to win the match
3. There has never been a 700+ score on Indian soil by ANY team
4. No test ground in India ranks in the top 10 for the highest aggregate runs scored in a test.

 

[C_C]

Cliche galore....neither batting nor bowling wins games, both when done well will contribute to a team getting into a winning position.

Willis' 8 vs Australia at Headingley in 81 wouldnt have happened without Bothams 149*...its why Botham winning MoM in that game was a popular choice....

For some people consistancy doesnt show how talented or great a player is. How you perform at the peak of your abilities shows how far your potential can go. Neither Imran or Dev shone as brightly as Botham did for that 5 year period in both disciplines at the same time. For me, if Bothams back had have held out for a another 3 years, he would have been possibly first to 400 test wickets, and may well have gone beyond 6000 runs..as it is, we can only be content with 383 test wickets, over 100 catches and a mere 5000 runs coming in at 6 or 7, 14 hundreds,22 fifties, 27 times taking 5 wickets in an innings, 4 times 10 in the match, taken 13 wickets and scoring a hundred in a match,...etc

Out of the last 10 times any player has taken 5 wickets and scored a hundred in a match, Botham did it 5 times, of the last 8 times a player has taken 15 wickets in a series and scored over 300 runs, Botham did it 3 times

And yet with Botham it goes beyond the stats (why must people be so reliant on them to prove a point..I have gone with the fight fire with fire appraoch)....I guess only those who are old enough to have watched how he played can really know the effect he had on every single game he played, on both the opposition and the crowd

It isnt cliche- it is oversimplified perhaps but bowling ALWAYS plays a bigger role in winning test matches than batting, because the fundamental concept of winning test matches is to take 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition scored. You achieve that goal and you win. Period. Doesnt matter if half the batsmen make ducks. And you dont achieve that goal, you dont win, doesnt matter if 4 batsmen hit doubles.

And i beg to differ that Imran didnt shine as brightly as Botham did in those packer-depleted years : Imran for the last 50-odd tests averaged 19 or so with the ball and 50 or so with the bat- while scoring 5-6 tons and taking around 4 wickets/match.

And the rest you said about 'effect' is largely irrelevant- those are almost exclusively media constructs and everyone knows that Indian cricket got very muted response in India till India won the world cup and even then, it was nothing like the interest it has shown from mid 90s onwards.

 

[Goughy]

Botham batted higher up the order than Kapil, therefore he has a better runs/innings rate. However, both have around the same average. And Kapil was productive throughout his career both with bat and ball and didnt go MIA like Botham did for the bulk of his career.
Kapil also has similar bowling record despite bowling with far less support and on pitches far less conductive than Botham did.
Not to mention, he was a significantly better captain.
All in all, Kapil was a better allrounder than beefy.

If the pitches were less condusive to bowling then why is his batting average not higher. It makes no sense. Average is not everything it is contribution as you stated in an earlier post and Botham batting higher makes no difference as he on average contributed more with both the bat and ball per test. You and Kapil seem to be married together despite whatever the truth maybe.

I am not a Botham fan in the slightest (in fact Im not a big fan at all), but I dislike bias and silly arguements more.