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

[C_C]

whose peaks in the two 'main' discipline' simply didnt come together.

This is categorically false.
As i said, Imran's record between 80 and 89 was stellar and he bowled a crapload, took a lotta wickets and scored a lotta runs.
And i've caught cricket action from the 80s- its called tapes and DvDs. And i simply dont think Botham was anywhere close to as classy a bowler as Imran was. He had more strokes in his armoury but Imran was a more solid customer with the bat owing to a better technique.

 

[marc71178]

Big freaking deal. I have two vertibraes fused in my lower back ( got crunched between two cars once when i was a kid) and i've done shovelling work for 3 months before( 8 hours a day).
It aint that big a deal to have fused vertibrae in your back.

Is there anything you've not had happen to you?

 

[C_C]

Is there anything you've not had happen to you?

Yes. I havnt met an **** like you in person...yet.

 

[Autobahn]

Yes. I havnt met an **** like you in person...yet.

Look in the mirror (j/k)

 

[grecian]

Imran

Trying to drag this thread back on track, I do think Imran was better then Botham, but its a close call, and it truly was an amazing time for all-rounders in the 80s.

Kapil, Hadlee and Rice all deserve to be mentioned, with the others, in the top 20 all-rounders of alltime.

 

[Goughy]

Big freaking deal. I have two vertibraes fused in my lower back ( got crunched between two cars once when i was a kid) and i've done shovelling work for 3 months before( 8 hours a day).
It aint that big a deal to have fused vertibrae in your back.

To call fusing vertibraes a minor thing is just dumb. You may have had it done but are you an international athlete who puts his body through massive torque and pressure? It also depends on which ones you have done, it was mentioned to me that an option for my back problems when I was younger was to have the exact same surgery Botham had. I was also told that it could end my cricket career and even if it didn't their would be serious health implications in the future if continued to play (ie massive degeneration as middle age approached). I avoided the surgery as I didnt think the rewards were worth the risk but I admire Botham for putting himself through it to continue his career.

Rest of post EDITED by self to avoid getting in trouble and speaking how I really feel.

 

[C_C]

You may have had it done but are you an international athlete who puts his body through massive torque and pressure?

Lol.
You mean to say, some dude running in and throwing a ball for 20-25 overs a day is harder on yer back than shovelling stuff for 8 hour a day (gravel for eg) ?
It hurts, sure, but it isnt a big deal unless you've pinched a nerve.

As far as i am concerned, Botham i overrated. You can make any number of excuses you want but fact remains that his performance against the best of the best ( WI) was below all three of the stalwart allrounders of the 80s. And if you cant do it against the best of the best, you are behind people who can.
Its just that simple.
Imran was a far superior bowler, better bat, far superior captain and a worse fielder than Beefy. Kapil and Beefy were about on par with batting, Kapil superior in bowling and captaincy, while its a close call for fielding.
Hadlee- worse in batting but far far superior in bowling than Beefy.

PS: My condition is similar to Ather's condition- i already have a weak back due to the same condition Athers has with two lumbar vertibraes fused thrown in the lot. Which is a big reason why i am pretty dilligent about being a 'core man' with my fitness despite not giving one toss about how muscular i look.

 

[C_C]

Batting peaks

Botham's : 1978-1982 : 56 tests, 88 innings, 3 not outs, 3204 runs @ 37.69, 11x100, 13x50

Imran's: 1982-1991 : 51 test, 65 innings, 18 not outs, 2494 run @ 53.06, 5x100, 15x50

Comments: Botham has more runs but he batted in more innings. Imran not only has a better average during his batting peak, he also produced more runs per innings. He produced less 100s -understandable because he batted lower down the order- but crossed 50+ more frequently than Botham did -30.76% of the time as opposed to 27.27% of the time. ( so much for 'lower order diggy diggy plodder theory!)

Imran also maintained his batting excellence for a decade, while Botham just cashed in during his few good years.

Bowling peaks

Botham's: 1977-1981: 44 tests, 215 wickets @ 21.74, 49.0 St/R, 18x5, 4x10

Imran's : 1980-1986 : 35 tests, 184 wickets @ 15.92 (!!!!!), 42.2 st/r. 14x5, 3x10

comments: Imran's bowling peak was mindboggling- and he suffered a broken foot directly in the middle of it - still came back and dominated with the ball. Botham's was excellent but Imran's was extraordinary.


Allrounder peaks

This is a bit more ambiguous because it is impossible to find a player who performs consistently with the bat and ball at the same time throughout their careers.
I'll take a phase where the overall performance both with bat and ball was excellent, even if there is an odd year or two thrown in where the batting or bowling failed for the said players.
For botham, i've identified 1978-1981 as the period ( in 77 he just scored 25 runs from 2 dismissals so it cant count- from 82 onwards, he fell off the wagon- in 82 his batting was excellent, where he averaged almost 50 and scored 3 tons but his bowling was dismal- he took only 37 wickets in 14 tests-thats less than 3 per test- at 37 ave. After that, he was pretty mediocre with either bat or ball or both for the rest of his career- averaged over 35 for the year only once after that and under 30 with the ball only twice)

For Imran, i've identified 1980-1988 period ( in 79 and previous to that, his performance with the bat and ball was largely ordinary. After 89, he rarely bowled much but he did bowl significantly in 89. However, his performance with the the ball in 89 was tres ordinary).

Having defined the periods, here is how they did:
format: ( mat/inn, no, t.runs, ave, c, f, twkts, ave, b-b, 5, 10, st/r)

Botham: 42/66__3__2109__33.47__8__7__205__21.82__8-34__16__4__49.2
Imran : 48/64__13__2028__39.76__4__10__236__17.77__8-54__18__5__43.6

Comments: Pretty even stevens on the batting stakes(with Imran holding the advantage) but Imran disticntly better in the bowling stakes.

Overall, Imran was a much better allrounder and i'd rank him second after Sobers in the alltime stakes, followed by Keith Miller. Botham- he was good but i'd rank him behind the abovementiond ones plus Kapil and Mankad at the very least. Imran at his best was a more consistent and solid batsman than Botham, a far superior bowler and a significantly better allrounder. Nevermind the fact that Imran blew apart the West indies batting with his bowling (while he struggled with the bat-but still did better than Botham managed) while Botham's skills wernt sufficient to compete with the calypso kings.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Statistically, there's no disputing what you've just said. But Botham, as Steve Waugh put it, "had the extroardinary ability to conjure something from nothing". When it all came together in his early years - and to a lesser extent in his twilight - he was nothing short of sublime and the most potent matchwinner in the world - batting or bowling.

This is proved by the fact that he has more hundreds than Imran despite a lower average, and almost as many five-fors after considerably less overs. Sure, that doesn't bode well for his inconsistent periods, but he's up in the all-rounder's pantheon for a reason.

 

[C_C]

Statistically, there's no disputing what you've just said. But Botham, as Steve Waugh put it, "had the extroardinary ability to conjure something from nothing". When it all came together in his early years - and to a lesser extent in his twilight - he was nothing short of sublime and the most potent matchwinner in the world - batting or bowling.

This is proved by the fact that he has more hundreds than Imran despite a lower average, and almost as many five-fors after considerably less overs. Sure, that doesn't bode well for his inconsistent periods, but he's up in the all-rounder's pantheon for a reason.

I dont agree that Botham was better than everyone else when it 'came together' for him- Imran too has scored a ton and taken a 10-fer in the same match. Besides, i am all for consistency and i rate it very highly since it is much harder to score three hundreds in three innings than one triple followed by nothing else. Which is the same reason i rate Tendulkar over Lara- consistency. What seperates the best of the best from mediocrity in sports is consistency. In every sport, there are guys who are just as good as the numero uno 'on his day'. Sampras wasnt #1 because his game was absolutely out of the world, he was #1 because he could do it day in and day out at better consistency. On his day, Kambli could look like an indianised Lara and on his day, Mark waugh or Carl Hooper could be batting God incarnate. Botham was not consistent, didnt get it done against the best, etc etc- too many holes in his resume for me to consider him as one of the top 5 allrounders ever produced.
He was very good but not as impressive as people make him out to be- atleast not from the opinions i've heard, the careers i've studied or seen them play.

 

[Fusion]

It is interesting to note that the poll result shows Imran with a resounding lead. This is not a scientific poll ofcourse. But I have a feeling that even if a scientific poll was conducted, the results would not be much different. Good debate on this thread though (when not venturing into personal attacks).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think you'll find that most people would pick Imran ahead of Botham for their teams, marginally, largely because of his consistency.

However, there is no disputing the following points, in my mind:

a) Botham at his peak was a phenomenal cricketer, and one of the greatest all-rounders in test history. Imran was also both these things. Botham in the second half of his career was not.

b) Botham declined terribly and his career record does not reflect his ability early in his career, nor indeed does it reflect his poor performance late in his career. His record is good, while he declined from simply awesome to quite poor.

c) Botham was a better batsman than Imran, both over the course of their careers and at their respective peaks. Imran was certainly quite a good batsman, especially for someone who was such a good bowler, but he was never a matchwinner with the bat, and was more of a bit-part player. This is reflected in the fact that he made relatively few large scores in his career, and usually those were against weaker sides, and the fact that he was quite clearly not as feared as Botham was with the bat, though he was certainly respected. Botham was someone who could win games as a batsman alone, and did so quite a few times. 11 centuries in 5 years or so is a record that a specialist batsman would be proud of, let alone someone who was also a strike bowler.

d) Imran was a better bowler than Botham over the course of his career, and probably better at their respective peaks as well. Botham was a very fine bowler before injuries curtailed his effectiveness, while Imran was one of the best bowlers in the world throughout a large part of his career.

e) Imran was an excellent captain while Botham could not handle the pressures of captaincy for one reason or another, and was obviously not.

f) Botham was a world class fielder, while Imran was not.

g) Imran started his career slowly, then came into his own as a bowler, and gradually improved his batting over the course of his career. In the early part of his career he was primarily a bowler, while at the end he was almost exclusively a batsman. Botham on the other hand started with a bang in both forms, and for a few years was a world class match-winner with both bat and ball. As his career progressed his bowling declined most severely, but his batting was not particularly good either after the early 80s. By the end of his career he did neither particularly well.

Based on the above points, one would generally choose Imran first, unless of course you want a batsman/slip fielder to fill in overs rather than a strike bowler, but it is not a landslide as some people would have you believe. As an outright batsman or bowler, there's a clear decision in either case.

 

[Swervy]

This is categorically false.
As i said, Imran's record between 80 and 89 was stellar and he bowled a crapload, took a lotta wickets and scored a lotta runs.
And i've caught cricket action from the 80s- its called tapes and DvDs. And i simply dont think Botham was anywhere close to as classy a bowler as Imran was. He had more strokes in his armoury but Imran was a more solid customer with the bat owing to a better technique.

That about the technique is simply not true

 

[Swervy]

It is interesting to note that the poll result shows Imran with a resounding lead. This is not a scientific poll ofcourse. But I have a feeling that even if a scientific poll was conducted, the results would not be much different. Good debate on this thread though (when not venturing into personal attacks).

it actually holds no interest to me in the slightest....most of the people who voted really dont have an idea of the impact Botham had, which is not reflected in a bunch of statistics.

 

[Swervy]

I dont agree that Botham was better than everyone else when it 'came together' for him- Imran too has scored a ton and taken a 10-fer in the same match. Besides, i am all for consistency and i rate it very highly since it is much harder to score three hundreds in three innings than one triple followed by nothing else. Which is the same reason i rate Tendulkar over Lara- consistency. What seperates the best of the best from mediocrity in sports is consistency. In every sport, there are guys who are just as good as the numero uno 'on his day'. Sampras wasnt #1 because his game was absolutely out of the world, he was #1 because he could do it day in and day out at better consistency. On his day, Kambli could look like an indianised Lara and on his day, Mark waugh or Carl Hooper could be batting God incarnate. Botham was not consistent, didnt get it done against the best, etc etc- too many holes in his resume for me to consider him as one of the top 5 allrounders ever produced.
He was very good but not as impressive as people make him out to be- atleast not from the opinions i've heard, the careers i've studied or seen them play.

you never saw him play (apart from the end of his career), study all the careers you want, I dont think you really have a clue on how good Botham was.

Anyway, you measure success differently to other people, thats fine. But it is simply stupid to consider Dev to be a better allrounder than Botham

 

[Swervy]

Not figments, just massively exgaggerated to cover up failures (such as Warne's shoulder injury magically being extended to the test series before it even happened so that the media could provide some excuse for his abyssmal failure).

As i said- Botham had his problem with injuries but so did many other players. And botham's slide was in part injuries, in part being found out.

What aspects of his play were 'found out' then CC?!!!!

 

[C_C]

That about the technique is simply not true

I think it is. Imran's defensive technique was superior to that of Botham's, though botham had more shots to his armoury,.

you never saw him play (apart from the end of his career), study all the careers you want, I dont think you really have a clue on how good Botham was.

Anyway, you measure success differently to other people, thats fine. But it is simply stupid to consider Dev to be a better allrounder than Botham

Err no.I've seen fair bit of Botham even early in his career and yes, i do rate Dev higher than Botham- as i said, his bowling was better than Botham's, he performed far better against the best opposition, was far more consistent than Botham and their batting were very much comparable.
As i said, beefy failing against the windies counts bigtime against him, just as Kallis failing against the Aussies counts bigtime against him.

 

[C_C]

What aspects of his play were 'found out' then CC?!!!!

Bowling- overreliant on outswingers was eventually exposed.His vulnerability against sustained pace was exposed as well.
Not to mention, he was easily thrown off rythm when carted a bit- Botham was one of the luckiest bowlers i've seen- he picked up more wickets with absolute pies than anyone i've ever seen.

 

[Swervy]

I think it is. Imran's defensive technique was superior to that of Botham's, though botham had more shots to his armoury,.

In fact, it wasnt

 

[Autobahn]

Plus people have to remember that while botham was handed the captaincy at the relatively young age of 25, Khan started his reign at the age of 30.

Whether Botham being handed the captaincy at 30 would have made any difference i don't know.