the best Asian cricketer

[Lillian Thomson]

Indeed, and that's true - but it's also true that Botham was such a thing for a much shorter time than Miller and Imran. Obviously, the original quote didn't pertain to longevity, but it's generally assumed - otherwise you could argue that Andrew Flintoff's performance in the last four Tests in 2005 put him as their equal.

Nothing is generally assumed, it just needs a bit of common sense applied. The five year period of Botham's peak makes it a reasonable judgement, the three months of Andrew Flintoff's peak doesn't.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

No, Botham wasn't as good as Imran for more than a few years. While no-one is underestimating how good he was in that time, to claim Botham '84 to '87 was even close to being Imran's equal is ludicrous, and nothing more.

Imran's best = Botham's best (Botham > Imran as batsman, Imran > Botham as bowler), but Imran managed to keep it up for longer.

I donb't understand how Imran's best =Botham's best because Botham averaged 32 with bat & 18 with ball for 4 years while Imran averaged 51 with the bat & 19 with the ball for a period of 10 years.Imran at his best was a better allrounder than Botham at his best.Overall,Imran was almost twice the allrounder Botham was.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Nothing is generally assumed, it just needs a bit of common sense applied. The five year period of Botham's peak makes it a reasonable judgement, the three months of Andrew Flintoff's peak doesn't.

Botham's peak period is told to be of 4 years,not 5.

 

[Richard]

I donb't understand how Imran's best =Botham's best because Botham averaged 32 with bat & 18 with ball for 4 years while Imran averaged 51 with the bat & 19 with the ball for a period of 10 years.Imran at his best was a better allrounder than Botham at his best.Overall,Imran was almost twice the allrounder Botham was.

While Imran was undoubtedly a better bowler than Botham, and also one who bowled well for much longer, Botham's good performances with the bat saw him turn in an average of 37 (and 41 when not captain). In Botham's time, he was more of a top-order batsman than Imran was for most of his (until the very, very end when he was mostly playing as a specialist batsman - a period too short to mean all that much when assessing them as all-rounders). I've always tended to consider Botham the better batsman.

Averages aren't the be-all-and-end-all. You've got to look carefully at the individual components.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Botham's peak period is told to be of 4 years,not 5.

It depends on your definition of peak,1978-82 inclusive is 5 years.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Murali, surely.

 

[Richard]

It depends on your definition of peak,1978-82 inclusive is 5 years.

Last of Botham's truly top-shelf bowling performances (yes, I know 1985 was something of a rehash but it wasn't as good as he had been previously) that didn't come in isolation was the Mumbai Test of 1981/82. His batting continued to be effective until midway though the summer of 1984 however.

Why wasn't 1977 part of Botham's best years?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Last of Botham's truly top-shelf bowling performances (yes, I know 1985 was something of a rehash but it wasn't as good as he had been previously) that didn't come in isolation was the Mumbai Test of 1981/82. His batting continued to be effective until midway though the summer of 1984 however.

Why wasn't 1977 part of Botham's best years?

In 1977 he played two Tests and achieved nothing of note, so hardly much of a peak. In the English Summer of 1982 he had great success with bat and ball.

 

[subshakerz]

Botham and Miller may be comprabable to Imran as all-rounders, but neither was a successful captain in international cricket the way Imran was, hence I think Imran was a more complete cricketer.

 

[Anil]

i m saying could you elaborate on why do you think that Imran is the best pacer .... i was interested in knowing why you think that and thats what i had asked .... anyways don't bother replying now

waqar's peak might have been better, but in terms of overall consistency and achievements over their entire careers, imran would be ahead of both akram and younis...don't see anyone else who would even challenge these three from asia...

 

[aussie]

I donb't understand how Imran's best =Botham's best because Botham averaged 32 with bat & 18 with ball for 4 years while Imran averaged 51 with the bat & 19 with the ball for a period of 10 years.Imran at his best was a better allrounder than Botham at his best.Overall,Imran was almost twice the allrounder Botham was.

Well personally from eye-witness & what i've read i'd say Botham peak was from Christchurch 1978 to Wellington 1984 the last time he did double of a hundred & 5 wickets, averaging 38 with the bat & 25 with the ball.

While Imran's peak as an all-rounder where he transformed from a top-bowler who could just bat a bit was from Karachi 1980 to Bridgetown 1988 averaging 40 with the bat & 17 with the ball. After the WI series i read that Imran had lost his pace.

I feel so lame doing such a stats round but i'd leave it to anyone on this forum who had the great privilege of seeing these two legends play to judge whether that tells the truth about them at their peak. Although Imran should be acclaimed to have been better.

 

[Dissector]

I tend to feel that Botham's peak period is overrated. He couldn't perform against the best team of his day and I don't accept captaincy as an excuse. Kapil Dev became captain at a similar age to Botham and was equally unsuccessful in that area. However that didn't stop him averaging a remarkable 21 with the ball against the West Indies over 11 tests in 83-84.

Coming back to Imran let's not forget how rare it is for an all-rounder to be a great captain; hardly surprising considering the burden that they already face. Of all the great all-rounders in cricket history how many were successful international captains? I can't think of anyone other than Imran in the last 70 years.
PS: I suppose Benaud is the closest though I don't know if I would consider him a "great all-rounder".

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I feel so lame doing such a stats round but i'd leave it to anyone on this forum who had the great privilege of seeing these two legends play to judge whether that tells the truth about them at their peak. Although Imran should be acclaimed to have been better.

Imran was not a better cricketer than Botham at all. As a batsman Imran was very limited but through dedication and sheer hard work he became an effective batsman in the second half of his career. Imran was the better bowler at his peak but the only way he overshadows Botham is in captaincy and longevity.

 

[ret]

waqar's peak might have been better, but in terms of overall consistency and achievements over their entire careers, imran would be ahead of both akram and younis...don't see anyone else who would even challenge these three from asia...

I would rate Akram > Imran as far as the bowling is concerned

 

[subshakerz]

Imran was not a better cricketer than Botham at all. As a batsman Imran was very limited but through dedication and sheer hard work he became an effective batsman in the second half of his career. Imran was the better bowler at his peak but the only way he overshadows Botham is in captaincy and longevity.

Imran was a better bowler than Botham period, and by quite a distance. He was an all-time great on bowling prowess alone,Bothamwas not. If he succeeded as a batsman despite his limitations that should be to his credit, not his detriment. And you already mentioned that Imran was succesful for a longer period and excelled as captain. I fail to see how Imran was not a better cricketer then.

 

[fredfertang]

After a couple of months here I feel bound to say that there appear to be a significant number of folk on this Forum for whom Imran has transcended cricketing immortality (to which I entirely agree he is entitled) and become a deity - truly remarkable.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Imran was a better bowler than Botham period, and by quite a distance. He was an all-time great on bowling prowess alone,Bothamwas not. If he succeeded as a batsman despite his limitations that should be to his credit, not his detriment. And you already mentioned that Imran was succesful for a longer period and excelled as captain. I fail to see how Imran was not a better cricketer then.

I don't agree with the first statement but leaving that to one side I didn't mean based purely on achievement. Ian Botham is the most supremely gifted cricketer in history. He just didn't pay great attention to his fitness as he got older and when Imran was in the nets Botham was down the pub. I didn't say Imran's batting limitations were to his detriment in terms of what he achieved, merely that he wasn't anywhere near as naturally gifted as Botham.

 

[Richard]

So by "Imran was not a better cricketer than Botham at all" you mean "Imran was not a more naturally gifted cricketer than Botham at all"?

 

[WhatisRight]

I don't agree with the first statement but leaving that to one side I didn't mean based purely on achievement. Ian Botham is the most supremely gifted cricketer in history. He just didn't pay great attention to his fitness as he got older and when Imran was in the nets Botham was down the pub. I didn't say Imran's batting limitations were to his detriment in terms of what he achieved, merely that he wasn't anywhere near as naturally gifted as Botham.

So how can you say that if he hadnt gone to the pub he would have easily surpassed imran as a cricketer? Have u got anything to prove that? i have been ignoring ur posts for some time but this is sheer stupidity. The burden of playing as a cricketer in pakistan (or india even) is much much greater than just not paying attention to cricket, i hope you know that.

And did u say he wasnt anywhere near as naturally gifted as botham? What is botham like even more talented than bradman? You seriously make me laugh.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So how can you say that if he hadnt gone to the pub he would have easily surpassed imran as a cricketer? Have u got anything to prove that? i have been ignoring ur posts for some time but this is sheer stupidity. The burden of playing as a cricketer in pakistan (or india even) is much much greater than just not paying attention to cricket, i hope you know that.

And did u say he wasnt anywhere near as naturally gifted as botham? What is botham like even more talented than bradman? You seriously make me laugh.

Carry on ignoring old son. Or alternatively learn to read.
I actually said absolutely nothing that you've put there.