Top Five Cricketers from each country

[mr_mister]

How was he a 10/10 player? That's stretching it. You can say he was maybe a 9/10 player until he met the WI.

Incidentally a peak Botham in 1982 got outplayed by Imran in the Pakistan England series that year.

Let's not overdo his greatness.

Perhaps it might be a good to check how his battles fared with other great all rounder of the 80s too.

I mean, if Bradman is a 10 I guess nobody else can be higher than a 9, but honestly surely Ian Botham during his peak years was as good as any other player in history. His stats certainly suggest so.



11 hundreds and 20 five fers(250 wickets or so) in his first 50 odd tests.

 

[trundler]

Now someone needs to unban Miyagi so we can have a crusader for Hadlee too. Fatal Four Way I say. Winner takes all.

 

[smash84]

I mean, if Bradman is a 10 I guess nobody else can be higher than a 9, but honestly surely Ian Botham during his peak years was as good as any other player in history. His stats certainly suggest so.

His stats suggest that he was exceptional when most of the other teams were weak (with packer desertions, bannings etc). His batting was considered very good for an all rounder, which it was. He was always seen as being a worse bowler than both Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan. Botham had neither the pace nor the ability with the ball that the other 2 had. Now I am not saying that Botham was totally crap, but he was definitely seen as part of the pack of the great all rounders of the 80s. He was never seen as somebody who was ahead of the rest with his skills, except maybe his physical "all roundedness" .

Plus he was lucky to play so many test during those packer years. However as i keep stating, he did **** all against the WI and from memory I would say he usually got outplayed by Imran when they played against each other. I wouldn't be surprised if he got outplayed by Kapil and Hadlee too in the matches where they played (I cbf looking it up).

So let's tone down the Botham worship.

 

[mr_mister]

Look, I know there's highs and lows in his record(maybe his weakness against the WI can be countered by the fact that he had the GOAT series for an all-rounder in the '81 Ashes) but the numbers just don't lie.


237 wickets and 11 tons after 52 tests. If his career ended then and there he'd be an ATVG specialist batsman or bowler if you only look at his record in one discipline. When you consider he achieved it with both bat and ball though, well man I think it's hard to argue that he was anything but the perfect All-rounder at the halfway point of his career.


It's like having a Mark Waugh who bowled as good as Gillespie or something.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Now someone needs to unban Miyagi so we can have a crusader for Hadlee too. Fatal Four Way I say. Winner takes all.

Oh dear lord please no

 

[smash84]

Look, I know there's highs and lows in his record(maybe his weakness against the WI can be countered by the fact that he had the GOAT series for an all-rounder in the '81 Ashes) but the numbers just don't lie.


237 wickets and 11 tons after 52 tests. If his career ended then and there he'd be an ATVG specialist batsman or bowler if you only look at his record in one discipline. When you consider he achieved with both bat and ball though, well man I think it's hard to argue that he was anything but the perfect All-rounder before at the halfway point of his career.

You're completely missing the story behind the numbers too. The numbers don't lie but you need to see where the numbers are coming from. They mean **** all without context. I said earlier, stop ranking Botham due to the Ashes. His spectacular failure against the WI across multiple series can't just be offset by one Ashes. You are almost sounding like you want to put a spinner who has barely played 6 years, as one of the cricketers of the century just because he did well in the Ashes

Halfway of his career was 5 years? I don't think so (I mean it was in terms of matches played, but not in terms of time).

 

[Daemon]

He was definitely not an ATVG specialist batsman at any point in his career

 

[mr_mister]

You're completely missing the story behind the numbers too. The numbers don't lie but you need to see where the numbers are coming from. They mean **** all without context. I said earlier, stop ranking Botham due to the Ashes. His spectacular failure against the WI across multiple series can't just be offset by one Ashes. You are almost sounding like you want to put a spinner who has barely played 6 years, as one of the cricketers of the century just because he did well in the Ashes

Halfway of his career was 5 years? I don't think so.

In terms of tests played it was.


and @ Daemon, 11 tons in 51 tests is a better rate than say, VVS Laxman(who took 81 tests to hit 11 tons)

 

[smash84]

In terms of tests played it was.


and @ Daemon, 11 tons in 51 tests is a better rate than say, VVS Laxman(who took 81 tests to hit tons)

yes, I just edited my answer but its definitely not so in terms of the number of years.

 

[mr_mister]

Well okay, but i never talked about years. All I originally said was that he was a 10/10 player at one point before turning into a 3/10 player.


If he had retired after 55 tests, Keith Miller's entire career, he'd have been comfortably ahead of Miller in terms of centuries and wickets. A similar but slightly better set of averages too.

 

[smash84]

Well okay, but i never talked about years. All I originally said was that he was a 10/10 player at one point before turning into a 3/10 player.


If he had retired after 55 tests, Keith Miller's entire career, he'd have been comfortably ahead of Miller in terms of centuries and wickets. A similar but slightly better set of averages too.

I don't think he would be considered that because he would have only played 5 years (which is not long enough time period) and that too against weak sides.

 

[mr_mister]

But he crammed a **** ton of tests into those 5 years.


G Pollock and Headley are considered very similar are they not? Both have nearly identical test records in terms of average and tests played, but Pollock crammed his into a much smaller time frame.



Edit - actually I realise this is a bad example because Voges exists lol. Nvm.

 

[mr_mister]

Brian Lara also took more tests than Botham to hit 11 tons. It took him 61.


Maybe Botham put up plenty of tripe between those tons, as I'm sure Lara scored way more fifties, but still - people remember centuries.

 

[smash84]

Brian Lara also took more tests than Botham to hit 11 tons. It took him 61.


Maybe Botham put up plenty of tripe between those tons, as I'm sure Lara scored way more fifties, but still - people remember centuries.

Lol, mrmr, you are not sounding very convincing.

 

[mr_mister]

Lol, mrmr, you are not sounding very convincing.

Aren't I?

My point is to just to highlight how crazy Botham's numbers were in the first half(in terms of tests played) of his career. Obviously I consider Lara and VVS as better batsmen, but statistically, Botham was right up there whether you like it or not. And if we weren't subject to many years of him being a fat lard tarnishing his memory, he may have been remembered as the greatest ever all-rounder f he had hung up the boots sooner.

 

[aussie tragic]

All this talk about Botham vs WI, he seemed to do okay in this Test (30, 81 and 8-103). This is against Greenidge, Haynes, Richard's, Lloyd, Marshall and Garner

Full Scorecard of England vs West Indies 2nd Test 1984 - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[smash84]

Aren't I?

My point is to just to highlight how crazy Botham's numbers were in the first half(in terms of tests played) of his career. Obviously I consider Lara and VVS as better batsmen, but statistically, Botham was right up there whether you like it or not. And if we weren't subject to many years of him being a fat lard tarnishing his memory, he may have been remembered as the greatest ever all-rounder f he had hung up the boots sooner.

I don't think so.

You seem to be completely ignoring his track record against the WI and his downhill skiing versus low quality opposition.

 

[mr_mister]

I mean that's a whole another kettle of fish... I don't think Keith Miller was up against the toughest opponents either.

 

[smash84]

All this talk about Botham vs WI, he seemed to do okay in this Test (30, 81 and 8-103 and 0/117). This is against Greenidge, Haynes, Richard's, Lloyd, Marshall and Garner

Full Scorecard of England vs West Indies 2nd Test 1984 - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

very convenient

feast your statistical senses

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1;opposition=4;template=results;type=allround

 

[smash84]

I mean that's a whole another kettle of fish... I don't think Keith Miller was up against the toughest opponents either.

Miller played across 10 years and he played more than half his matches against England. The England of the 1950s had some pretty decent players, and he did well against England in general.