Why is it viewed as more important

[centurymaker]

Then no harm in having someone like Imran avging 37 with the bat

In fact from 1980 onwards, Imran averaged 47 with the bat in his last 63 Tests (which is three quarters of his career).

Holy Crap! Imran Khan averaged 51 with the bat in his last 55 tests. He played 88 tests in total.

So that means he was a bloody WORLD CLASS batsman as well as an ATG bowler for vast majority of his career!!! It's ridiculous, his record...

 

[subshakerz]

Holy Crap! Imran Khan averaged 51 with the bat in his last 55 tests. He played 88 tests in total.

So that means he was a bloody WORLD CLASS batsman as well as an ATG bowler for vast majority of his career!!! It's ridiculous, his record...


View attachment 40009

Not according to @kyear2

To him, Imran is a slightly better than useful tailender.

 

[centurymaker]

I don't think we can call him a bowling allrounder after looking at figures above!

And thus

Imran Khan > Gary Sobers (possibly)
Imran Khan > Richard Hadlee (certainly)

You can argue about Imran v Sobers because we are comparing across eras and between different kind of allrounders but Imran Khan is definitely ahead of Hadlee as an allrounder.

The best I could find for Hadlee is an avg of 33 in his last 8 years.



Thats a 20 run difference in average as batters between Hadlee and Imran, which doesn't make up for Hadlee being slightly better bowler than Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think we can call him a bowling allrounder after looking at figures above!

And thus Imran Khan > Gary Sobers.

The thing is Sobers was also taking nearly 4 wickets a test while averaging 60/70 odd for a good spell of his career so Sobers deserves to be ahead.

Imran was a good bat during his bowling peak 80-88 and then a worldclass bat after that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Holy Crap! Imran Khan averaged 51 with the bat in his last 55 tests. He played 88 tests in total.

So that means he was a bloody WORLD CLASS batsman as well as an ATG bowler for vast majority of his career!!! It's ridiculous, his record...


View attachment 40009

It's a good record, but definitely padded by lots of not outs and a low run output. Sobers' bowling > Imran's batting quite easily.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a good record, but definitely padded by lots of not outs and a low run output. Sobers' bowling > Imran's batting quite easily.

Not easily. Sobers had a really poor early career phase and slowed down during the end. Overall Sobers gets ahead based on his superior batting IMO.

I still don't get why not outs are penalised. I don't mind saying that Imran probably was a couple points below his final average overall.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I still don't get why not outs are penalised.

If you're contributing far fewer actual runs to the team than what your average indicates, then you should take it into account.

 

[Coronis]

Not easily. Sobers had a really poor early career phase and slowed down during the end. Overall Sobers gets ahead based on his superior batting IMO.

I still don't get why not outs are penalised. I don't mind saying that Imran probably was a couple points below his final average overall.

I don’t think they should be penalised persay, in most cases (especially if you are a decent batsman) you’re benefitting your team by staying in longer.

I think it needs to be taken into context the amount of runs and significant innings they’re actually producing. For example, Mohammad Azharuddin during that period only averaged 48, but played 1 innings fewer than Imran and scored 600 more runs and 5 more tons than him. Its clear who was the better batsman during that time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don’t think they should be penalised persay, in most cases (especially if you are a decent batsman) you’re benefitting your team by staying in longer.

But that's just the number of balls you play out. That's valuable for sure, but doesn't really answer the real question, which is : Are you benefitting the team by staying not out at the end of the team's innings? And I think the value of that is basically non existent in test cricket.

 

[Coronis]

But that's just the number of balls you play out. That's valuable for sure, but doesn't really answer the real question, which is : Are you benefitting the team by staying not out at the end of the team's innings? And I think the value of that is basically non existent in test cricket.

I think so, generally yes. If you have an established batsman staying in and batting alongside the tail, more runs will generally be scored than going out with a bang and then having the tail stuck by itself.

Of course this can vary based on the exact situation of the game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Having a high number of not outs shouldn't be "penalised" unless you have a very good reason for it. For example Chanders batting way down the order and playing for red ink with the tail getting out around him rather than taking risks.

If a high proportion of your not outs are in chases or declarations then penalising a player for that is absurd

 

[Bolo.]

But that's just the number of balls you play out. That's valuable for sure, but doesn't really answer the real question, which is : Are you benefitting the team by staying not out at the end of the team's innings? And I think the value of that is basically non existent in test cricket.

Eking out draws is valuable, and he did it a number of times (I think).

I would expect a bat good enough to average 50 at his peak who showed he was capable of scoring fast in ODIs to have fewer not outs though. Strike farming and accelerating should happen more.

 

[subshakerz]

Having a high number of not outs shouldn't be "penalised" unless you have a very good reason for it. For example Chanders batting way down the order and playing for red ink with the tail getting out around him rather than taking risks.

The thing is I see some posters suggest that Imran should have 4-5 points cut from his average based on not outs. Seems odd frankly to do that for any bat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The thing is I see some posters suggest that Imran should have 4-5 points cut from his average based on not outs. Seems odd frankly to do that for any bat.

Maybe in his case they have good reason? I don't know enough about it to comment either way.

 

[honestbharani]

Eking out draws is valuable, and he did it a number of times (I think).

No he didn't He just played in a lot of draws.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think so, generally yes. If you have an established batsman staying in and batting alongside the tail, more runs will generally be scored than going out with a bang and then having the tail stuck by itself.

Yeah I disagree. I think in the vast majority of situations, everyone would prefer the specialist batsman to get more runs himself rather than staying not out on a lower score.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you have no bowlers, your batting can still draw tests. If you have no batters, you've lost all tests ever by default.

See, I can play this silly game too. It's utterly fallacious to try to draw conclusions about which of batting and bowling is more important just by regurgitating the rules of the game when in reality they are mirror images of each other: batters try to score runs; bowlers try to prevent such occurring.

Okay, agreed on all counts.

Now which contributes more proportionally to the "batting side" of a team vs an "on the field" side, one of 4 to 5 bowlers or one of 6-7 Specialist bats plus lower order?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I disagree. I think in the vast majority of situations, everyone would prefer the specialist batsman to get more runs himself rather than staying not out on a lower score.

And adding to this, I generally think people talk about not outs completely backwards.

It's not about "penalising" batsmen for staying not outs, rather giving due credit to batsmen who averaged the same, but scored more runs. I've never understood why there's always pushback on this tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

No he didn't He just played in a lot of draws.

He batted in the last innings not out to save a couple games against WI in 86 and 90, and against Aus in 84/85 from what I recall.

 

[Bolo.]

No he didn't He just played in a lot of draws.

Can't say I watched him. Just got the impression he did from looking at a few score cards at some stage.