Ian Botham or Imran Khan in peak period?

[Raghav_12]

Looked at both their stats. Botham's a good bowler and a decent bat. Imran is exceptional bowler (22 average is way more deadlier than a 28 average) & decent bat. So Imran wins 2-1 due to better bowling. But Botham being British is probably more hyped.

Looking merely at numbers you are right. But Imran Khan's bowling numbers are always taken with pinch of salt for very well documented reasons.

[Laaloo]

Ian Botham vs Bottle Caps? Hmmm

[alexander]

Overall, I accept Imran Khan was a better allrounder as he sustained his performance until the end of his time as a player. But at the peak of their abilities, Botham has no equal sans Gary Sobers. He was for a period before the mid 1980's an awesome all rounder - equally adept with bat and ball. He was not a gym rat like Imran Khan and thus fell away as his fitness caved. I give Imran Khan credit for this even if he was an arrogant prat. But in his prime, Botham was a quick bowler - and I mean quick - and a fabulous hard hitting middle order batsman who savaged pretty much all comers. Tremendous fielder, too.

[RedFever]

in a few years, one more option of Stuart Binny will be added on this poll

[Vijy]

in a few years' date=' one more option of Stuart Binny will be added on this poll[/quote'] Best. Joke. Ever.:hysterical::hysterical:

[Vijy]

Overall, I accept Imran Khan was a better allrounder as he sustained his performance until the end of his time as a player. But at the peak of their abilities, Botham has no equal sans Gary Sobers. He was for a period before the mid 1980's an awesome all rounder - equally adept with bat and ball. He was not a gym rat like Imran Khan and thus fell away as his fitness caved. I give Imran Khan credit for this even if he was an arrogant prat. But in his prime, Botham was a quick bowler - and I mean quick - and a fabulous hard hitting middle order batsman who savaged pretty much all comers. Tremendous fielder, too.

Botham at his peak was tremendous, but Imran Khan during his captaincy tenure was a Colossus. In fact, during this period, I don't think that there were any all-rounders who had the kind of stats that he had. I remember his averaging 20 with the ball and 50+ with the bat. By far the greatest all-rounder, captain and player from Pakistan and a strong contender for the second greatest all-rounder of all time.

[tweaker]

Imran khan as a allrounder was also the captain,of the team and he had the credit of finding raw talent and nurturing them

[Marut]

Imran's numbers are insane and his latter half is too good to be true. I would still take this with a grain of salt, there was obviously a lot of ball tampering going on, together with copious help from their umpires. During a five year period in the 80s, Imran's bowling average was like 15 odd and you would naturally think that there is more than bowling skill at work here. Imran was never a match winner with both bat and ball together, so you can hardly call him a match winning all rounder. He was either a good accumulating batsman or a great bowler (aided by bottle caps!) and rarely both. Botham was a winner with the bat and the ball - a more naturallly gifted cricketer like paaji. Botham underachieved during the second half of his career but his first half is good enough for me to rate him above Imran.

[Muloghonto]

Imran's numbers at his peak are better than Botham's. There's no question for that. But Botham's peak was more impactful and at his peak, Botham was a more 'pure allrounder' than Imran was. Imran was never a strong enough batsman to score a mountain of runs. he was good for a Shastri-esque 'value his wicket and stick to the wicket for a solid 35 not out or 50 runs', while Botham at his peak was capable of destroying bowling attacks and before you know it, score a 100. He's decisively been the difference between losing and winning for England both with the bat and ball more so than Imran. Ultimate test of an allrounder is if he can make the team purely as a batsman or a bowler. In this case, i give more weight to the hundreds than not outs because both these guys batted low enough to amass not outs while batting with the tail. Whereas Botham was more than happy to bash runs and get an extra 5-10 runs at the risk of throwing his wicket batting with the tail, Imran always batted to boost his average with the tail. At their peaks, their bowling were both pretty comparable though Imran has a bit of a statistical edge. But dont be fooled, pre-neutral umpires Pakistan had a huge home-field advantage. Javed Miandad, who's been lbw in tests 33 times in 168 dismissals was lbw only 8 times at home! Imran's bowling average has a big disparity from home and away. Its their batting where Botham at his peak was clearly better. And for those who've watched cricket from the late 70s/early 80s onwards, one thing that was freaking about Botham-throughout his career actually- was he was incredibly good at breaking a partnership. It should also be noted that Imran went from being a 'decent opening bowler and bits-n-pieces batsman' to an 'amazing pace bowler who's a bits and pieces batsman' to 'a strictly new-ball bowling bowler who is a hard batsman to get out'. Ie, he was a guy who went from being a bits-n-pieces type to a bowler who could hold a bat to a batsman who could open the bowling. He was never the 'can make the team either on batting or bowling' like Kapil, Botham, Miller or Sobers were. He is a career allrounder but rarely was he good enough with the bat and the ball to represent Pakistan as either a batsman or a bowler at any extended periods of his career.

[alexander]

You must not have watched cricket in the 80s. Imran Khan was a world class batsman. ITB is my hero - my idol, but to say Imran Khan wasnt a top draw all rounder is silly.

[velu]

botham for me.. imran is good but over hyped bcoz of his 1992 wc win.. also as a captain his test records were dhonisque

[Muloghonto]

You must not have watched cricket in the 80s. Imran Khan was a world class batsman. ITB is my hero - my idol' date=' but to say Imran Khan wasnt a top draw all rounder is silly.[/quote'] I did watch a lot of cricket in the late 70s and 80s. If your idea of a top-class batsman in tests is a number six who ends up with 30-40 not out by exposing the tail to boost his average, sure. Imran was nowhere near as impactful a batsman as Botham, who could score centuries far better than Imran. Both of them were primarily bowlers at their peak ( ie, bowling was their stronger suit) but Botham could make it to the English team on the back of his ability to score hundreds. Imran wouldn't make it to the Paki or any other team's top six because all he was good for was plugging up one end and ending with a not out.

[vvvslaxman]

I didn't read anything.. But little advice.. when you have stats with columns and rows.. put little effort in providing in tabular format.

[alexander]

Out of curiosity, I cricinfo'd Imran Khan to see what the home/away disparity was as I have not really data crunched him before. His H/A averages as a bowler are 19/25 - awesome either way. Moreover, he has a world class record against each team. We here saw a lot of Imran Khan in CC. He was a superb cricketer. And being Oxbridge, he was sort of one of us. :D

[alexander]

I did watch a lot of cricket in the late 70s and 80s. If your idea of a top-class batsman in tests is a number six who ends up with 30-40 not out by exposing the tail to boost his average' date=' sure. Imran was nowhere near as impactful a batsman as Botham, who could score centuries far better than Imran. Both of them were primarily bowlers at their peak ( ie, bowling was their stronger suit) but Botham could make it to the English team on the back of his ability to score hundreds. Imran wouldn't make it to the Paki or any other team's top six because all he was good for was plugging up one end and ending with a not out.[/quote'] Didnt he average almost 50 throughout the 1980's? For me, peer review is the apex form of analysis. Imran Khan is widely regarded highly. I state and reaffirm that Botham was the more AR player at their peaks, but Imran Khan is regarded by most as the superior player. And I write as a guy who used to almost worship Botham.

[Muloghonto]

Didnt he average almost 50 throughout the 1980's? For me, peer review is the apex form of analysis. Imran Khan is widely regarded highly. I state and reaffirm that Botham was the more AR player at their peaks, but Imran Khan is regarded by most as the superior player. And I write as a guy who used to almost worship Botham.

Again, depends on what would you rather have. Imran's idea of 'good batting' was something like 'come in at #6 and put in scores of 20*, 34, 25*, 55*, 4, etc'. botham's idea of 'good batting' was something like 'come in at #6, score 100, 2, 0, 5,90, etc'. Imran would've had a higher average but in my example, Botham would've been a decisive difference in contributing with the bat atleast twice, while Imran would've been not so decisive. The disparity between Imran's image and the rest is because both Kapil and Botham faded near the last half of their careers while Imran turned into a Bhuvaneshwar Kumar type bowler ( good for an opening blast, nothing more) who could hold up one end of the wicket with dour batsmanship near the end of his career. Both Botham and Kapil were stroke-filled batsmen who had nothing left to offer in their batting once their eyesight faded but both of them were far more capable batsmen than Imran, who was basically a shotless wonder for most of his career. IMO, Imran's batting is boosted a lot by his not-outs at low scores and that is predominantly because Pakistan had the weakest tail in international cricket in the 80s. Wasim Bari might be the only wicketkeeper in the last 30 years to play 50 tests and fail to average 20 in tests, Qadir, Sharfraz and Wasim were all terrible at sticking to the wicket ( Wasim though could clobber a few runs, Harbhajan style, once in a while). You put a sticky batsman who refuses to play shots or protect such a fragile tail and you will almost always get a player with a high average because this guy would finish a lot of the time on 25 not out. Strictly speaking, a string of 20-30 not outs look better on stats pages but in the 'here and now' of winning cricket matches, an occasional century with a string of low scores from a #6/7 is way more useful than a string of 20-30 not outs. Sportsmen's images tend to be largely influenced a lot by their late career performances, since they are the most recent. Viv and Tendulkar tend to be the only exceptions to this but by and large, if you had a better 2nd half than 1st half of a long career, chances are you will be remembered better. This is the same reason no-one remembers Ponting being an average batsman for the first seven years of his life or Botham's brilliance in the early stage of his career.

[alexander]

Oh, I remember ITB's brilliance. No England fan from that era can ever forget. For me, that Dickie Bird, Richie Benaud, Wisden et al pick Imran in their X1's for me highlights his brilliance as a player. Botham was a better batsman, yes. Kapil Dev was not. Period. Inferior technique, inferior record.

[vvvslaxman]

Oh, I remember ITB's brilliance. No England fan from that era can ever forget. For me, that Dickie Bird, Richie Benaud, Wisden et al pick Imran in their X1's for me highlights his brilliance as a player. Botham was a better batsman, yes. Kapil Dev was not. Period. Inferior technique, inferior record.

Kapil was more a dazzler. Didn't do justice to his talent. He has a test match strike rate of 80 plus.

[putrevus]

Imran was a tailender who could hold his bat to call him as an all rounder and cite his avg is ridiculous, it is like Bhajji scoring 2 hundreds, Bhajji would be more exciting batsman to watch that Imran Khan. It is like calling Dhoni a competent bat overseas. It would take 1000 imrans to produce that kapils 129 against rampaging Donald.

[Muloghonto]

Oh, I remember ITB's brilliance. No England fan from that era can ever forget. For me, that Dickie Bird, Richie Benaud, Wisden et al pick Imran in their X1's for me highlights his brilliance as a player. Botham was a better batsman, yes. Kapil Dev was not. Period. Inferior technique, inferior record.

There is hardly anything to pick and choose between Botham and Kapil the batsman, they were practically clones of each other. Botham was way better at negotiating swing than Kapil, Kapil was way better against spin and a bit better at handling steep bounce ( mostly because Kapil was a far better puller and hooker than Botham, while Botham was more assured outside his offstump). Both came with all the shots in the book. Kapil had a bit less support while bowling and India were prone to more collapses in batting than England, which meant Kapil came out to bat more tired than Botham more often than not. Benaud, Bird, etc. pick Imran because Imran was a monster at county level and he was the only player in Pakistan lineup that did well against West Indies while Pakistan were the 2nd best team after West Indies.