Ian Botham or Imran Khan in peak period?

[Vijy]

As simple as this: a) Botham produced more match winning performances with bat and ball combined b) Hadlee was the best bowler of them all, although he benefited from helpful home pitches more than most c) Statistically and consistency-wise, no one beats the Khan, esp during his peak period. And for those who claim his form didn't fall off, it certainly did - there was a stats analysis by someone on Cricinfo. He maintained good numbers despite this. d) Two of the best all-rounders of the era didn't even get the chance to showcase their brilliance - Proctor and Rice.

[Marut]

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.

And only once in the era of home umpires!! Pakistani umpire never lifted his finger when the ball hit Miandad's pads - no matter where the ball was heading towards.

[Marut]

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 has two run a ball hundreds against the WI in the WI against the four quicks. He battered SA when India was in the doldrums at 80/6. Kapil regularly flayed the English attacks, often scoring at over run a ball, during the early 80s. Imran cannot even fill the boots of Kapil. as a batsman.

[Marut]

Muloghonto is right. Imran bowled sparsely during his latter days. His averages were better, but that is because he bowled sparsely. Just take these figures for comparison. He played a total of 88 tests and took 362 wickets at 22.81 During his last 10 years, he played 43 tests and took 156 wickets at 21.49 That is, he took only 43% of the wickets in his second half, as opposed to 57% of the wickets in his first half. He bowled about 36% less overs per match during the second half of his career, mainly bowling short intense spells using the new ball and then having other bowlers toil it out when the ball was not talking.

[bones]

There was a thread which I put my comments in a couple of weeks ago about a similar topic. So I went and did the research expecting a fairly even battle. I'm 28 so I didn't get to see any of these guys playing live. The research was incredible. It showed all of them was massive cricketers and in any period other than that one, they would have been hailed even more highly. But the stats for Imran do truly stand out head and shoulders above the others. At the end of the day I am stats man. That's why I pick McGrath over Wasim for example. Imran statistically is superior to the other 3 and there's no dispute on the matter. You can twist it any number of ways you like, but as a player he was the leader of this quartet of all--rounders.

[velu]

I meant he is almost British. :D In essence, this debate is silly. On the one hand, you have the weight of cricketing opinion - expert, peer, layman alike in praise of the player. On the other - a few bitter Indian fans. Botham is my hero. I stated peak ITB is amazing. But overall, Imran Khan was a better player owing to longevity and his more incisive quick bowling.

are you brit-pakistani :blink:

[thongale]

Muloghonto is right. Imran bowled sparsely during his latter days. His averages were better, but that is because he bowled sparsely. Just take these figures for comparison. He played a total of 88 tests and took 362 wickets at 22.81 During his last 10 years, he played 43 tests and took 156 wickets at 21.49 That is, he took only 43% of the wickets in his second half, as opposed to 57% of the wickets in his first half. He bowled about 36% less overs per match during the second half of his career, mainly bowling short intense spells using the new ball and then having other bowlers toil it out when the ball was not talking.

Can we have Botham's stats at same points for a comparison?

[gazza]

botham had a big decline but the first few years of his career were so incredible that his achievements imo still put him up there, no doubt imran was an ATG bowler and a decent bat but he wasn't a natural batsman like botham and it's shown in the difference of centuries. botham got 100 and 5 wickets in an innings 5 times and no one else has done it more than twice. botham's averages dropped dramatically but i think his peak far outweighs the trough, don't think of it as in years or amount of tests, think of it as achievements, what he achieved in those peak years is good enough for any all rounder over an entire career. as far as bowling goes well compare his bowling record to wasim akram who is considered an all time great bowler. wasim played 104 tests, botham 102, wasim 414 wickets, botham 383, wasim strike rate of 54.6, botham strike rate 56.9, wasim's econ 2.59, botham's 2.99. the most telling is when you look at 4fers, 5fers and 10fers. wasim got 20 4fers to botham's 17 but botham got 27 5fers to wasim's 25 making a difference of just 1 when you combine them, and add the 10fers (wasim has 5 compared to botham's 4) the total difference in combined 4fers, 5fers and 10fers is just 2. wasim might have an average in the 23s and botham one in the 28s but in a similar amount of matches botham and wasim had a very similar amount of significant bowling performances. wasim snagged more wickets but he also bowled more balls than botham. i'm not trying to suggest botham should be considered an all time great bowler but he does have comparable stats to some of them (in terms of significant bowling performances, more than ambrose as well who played 98 matches) so really i don't think there is as much difference in bowling output between imran and botham as it may seem by taking general stats. i think batting wise it's not much of a contest, all imran has over botham in that department is a higher average but given that imran had heaps of not outs (botham had barely any) and imran batted lower then he should of had a higher average, it doesn't mean imran was a better bat just because his average was higher you look at centuries, half centuries, strike rates, which player played a more crucial innings or match changing innings more often etc and with that botham is ahead. to really find out botham's magic you have to look a bit deeper into the stats. to me despite botham's inconsistency and imran's consistency these 2 are still very even rival's and for me what would clinch it is botham's ability to win a match or change a match more often and i'll even use the word consistently than imran did (i mean 100 and 5 wickets 5 times compared to imran's 1). imran was the more consistent overall, botham the more naturally talented player and although imran had the ability to change a series with both bat and ball botham had the greater ability to change a match, that he certainly did do more consistently than imran and anyone else in history for that matter.

[vvvslaxman]

Question has to go to their girlfriends

[Muloghonto]

2.99 vs 2.59 economy rate is a huge difference, its the decisive difference between Botham and Akram, when combined with the difference in strike rates. And that much is evident. Akram was a true great because he was accurate and skilled enough to mantain pressure while taking wickets. Botham was a 'magic ball' guy- who somehow snuck in a brilliant outswinger amongst bowling a heapload of trash. Nobody is saying Botham was a crap bowler- he a bloody good one. Just not good enough to be compared to Wasim, Imran, Kapil or Hadlee. The biggest thing that counts against Botham, is not his fall from his first few years, its the fact that Botham was by far the worst of all the 4 allrounders against the best opposition: West Indies. If your overall numbers are similar but you are a clear-cut inferior guy against the best, well that makes you the clear-cut inferior player.

[gazza]

to say botham isn't comparable is ignoring the facts and statistics. and as far as all round performance the others don't compare tbh. if you're going to constantly nit pick one specific statistic and say it's the be all and end all well that can be done with anything and honestly you may as well say the others aren't comparable to botham because they couldn't achieve nearly as many 100s and 5fers in the same match as botham did. fair to say the others are clear-cut inferior to botham then aye. yes performance against the best is a factor but it's not the only factor.

[gazza]

and to name kapil alongside wasim, imran and hadlee as if he was their calibre. don't get me wrong, kapil was a very good bowler but as you say with botham, kapil can't be compared either. i wasn't saying botham=wasim or imran or hadlee i was merely saying he isn't as far behind as people make out and the stats clearly show that.

[Muloghonto]

to say botham isn't comparable is ignoring the facts and statistics. and as far as all round performance the others don't compare tbh. if you're going to constantly nit pick one specific statistic and say it's the be all and end all well that can be done with anything and honestly you may as well say the others aren't comparable to botham because they couldn't achieve nearly as many 100s and 5fers in the same match as botham did. fair to say the others are clear-cut inferior to botham then aye. yes performance against the best is a factor but it's not the only factor.

Nobody said its the only factor. I stated clearly that it is a big factor though and it becomes the decisive factor when two people have near similar records. Care to explain how that is not true ? If both players have same overall record or near enough, having played nearly the same oppositions, then how is one not a much better player if one has a significantly better record against the best team ? That much, should be self evident.

[gazza]

Nobody said its the only factor. I stated clearly that it is a big factor though and it becomes the decisive factor when two people have near similar records. Care to explain how that is not true ? If both players have same overall record or near enough, having played nearly the same oppositions, then how is one not a much better player if one has a significantly better record against the best team ? That much, should be self evident.

so that one stat is more important than all others is it? because pretty much in all others botham is ahead as an all rounder, imran and hadlee have a case as bowlers but not as all rounders. there are plenty of stats backing botham ahead so no that one stat doesn't make him clearly inferior, if anything the other stats that favour him (the majority of the stats) make it clear that he is ahead.

[gazza]

and he didn't just have an outswinger, he could bring it in as well and had a great bouncer to.

[gazza]

now as far as bowling to WI, yes botham's average is poor but in terms significant performances he still got 3 5fers and a couple of 4fers so he wasn't hopeless against them despite the average. not going to argue that he's on par because it's true he wasn't but that doesn't automatically mean the others are better overall as all rounders across their careers. now for batting against WI, botham still has 4 50s, imran has 3 50s and 1 century. imran's average is higher at 27 to botham's 21 but botham has just 1 not out to imran's 5. kapil was ahead yes, but hadlee in his 10 matches against WI despite a century averages 32 which also includes 3 not outs, hadlee played against WI a lot less than the others. so basically imran didn't do much better than botham with the bat against WI if you look properly at the stats. hadlee's century against them needs to be taken into context as well, there a lot of controversy in that match and the WI bowlers weren't always giving it their best so hadlee's century is somewhat questionable as to what may have happened if they had given it their all. take the not outs away and they all averaged in the 20s, kapil around 27, imran and hadlee about 23 and botham 20 and you can see from that the difference isn't as big in terms of who contributed what to their teams. again, not going to argue that botham did worse, imran and him weren't that far apart with the bat though and it's not like botham did absolutely nothing with the ball to suggest he was exceptionally poor against them as a bowler.

[rtmohanlal]

there was a time i used to think that Imran was the best all rounder just for his superior stats alone.but not any more after analysing FAB 4 allrounders career stats much deeper.then after that i came to know that in all probablity Imran was a serious bottle top operator. so w.r.t the topic it is easily Botham for me. but w.r.t better allrounder Kapil overtakes Botham for me because of the below facts 1. much longevity than Botham in both forms of the game. 2.easily the better one day player both in batting and bowling 3. slightly better test bowler considering the indian conditions and the little support he got 4.slightly better test batsman. of course this may raise a few eye brows considering that both were aggressive batsmen with Botham having 14 100s to Kapil's 8 and Botham having slightly better bat avg: .but Kapil's str: rate was a mammoth >80 against Botham's 60.Kapil took on the great Windies bowlers while Botham flopped. if we consider >75 test scores Kapil has 15 such scores against Botham's 16 even though they differed in no: of 100s by 6.and in these 15 >75 scores he averaged 131.5 at a mammoth str: rate of 96.45 . for Botham the respective figures are 140.78 and 76.45 respectively. only a difference of 9.28 in avg: but difference of 20 w.r.t str: rate in favour of Kapil. that means Botham took 184.15 balls to score 140.78 runs where as Kapil took only 136.34 balls to score 131.5 runs.and what not 4 of these came against rampant West Indies against Botham's '1 such score in home condition'.that all shows how effective a batsman was Kapil to score all these runs in the company of tail enders at a rapid pace. 5. Kapil was the better over all fielder. he could field any where. take catches just like the one he took in the 83 world cup to dismiss Viv.he was brilliant in the slips too.Botham was a specialist in the slips. 6. better captain by a fair distance.lead from the front in the 83 world cup .produced that brilliant 175 not out at a very critical stage of the tournament. he was the batsman of the tournament with a 60.6 avg: and 108.99 str: rate.he took 12 wkts too at 20.41 avg:.took the all important catch of Viv. and he was easily the best all rounder in the 1992 world cup too for that matter , though past his prime.he led India to series victory in England, led from the front in his captaincy stints in both WI & AUS tours and some notable performances too with a comparatively weaker team at his disposal.

[undisputed chap]

I would want to see such an allrounder like these 4 again because I never got to see them play& I hope he is an indian.

[Sachin=GOD]

Sir Jadeja :isalute:

[undisputed chap]

Sir Jadeja :isalute:

I meant pace allrounders.Also ash >>jaddu