David Gowers's 50 best cricketers-evaluation

[gazza]

The remarkable thing about Botham is the total numbers he achieved in those number of matches rather than average, even during his peak he was very much inconsistent. As far as his peak being a purple patch, well from 77 to the end of 82 is about 5-5.5 years and he played about 56 matches, that's not a purple patch imo because that's more than half his career and during that period his bat average was 36.9 and bowling average was 24 something with 250+ wickets and like 19 or 20 5fers with 11 centuries. Those 56 matches are to 1st dec 82' up to the end of 82' he played a couple more matches where his bat average went above 37 but bowling average went from low 24s to mid 24s. He declined sooner with the ball than bat, with bat he was still averaging around 36 in 88' after 80 matches (specifically 35.91) and at that time he averaged 26.41 with the ball with 345 wickets. He certainly had a massive decline but he was a quality all rounder for more than half of his career plus doing a total numbers check after 88 matches he still achieved more wickets, more runs, more centuries, more 5fers etc than imran did in 88 matches (imran's entire career). Yes circumstances different, pitches, conditions, as well as balls bowled and innings batted etc but still his actual contribution in 88 matches is better than imran who no question was a great all rounder.

[Marut]

The remarkable thing about Botham is the total numbers he achieved in those number of matches rather than average, even during his peak he was very much inconsistent. As far as his peak being a purple patch, well from 77 to the end of 82 is about 5-5.5 years and he played about 56 matches, that's not a purple patch imo because that's more than half his career and during that period his bat average was 36.9 and bowling average was 24 something with 250+ wickets and like 19 or 20 5fers with 11 centuries. Those 56 matches are to 1st dec 82' up to the end of 82' he played a couple more matches where his bat average went above 37 but bowling average went from low 24s to mid 24s. He declined sooner with the ball than bat, with bat he was still averaging around 36 in 88' after 80 matches (specifically 35.91) and at that time he averaged 26.41 with the ball with 345 wickets. He certainly had a massive decline but he was a quality all rounder for more than half of his career plus doing a total numbers check after 88 matches he still achieved more wickets, more runs, more centuries, more 5fers etc than imran did in 88 matches (imran's entire career). Yes circumstances different, pitches, conditions, as well as balls bowled and innings batted etc but still his actual contribution in 88 matches is better than imran who no question was a great all rounder.

He didn't stand up against the best sides of his era. In those days, WI was the litmus test and Botham didn't do well against them with both bat and ball, even at his peak.

[gazza]

He didn't stand up against the best sides of his era. In those days' date=' WI was the litmus test and Botham didn't do well against them with both bat and ball, even at his peak.[/quote'] Not saying he was perfect but he achieved a lot, everyone has there opinion and I see no problem with someone rating Botham very highly for reasons I've given, perfectly fine if someone doesn't rate him either as long as players are given the respect and credit where it's due then it's all good. As far as WI, he was inconsistent, still got 4 50+ scores and 3 5fers and a couple of 4fers and he did get an 8fer against them plus an 80 odd in the same match. So yes he wasn't consistent against the best team of the time but he still had some really good performances against them and overall he did well.

[BlackMamba]

David Gowers 50 best cricketers list 1.It does great justice to Andy Roberts,the most complete pace bowler with Dennis Lillee of his time.Statistics hardly did true justice to Andy who was a more complete paceman than Imran Khan ,Michael Holding or Richard Hadlee.Few paceman had such a wide variety like his bouncers at different speeds.

:headshake: Totally disagree. To begin with Dennis Lillee is not even a complete bowler. Few chances he got in the Sub-Continent he failed miserably. It is one thing to be able to do well in friendly confines, how you do in not-so-friendly environment is what gets you to the top. Again same reason why Hadlee needs to be on top. Personally I rate Hadlee to be #2 behind Marshall EVER. With no support at the other end, he did wonders.

2.He correctly places Wasim Akram above Glaen Mcgrath as a cricketer because of his prowess with the bat and greater variety with the ball.Again better than Jenkins who placed wasim at 34th and Glen Mcgrath at 11th place.Wasim was by a whisker more eligible for selection in an all-time world xi.

Consistency my friend, consistency. McGrath was far ahead of that in that department. Talent can take you only so far, execution takes you further. Wasim would blow hot and cold within the same series. Which is why Pakistan has such a pathetic record abroad. Especially when the Series was 5 matches he could not last all 5 matches with the same skill sets.

Flaws of analysis. 1.It underestimates W.G.Grace who could have been at no 1 if you ***** the staggering level of his acheivements.Imagine scoring 344 on a pitch of uncut grass , 1000 runs 28 times in an English first-class season and the double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets 8 times. .Scoring 54211 runs and taking 2876 wickets is alos a phenomenal achievement.Considering the wickets he played averaging 39.85 was a phenomenal figure.W.G.should have atleast been in the top 3,if you respect his impact and contribution .

I would take the Oldies Records with not just a grain, but a bucket of salt. Not even sure how they would have done in un-friendly confines.

2.Obliterates the name of Michael Holding.No pace bowler ever posessed a smoother or better action or bowled as consistently fast through the air. He was literally 'a whispering death.,steaming in like Rolys Royce car but creating the impact of thunder.Holding bowled the best ever spell and best ever over in test cricket. 3 Erronously places Malcolm Marshall above Imran Khan and Jacques Kallis.Imran's great achievements as a leader and greatness as an all-rounder place him in the Tendulkar or Viv Richards bracket as a cricketer while Kallis was almost Sober's equal as an all-rounder.I am almost certain had Kallis played in the 1980's he would have eclipsed Botham,Hadlee or Kapil Dev. 4.Places Ray Lindwall too low down the order who to me was more complete than even Denis Lillee.Lindwall could well have deserved a pace in the top 20,on par with Lillee.Remember Trueman,Davidson Compton nad Gravaney rated Ray as the best post-war pace bowler they ever saw.In that light Armostrong and Martin Jenkins were much fairer in ranking Lindwall. 5.Ranks Jack Hobbs too low who should have been place atleast at no 4.I think Hobbs was arguably the most complete batsman of all if you ***** his mastery on wet wickets.61,237 runs with 197 centuries is a staggering performance.Hobs to me is above Tendulkar or Viv Richards. 6.Sydney Barnes should be atleast in the top 10,being arguably the greatest fast bowler ever taking 7 wickets per test at 16.89. 6.He should have placed Sunil Gavaskar a place ahead of Barry Richards as well as Greame Pollock if you fairly respect international performances. 7.Adam Gilchrist should be atleast in the top 13-15.He was the greatest match-winner of his day ranked in the top 10 by Armstrong and Martin Jenkins.Gichrist may even edge Imran or Marshall in the rankings. 8.Total injustice to Murlitharan who has to be in the top 12. Warne at 4 and Murli at 30 is ridiculous. 9.Places Greg Chappell below Miandad and Border.I rate Greg as the best Australian batsmen after Bradman if you evaluate his career.No batsmen played as well in the Carribean or in World Series supertests.Adding his scores against Rest of the World and World series Packer Supertests Greg would average over 55.He was the most prolific scorer in the supertests in the West Indies in 1979 scoring 621 runs at an average of 69 and the most prolific run scorer in 3 yaers of World series cricket aggregated 1416 runs overall in Packer Cricket including 246 against a world xi.Greg Chappell could ranks with Bradman,Tendulkar and Barry Richards as the most complete of batsmen. .Below I have re-shuffled Gower's top 50 in my tentative personal order of merit.All of Gower's selected 50 are here but in a different order. 1.W.G.Grace 2.Gary Sobers 3.Don Bradman. 4.Jack Hobbs 5.Sydney Barnes 6.Shane Warne 7.Viv Richards 8.Sachin Tendulkar 9.Imran Khan 10.Brian Lara 11. Jacques Kallis 12.Muthiah Murlitharan 13.Wasim Akram 14.Malcom Marshall 15.Adam Gilchrist 16.Walter Hammond 17.Ian Botham 18.Dennis Lillee 19.Glen Mcgrath 20.Len Hutton 21.George Headley 22.Keith Miller 23.Ray Lindwall 24.Fred Trueman 25.Richard Hadlee 26.Sunil Gavaskar 27.Curtly Ambrose 28.Graeme Pollock 29.Barry Richards 30.Wilfred Rhodes 31.Ricky Ponting 32.Richie Benaud 33.Andy Roberts 34.Harold Larwood 35.Herbert Sutcliffe 36.Bill O'Reilly 37..Kapil Dev 38.Greg Chappell 39.Alan Border 40.Javed Miandad 41. Kumar Sangakaara 42.Denis Compton 43.Frank Worrel 44.Kevin Pieterson 45.Joel Garner 46.Virendra Sehwag 47.Dale Steyn 48.A.B.Devilliers 49.Jeff Thomson 50.Alan Knott Viv Richard's great match-winning prowess in tests and O.D.I.s perhaps edges Tendulkar's longevity,Kalli's phenomenal all-round figures puts him in the top dozen ,Imran's x factor and captaincy made me rate him above Kallis,Sydney Barnes's records make him the best bowler of all,Sobers as a pure cricketer surpassed the Don ,W.G.Grace made an impact to the game no cricketer ever did,Hobbs dominated his era more than any batsman ever did bar Bradman,Wasim's batting talent in addition to phenomenal bowling skills placed him ahead of Marshall,Mcgrath,Lillee ,Roberts and Ambrose,Gilchrist was the best match-winner of his day,Greg Chappell marginally had more class than Miandad or Border as a batsman .

[Marut]

Not saying he was perfect but he achieved a lot, everyone has there opinion and I see no problem with someone rating Botham very highly for reasons I've given, perfectly fine if someone doesn't rate him either as long as players are given the respect and credit where it's due then it's all good. As far as WI, he was inconsistent, still got 4 50+ scores and 3 5fers and a couple of 4fers and he did get an 8fer against them plus an 80 odd in the same match. So yes he wasn't consistent against the best team of the time but he still had some really good performances against them and overall he did well.

Four fifties in 38 innings is not a lot, isn't it? And all those fifties were at home. His highest score in the WI was 38 in 17 innings at an average of 14. The WI bowlers just sized him up. His bowling was almost as bad as his batting against the WI. Three of the four fifers were, again at home. He averaged 14 with the bat and 39 with the ball in the WI over a decent match sample. He couldn't make a single fifty in 17 innings he played. If he had failed with either bat or ball you could say that he got a bit unlucky. But he was completely owned by the WI side. That is not what you like to see in a champion all rounder that he is claimed to be. Botham's Ashes heroics endeared him to the English public - but Australia had one of its weakest side in history during the period Botham had immense success against them. Botham's batting averages were mostly boosted by bullying weak bowling teams like India and NZ.

[gazza]

Four fifties in 38 innings is not a lot, isn't it? And all those fifties were at home. His highest score in the WI was 38 in 17 innings at an average of 14. The WI bowlers just sized him up. His bowling was almost as bad as his batting against the WI. Three of the four fifers were, again at home. He averaged 14 with the bat and 39 with the ball in the WI over a decent match sample. He couldn't make a single fifty in 17 innings he played. If he had failed with either bat or ball you could say that he got a bit unlucky. But he was completely owned by the WI side. That is not what you like to see in a champion all rounder that he is claimed to be. Botham's Ashes heroics endeared him to the English public - but Australia had one of its weakest side in history during the period Botham had immense success against them. Botham's batting averages were mostly boosted by bullying weak bowling teams like India and NZ.

Well if you're picking an all time team to play the best of the best then performances against the best team of the time would carry more weight but if you're looking at entire career then imo it lessens (still more weight but not by such a great distance), you can't say well this player is better because they performed better against the best if they performed worse against the poorer teams because overall performance should carry weight to and being bad against the poor teams should take away points. It's like giving a current great a free pass for having a poor record against Bangladesh just because they are so good against South Africa, yeah performance against South Africa might count for a bit more but if your being fair then poor performance against the worser sides should carry some weight to, an overall career isn't just about playing one side. The WI stats I presented was to show Botham had the capability to more than once (so it wasn't a fluke) perform well against them, so he could do it, but was inconsistent, can't dismiss what he actually did, doesn't get extra points because he was inconsistent but it still doesn't discount what he actually did against them. I'd like to know who else was able to take an 8fer and score an 80 odd in the same match against that WI team? As far as being a champion all rounder, Botham was a champion all rounder, perhaps the best ever in terms of simultaneously performing with both bat and ball at the same time, same match, same series (and isn't that the idea of being an all rounder?) Imran overall was a great all rounder but as a genuine true all rounder many would say Botham wins because imran had different parts of his career where he was more of one thing than the other and I'm not saying he never performed both together but it was not to bothams level. Botham is the only player to score more than 10 tons and have 25+ 5fers, he did the double of a century and a 5fer 5 times in a match. Botham just doesn't get the credit because his career ending overall batting and bowling averages were poor but cut off his career half way through and he would have had enough wickets and scored enough runs at high enough averages for any player to have been proud (and considered without a shadow of a doubt to of been a truly great all rounder of the game). As I've stated he had better numbers (averages the exception) than imran after 88 matches which was imran's entire career, to me that along with a host of other reasons is enough to class Botham with the best all rounders of all time. No problem if others don't rate him that high, but credit where it's due, don't discount what he actually achieved, he achieved a terrific amount with or without decline.

[rtmohanlal]

Botham  at 11 and Kapil at 47. Gower need to remove his Ashes tainted glasses.

Kapil was  better in test cricket, one dayers, captaincy and over all ground fielding to Botham