England v NZ, 3rd Test, Trent Bridge, 5th-9th June

I agree that Botham was the most dramatic and spectacular performer. His all round highlights do exceed the others in their magnitude.

However, the opposite side of this coin is that it denotes a more extreme inconsistency. Much of the rest of the time he was was relatively mediocre.

I have a couple of problems with Botham.

First, those exceptional early bowling stats were achieved against some very weak opposition.
Against the strongest side of his time he was cut down to size.

Second, he always struck me as a lucky bowler who took many wickets with poor deliveries.
I well remember Lindsay Hassett one day on ABC radio. You could virtually hear him shake his head as he said "Ian Botham? Never looks like a good bowler, but he certainly takes wickets". This was in 1979-80, when Botham admittedly did have excellent figures against the only Australian batting side he ever opposed which could be regarded as decently strong [leaving aside his almost token appearances in 1989], although missing an established opening pair.

Perhaps I can put this another way.

Whereas Imran and Hadlee always looked like champion bowlers, Botham, to me, bowled in something of the fashion of an old fashioned legspinner, in as much as he mixed good, even unplayable deliveries with a lot of dross, with the latter sometimes taking wickets, perhaps through sheer surprise value.

He was hardly cut down to size. He managed 28 wickets at 31 in his 9 Tests against the Windies pre-injury. Lillee averages something like 35 against Pakistan, 30 against Sri Lanka and 28 against the Windies. Even McGrath has a higher average against South Africa. Warne struggled against India. They were still all great bowlers.

And the weak opposition you speak of had the likes of Border, Greg Chappell, Gavaskar, Viswanath, Vengsarkar, Yallop, Walters, Miandad, Kapil, Shashtri, Raja, Khan, Wright, etc amongst them. Not too bad.


As for your perception that Botham got wickets with dross, my understanding was that that was the case in the latter half of his career. Are you sure that those quotes aren't referring to the weaker part of his bowling career?

Beefy is a ******.

The Hassett quote, as I said, was from the first Post-Packer summer of 1979-80.

As to the strength of Botham's opposition in those early years, he played Australia more often than any other team. Yet Australia was mostly at a very low ebb in terms of batting strength.
In 1977 they were demoralised and divided by the Packer affair, and the following series saw them field something approaching a third eleven. Paradoxically, Botham did not exactly prosper against this much diminished side and did better in the shorter series the following year. Then in 1981 [and perhaps even more so in 1985] Botham benefitted from one of the weakest 20th century Australian batting sides.

The list you made above of batting opponents includes only four Australians: Greg Chappell, Border, Walters and Yallop. Of these, Walters appeared in only two Tests in which Botham also played, both in England , where Walters was only ever half the batsman he was elsewhere. Greg Chappell missed the famous 1981 tour as well as being absent with Packer for another six Tests in 1978-79. So he opposed Botham in only six of the 18 Ashes Tests when Botham was at his bowling peak. Border did play in 14 of them but in several he was only learning the ropes. Yallop is a distinct drop in class.

Probably the only Australian batsman of any consequence whom you did not mention was Kim Hughes, but even his mother would not place him above the second rank of Australian batsmen, except for occasional instances of brilliance such as the one off Test in 1980, when Botham's figures were unflattering.

So I think it can be demonstrated that Australia was unusually weak during Botham's peak bowling time, and these Iests constitute 18 of his first 41. Nine more were against the West Indies, where he fared far less well against strong opposition. Another three saw him harvest wickets against a Pakistan robbed of Packer players {Zaheer, Imran, Miandad, Asif Iqbal and Majid Khan, making this a virtual second batting side].

All up, it isn't a very good look.

LLL - Did you even see Botham bowl. Mate, he took a lot of his wickets with long hops and rank balls that should have been hit over the stands.

peterg wrote:Second, he always struck me as a lucky bowler who took many wickets with poor deliveries.

There's no such thing as "luck" IMO. He took wickets with his personality, as well as by swing and lift. Particularly, he took a lot of Australian wickets with his personality.

Invader Zim wrote:Beefy is a ******.

He always will be to an Aussie 'coz he royally F***ed your wimps over in '81.
Keep it up.

PK - That's Bo!!**ks - and you know it.

NFI by name...

Invader Zim wrote:NFI by name...

Keep it up loser!

Lost your medication, Ian?

Invader Zim wrote:Lost your medication, Ian?

Same old, same old ...
Rank pathetic .... though expected nothing else.

Ian in 'can dish it out but can't take it' shocka.

Invader Zim wrote:Ian in 'can dish it out but can't take it' shocka.

Same old, same old.....

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:He was hardly cut down to size. He managed 28 wickets at 31 in his 9 Tests against the Windies pre-injury. Lillee averages something like 35 against Pakistan, 30 against Sri Lanka and 28 against the Windies. Even McGrath has a higher average against South Africa. Warne struggled against India. They were still all great bowlers.

And the weak opposition you speak of had the likes of Border, Greg Chappell, Gavaskar, Viswanath, Vengsarkar, Yallop, Walters, Miandad, Kapil, Shashtri, Raja, Khan, Wright, etc amongst them. Not too bad.


As for your perception that Botham got wickets with dross, my understanding was that that was the case in the latter half of his career. Are you sure that those quotes aren't referring to the weaker part of his bowling career?

I think that Botham later in his career certainly got wickets from some crap deliveries but he did try to be inventive and was always mixing things up. The likes of Greg Chappell though did savage him in Australian conditions.

I think early in his career he profited when there was swing about but could always be vulnerable when the pitches were flatter as he was prone to bowling more rubbish than say line and length bowlers such as McGrath.

This wickets 'from crap deliveries' is the biggest load of dross i've ever heard.

taipan wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:Ian in 'can dish it out but can't take it' shocka.

Same old, same old.....

Leave Beefy outta this.

Every bowler takes the odd wicket from a crap delivery, and maybe it appeared that Beefy did it more than most, but over the course of a 15 year career, you have to bowl a hell of a lot of good deliveries as well to take 300+ wickets at an average of under 30.

He was an average bowler from 1988 to 1992, when age, injury, and lifestyle caught up with him, but between 1977 and 1987 he was one of the finest swing bowlers England has produced.

Beef was good at thinking batsmen out. He used to lob in the wide ones after probing off-stump for a while - people used to go for it and get done by a little more away movement or a bit of extra bounce. A reasonable amount of Pidge's/Curtley's wickets were in many ways similar.

As for Beef the batsman, clearly the best of the all-rounders. In every way. Again, he didn't make the most of his talent - wanted to entertain if anything. The fact he underachieved, still got 14 tons and 22 halves with 67 sixes and a quality S/R tells the story IMO. Furthermore, all the ARs interviewed acknowledge he was almost certainly the best batsmen - though none of them feel him the best bowler - a summation I'd agree with.

Brass Monkey wrote:Furthermore, all the ARs interviewed acknowledge he was almost certainly the best batsmen - though none of them feel him the best bowler - a summation I'd agree with.

What interview was this?

Merlin wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:Beefy is a ******.

He always will be to an Aussie 'coz he royally F***ed your wimps over in '81.
Keep it up.

PK - That's Bo!!**ks - and you know it.

I reckon Beefy is a legend. Now if he'd just do us all a favour and snot Ian Chappell rather than just make him sh!t his pants, I'd rate him even more highly.

Henry wrote:Every bowler takes the odd wicket from a crap delivery, and maybe it appeared that Beefy did it more than most, but over the course of a 15 year career, you have to bowl a hell of a lot of good deliveries as well to take 300+ wickets at an average of under 30.

He was an average bowler from 1988 to 1992, when age, injury, and lifestyle caught up with him, but between 1977 and 1987 he was one of the finest swing bowlers England has produced.

Between 1988-1992 he wasn't just average - he was a fat waster unworthy of selection. Typical of English cricket at the time i'm afraid.

It would be like picking Fred on past glories if he was coming back bowling at 80mph.

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Furthermore, all the ARs interviewed acknowledge he was almost certainly the best batsmen - though none of them feel him the best bowler - a summation I'd agree with.

What interview was this?

Imran, pre spat, Hadlee the other day. Not 100% sure about Kapil but I'm think he said it in a Wisden interview. A few of the Windies boys said it too, but they were Beef's mates, so couldn't be trusted.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Furthermore, all the ARs interviewed acknowledge he was almost certainly the best batsmen - though none of them feel him the best bowler - a summation I'd agree with.

What interview was this?

Imran, pre spat, Hadlee the other day. Not 100% sure about Kapil but I'm think he said it in a Wisden interview. A few of the Windies boys said it too, but they were Beef's mates, so couldn't be trusted.

Are we looking at a specific time frame here?

If not, Kallis and Sobers were far better bats.

I think it's reasonable to suggest, as I did with tya's agreement some time back, that there was not a great deal to choose between Imran and Botham as batsmen, but that Imran deserves a superior ranking for his much greater consistency.

Again, it's true that Botham has to his credit more spectacular batting feats - more centuries, including a double, and generally a substantially faster scoring rate. But this also underlines how often he under-achieved, for he did average significantly less than Imran.

I suppose it depends on what sort of batsman you want - one who just might turn a match in a couple of hours but is much more likely to fail, or one who is sound, fairly unspectacular, less likely to make a big score but much more likely to bat productively.

Remember that during his captaincy Imran averaged above 50 with the bat over a prolonged period and would have justified selection as a specialist. Botham probably would have done so over a more limited span of time..