Guys, You are missing out the greatest allrounder of our time - Sanath Jayasuriya - more than any Flintoff or any other who's playing currently.

Flintoff. Well, the English sure love to overrate their players and Freddie's inclusion in this top 20 of all time is amazing. A man who statistics don't come near many playing the game today and in the past. But, hey, he is English and that's good enough to get him on the list. Even if his team can't compete at the highest level, well they did win the Ashes once in two decades; I will give them that.

Out of listed 20 great Allrounders, let me narrow down the list to best five. That is Garry Sobers, Kapil Dev, Ian Botham, Imran Khan and Richards Hadlee. Garry Sobers is generally referred to as the greatest Allrounder of all time. He was no doubt a great batsman but on bowling front, he was not more than an ordinary bowler (200 odd wickets in 91 tests). overall his batting exploits were too great that added along with his bowling, he still ended up being called a great Allrounder. I would rather select from remainig four Allrounders. Having closely watched all these greats in action, I will term Kapil Dev as the best Allrounder. He is the only player in the history to have made more than 5000 runs and taken more than 400 wickets. He was one of the most powerful hitters of the ball and also among the best bowlers of his time. Many a times he bailed out his team from difficult situations with both bat and ball. Who can forget his 175* against Zimbabwe in 1983 world cup when his team was struggling at 17 for 5. He played better when the stakes were high. His batting record is much better against the West Indies, the best team of his time. Botham on other hand always struggled against West Indies. As they say statistics don't tell even half the story, its true in Kapil's case as well. He was much better batsman and bowler than his magnificent stats show. His arrival brought a sense of fresh air in Indian team where fast bowlers were a rare commodity. He changed the way game was played in the country. Fast bowlers hunt in pairs but unfortunately for Kapil, he was a lone warrior fighting alone without any good support from other end most of the time. Many a times he never got the opportunity to bowl in second innings due to that. Unlike other great all arounders, he played most of his cricket on unsupportive Indian pitches and still ended up with 434 test wickets, a world record then. Being a seamer its hard to believe that he never ever missed even a single test match on fitness grounds in his entire career of 16 years. In fact the only time he was dropped was for one match due to non cricketing reasons. His contemporaries Botham, Hadlee and Imran skipped or missed many tours or home series due to fitness or personal reasons. In fact Hadlee and Botham always remained reluctant in visiting subcontinent due to unsupportive conditions. Apart from his allround achievements, he was an inspirational captain also. Winning the 1983 world cup was a jewel in his crown. On consolidating all the facts and figures, I would rate Kapil Dev as the best Allrounder.

Interesting, indeed. The only thing that is beyond me is how Andrew Flintoff could make the cut into this list. If only a remarkable series-winning Ashes performance can get him there then what about the countless exceptional and match-winning performances by Jacques Kallis and Chris Cairns?

However, Sobers, by all means is the greatest all-rounder ever to have played international cricket. It's difficult to choose the second best from Hadlee and Kapil as Hadlee has a better bowling record and Kapil a better batting record. But as all-rounders, both have had phenomenal records and single-handedly spearheaded their repesctive country's attack for 17-18 years. However, I would rate Kapil a little higher as he had played lots of matches in the subcontinent where the wickets are not conducive to pace-bowling. Same for the fourth place, too. It's very difficult to choose from Akram, Botham and Imran as all three have done well with both bat and ball. I would place Imran little ahead than the other two considering that he was a shrewd captain as well who had won the World Cup for his country.Besides, he had a hand in making and shaping up Akram's career.

Among the ones playing these days, only Jacques Kallis and Adam Gilchrist have records to speak of as all-rounders. Considering Chris Cairns isn't playing any more, I would place Abdul Razzaq ahead of Flintoff as an all-rounder.

It is entirely fraudulent that Flintoff is considered in this list. One great series (at home) matched by one of the worst individual performances in the return series. And in Australia the conditions were even more suited to him.

Flintoff's talent is controlled by his performance between his ears, as are all cricketers. The other 19 in this list possess mental toughness and tenacity. So far Flintoff's hailed toughness is lsuded as being able to stay off the pies and lager. Please!

His most recent dismissal at the hands of Brad Hogg puts his inclusion in this list as laughable. Compare Hogg's WC to Flintoff. Even he can claim a place before Freds.

I completely agree with Devalin Sarkar. Flintoff is a good allrounder. No doubt about that. A player should be considered as greatest or among greatest only if he comes up with brilliant performances series after series. Flintoff has not done that. In my opinion the greatest allrounders are Miller, Sobers, Kapil & Imran, in that order.

Flintoff one of the 20 greatest allrounders of ALL time? Is that a typo? He's barely one of the greatest allrounders of the current English team. Surely that would be Collingwood? If Cairns, Jayasuriya and Heath Streak can't make this list, then Flintoff should be nowhere near it.

One guage which removes averages, era, pitches etc is usage on the team i.e. batting position and bowling usage. Or another way - who would have been picked as a bowler or as a batsman.

Ignoring the keepers - all the bowlers are quicks aside from Rhodes - which ones opened the bowling ? Rule out those that didn't [apart from Rhodes]. Which ones batted in a specialist batting role? Rule out those that didn't.

Short-list: Proctor, Noble, Rhodes, Mankad, Miller.

Same era: Mankad vs Miller = Miller. Noble vs Rhodes = Rhodes. Proctor. Sobers? Probably for a period he might have been picked as a bowler / fieldsman.

How much can strong batting or bowling compensate for a weekness in the other half of a player's game? Averages show Gary Sobers was an outstanding batsman and a decent bowler. Richard Hadlee was a great bowler who was a useful batsman. Imran was more balanced; he was an excellent bowler and only just short of the 40 cut off for top class batsmen (as it was a few years ago). Figures show Ian Botham to be behind Imran in both departments.

From Imran's stats. on this site:

"His averages (37 with the bat, 22 with the ball) put him at the top of the quartet of allrounders (Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev being the others) who dominated Test cricket in the 1980s. And whereas Botham declined steadily, Imran just got better and better: in his last ten years of international cricket he played 51 Tests, averaging a sensational 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball."

Imran was also fit to lead his country.

As a New Zealander, it pains me to have to write off Sir Richard Hadlee as the top allrounder. That he was the best bowler of the four great allrounders of the 80's should be unquestioned, but he would never have made the side purely as a batsman. I think Imran Khan should always come out on top as the greatest allrounder; a great captain as well as being a great bowler and a very useful batsman. I agree with the comments about Andrew Flintoff. He is yet to earn the title of great allrounder. At present, he is just a good player. Chris Cairns was one of the better allrounders of his era when he was fit and playing, and on his day, one of the more terrifying batsman in international cricket. But he is far short of being one of the great allrounders. If he had been injured less, maybe he would have gotten near to being one of the best.

I personally couldn't doubt this rather thorough and comprehensive (phew) review of allrounders. However, I have to ask as to the exclusion of Shaun Pollock - not a shrewd captain agreed but without doubt one of the best Bowler/Batters of modern era.

Not many of us will disagree that this contest is in between sir gary, imran and botham. sir gary is one of the greatest batsmen of all times and a very decent bowler but a medicore captain. botham had a midas touch on his day and his influence on the game is second to none. his match winning capability is uncomparable. even he was an ordinary captain and during the last part of his career he merely became a handy crickter. imran had his weakness in fielding but he was probably one of the best leaders ever to embrace the game of cricket. i would give him another edge and that is his ability to handle the pressure.
kapil is the greatest crickter india has ever produced. he had that killer instinct which the current indian team lacks. next in my list is keith miller because of his charismatic personality and outstanding talent. my list goes:

1,2,3: sir gary, imran and botham
4: kapil dev
5: keith miller
6: sir richard hadlee

we can pick anyone from the top three because all of them are living legends.

Greatest all rounder of all time? Tough call I think all these players are on a level of their own but being a New Zealander its time someone flew the Hadlee flag. Ok Hadlee wasn't the captain that Imran was, wasn't captain at all, but there is no doubt that he was just as inspirational to his team and to his fans at home. He was simply an exciting player to watch bowl and it was electrifying whenever his spell started. Whats more I have seen him being as electrifying with the bat. Can a bowler who manged to take 15 wickets in a game, not be considered as inspirational to a team, as Imrans captaincy and batting was to his. And people belittle his batting too much. It is a testament to New Zealands batting prowess at the time that he batted at 8. At other times and in other teams he may well have batted at 6 or even 5. Batting like bowling is as much a function of time in the middle. Rather then say why he didn't bat so much one might ask why didn't Pakistani batsmen do their jobs better instead of relying on Imran all the time. I have seen Hadlee command bowlers like he commanded batters and it is difficult to have a good average when you must bat at 8. Perhaps some sort of consideration of average versus batting postion is in order. A person batting at 8 can mean the side is strong in batting as much as any reflection of his skill with the bat.
Finally I would make a point that few people seem to pick up on. At the time Hadlee retired New Zelands population barely cracked the 3 million mark. Cricket is New Zealands second sport a distant second to rugby. At that time almost all the glamour and money was in rugby. That a country of such a small size could produce a player that dominated the field so completely so consistently surely counts for something. Otherwise one is forced to ask with Pakistans population being what it is and cricket being without a doubt number one sport there why has there only been one Imran or, as the same applies to India, only one Kapil Dev? New Zealands excuse is we are small and our athletes would rather be playng rugby. What is Pakistans, that the pitches are of poor quality perhaps? Didn't seem to bother Imran, though did it Inzy?

I am still shocked that no place can be found for Chris Cairns in the list of 20. How could Ravi Shastri be ahead of him for one? Shastri scored 3800 runs in 80 tests and took only 151 wickets. Cairns scored 3300 runs in 62 with 218 wickets. At his peak in the mid to late 90's Cairns was the dominant allrounder of his era. He was the second fastest player to reach the double of 3000 runs/200 wickets in terms of tests played, behind only Botham. He was equally effective in both tests & ODI's and could bat as high as number 5 in the NZ line up. Barring injuries there is little doubt he would have reached 400 runs and 300 wickets. He surely deserves to stand alongside Pollock & Flintoff. Perhaps if he was born an Englishman or Australian there would be a place for him.

I can not understand how you managed to list the players you have as all time great all roounders and not to mentioned Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakara..if you compare statistics of Adam Gilchrist and Andrew Flintof for those to players then they will come on top.so I am not agreed unless you tell me what meassure you took to list them as all time great!

Flinttoff?? Flintoff??? You must be joking? Is he on the list because he is as good on water as on land? Really there have been some wonderful English cricketers who have been overlooked for Flintoff to get on this list. Sorry but like so many of these types of competitions we are given a few modern names, suitable or not just because they are currently playing - that is the list that I would put this guy on and suggest that you purchase a Wisdon, they are available on this web site, I'm sure that you'll find a better all rounder there from English cricket.

How are these players selected . I meant the initial 20 ? Why is sanath Jayasuriya not included? What were the parameters used to select the initial 20 . And were they selected based on statistics or other means?

Would love to know , as statistically sanath jayasuriya is better than most of these included.

Flintoff??
Well it must be a joke.
The only very very funny nomination indeed.

Please do not humour us by saying you regard Flintoff as one of the best all rounders of all times. He is not an ideal role model for kids because of his drinking issues. He has never given consistent performances ever. He is all hype.

To say that one of those 20 players is the greatest of them all will be be so unfair and unjustified but i can name five of the greatest n thats jst my point of veiw but i think they would be; Imran Khan, Andrew Flintoff, Wasim Akram, Jack Kallis and Chris Cairns are the best of the lot and i think it is totally unfair to Cairns that is not even included in the final 20 even thou i see not many as equal and up his class. If i would just name one of the final fve that would be Imran Khan. the reason would be he is a complete alrounder good batsman great bowler and one of the finest or some say he was the best captain pakistan ever produced n he was a complete leader and a player for whom the whole team had respect for. So Imran Khan out of the final 5 but i still feel Chris was undone to be excluded in the final 20 n to include shastri in that top 20 and not him thats one thing which doesnt go through my head.

Gotta be the Both! One hundred and twenty test match catches. Only w/kprs have more. Didn't someone say that "catches win matches?"
Arise Sir Ian!

Bloody hell, get off Freddie's back; he didn't ask to be included in this list and I am sure if you asked him, he is humble enough to say that he wouldn't consider himself worthy of inclusion.

The best allrounder of all time in my opinion is Imran Khan, however the one who I would love to see win is Beefy, because as a 12 year old watching him (in tandem with Bob Willis )take apart the Aussies in '81 is one of my most endearing childhood memories!

Gary Sobers has to be the greatest allrounder of all time,simply because when he is included the team benifits from having 13 players in the side. He could bowl pace as well as spin and ofcourse his batting combined with specialist close-in field.Others who do come even close ie Botham,Imran,Hadlee etc where good but not consistent over long periods.He was not a bad captain either leading by example and sporting too eventhough he was too generous once against Cowdrey's England side once in the mid-60s.

Ahem, anyone ever heard of Mr. Dave Langford Smith?? He should certainly be alluded to in this, the greatest all-rounder blog. There are not enough Daves in cricket.

The main definition of a "modern" all-rounder here appears to be how destructive they can be as a batsman with the added ability to take a few wickets. All-rounder to me suggests just that: can do everything reliably and a be good man to have in the side to augment the specialists. Garry Sobers did everything magnificently. To say his bowling was only average is a bit disingenuous. He was in teams with Hall, Ramadhin, Gibbs etc and competed on near level ground with them all. He played county cricket too, rather than year-round test cricket and still managed a very decent haul. I don't think anyone comes close. Now, I'm a Kent man through and through and that begs at least one notable exception from the list. FE Woolley. Not a tremendous international record as it straddled WW1 and there were some very fine contemporaries about too, but a first class one with only one batting peer (Jack Hobbs), few bowling ones and nobody took more catches ever. Why isn't he here?

No WG?

If you see the numbers, Jacques Kallis is the best all-rounder. I don't understand why people ignore him. He is definitely the man in crisis for South Africa. He is far better that Kapil, Imran, Botham. Only guy whom I would consider is on par with Kallis is the West Indian great Sir Garfield Sobers. Well this is my view. No matter what Kallis is my Hero and thank him for the entertainment he provided.

Simply Imran Khan, I've never seen a fighter like him, a man who delivered from bat and ball most of the time. I think it's his personality which puts him a bit ahead of Beefy.

Amazed by some of the comments. Does anyone seriously think that anyone but Sobers should win this? And the only only real contender for number 2 is Imran - a truly great bowler and captain, a very good bat, who was always exceptional under pressure and against the best. Personally, i think botham and kapil were more talented batsmen, but they did not perform as consistently as the mighty Khan and were not in his league as bowlers and leaders. Hadlee's batting was only half decent and, although an all-time great bowler personally i would put imran ahead as he performed on dead subcontinental tracks, which Hadlee was reluctant to visit.

Frankly to win this you have to be an all-time great in one discipline and excellent in another. hence Sobers gets the nod for his batting, and his flexible bowling, and Imran for being a great bowler, leader and very good bat. Botham and Kapil were not great batsmen or bowlers (although they should have been)

As to Flintoff, when i saw the 2005 ashes, I genuinely thought he may reach the heights of the big guys of the eigthies - he was an absolute Titan. He has fallen off and to be a great you have to deliver more often; having said that I cannot think of anyone else who deserves to be on the list ahead of him - although I look forward to receiving a few suggestions!

Well Imran was a winner as a bowler, he was a winner as a batsman and a winner as a captain. His statistics are not behind any body's, he had the capability to distinguish, encourage and groom world class players like Inzi, Waqar and Akram. He is a true all rounder becoz he's now even playing politics. Sir Garry Sobers i think the other one who is the top contender. I won't mind if any one of the two gets the title here.

To be the best you have to be good in all three disciplines and outstanding in one of them. You also need to have sustained it over a lenghty period, say 5 years or 30 Tests.

Some are batting all rounders others bowling all rounders. To allow for this I looked at differences in averages but that favoured batting all rounders. I then looked at the ratio of batting to bowling averages. Three people standard apart from the crowd. Sobers, Imran and, to my surprise, Kallis.

I have to rule out Kallis as he tends to play, dare I say it, for himself a la Boycott. That leaves Sobers and Imran. Sobers was perhaps the best all round fielder ever whereas Imran was an ordinary one. However Sobers was an average captain whereas Imran was an outstanding captain.

My vote, would be for Sobers. From 1958-1968 as a bastmen you felt that no bowler could get him out. He was also an outstanding fast medium bowler. Imran was a peerless bowler from 1980-83 until his stress fracture. He continued to take a hatful of wickets for another six years but the pre-eminence had gone with the injury.

Icki

Greatest all rounder must be measured on performances both in Test and ODI.

There is a difference between a genuine bowler who can bat a bit and vice versa, and a genuine all rounder. Only Imran, Botham and possibly Kapil strike out in both forms of the game as genuine all rounders. Sobers was a great test batsman who could bowl very well, it ends there.

Sometimes patriotism can get in the way of impartial thinking. Even if we see some of the other statistics, like averages home and away, win/loose percentages, captaincy records etc. we all will have to agree that the greatest all rounder of all time is - Imran Khan

I believe a very important all-rounder has been overlooked or left out: Sanath Jayasuriya. How can one leave this chap out? If Flintoff deserves a mention, so does Jayasuriya.
I don't understand this? Can anyone explain why he has been omitted from the list?
Even if you look at his statistics, they speak for themself.

As far as all round perfomance is concerned i dont think that any one could match the great pathan imran khan.he is the only inspiration in 1992 world cup and his personality his command n more over his cricketing brain make him speciall.. i am not fan of pakistan cricket but i still admire pakistan becouse the reason is imran strentgh .

No doubt Imran Khan is the greatest all rounder of his time and era from Pakistan, i do respect all other players as well as they have done a great job and all are respected.
But in my opinion Waseem Akram is best all rounder among all. whole Pakistan on one side and you can distinguish Waseem Akram as other half of team. He was the one man and whole performance revolves around him at that time. He was great captain also and he proved it in 1999 world cup. He is undoubtly the only left hand bowler in history who was having that much variety, 06 different balls. To sum up..
Great Bowler
Great all rounder
Great Captain
Great Team man

So all salutes to him and hopefully many other will accept these facts.
All the best

Imran Khan!!! Without a doubt, Imran Khan... Not a question about it, Imran Khan!!!

Why do people forget that being an all-rounder means all-round cricketing abilities i.e. batting, bowling, fielding and captaining the team!!! Yes, captaining... not all great cricketers were great captains (Tendulkar, Lara) and not all great captains were great cricketers (Mike Brearley, Test Av:22.88)...

Imran Khan is a very compelling choice as the greatest all-rounder on the basis of his batting/bowling skills only but when you add in his contribution as a Captain of an often very fractious team, he is without a doubt the greatest all-rounder ever...

i agree with icki's comments at most places but he writes that imran lost his bowling spark after his stress fracture in 1983. who can forget his heroics with the ball in 1987 (england) and 1988 (west indies).
i don't agree with vaseem akbar as well because he ignores botham's destructive ability with the bat (as he did so many times in his career), 14 test centuries speak for themselves.
but i do agree that it has to be sir gary sobers followed closely by imran.

In a game that's always favoured batsmen, a test match batting average of 50-plus has always been seen as a benchmark to be considered a great batsman. And with a batting avereage of 58 runs per inning spread over 91 tests, Sir Gary sits up there with a handful of truly great batsmen. But why does a bowler with an average of 25 not command the same amount of respect as a batsman with an average of 50?

I use a very simple technique when comparing bowlers with batsmen in terms of statistical equivalence, where a batsman's average of 50 equals a bowler's average of 25. And if a bowler's average increases by 1 run to 26, then this bowler is of the same calibre as a batsmen with an averge of 48 runs/inning. Similarly, if a bowler averages 24 runs per wicket, then he is of the same quality as a batsman with an average of 52 with the bat.

Imran, the bowler with a miserly average of 22, in my opinion is also right up there as one of the very few truly greats amongst bowlers, as is Sir Gary amongst batsmen. To be precise, according to the above rule, Sir Gary would the equivalent of a bowler with an average of 21 runs per wicket and Imran would be a batsman worth an average of 56 per inning. Sir Gary wins this battle of strength area for the two contrasting all-rounders, but only marginally!

Now lets translate Sir Gary's bowling average of 34 into its equivalent batting average. This turns out to be 32, since his bowling average rises 9 points from the benchmark of 25, that would equate to a deduction of 18 points (9 x 2) from the benchmark batting average of 50.

Lets translate Imran's batting average into his equivalent bowling average. He is 13 runs short of the benchmark batting average of 50, so that would add 6.5 runs to the benchmark bowling average of 25, i.e equals to 31.5 per wicket. So Imran is clearly a winner in the weaker cricketing departments for both all-rounders.

Although to be classified a true all-rounder, one needs to excel at 2 out of 3 departments of the game (i.e bowling, batting or fielding), therefore comparing fielding abilities of the two would not be of significance, especially since neither of the two were Jonty Rhodes! But still for completeness purposes, Sir Gary was certainly a better fielder than Imran.

2-1 to Sir Gary, then!!!

But rising above the numbers and stats, Imran the Captain, was miles ahead of Sir Gary not only with the success ratio under his tenure but also the positive influence he had over his team-mates. He had the eye to pick future greats in Wasim, Waqar, Inzi & Mushi. He led his "cornered tigers" to World Cup victory in his last international appearance. He was unarguably one of the most inspirational leaders of the game, and not just for Pakistan Cricket! This is one area where he wins easily.

To be fair, this list of 20 all-rounders can be very easily cut short to Top 5, which are Sir Gary, Imran, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev and Keith Miller.

Both Kapil and Botham, looked naturally much more comfortable as batsmen compared to Imran, but they did not translate it to consistent high scores, whereas Imran through his application and dedication became a giant of a batsman in the latter half of his career, only behind Miandad in the Pakistan lineup. And as bowlers, while Botham slid dramatically in the later half of his career, Kapil was unlucky to be toiling on sub-continent wickets. But then again, Imran also had to bowl on similar pitches, yet he fared much better as a bowler.

Keith Miller is from a very old era and hence there is not a lot of readily available video footage to witness his abilities. But statistically, he is right up there along with Imran.

So, my Top 3 ranking would be: 1) Imran Khan, 2) Sir Gary Sobers, 3) Keith Miller.

in my opinion it should be imran khan think about it in the 92 world cup pakistan were in trouble & they had to win all their matches and he told the pakistani we are cornered tigers we have to from now on attack and what happened pakistan won the world cup and when pakistan lost 2 early wickets imran khan and dont forget miandad put pakistan back on track and also was a strong captain batsmen and a superb bowler.

I have to agree with Anwer Soorty.

I think of it this way. Take a standard team- 5 batsmen, 1 allrounder, 1 wk, 1 spin bowler and 3 specialist fast bowlers. This is the basic format that every team tries to follow. Now, given this team balance, who would you rather have at No.6? Another fast swing bowler (like Imran), who can bat well and captain brilliantly? Or a multi-dimensional bowler who can bowl fast swing on flat pitches, spin on wet or cracked pitches, and provide support for your specialists in any conditions, as well as being a destructive, prolific bat and brilliant fielder? In the interest of team balance, I would go for Option #2, and that means Sobers.

It's clearly between two cricketing giants Sobers and Imran Khan. Statistically I would say Sobers but given the circumstances around Pakistan cricket, the way Imran Khan almost revolutionised that team he would at least be equal to Sobers. A great bowler, batsmen and probably one of the finest captains in the history of cricket.

These two seem to be the universal choice, only England fans trump up Botham and Indian fans likewise with Kapil Dev. Their records are just not as great, although both were fine players. A mention also of Hadlee who would by my third best player.

Pollock, batting average 32 and bowling ave 23, far better than Botham and everyone else apart from Sobers, Miller and Imran.

Flintoff better than Botham. He had 34 consecutive tests until he was injured last year and he averaged 38 with the bat and 26 with the ball. At that time he could have got into the England team on the strength of his batting or bowling. Botham was way out of his depth when facing W Indies (Holding/Marshall)bowling and Viv Richards caned his bowling all over the park whereas Flintoff's record against the Aussies (equivalent to Windies in the late 70's early 80's) is far more respectable than Botham's.

i agree with your votes but i have to say- if you base an alrounder on his "entertainment" value- then I dont think anyone has done better than Botham in the history of the game. with as recognisable a look as WG Grace at his height- he was THE uk sports superstar of the eighties- back then as is now football and other sports were more popular. I also think bothams "achiles heel" of not performing against the west indies is made far to much of- his performance against them in 1984 at lords- not his favourite ground - produced only 19 runs short of a century and ten wickets. i am of the opinion that the windies were the greatest side of all time- and that the australian one was a better side in those days than people think. People like freddie flintoff have in comparison to Botham had an easy ride from the authorities (apart from the pedello incident) - Botham was made captain at the wrong time against the toughes opposition at a very young age. he was missmanaged. the authorities always made life difficult for botham. if botham had todays nurturing coaching approach i believe he would be close to the top of the list.