There were four genuine all rounders in the world at the time, he was fourth best amongst them. Using the world cup card to belittle the achievements of arguably the most destructive bowler in the history of the game, unquestionably one of the three most destructive, is just pathetic and quite frankly, a little desperate.
Here you have a man with 373 test wickets at 23 (4.3 wickets per match, best strike rate in the history of test cricket for bowlers with 300 or more wickets) and you're comparing him to some sad trundler who barely managed to keep his average below 30 in an era where even New Zealand, those perennial losers, had a bowler averaging in the low 20s(as did every other team minus India), a trundler who had to play 50 more tests than the record holder to break his record (434 in 131 vs 431 in 86) and the only non spinner in the history of the game to take more than 300 wickets with a strike rate of more than 60(a classic case of 'The India Syndrome' where quantity > quality. Just score as many runs/get as many wickets no matter how long it takes. Don't worry about averages)?
How many people have 370 test and 400 ODI wickets at 23? Compare that to the number of people who have won the world cup? Without going into detailed calculations, there's around 20 people who have won a world cup for every fast bowler who has 370 test wickets and/or 400 ODI wickets at 23. No points for guessing which achievement takes more skill and will be remembered 50 years on(outside of India off course, I mean this is a country where some wham bam thank you ma'am T20 league can wipe away the humiliation of 2 successive 4-0 white washes, in a matter of weeks). Cricket isn't played world cup to world cup. Cricket was around for a hundred years before there was a world cup and some of the finest cricketers, men like Bradman and Barnes(men so far above the trundler's league he needs a telescope to see them) never so much as played a single WC game, let alone win one, puts the value of world cups into perspective.
