Was Ian Botham a better allrounder than Imran Khan in his peak era?

[amax]

no....tests and onedayers combined Kapil was better than Botham and equal to Imran

BTW what is Kapil's bowling Strike rate in both tests and ODIs??

 

[soso_killer]

Botham's record against WI counts against him. Though I try not to use words like 'never'. I saw Botham take an eightfer against WI at Lords, then hit a rapid eighty the same day. (England still lost the match, due to a botched declaration by Gower and then a innings of genius by Greenwich on the last day).

my main argument Rob was that Botham was never good enough to make the team for his batting alone. You are the one who decided to give me quotes about Viv, which i dont know why as he failed against them.

The pressure of being a batsman is too much. Its all well and good taking a 5-for and scoring a quick fire 80 odd with the bat.
However when your primary job is to bat, then an average of 33 is never good enough and you will be dropped sooner or later.

 

[zulfiqar]

27 5-wkt hauls for Botham means that he was a matchwinner with the ball as well, but even remotely as consistent as Imran, who averags 5 pts better! So no one can argue about his match-winner status.

But Imran's stats are so beastly only the Great Gary Sobers can stand up them. A decade of batting 50+ and bowling 20- + overall stats will always favor Imran. You're talking about peak? Isn't Imran's bowling peak (5 years) only paralleled by Waqar Younis? Something monstrous like bowling 5 years under 15runs/wkt!

 

[battler]

BTW what is Kapil's bowling Strike rate in both tests and ODIs??

Sr in tests is 63.9 and sr in odi's is 44.2

 

[Robert]

my main argument Rob was that Botham was never good enough to make the team for his batting alone. You are the one who decided to give me quotes about Viv, which i dont know why as he failed against them.

The pressure of being a batsman is too much. Its all well and good taking a 5-for and scoring a quick fire 80 odd with the bat.
However when your primary job is to bat, then an average of 33 is never good enough and you will be dropped sooner or later.

Botham sustained a batting average in the upper thirties for most of his career. He had 14 test centuries and 22 fifties. That is certainly good enough for his era, when there were so many great bowlers. Lost of batters had a sixty-test career (a long and distinguished career in those days) without scoring 14 centuries. Gatting, that pillar of the England middle order only get ten. Even his mate Gower only got 18, who was considered a minor genius.

As I've said before, only after 1987 did his numbers start to tail off but the selectors kept picking him when they should have called time and used him as an ODI man. His last twenty tests had no hundreds and no fivefers. That hurt his numbers.

 

[Haroon786]

no....tests and onedayers combined Kapil was better than Botham and equal to Imran

Stats in odis are almost irrelevant, Test cricket is what counts, so they were both quite even, but Botham edged out in all 3 facets of the game.

 

[Haroon786]

Sir Ians bowling sr in tests 56.9 and odis 43.2

 

[soso_killer]

Botham sustained a batting average in the upper thirties for most of his career. He had 14 test centuries and 22 fifties. That is certainly good enough for his era, when there were so many great bowlers. Lost of batters had a sixty-test career (a long and distinguished career in those days) without scoring 14 centuries. Gatting, that pillar of the England middle order only get ten. Even his mate Gower only got 18, who was considered a minor genius.

As I've said before, only after 1987 did his numbers start to tail off but the selectors kept picking him when they should have called time and used him as an ODI man. His last twenty tests had no hundreds and no fivefers. That hurt his numbers.

like i said the pressure of maintaining your place in the team through batting alone can never be quantified. 14 centuries against weak teams over 102 matches is hardly anything to shout about

 

[soso_killer]

Botham averaged 34 after 94 matches. Which covers the 10 years till 87, 14 centuries and 22 50's.

 

[Haroon786]

Botham averaged 34 after 94 matches. Which covers the 10 years till 87, 14 centuries and 22 50's.

What about til 80 tests ?

 

[soso_killer]

What about til 80 tests ?

from 77 to 31 Dec 79 he averaged 36, with 4 hundreds and 3 50's in 30 innings (22 matches).

 

[Scrolln]

I think Ian Botham was the best all rounder in the world till 1985.

During this time he averaged 36 with the bat (4400 runs with 13 centuries) and 26 with the bowl (343 wickets) in 79 tests.

By the end of 1985, Imran Khan had scored 2100 runs at an average of 31 (2 centuries) and taken 245 wickets at an avg of 22.

While Botham's career went on a downward spiral since 1986, Imran maintained his consistency especially with the bat.

Imran has better statistics overall, and i rate him as the best all rounder ever. But Ian Botham was better till 1985, he was a more 'complete all rounder' till that period, unlike Imran who was a specialist bowler and a decent bat.

 

[Haroon786]

from 77 to 31 Dec 79 he averaged 36, with 4 hundreds and 3 50's in 30 innings (22 matches).

Sorry you misunderstood, I meant his record when he played 80 tests not til the year 80, sorry.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

The outcome of the comparison of great all-rounders, I have realized over the years, is not really dependent on the players themselves but more on the kind of cricket the fans like. A swasbuckler adores Kapil and Botham, a consumate professional Hadlee and Imran and so on. Of course which country the fan belongs to also plays its part.

Of the four Richard Hadlee is often dismissed at the one with least batting skills. I can assure you that was not true. It is just that the other three were considerable batters and Hadlee in term suffers. But the man was the truest professional I have ever seen on a cricket field. Case in point, in 1984 when Hadlee played for Nottighamshire, he decided to complete the English county double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets. Keep in mind that post 1969 when the number of games have been severly curtailed this was thought of as impossible. Also that 1984 is much before days of Internet and iPads. So what does Hadlee do? He carries a suitcase with him to every game. In this case is a stack of files and log books of his wickets and runs, how many more he needs, what batsmen he needs to target, where to score runs and so on. Doesnt talk much to his team mates whose feelings about him range from genius to selfish to self absorbed. But at the end he achieves the impossible. The coveted double. (Franklyn Stephenson achieved this in 1987 and is the last man to do so).

Of the four great all-rounders I can only see Hadlee doing something like that. True it was English county and not Test cricket but Botham could never do that. Heck even with Botham-Richards-Garner Somerset did not acheive a lot in English cricket. Kapil couldnt do that either. Neither could Imran.

Back to Botham. He truly was the best batsman amongst the four. His baptism started when he was bloodied by Andy Roberts and still took his county to victory, a story oft told in English county circuit. That little bit is important because the other three all-rounders started as bowlers first and then developed their skill. Botham was slightly different. He considers himself a batsman first and developed his bowling, thanks mainly to his coach (Derek Shackleton ?) who mentored him into a typical English seamer. Botham was as good a bat as anyone in English middle order. In fact he may have been better considering the results of the game he changed. He won more Tests than a Gatting, Lamb, Gooch, Gower etc. And most of his exploits were so spectacular that most cricket fans remember them rather easily. Quite a different case with say someone like IK whose batting exploits are missing till you arrive to late 80s. Thats a lot of years lost considering IK started his career in early to mid 70s.

Between IK and Kapil, I have always though Fred Trueman summarized them best. "Imran has the sounder technique but it is Kapil that I find exciting" Touche!

 

[Robert]

like i said the pressure of maintaining your place in the team through batting alone can never be quantified. 14 centuries against weak teams over 102 matches is hardly anything to shout about

The standard of bowling which Botham faced was higher and the wickets more demanding than those of today, where there is only one excellent bowler about, so I think it reasonable to suggest that those 14 centuries are equal to 24 in the modern game.

Similarly I think that most modern batsman would have their figures sharply reduced by the Windies pace quartet, Lillee, Hadlee and Imran. Cook would never be averaging close on 50 with 25 centuries - I think his career would look more like Atherton's (38 average, 16 centuries).

 

[Haroon786]

The standard of bowling which Botham faced was higher and the wickets more demanding than those of today, where there is only one excellent bowler about, so I think it reasonable to suggest that those 14 centuries are equal to 24 in the modern game.

Similarly I think that most modern batsman would have their figures sharply reduced by the Windies pace quartet, Lillee, Hadlee and Imran. Cook would never be averaging close on 50 with 25 centuries - I think his career would look more like Atherton's (38 average, 16 centuries).

Ditto

 

[amax]

The outcome of the comparison of great all-rounders, I have realized over the years, is not really dependent on the players themselves but more on the kind of cricket the fans like. A swasbuckler adores Kapil and Botham, a consumate professional Hadlee and Imran and so on. Of course which country the fan belongs to also plays its part.

Of the four Richard Hadlee is often dismissed at the one with least batting skills. I can assure you that was not true. It is just that the other three were considerable batters and Hadlee in term suffers. But the man was the truest professional I have ever seen on a cricket field. Case in point, in 1984 when Hadlee played for Nottighamshire, he decided to complete the English county double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets. Keep in mind that post 1969 when the number of games have been severly curtailed this was thought of as impossible. Also that 1984 is much before days of Internet and iPads. So what does Hadlee do? He carries a suitcase with him to every game. In this case is a stack of files and log books of his wickets and runs, how many more he needs, what batsmen he needs to target, where to score runs and so on. Doesnt talk much to his team mates whose feelings about him range from genius to selfish to self absorbed. But at the end he achieves the impossible. The coveted double. (Franklyn Stephenson achieved this in 1987 and is the last man to do so).

Of the four great all-rounders I can only see Hadlee doing something like that. True it was English county and not Test cricket but Botham could never do that. Heck even with Botham-Richards-Garner Somerset did not acheive a lot in English cricket. Kapil couldnt do that either. Neither could Imran.

Back to Botham. He truly was the best batsman amongst the four. His baptism started when he was bloodied by Andy Roberts and still took his county to victory, a story oft told in English county circuit. That little bit is important because the other three all-rounders started as bowlers first and then developed their skill. Botham was slightly different. He considers himself a batsman first and developed his bowling, thanks mainly to his coach (Derek Shackleton ?) who mentored him into a typical English seamer. Botham was as good a bat as anyone in English middle order. In fact he may have been better considering the results of the game he changed. He won more Tests than a Gatting, Lamb, Gooch, Gower etc. And most of his exploits were so spectacular that most cricket fans remember them rather easily. Quite a different case with say someone like IK whose batting exploits are missing till you arrive to late 80s. Thats a lot of years lost considering IK started his career in early to mid 70s.

Between IK and Kapil, I have always though Fred Trueman summarized them best. "Imran has the sounder technique but it is Kapil that I find exciting" Touche!

good post

 

[testcricketisbest]

Ian Botham as batsman was far superior than Imran Khan and as an all rounder he was more complete as he was fantastic slipper and also very good bowler.

Imran was a better bowler and better leader. Unlike Botham who was instant hit Imran took long time to get to his peak and Imran became better batsman after 1986 15 years after his debut and scored 4 of his 6 100s then but he was not the same bowler by then.

In my view Botham is one of truly great all rounders this game has ever seen, if he had worked hard on his fitness like other three of his contemporaries sky was limit for him it was all so natural for him.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

Ian Botham as batsman was far superior than Imran Khan and as an all rounder he was more complete as he was fantastic slipper and also very good bowler.

Imran was a better bowler and better leader. Unlike Botham who was instant hit Imran took long time to get to his peak and Imran became better batsman after 1986 15 years after his debut and scored 4 of his 6 100s then but he was not the same bowler by then.

In my view Botham is one of truly great all rounders this game has ever seen, if he had worked hard on his fitness like other three of his contemporaries sky was limit for him it was all so natural for him.

Although that is a rather fair assessment I can not help but question what is defined as the "peak" of a player? Is it merely his performance OR is it more about how his country's fortune has been affected by the same? Or is there anything else.

Take Kapil Dev for example. His peak is perhaps the 1983 WC win. That he achieved this in his 4th-5th International season makes it astonishing.

Have a look at his bowling performance in the same calendar year (1983). 75 wickets@23.2. He has the largest haul of wickets which is saying something considering bowlers of the era. And although he did play more Tests in 1983 his SR (46) is much ahead of the likes of Hadlee, Holding, Roberts etc). What makes it perhaps even more eye catching is many of these performances came against West Indies including a career best 9/83.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

This is the same year he hit what is arguably the best one day innings played by an Indian, and perhaps one of the top 5 of all countries. And then led the team to world cup win.

Was that the best year for an all-rounder? Hard to argue it was not.

 

[soso_killer]

The standard of bowling which Botham faced was higher and the wickets more demanding than those of today, where there is only one excellent bowler about, so I think it reasonable to suggest that those 14 centuries are equal to 24 in the modern game.

Similarly I think that most modern batsman would have their figures sharply reduced by the Windies pace quartet, Lillee, Hadlee and Imran. Cook would never be averaging close on 50 with 25 centuries - I think his career would look more like Atherton's (38 average, 16 centuries).

the problem i have with this theory is that it is not used consistently, and its one way traffic in favour of batsman. What about the bowlers?
Would Steyn be averaging 15 at a S.R of 30 had he been playing in the 80's? What about the likes of Morkel and Jimmy what do we make of their average?

I keep on hearing about the standard of wickets and yet we have had more results in this decade than the 80's.
What you also have to take into account is that bowlers bowl alot fuller (consistantly) nowadays. Which might explain the number of wins. I dont think bowlers in the 80's exploited the conditions. So for all we know Botham could be averaging about the same if not less.

 

[Robert]

the problem i have with this theory is that it is not used consistently, and its one way traffic in favour of batsman. What about the bowlers?
Would Steyn be averaging 15 at a S.R of 30 had he been playing in the 80's?

Possibly so. He is clearly much better than any other current bowler, which is a pretty good yardstick IMO.

 

[battler]

the problem i have with this theory is that it is not used consistently, and its one way traffic in favour of batsman. What about the bowlers?
Would Steyn be averaging 15 at a S.R of 30 had he been playing in the 80's? What about the likes of Morkel and Jimmy what do we make of their average?

I keep on hearing about the standard of wickets and yet we have had more results in this decade than the 80's.
What you also have to take into account is that bowlers bowl alot fuller (consistantly) nowadays. Which might explain the number of wins. I dont think bowlers in the 80's exploited the conditions. So for all we know Botham could be averaging about the same if not less.

I could also argue that batsmen of today are not as technically adept as their predecessors,hence they don't last too long which makes a result possible.

 

[Robert]

I could also argue that batsmen of today are not as technically adept as their predecessors,hence they don't last too long which makes a result possible.

Yeah, the emphasis is on fast scoring and explosive power - so they leave a big gate between bat and pad these days. This means they are more likely to be bowled or chop onto the stumps. They score more runs but in less time at the crease. So the game proceeds at a faster pace, increasing the chance of a result.

 

[battler]

Yeah, the emphasis is on fast scoring and explosive power - so they leave a big gate between bat and pad these days. This means they are more likely to be bowled or chop onto the stumps. They score more runs but in less time at the crease. So the game proceeds at a faster pace, increasing the chance of a result.

True.Teams have been playing a lot of limited overs cricket since the 2000's which has also reflected the way in which they approach test cricket.
While batting has become more aggressive in tests,I think bowlers and field settings have become more defensive.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Overall,I thank readers for such a great and balanced response.I complement their fairness towards both greats.I really appreciated Parosi_lurker for his appraisal of Hadlee and evaluation of Imran and Botham.It was a very objective analysis.Robert also defends Botham well as well as Scroll n and Jeetu.Well done,readers.

To me.still arguably Botham as a pure all-rounder in his peak was the closest to Sobers and just shades ahead of Imran.Overall,Imran probably wins with his better temperament and overall prowess as a cricketer.It would be a photo-finish to select them in an all time xi.Overall Imran was the better match-winner as he was fast -bowling all-rounder.

@Parosi_Lurker Who would you choose as the best of the 4 great allrounders of that era?Would you place Kallis and Sobers ahead of all the 4?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

@Buffet
Good assesment.Botham was neck to neck with Imran and at his peak sensational.He could dominate bowling more than Imran with the bat.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

@freelance cricketer

Very close to atleast.In the bracket of Bradman Sobers and Viv Richards at his best.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

@Giggi

I agree with you.To produce magic Botham was the ultimate man on his day.Your analysis is accurate.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Botham or Imran

For me, being a great bowler is rarer and hence probably harder than being a great batsman, so I'd always weigh bowling allrounders like IK and to a lesser extent Sir Mr Hadlee over Beefy. Although if you needed someone for that magical day when your team needed something, it's hard to look past Ian Botham.

I totally agree

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Botham v.Imran

The outcome of the comparison of great all-rounders, I have realized over the years, is not really dependent on the players themselves but more on the kind of cricket the fans like. A swasbuckler adores Kapil and Botham, a consumate professional Hadlee and Imran and so on. Of course which country the fan belongs to also plays its part.

Of the four Richard Hadlee is often dismissed at the one with least batting skills. I can assure you that was not true. It is just that the other three were considerable batters and Hadlee in term suffers. But the man was the truest professional I have ever seen on a cricket field. Case in point, in 1984 when Hadlee played for Nottighamshire, he decided to complete the English county double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets. Keep in mind that post 1969 when the number of games have been severly curtailed this was thought of as impossible. Also that 1984 is much before days of Internet and iPads. So what does Hadlee do? He carries a suitcase with him to every game. In this case is a stack of files and log books of his wickets and runs, how many more he needs, what batsmen he needs to target, where to score runs and so on. Doesnt talk much to his team mates whose feelings about him range from genius to selfish to self absorbed. But at the end he achieves the impossible. The coveted double. (Franklyn Stephenson achieved this in 1987 and is the last man to do so).

Of the four great all-rounders I can only see Hadlee doing something like that. True it was English county and not Test cricket but Botham could never do that. Heck even with Botham-Richards-Garner Somerset did not acheive a lot in English cricket. Kapil couldnt do that either. Neither could Imran.

Back to Botham. He truly was the best batsman amongst the four. His baptism started when he was bloodied by Andy Roberts and still took his county to victory, a story oft told in English county circuit. That little bit is important because the other three all-rounders started as bowlers first and then developed their skill. Botham was slightly different. He considers himself a batsman first and developed his bowling, thanks mainly to his coach (Derek Shackleton ?) who mentored him into a typical English seamer. Botham was as good a bat as anyone in English middle order. In fact he may have been better considering the results of the game he changed. He won more Tests than a Gatting, Lamb, Gooch, Gower etc. And most of his exploits were so spectacular that most cricket fans remember them rather easily. Quite a different case with say someone like IK whose batting exploits are missing till you arrive to late 80s. Thats a lot of years lost considering IK started his career in early to mid 70s.

Between IK and Kapil, I have always though Fred Trueman summarized them best. "Imran has the sounder technique but it is Kapil that I find exciting" Touche!

Great analysis.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

At peak, Ian Botham was actually the greatest ever cricketer known to mankind.

Very close to atleast,in the bracket of Bradman ,Sobers.Hobbs,Viv or Warne.

 

[soso_killer]

I could also argue that batsmen of today are not as technically adept as their predecessors,hence they don't last too long which makes a result possible.

i could in turn question the so called flawless technique of the batsmen from the 80's. Its well documented how short the length was meaning they were not very comfortable under the short ball which is pretty much a prerequisite nowadays.
They were never forced as often in the front foot so we cant judge their defensive technique much either.

 

[battler]

i could in turn question the so called flawless technique of the batsmen from the 80's. Its well documented how short the length was meaning they were not very comfortable under the short ball which is pretty much a prerequisite nowadays.
They were never forced as often in the front foot so we cant judge their defensive technique much either.

One very important point ur missing is that there were no helmet's in the 80's or if they were they were not the fully protected ones.
At that time missing a hook shot meant a bloodied face, so most batsmen rather duck and keep them safe than go for a risky shot.
Today batsmen are more inclined to go for the hook shoot because even if they miss it it won't do any substantial damage.
So I would definitely not say the batsmen of the 80's did not have the technique for short pitched bowling.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

Overall,I thank readers for such a great and balanced response.I complement their fairness towards both greats.I really appreciated Parosi_lurker for his appraisal of Hadlee and evaluation of Imran and Botham.It was a very objective analysis.Robert also defends Botham well as well as Scroll n and Jeetu.Well done,readers.

To me.still arguably Botham as a pure all-rounder in his peak was the closest to Sobers and just shades ahead of Imran.Overall,Imran probably wins with his better temperament and overall prowess as a cricketer.It would be a photo-finish to select them in an all time xi.Overall Imran was the better match-winner as he was fast -bowling all-rounder.

@Parosi_Lurker Who would you choose as the best of the 4 great allrounders of that era?Would you place Kallis and Sobers ahead of all the 4?

That is the million dollar question is it not? This discussion of who amongst the 4 great all-rounders of 80s was the standout, must be the most discussed cricket topic on web. And the fact that this continues tells you how great these players were and how little was difference between them.

In my opinion it boils down to what kind of cricket the fan likes and accordingly he will pick who was the best. Of the four Hadlee was the ultimate professional and I will take him out for that same reason because he almost seemed a metronome at times, working on auto-pilot. (Many fans may love him for that exact reason). Of the remaining 3, Kapil and Botham were players with same atitude. Having watched all these greats I always felt the difference was thus.

Imran hated losing much more than he loved winning.

Kapil and Botham loved winning much more than they hated losing.



This was amply evident in 1992 WC when although on their respective last leg as players, their team used them differently. Kapil and Botham played as pinch hitters while Imran donned the middle order pillar hat, almost similar to what Inzzy would do later for Pakistan. I dont see Kapil or Botham play the kind of innings Imran did in 92 finals, but I dont see Imran play Headingly 81 innings either although Kapil would have.

Of the four I felt Kapil was the complete package. He could bowl, bat, field, was great in between wickets (he and Azhar stealing singles for India was almost divine to watch). Keep in mind that Kapil was never run out in his entire test career, a very interesting statistics. He was the player who was as comfortable playing Test cricket, as he was LOI, and he would have been as successful (if not more) in T20. And isnt that what we want in our all-rounder? The one guy who does it all?

 

[Robert]

i could in turn question the so called flawless technique of the batsmen from the 80's. Its well documented how short the length was

I don't remember the length being much different.

Lillee & Thommo went a bit nuts in the 1970s and the WI could get carried away with the short stuff but there were also gentlemanly agreements between skippers that the nine-ten-jack on either side wouldn't get shelled. These days everyone cops it!

Imran, Hadlee, Botham and kapil all had good bouncers but they were all swingers who usually pitched it up.

 

[Haroon786]

Disagree with Imran being a safety first player or captain, he was probably the most attacking player, someone who disregarded pereonal acheivement for collective success, omitted players deemed to be too defensive.

 

[soso_killer]

One very important point ur missing is that there were no helmet's in the 80's or if they were they were not the fully protected ones.
At that time missing a hook shot meant a bloodied face, so most batsmen rather duck and keep them safe than go for a risky shot.
Today batsmen are more inclined to go for the hook shoot because even if they miss it it won't do any substantial damage.
So I would definitely not say the batsmen of the 80's did not have the technique for short pitched bowling.

i'm hearing excuses

 

[amax]

Of all the all rounders in 80s Imran was a Genuine fast bowler, it is very difficult to be a genuine fast bowler (because of heavy toll on body) on top of that he was an ATG one, with a peak eclipsing that of Marshal's. Add to this ability to bat , captaincy and you got a package as complete as it can get.

 

[soso_killer]

I don't remember the length being much different.

Lillee & Thommo went a bit nuts in the 1970s and the WI could get carried away with the short stuff but there were also gentlemanly agreements between skippers that the nine-ten-jack on either side wouldn't get shelled. These days everyone cops it!

Imran, Hadlee, Botham and kapil all had good bouncers but they were all swingers who usually pitched it up.

its no secrete that short of a length bowling was fashionable in the 80's.

Short of a length does not mean at your throat. They did not bowl full enough. Thats been discussed before by plenty of pundits. So not sure what the debate is all about, of course from time to time the ball was pitched up. Keyword: time to time.

 

[soso_killer]

Hadlee, Lilee and Marshall did pitch it up regularly though.

 

[battler]

i'm hearing excuses

They ain't excuses would u rather go for a hook on a 150 kph bouncer and risk ending up in the hospital or rather duck and keep yourself safe?
I know what I would do!
I have immense respect for those batsmen who hooked the ball regularly, it requires great courage!

 

[kamranwasti]

Imran hated losing much more than he loved winning.

I would rather trust Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell, Javed Miandad, Sunil Gavaskar, David Gower, Dennis Lillee, Wasim Akram etc. than some obscure mass of protoplasm.

 

[tempus123]

I would rather trust Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell, Javed Miandad, Sunil Gavaskar, David Gower, Dennis Lillee, Wasim Akram etc. than some obscure mass of protoplasm.

Yes, Imran was the advocate of risking the loss if it offers chance of victory.. not sure about the opposite opinion about his approach.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Kapil was a better all rounder in ODI but if you combine the test format then IK is comfortably better due to his bowling in test format. IK is an ATG bowler and ATG all-rounder. Kapil is an ATG all rounder but not an ATG bowler.

You gives extra importance to 'Imran being an all time great bowler too' and bases your final jugdgement regarding the 2 players on that.respecting your opinion.but for me it is a different criteria in that i judge allrounders by evaluating each of their individual skills and then 'who ever score more marks combined' is the better all rounder for me.for eg: Kapil being an all time great in neither batting nor bowling is not a factor for me.

Having said that i just cannot take the str:rate, bowl avg:, econ rate of Kapil
in tests as such and just because they all are statistically inferior to those of Imran's by a fair margin,i can't agree that Kapil was a proportionately inferior bowler to Imran.this is because of 3 factors.

1. longevity - Kapil has played almost 150% the no: of tests that Imran played.do you feel Imran would have kept the same statistical figures had he played 131 tests? Kapil had 311 wkts in first 88 tests(Imran played 88 tests) that means 3.53 wkts/tests. but at the end of his career it stood at 3.31.see the difference that longevity alone made.

2. attitude and relative workload.- Imran only played 88 tests and 175 one dayers in a span of long 21 years.Kapil played 131 tests in 16 years apart from 225 1 dayers.quite remarkably he played all but 1 tests India played in his career time.even that 1 test miss was not due to fitness problem. that means Kapil was ready to play at any cost unless some thing hugely bothered him and we are comparing two players from the same era.if they were from entirely different eras we can attribute this shortage of matches to the difference in amount of matches played in different eras.In this regard we can see that the playing days/ year for Imran was less by a fair distance when compared to Kapil.This allowed him to be almost match fit when ever he footed on the ground to play.but Kapil just ignored this factor and made himself available at every minute necessity for ndia.And no need to say this factor had a sizable impact on the over all career statistics of the
two,especially averages.


To get a more clear picture of this Kapil had 247 wkts in his first 62 tests(4
wkts/test).then came the knee injury and surgery. Kapil just ignored this and continued playing immediately.the result was only 64 wkts in next 26 tests(2.46 wkts/test).that was Kapil's mental attitude to playing for India.On the other hand Imran took almost 2 years rest after his shin injury before playing again.not blaming Imran here. just pointing out the attitude of the two players and impact of such attitude on statistical figures.

3. the over all strength of the bowling unit- Any body who has gone thru the motions of the game can never neglect this factor.suppose the bowler has bowled 8 overs in his first spell.now when he comes in for his 2nd spell at 125 for 3 rather than 125 for no loss, that makes a huge difference.if it is 125 for no loss, the bowler is bowling to well set batsmen who now plays this bowler much batter. on the other hand if it is 125 for 3, the bowler will be much more at advantage because of 2 relatively new batsmen at the crease.Kapil had this huge disadvantage of bowling to well set batsmen thru out his career more than that of a lot of great bowlers in test cricket history because of lack of quality support bowlers. with Kapil's case he was one of the few
bowlers(whether it be pace or spin) in the entire cricket history to be destined to play as a lone strike bowler in a bowling wise weak team in unfamiliar conditions.It is quite logical to assume that he would have been asked a lot more often to break huge partnerships of well set batsmen there by going for much more runs and ending up bowling much more balls in the absence of other strike bowlers. During his period India had only below average bowlers be it pace or spin.Imran had quality support bowlers in Sarfraz,Khader and Iqbal Qasim.Imran himself points out these factors about Kapil
in his book'All Round View' which i have with me.

to have a measure of this i did the exercise of calculating the bowl avg: of all the support bowlers both for Kapil and Imran thru out their careers.this was time consuming, but i could do it.the result was that 'the combined bowling avg: of other support bowlers of Imran was better than that of Kapil himself'.both this numbers differed by almost 11.another calculation i did was 'how effective was Kapil in his peak 88 tests(88 tests comprising of 'his series with most no: of wkts'),in these 88 tests he could take 351 wkts, not far behind Imran's 362.this calculation is a fair assessment as to how the above 3 factors together affected Kapil's figures.

Suppose Kapil played only 88 tests with all the above factors in exactly opposite conditions.then for me he could have ended with 330-335 wkts instead of 311....19 wkts more at the least.this is only a probablity analysis.but i am sure he was actually that calibre bowler to achieve 330 against Imran's 362.i am not saying Kapil is a test bowling equivalent of Imran, but definitely only slightly lower level bowler against what stats actually reveal.


w.r.t test bat
Kapil :avg:31.05 str:rate :80.91(some inns are excluded because of non availability of str: rates)
Imran :avg:37.69 str:rate :47.52(some inns are excluded because of non availability of str: rates)


str:rate may be only secondary in tests.but we just can't ignore Kapil's huge str: rate and Imran's very low str: rate. to put this in context even Viv had a str: rate of 69.28 only and for Ian botham it was only 61.but Botham's str: rate fell to 55 in abroad conditions.but Kapil maintained this huge str: rate in tougher conditions of (WI,AUS,SAF,ENG,NZL combined too).to me Kapil's avg: * str: rate index value of 31.05 * 80.91 seems unbelievable. i calcuated this value for all the players in those period including specialist batsmen.Of these Greg chappel's and Clive lloyd's couldn't be found because of lack of str rate .Kapil came out as 2nd best behind Viv richards.for
Viv it was 50.23*69.28=3479.Kapil's value is 72.2% as that of Viv.that means Kapil was 72.2% an impact player as Viv.Is it a small matter especially when considering that Kapil played in the 80s when run scoring was really difficult.Take Imran.he played only 126 inns compared to Kapil's 184.(only 68.48 % as that of Kapil).even in such few no: Of inns he has 25 not outs(19.8 %) and very low str: rate.(credit should be given for not being dismissed though).Kapil's runs/inns is 28.52.for Imran it is 30.21.here too not much difference which shows how Imran's average is boosted hugely by no: of not outs.

Now let us go deeper.assume that 35 is a decent test score especially for middle order ,allrounders like Kapil and Imran.

Kapil
no: of inns :58(31.52% of total inns played)
runs : 3737
avg: 64.43(excluding not outs)
str: rate :88.39(not exact as str: rate for a 5 inns are not available).

Imran
no: of inns :36(28.57% of total inns played)
runs : 2482
vg: 68.95(excluding not outs)
str: rate :50.85(not exact as str: rate for a 5 inns are not available).

from the above data it is clear that once they crosses 35, there is only a difference of 4.52 in their avg: scores.but Kapil makes up for that with a difference of 2.95 in the percentage of such inns played(ie 58 out of 184).but the striking point is the impact he makes in these inns.i mean his str: rate pops up to 88.39(a difference of +7.52) against Imrans 50.85(a difference of +3.33)


and now let us consider 75 and above as huge scores for these allrounderss.

Kapil
no: of inns :15(8.15 % of total inns played)
runs : 1578
avg: 105.2(excluding not outs)
str: rate :96.45(not exact as str: rate for a 1 inn is not available).

Imran
no: of inns :9(7.14 % of total inns played)
runs : 996
vg: 110.67(excluding not outs)
str: rate :54.75

from above data it is crystal clear about the impact Kapil makes when he plays huge inns.
his str: rate leaps from 80.91 to 96.45(a difference of 15.54) where as for Imran it is
only 7.23,and even then it is still mediocre at 54.75.Also w.r.t Kapil he has 2 inns of 97 and 100* respectively vs WI in WI.that too at more than a run a ball str: rate !!!In this regard he was way better than the other 3 all rounders.i think the other 3 never crossed a 50 against WI in WI.to dictate terms to the best in their own den has lot of weightage for me.a true reflection of the natural talent.we can see that the difference in bat: average of the 2 players is not a true reflection of their ability but that of their style of play only.Imran with his better defensive technique and tuk tuk approach was more prone to remaining not outs while Kapil's role and style was to gather maximum
runs in the company of tailenders and there by even getting out last thru even unnecessary risky shots after doing considerable damage to the bowlers.i am not saying that Imran's defensive approach was not to the benefit of the team.especially towards the end of his career Imran played some match saving inns or rescue inns or both.Kapil also played some truly remarkable inns.yet the str: rates achieved by Kapil were so huge in addition to his longevity which forces me to think that Kapil at his attacking best was much better test batsman than Imran at defensive best.

in fielding too Kapil was way better than Imran.infact it was larger than the difference between them in captaincy,which is in favour of Imran.
so both are almost at same level in tests for me.now Kapil being slightly better in one dayers, that evens out over all for me.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Stats in odis are almost irrelevant, Test cricket is what counts, so they were both quite even, but Botham edged out in all 3 facets of the game.

the one day game has been there for almost 40 years.several world cups have been played.yet you discard it as irrevalent? w.r.t Kapil being better than Botham, i have given my reasons in reply to buffet.if you don't mind pls go thru it.

 

[amax]

1. longevity - Kapil has played almost 150% the no: of tests that Imran played.do you feel Imran would have kept the same statistical figures had he played 131 tests? Kapil had 311 wkts in first 88 tests(Imran played 88 tests) that means 3.53 wkts/tests. but at the end of his career it stood at 3.31.see the difference that longevity alone made.

Longevity of a genuine fast bowler cannot be compared to medium pacer or even fast medium because of massive pressure on body. I think(i might be wrong) wasim is the only bowler that can be classified as genuine fast and has played over 100 tests. By your logic a case can be made for Kapil dev to be a better bowler than Micheal Holding.

 

[kamranwasti]

India won 101 out of the 227 matches that Kapil Dev played - 45%

Kapil Dev scored 1653 runs - 16 runs per match - averaging 28 with 1 hundred and 7 fifties - strike rate 101

Pakistan won 93 out of the 175 matches that Imran played - 53.14%

Imran scored 2066 runs - 22 runs per match at 47 with 1 hundred and 14 fifties - strike rate 80

Compared to Kapil Dev's 84 innings, Imran batted in 73

You can understand who is more competent and effective with the bat.

 

[kamranwasti]

1. longevity - Kapil has played almost 150% the no: of tests that Imran played.do you feel Imran would have kept the same statistical figures had he played 131 tests? Kapil had 311 wkts in first 88 tests(Imran played 88 tests) that means 3.53 wkts/tests. but at the end of his career it stood at 3.31.see the difference that longevity alone made.

Kapil Dev after 88 tests had 3668 runs at 32 with 5 hundreds and 311 wickets at 29
Imran after 88 tests had 3807 at 37 with 6 hundreds and 362 at 22

Also in Imran's case, he had 282 wickets (4.7 per test) after 60 tests (around 2/3 of his career) - in his case the fall was from 4.7 to 4.11 - in Kapil Dev's case it was from 3.5 to 3.3

2. attitude and relative workload.- Imran only played 88 tests and 175 one dayers in a span of long 21 years.Kapil played 131 tests in 16 years apart from 225 1 dayers.quite remarkably he played all but 1 tests India played in his career time.even that 1 test miss was not due to fitness problem. that means Kapil was ready to play at any cost unless some thing hugely bothered him and we are comparing two players from the same era.if they were from entirely different eras we can attribute this shortage of matches to the difference in amount of matches played in different eras.In this regard we can see that the playing days/ year for Imran was less by a fair distance when compared to Kapil.This allowed him to be almost match fit when ever he footed on the ground to play.but Kapil just ignored this factor and made himself available at every minute necessity for ndia.And no need to say this factor had a sizable impact on the over all career statistics of the
two,especially averages.

Throughout his career, Kapil Dev never was a sub-25 bowler ever - even at the very beginning when he at times was playing 18 tests a year.

Kapil Dev retired at 35 - Imran at 35 actually won a test match in the West Indies which Kapil Dev could not achieve - in fact it is 5-0 against his name over there.

As far as workload is concerned, it has a lot to do with the schedules and for Imran's crippling shin injury which, any fast-bowling expert would tell you, had to do with effort.

Finally, Kapil Dev remained a medium-pacer and Imran was one of the fastest in the world, the fastest in 1982 if you go by what Mike Brearley had to say when you had Roberts, Holding, Marshall and the likes bowling in England as well.

To get a more clear picture of this Kapil had 247 wkts in his first 62 tests(4 wkts/test).then came the knee injury and surgery. Kapil just ignored this and continued playing immediately.the result was only 64 wkts in next 26 tests(2.46 wkts/test).that was Kapil's mental attitude to playing for India.On the other hand Imran took almost 2 years rest after his shin injury before playing again.not blaming Imran here. just pointing out the attitude of the two players and impact of such attitude on statistical figures.

Imran had 282 from 60 tests at 21.

And for the record, Imran actually bowled with his injury during the 1983 season - ended up with 12 wickets at 7 including a spell of 6 for 6 (with a hat-trick) - comparing Kapil Dev's case with Imran is mind-boggling to say the least. Imran actually kept trying to be available as a batsman (and delivered). By that count, you should dismiss Dennis Lillee too.

3. the over all strength of the bowling unit- Any body who has gone thru the motions of the game can never neglect this factor.suppose the bowler has bowled 8 overs in his first spell.now when he comes in for his 2nd spell at 125 for 3 rather than 125 for no loss, that makes a huge difference.if it is 125 for no loss, the bowler is bowling to well set batsmen who now plays this bowler much batter. on the other hand if it is 125 for 3, the bowler will be much more at advantage because of 2 relatively new batsmen at the crease.Kapil had this huge disadvantage of bowling to well set batsmen thru out his career more than that of a lot of great bowlers in test cricket history because of lack of quality support bowlers. with Kapil's case he was one of the few bowlers(whether it be pace or spin) in the entire cricket history to be destined to play as a lone strike bowler in a bowling wise weak team in unfamiliar conditions.It is quite logical to assume that he would have been asked a lot more often to break huge partnerships of well set batsmen there by going for much more runs and ending up bowling much more balls in the absence of other strike bowlers. During his period India had only below average bowlers be it pace or spin.Imran had quality support bowlers in Sarfraz,Khader and Iqbal Qasim.Imran himself points out these factors about Kapil in his book'All Round View' which i have with me.

Imran only had a steady support bowler in Sarfraz till 1983 - and at times Abdul Qadir till 1988 before Wasim Akram developed. That still does not justify why, for example, Kapil Dev averages 40 with the ball in England in conditions suited to swing bowling and when he had a good outswinger.

to have a measure of this i did the exercise of calculating the bowl avg: of all the support bowlers both for Kapil and Imran thru out their careers.this was time consuming, but i could do it.the result was that 'the combined bowling avg: of other support bowlers of Imran was better than that of Kapil himself'.both this numbers differed by almost 11.another calculation i did was 'how effective was Kapil in his peak 88 tests(88 tests comprising of 'his series with most no: of wkts'),in these 88 tests he could take 351 wkts, not far behind Imran's 362.this calculation is a fair assessment as to how the above 3 factors together affected Kapil's figures.

Actually not a fair assessment - basically comparing a sampe with a population which is anamolous. Instead, if you look at the matches won -

Kapil Dev had 90 wickets in 24 tests
Imran had had 155 wickets in 26 tests

Suppose Kapil played only 88 tests with all the above factors in exactly opposite conditions.then for me he could have ended with 330-335 wkts instead of 311....19 wkts more at the least.this is only a probablity analysis.but i am sure he was actually that calibre bowler to achieve 330 against Imran's 362.i am not saying Kapil is a test bowling equivalent of Imran, but definitely only slightly lower level bowler against what stats actually reveal.

Lots of suppositions actually - except that they did not happen.

Significantly lower actually as far Kapil Dev's calibre is concerned. He was never taken as someone who would win a test match for India through his bowling - he was always considered as someone to be respected and he could contribute with the ball but to consistently be rated as a test-match winning bowler, you need to do more that take 3.75 wickets per test in won matches.

w.r.t test bat
Kapil :avg:31.05 str:rate :80.91(some inns are excluded because of non availability of str: rates)
Imran :avg:37.69 str:rate :47.52(some inns are excluded because of non availability of str: rates)


str:rate may be only secondary in tests.but we just can't ignore Kapil's huge str: rate and Imran's very low str: rate. to put this in context even Viv had a str: rate of 69.28 only and for Ian botham it was only 61.but Botham's str: rate fell to 55 in abroad conditions.but Kapil maintained this huge str: rate in tougher conditions of (WI,AUS,SAF,ENG,NZL combined too).to me Kapil's avg: * str: rate index value of 31.05 * 80.91 seems unbelievable. i calcuated this value for all the players in those period including specialist batsmen.Of these Greg chappel's and Clive lloyd's couldn't be found because of lack of str rate .Kapil came out as 2nd best behind Viv richards.for
Viv it was 50.23*69.28=3479.Kapil's value is 72.2% as that of Viv.that means Kapil was 72.2% an impact player as Viv.Is it a small matter especially when considering that Kapil played in the 80s when run scoring was really difficult.Take Imran.he played only 126 inns compared to Kapil's 184.(only 68.48 % as that of Kapil).even in such few no: Of inns he has 25 not outs(19.8 %) and very low str: rate.(credit should be given for not being dismissed though).Kapil's runs/inns is 28.52.for Imran it is 30.21.here too not much difference which shows how Imran's average is boosted hugely by no: of not outs.

The multiplier is pointless - can you compare the number of matches that Richards won compared with those that Kapil Dev won?
Imran's not outs are more because of the difficulty that bowlers found in dismissing him than anything else.

That is why he could play any sort of innings - like bludgeoning the opposition (117 including 21 off a Kapil Dev over) or that quickfire 32 not out or his 136 (when Pakistan were effective 6 for 5 and facing defeat) or 73 when shepherding the tail against the West Indies or his counterattack when he was hit twice on finger (including a beamer) by Marshall at Faisalabad.

Now let us go deeper.assume that 35 is a decent test score especially for middle order ,allrounders like Kapil and Imran.

Kapil
no: of inns :58(31.52% of total inns played)
runs : 3737
avg: 64.43(excluding not outs)
str: rate :88.39(not exact as str: rate for a 5 inns are not available).

Imran
no: of inns :36(28.57% of total inns played)
runs : 2482
vg: 68.95(excluding not outs)
str: rate :50.85(not exact as str: rate for a 5 inns are not available).

from the above data it is clear that once they crosses 35, there is only a difference of 4.52 in their avg: scores.but Kapil makes up for that with a difference of 2.95 in the percentage of such inns played(ie 58 out of 184).but the striking point is the impact he makes in these inns.i mean his str: rate pops up to 88.39(a difference of +7.52) against Imrans 50.85(a difference of +3.33)

The difference was that that Imran could play the innings that the team needed. India always had a decent batting line-up throughout Kapil Dev's career. Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Amarnath and later Azharuddin, Tendulkar and Manjrekar.

Where they all failed, Kapil Dev failed too - like in the West Indies in 1989 etc. When he did deliver, it was rarely in victory.

Imran's role was that of a proper batsman once he became captain and he invariably delivered and mostly in crisis. For the second half of the 1980s, Pakistan only had Miandad who averaged above 40 for most of the time.

A classic example is the 1987 Bangalore test on a rank turner where every run mattered and Imran ground out 39. Kapil Dev, on the other hand, was cleaned up early as India collapsed to defeat.

and now let us consider 75 and above as huge scores for these allrounderss.

Kapil
no: of inns :15(8.15 % of total inns played)
runs : 1578
avg: 105.2(excluding not outs)
str: rate :96.45(not exact as str: rate for a 1 inn is not available).

Imran
no: of inns :9(7.14 % of total inns played)
runs : 996
vg: 110.67(excluding not outs)
str: rate :54.75

from above data it is crystal clear about the impact Kapil makes when he plays huge inns.
his str: rate leaps from 80.91 to 96.45(a difference of 15.54) where as for Imran it is
only 7.23,and even then it is still mediocre at 54.75.

Actually 54 is not mediocre - it merely shows that Imran was the more proper batsman.

Also w.r.t Kapil he has 2 inns of 97 and 100* respectively vs WI in WI.that too at more than a run a ball str: rate !!!In this regard he was way better than the other 3 all rounders.i think the other 3 never crossed a 50 against WI in WI.to dictate terms to the best in their own den has lot of weightage for me.a true reflection of the natural talent.we can see that the difference in bat: average of the 2 players is not a true reflection of their ability but that of their style of play only.

Agreed that none passed 50 - but it is about being more effective. Imran dominated the West Indians with the ball and won 2 tests. Kapil Dev lost 5. Imran had 4 for 64 in the first innings of the 1977 test that Pakistanis won and had 11 wickets in the Guyana test in 1988. He won - Kapil Dev didn't.

Imran with his better defensive technique and tuk tuk approach was more prone to remaining not outs while Kapil's role and style was to gather maximum
runs in the company of tailenders and there by even getting out last thru even unnecessary risky shots after doing considerable damage to the bowlers.i am not saying that Imran's defensive approach was not to the benefit of the team.especially towards the end of his career Imran played some match saving inns or rescue inns or both.Kapil also played some truly remarkable inns.yet the str: rates achieved by Kapil were so huge in addition to his longevity which forces me to think that Kapil at his attacking best was much better test batsman than Imran at defensive best.

I respect your right to hold on to your opinions.

in fielding too Kapil was way better than Imran.infact it was larger than the difference between them in captaincy,which is in favour of Imran.
so both are almost at same level in tests for me.now Kapil being slightly better in one dayers, that evens out over all for me.

Kapil Dev was a better all-round fieldsman no doubt but do not underrate Imran’s ODI exploits – remember he did not bowl in 22 games.
If batting alone is the criterion, India won 101 out of the 227 matches that Kapil Dev played - 45%

Kapil Dev scored 1653 runs - 16 runs per match - averaging 28 with 1 hundred and 7 fifties - strike rate 101

Pakistan won 93 out of the 175 matches that Imran played - 53.14%

Imran scored 2066 runs - 22 runs per match at 47 with 1 hundred and 14 fifties - strike rate 80

Compared to Kapil Dev's 84 innings, Imran batted in 73

You can understand who is more competent and effective with the bat – to many even Shahid Afridi would be a better ODI all-rounder than Kapil Dev but that is not the point.

 

[akheR]

Imran Khan's peak average (1981-1986) was the best ever, taking +150 scalps @ 14.9. Where does Kapil Dev's peak falls in comparison ?

^that's why as a bowler he's rated lower than Khan (or Botham and Hadlee) because even in his best form (averaged slightly over 25 @ SR 53, for 3 years), he lies down at the 60th position.

Imran Khan as a bowler was simply too far ahead of Kapil.

 

[tempus123]

India won 101 out of the 227 matches that Kapil Dev played - 45%


Pakistan won 93 out of the 175 matches that Imran played - 53.14%

What does win/loss record of the team have got to do with how good a player was ?

 

[kamranwasti]

What does win/loss record of the team have got to do with how good a player was ?

Please read the complete post

 

[tempus123]

Please read the complete post

The complete post is made up of 3 stats, and the conclusion that who was more effective and competent ?

One of the stat points was this, am I missing something ?

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Longevity of a genuine fast bowler cannot be compared to medium pacer or even fast medium because of massive pressure on body. I think(i might be wrong) wasim is the only bowler that can be classified as genuine fast and has played over 100 tests. By your logic a case can be made for Kapil dev to be a better bowler than Micheal Holding.

i didn't claim that Kapil was a better bowler than Imran or Holding.i only claimed that Kapil's wkts/test came down from 3.53 to 3.31 because of longevity alone and for the reasons cited by me, a much better bowler than what his str: rate,econ and bowl avg: reveals.

 

[amax]

i didn't claim that Kapil was a better bowler than Imran or Holding.i only claimed that Kapil's wkts/test came down from 3.53 to 3.31 because of longevity alone and for the reasons cited by me, a much better bowler than what his str: rate,econ and bowl avg: reveals.

ok got it.

 

[Scrolln]

Imran, Hadlee, Marshall were tier 1 bowlers of the 1980's.

Botham, Kapil, Willis etc were all tier 2.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

Imran, Hadlee, Marshall were tier 1 bowlers of the 1980's.

Botham, Kapil, Willis etc were all tier 2.

Not really true.

Here are Kapil Dev's rating for each year in 80s (PWC ratings now known as LG ICC ratings)

31st Dec 1980 - Rank 3
31st Dec 1981 - Rank 8
31st Dec 1982 - Rank 11
31st Dec 1983 - Rank 3
31st Dec 1984 - Rank 7
31st Dec 1985 - Rank 6
31st Dec 1986 - Rank 6
31st Dec 1987 - Rank 6
31st Dec 1988 - Rank 10
31st Dec 1989 - Rank 5
31st Dec 1990 - Rank 11

To be in top 10 for entire decade (except 1990) in an era which is considered the best for bowling is a testament for any great bowler, much less an all-rounder.

This is indeed a truth that gets lost in statistical analysis. People who have never seen these 4 greats play fail to realize how awesome they were and how little there was between them.

 

[Haroon786]

the one day game has been there for almost 40 years.several world cups have been played.yet you discard it as irrevalent? w.r.t Kapil being better than Botham, i have given my reasons in reply to buffet.if you don't mind pls go thru it.

You are defined by your tests stats, Botham was better, end of.

 

[WebGuru]

Here are Kapil Dev's rating for each year in 80s (PWC ratings now known as LG ICC ratings)

31st Dec 1980 - Rank 3
31st Dec 1981 - Rank 8
31st Dec 1982 - Rank 11
31st Dec 1983 - Rank 3
31st Dec 1984 - Rank 7
31st Dec 1985 - Rank 6
31st Dec 1986 - Rank 6
31st Dec 1987 - Rank 6
31st Dec 1988 - Rank 10
31st Dec 1989 - Rank 5
31st Dec 1990 - Rank 11

If we look into Best Ever 100 Test Bowler Ratings Imran is at #3, Botham at #8, Haldess at #10 and Kapil at #36

 

[Haroon786]

If we look into Best Ever 100 Test Bowler Ratings Imran is at #3, Botham at #8, Haldess at #10 and Kapil at #36

Parosi lurker just got pawned

 

[Buffet]

You gives extra importance to 'Imran being an all time great bowler too' ...........

in fielding too Kapil was way better than Imran.infact it was larger than the difference between them in captaincy,which is in favour of Imran.
so both are almost at same level in tests for me.now Kapil being slightly better in one dayers, that evens out over all for me.

Your post was too long to reply point by point but I will just sum it up here.

Bowling: Yes, Kapil is hugely underrated at PP for various reasons. He was standout fast bowler from SC in WI and Aus. He did very well in India as well. He performed against the best team of his era. But he didn't do well in other countries.

As some one posted in this thread , he was in top 10 for almost whole decade so he has to be a very good bowler. But IK was surely much better bowler than him. Gap may not be as huge as stats suggest but it's not as small as you are suggesting. Taking account of everything, I still think that gap was pretty big one in Test matches.

Batting: I already said that I rate Kapil as a better batsman than IK. Kapil could dictate the terms coming at number 7 and he did play some breathtaking innings. I will be much more scared of Kapil than IK coming at number 7 because both contributed roughly same amount of runs in each innings but Kapil could play huge knocks against any attack at very fast clip. This same amount of runs is also result of IK focusing exclusively on his batting in last few years. For me, Kapil was better but not by a huge margin.

Fileding There is hardly any competition here. Kapil was far superior fielder.

ODI Kapil was comfortably the best all rounder in ODI among those 4. He occupied the top spot for around 10 years. He brought his A game against great WI team.

You may be scratching your head that I am rating Kapil as better ODI all rounder + far better filder + better bat but over all still rate him below IK. I feel their test bowling gap was still a huge one. Lone warrior point is fine but Hadlee was more or less same case but he did very well. Kapil did very well in India, Aus & WI but he was not up to the task in other places.

Kapil was a gun all rounder and that's why he find place in 5-6th world XI of some fans/experts but IK bowling propels him at a higher level.

 

[Buffet]

If we look into Best Ever 100 Test Bowler Ratings Imran is at #3, Botham at #8, Haldess at #10 and Kapil at #36

Best ever rating is not really relevant for amount of time a bowler spends in top 10. I don't see any relevancy of best ever rating with how great a player was.

Best ever rating indicates the peak performance of a player only once in his career. That doesn't define the greatness. Greatness is defined by the amount of time you spend with top ratings or top ranking. If anyone cares then you can see that IK spent more time at higher ranks/rating points than Kapil in test bowling. That sums it for me.

 

[tempus123]

Parosi lurker just got pawned

I don't think yet..

Well, peak rankings and being consistently in top 10 are different things.. by peak rankings you will see Hayden better than Tendulkar, won't you ?

 

[WebGuru]

Best ever rating is not really relevant for amount of time a bowler spends in top 10. I don't see any relevancy of best ever rating with how great a player was.

Best ever rating indicates the peak performance of a player only once in his career. That doesn't define the greatness. Greatness is defined by the amount of time you spend with top ratings or top ranking. If anyone cares then you can see that IK spent more time at higher ranks/rating points than Kapil in test bowling. That sums it for me.

I just shared the ranking in reply to the other rankings shared. Most of the name you see in the list are great names and it's also an angle to see the performance of great players by checking their rating at peak if we are giving that importance to ranking instead of the bowlers stats.

 

[Buffet]

I just shared the ranking in reply to the other rankings shared. Most of the name you see in the list are great names and it's also an angle to see the performance of great players by checking their rating at peak.

But amount of time a player spends in top is manifold important than peak rating points. That's how I see it. Some not so great players have high peak rating points. They are not considered great due to only one reason. They didn't spend majority of their time as a top player. Basically, their peak form was very high but they were not great enough in their entire career. I know there is lot more than simply looking at this but it gives a pretty good indication.

 

[WebGuru]

But amount of time a player spends in top is manifold important than peak rating points. That's how I see it. Some not so great players have high peak rating points. They are not considered great due to only one reason. They didn't spend majority of their time as a top player. Basically, their peak form was very high but they were not great enough in their entire career. I know there is lot more than simply looking at this but it gives a pretty good indication.

Even if we go by that way Imran remained in Top 4 bowlers from 1982 to 1990 and in top 10 from 1980 to end of his career.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

If we look into Best Ever 100 Test Bowler Ratings Imran is at #3, Botham at #8, Haldess at #10 and Kapil at #36

This is where the discussion starts getting rhetorical.

My post was to show that Kapil Dev was consistently ranked within top 10 bowlers for an entire decade, in a decade that is widely considered to be the best for bowling. To be ranked as amongst the top 10 bowlers of the world for an entire decade is an honor even for the best of the bowlers, let alone an all-rounder.

You can of course take it any which way you like

 

[WebGuru]

This is where the discussion starts getting rhetorical.

My post was to show that Kapil Dev was consistently ranked within top 10 bowlers for an entire decade, in a decade that is widely considered to be the best for bowling. To be ranked as amongst the top 10 bowlers of the world for an entire decade is an honor even for the best of the bowlers, let alone an all-rounder.

You can of course take it any which way you like

So we are emphasizing on rankings here instead of bowling stats? Well in same rankings Imran remained in Top 4 for 8 year.

 

[Buffet]

Even if we go by that way Imran remained in Top 5 bowlers from 1982 to 1990 and in top 10 from 1980 to end of his career.

When did I state otherwise? I rate IK much higher than Kapil in bowling. I will pretty much expect IK to spend majority of his time in top ratings/ranking. I was only saying that peak rating points are not meaningful in judging the greatness of player.

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

So we are emphasizing on rankings here instead of bowling stats? Well in same rankings Imran remained in Top 4 for 8 year.

As the experession goes - Data without context is meaningless.

The context here is a fellow poster claimed that Kapil was tier 2 bowler in 80s era. My reply was to that showing how for the entire decade he was amongst the very best in the world. And hence was anything but a tier 2 bowler.

Hope that clears

 

[tempus123]

As the experession goes - Data without context is meaningless.

The context here is a fellow poster claimed that Kapil was tier 2 bowler in 80s era. My reply was to that showing how for the entire decade he was amongst the very best in the world. And hence was anything but a tier 2 bowler.

Hope that clears

Fair point.

 

[WebGuru]

As the experession goes - Data without context is meaningless.

The context here is a fellow poster claimed that Kapil was tier 2 bowler in 80s era. My reply was to that showing how for the entire decade he was amongst the very best in the world. And hence was anything but a tier 2 bowler.

Hope that clears

That's a fair point and i don't think there should be 2 tiers but where you rank Kapil as a bowler in Top 10 bowlers of 80s?

 

[WebGuru]

When did I state otherwise? I rate IK much higher than Kapil in bowling. I will pretty much expect IK to spend majority of his time in top ratings/ranking. I was only saying that peak rating points are not meaningful in judging the greatness of player.

I do agree with you but most of great player do have peaks right? You can't expect peak rating points from mediocre players. For example if we go by the list of 38 i shared above how many mediocre players we can find there?

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

That's a fair point and i don't think there should be 2 tiers but where you rank Kapil as a bowler in Top 10 bowlers of 80s?

That is easy enough to answer.

My top 10 bowlers of 80s would be thus:

Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
Lillee
Garner
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Holding
Willis
Botham


I am sure I am forgetting some but thats my quick memory down the road trip.

 

[WebGuru]

That is easy enough to answer.

My top 10 bowlers of 80s would be thus:

Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
Lillee
Garner
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Holding
Willis
Botham


I am sure I am forgetting some but thats my quick memory down the road trip.

Well that's a good list i will say but i will make a couple of changes to it. For example i will rank Holding above Wasim and Kapil and below Garner

 

[Parosi_Lurker]

Well that's a good list i will say but i will make a couple of changes to it. For example i will rank Holding above Wasim and Kapil and below Garner

Fair enough. As mentioned earlier there was little to choose. So it essentially depends on what a fan looks for.

For example, in the same era Abdul Qadir was playing as well and most cricket fans would also put him in top 10 (and rightfully so). However Qadir was played so relatively easily by Indians (Kapil used to pick his googly in flight, shout googles and then hit it for six..Amarnath did the same) that Qadir loses his luster a bit, a terrific spinner though.

Between Holding and Garner the latter was always unplayable. He used to take pitch out of the equation. Holding was a terrific fast bowler of course, perhaps the fastest bowler of 80s and that is saying something.

 

[Buffet]

I do agree with you but most of great player do have peaks right? You can't expect peak rating points from mediocre players. For example if we go by the list of 38 i shared above how many mediocre players we can find there?

I was making mainly one point. Putting peak rating in decreasing order doesn't help us to find out relative greatness of players because it doesn't define greatness at all.

I will pick one example from your list. Kapil and Lillee are ranked side by side in peak rating but there is a gap in their skill as a bowler. Anyway, let's keep the thread on track and discuss the main topic.

 

[WebGuru]

Fair enough. As mentioned earlier there was little to choose. So it essentially depends on what a fan looks for.

For example, in the same era Abdul Qadir was playing as well and most cricket fans would also put him in top 10 (and rightfully so). However Qadir was played so relatively easily by Indians (Kapil used to pick his googly in flight, shout googles and then hit it for six..Amarnath did the same) that Qadir loses his luster a bit, a terrific spinner though.

Between Holding and Garner the latter was always unplayable. He used to take pitch out of the equation. Holding was a terrific fast bowler of course, perhaps the fastest bowler of 80s and that is saying something.

I would pick Abdul Qadir too but because were talking about pacers of 80s that's why didn't add him. For me it's really hard to put Holding at #8

I was making mainly one point. Putting peak rating in decreasing order doesn't help us to find out relative greatness of players because it doesn't define greatness at all.

I will pick one example from your list. Kapil and Lillee are ranked side by side in peak rating but there is a gap in their skill as a bowler. Anyway, let's keep the thread on track and discuss the main topic.

Fair Enough

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Your post was too long to reply point by point but I will just sum it up here.

Bowling: Yes, Kapil is hugely underrated at PP for various reasons. He was standout fast bowler from SC in WI and Aus. He did very well in India as well. He performed against the best team of his era. But he didn't do well in other countries.

As some one posted in this thread , he was in top 10 for almost whole decade so he has to be a very good bowler. But IK was surely much better bowler than him. Gap may not be as huge as stats suggest but it's not as small as you are suggesting. Taking account of everything, I still think that gap was pretty big one in Test matches.

Batting: I already said that I rate Kapil as a better batsman than IK. Kapil could dictate the terms coming at number 7 and he did play some breathtaking innings. I will be much more scared of Kapil than IK coming at number 7 because both contributed roughly same amount of runs in each innings but Kapil could play huge knocks against any attack at very fast clip. This same amount of runs is also result of IK focusing exclusively on his batting in last few years. For me, Kapil was better but not by a huge margin.

Fileding There is hardly any competition here. Kapil was far superior fielder.

ODI Kapil was comfortably the best all rounder in ODI among those 4. He occupied the top spot for around 10 years. He brought his A game against great WI team.

You may be scratching your head that I am rating Kapil as better ODI all rounder + far better filder + better bat but over all still rate him below IK. I feel their test bowling gap was still a huge one. Lone warrior point is fine but Hadlee was more or less same case but he did very well. Kapil did very well in India, Aus & WI but he was not up to the task in other places.

Kapil was a gun all rounder and that's why he find place in 5-6th world XI of some fans/experts but IK bowling propels him at a higher level.

w.r.t Kapil's test bowling i made a probablity analysis and concluded that had Kapil played
only 88 tests in a long span of 21 years and at the same tests/year rate as Imran did and with other advantages too that he could have ended with 330 wkts, ie 330/362 = .9116 or 91.16 % as effective bowler as Imran.so only at a slightly lower level for me.but
you still think that the gap is not so small.what are your reasons?also keen to know as to where do you disagree with the 3 points i put forward for rating Kapil's bowling much higher than what his stats reveals.

Now with regard to batting i find his str: rate of 80.91 out of the world. to be frank i was not aware of this till an year back or so.all i knew was he was an aggressive player just like Botham.another thing that i rate really high was his ability to raise his str: rate to unbelievable levels once he crossed 75.he posses 15 scores of above 75 with 105.2 as runs/inns and 96.45 str: rate.only Gilchrist was on a par with him in this regard.this is literally butchering bowling attacks.and the most damage he did was to the best team of his era.and for this reason ie: his huge str: rate, i feel that he was a much better batsman than Imran.how do you evaluate this str: rate? in other words why do you feel there is only a small gap in this regard?

 

[WebGuru]

^21 Years? He played only one match in 1971 his career started from 1974 after his comeback. Well even if we accept this theory of less Test matches in Long period what about Sobers and Bradman thn?

Sobers played 93 matches in 20 years means less thn 5 matches a year while Bradman played 52 matches in 20 years means less thn 3 matches a yeard.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

^21 Years? He played only one match in 1971 his career started from 1974 after his comeback. Well even if we accept this theory of less Test matches in Long period what about Sobers and Bradman thn?

Sobers played 93 matches in 20 years means less thn 5 matches a year while Bradman played 52 matches in 20 years means less thn 3 matches a yeard.

that is why a lot of cricket followers firmly believe that the Don wouldn't have averaged 99.94 in today's dense schedules with added burden of limited overs cricket .in Don's case longevity too is much small. only 52. but what does in his favour overshadowing all other draw backs is this 99.94 .