Kapil Dev - Great in India only?

[adharcric]

Fazal, Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Sarfraz had each other for support. Kapil had only himself. More importantly, Imran, Wasim and Waqar are all legendary bowlers (~ top 15) and Fazal too is a reasonable distance ahead of Kapil. Kapil is still a very good bowler in my books.

 

[Richard]

Imran didn't always have someone for support, unless I'm much mistaken. There was a little while between Sarfraz's demise (Imran-inspired, of course) and Wasim's arrival.

Thing is, though, good bowlers are good bowlers even without the support. It works both ways. For every advantage of being part of a good attack, there's a disadvantage, and likewise for a crap attack.

And I'm not 100% familiar with all the bowlers Kapil bowled with, TBH.

 

[Anil]

as a batsman, he was a superb natural striker of the ball from day one, never paid enough attention to his batting throughout his career, whatever he achieved through his bat was mostly due to pure natural talent....

as a bowler, because of india's paucity of quality pace bowlers, he had to double as a strike and stock bowler and it is a testament to his tremendous fitness that he was able to maintain that over such a long career...it eventually took a toll on his performances and the last 1/4th of his career was in serious decline...

but for all that, he was a genuine allrounder who could and did win games with both bat and ball and was an electric fielder to boot...belongs in the all-time list of great allrounders and trumps any modern allrounders by the sheer weight of his performances over the years....

 

[adharcric]

While there are both advantages and disadvantages to being a part of a strong attack, the advantages easily outweigh the disadvantages. Batsmen not being able to play out your overs defensively, having pressure from the end, being able to share a workload, etc is more significant than being able to take more wickets because your teammates aren't good enough to take them. The latter may raise your wicket tally but you still won't have a good average/SR unless you are genuine quality (ie Murali).

Anyways, I'm not arguing that Kapil is a great bowler but merely that he is a very good one and comparisons should not be made with legends such as Imran, Wasim, etc.

 

[Anil]

And I'm not 100% familiar with all the bowlers Kapil bowled with, TBH.

pace: karsan ghavri, madan lal, roger binny, manoj prabhakar, chetan sharma, balwinder singh sandhu and some other medium pacers and mediocre trundlers as well....

spin: the spin quartet towards the end of their careers, dilip doshi, shivlal yadav, narendra hirwani, ravi shastri, anil kumble and a whole host of other spinners good and bad....

 

[Richard]

belongs in the all-time list of great allrounders and trumps any modern allrounders by the sheer weight of his performances over the years....

Indeed, his longevity is something few have equalled.
Flintoff FOR EXAMPLE has managed 38 matches over 3 years of sustained all-round excellence.

Botham managed 42 over 4-and-a-half.

Imran managed 45 matches over 8.

Kapil managed, pretty much, 131 over 15-and-a-half (he didn't really change much in that time - he always had good games and poor ones).

 

[Richard]

While there are both advantages and disadvantages to being a part of a strong attack, the advantages easily outweigh the disadvantages. Batsmen not being able to play out your overs defensively, having pressure from the end, being able to share a workload, etc is more significant than being able to take more wickets because your teammates aren't good enough to take them. The latter may raise your wicket tally but you still won't have a good average/SR unless you are genuine quality (ie Murali).

Then there's oppos playing you out rather than trying to score off you, which means you go for less runs. This improves both your ER and average. There's always getting to bowl at the tail, regardless, because you're the biggest threat.

The only real disadvantage of being part of a bad attack that doesn't have a counter IMO is the having to bowl too much - though in Kapil's case I can't recall him suffering too many injuries, so even that doesn't seem to matter here.

 

[Richard]

pace: karsan ghavri, madan lal, roger binny, manoj prabhakar, chetan sharma, balwinder singh sandhu and some other medium pacers and mediocre trundlers as well....

spin: the spin quartet towards the end of their careers, dilip doshi, shivlal yadav, narendra hirwani, ravi shastri, anil kumble and a whole host of other spinners good and bad....

So in other words, Doshi (who unless I'm much mistaken wasn't a patch on the quartet?) and very briefly Kumble?

Not a lot!

 

[FRAZ]

Viv Richard once said about him that the trick to tackle Kapil Dev is to play him like a spinner.
I think both of them were just jealous

Provide a link please or prove it ~~!

 

[silentstriker]

I'd probably put him around #40 as an all time bowler, or thereabouts. I did a list while back and I think he slotted in around there.

 

[social]

I feel Kapil is underrated as a bowler - good chance he would've averaged 25 if he was playing somewhere else. Doesn't help to be the only capable seamer in a subcontinental team that isn't exactly top-class in the field either. As far as I know, every other bowler who averaged 25 or less is rated very highly. Gillespie and Willis > Kapil? Not sure.

Totally agree - the guy took 400 test scalps at less than 30 playing for India with largely no seam support from the other end

I saw him bowl outstandingly in Oz and Eng conditions and there's no doubt that he was a very high class performer whose record would only have improved had he played the majority of his cricket away from the subcontinent

 

[Dravid]

Great player, and no all time Indian side should be selected without him

Amen.

 

[Richard]

Totally agree - the guy took 400 test scalps at less than 30 playing for India with largely no seam support from the other end

I saw him bowl outstandingly in Oz and Eng conditions and there's no doubt that he was a very high class performer whose record would only have improved had he played the majority of his cricket away from the subcontinent

What, then, would you say about Imran Khan and Waqar Younis of 1989-1994?

 

[social]

What, then, would you say about Imran Khan and Waqar Younis of 1989-1994?

Wasim was a brilliant bowler with both new and old ball

Never saw Waqar bowl at his best but his record indicates he had something - appears to me to have been a more consistent version of Shoaib and particularly deadly reverse swing

Consensus of appears seems to be that, skill-wise at least, Wasim > Waqar

 

[JBH001]

In the close to 20 odd years I have watched cricket, I have never seen a better fast bowler than Waqar Younis in his pomp. The man was thrilling, magnificent to behold.

 

[C_C]

In the close to 20 odd years I have watched cricket, I have never seen a better fast bowler than Waqar Younis in his pomp. The man was thrilling, magnificent to behold.

Yup.
At his peak, Waqar was the best pacer i've ever seen as well. Quite easily at that, too.

 

[Richard]

Wasim was a brilliant bowler with both new and old ball

Never saw Waqar bowl at his best but his record indicates he had something - appears to me to have been a more consistent version of Shoaib and particularly deadly reverse swing

Consensus of appears seems to be that, skill-wise at least, Wasim > Waqar

Did I even mention Wasim?

I mentioned Imran and the Waqar of 1989-1994. There is more to cricket than playing against or in Australia, believe it or not.

I asked you to compare the two of them to Kapil and realise that "he played a lot in the subcontinent" isn't a nailed-down disadvantage if you have the skills.

 

[Richard]

In the close to 20 odd years I have watched cricket, I have never seen a better fast bowler than Waqar Younis in his pomp. The man was thrilling, magnificent to behold.

It's conceivable that there's been no-one better than he was 1989-1994.

 

[social]

Did I even mention Wasim?

I mentioned Imran and the Waqar of 1989-1994. There is more to cricket than playing against or in Australia, believe it or not.

I asked you to compare the two of them to Kapil and realise that "he played a lot in the subcontinent" isn't a nailed-down disadvantage if you have the skills.

Sorry, mis-read.

Wasim is more closely associated with Waqar as Imran was largely finished as a front-liner by the period in question.

Imran was another magnificent bowler - like Wasim he swung the ball both ways at great pace. Some of the best bowling I've ever seen came from him on a tour of Eng in the early 80s where, quite frankly, quite blatant home-town umpiring stood between Pakistan and a series victory over a good English side.

BTW, I do realise that there is more to playing cricket against Oz but I didnt see Waqar perform at his best so am in no position to judge

AND Pakistan is different to India (believe it or not)

 

[social]

BTW, Waqar's test record was significantly better at home than away - he averaged over 5 runs a wicket less and took less wickets per test

Given that I didnt see much of him (and when I did, he was a class below Wasim), can anyone shed light on the reasons behind this?