Ian Botham vs Kapil Dev

[Furball]

No, I don't give higher ranking to batting, what I consider most important is how well they performed both as bowlers/batsmen/fielders at all times during their career.

I don't question Imran's batting skills either, I think he was a very dependable batsman in the later phase of his career when he was no longer the great bowler he once used to be earlier in his career during which he wasn't the dependable batsmen he became later on.

Again, that is my logic and I think it is a very valid one and I have always felt the same in last 20 years, I don't think it is going to change. It may not be the most popular criteria but in no way It is an attempt to demean Imran's or Hadlee's value as all rounders.

IMO your logic is sound.

 

[Sanz]

Bear in mind the West Indians would have been far more familiar with English conditions as virtually all of them had lengthy County stints.

Yes, I think it is such an important factor that often gets missed. I have another great example of how Murali's stint with Chennai Superkings helped Dhoni understand his bowling and prepared him (and perhaps rest of his team) to face Murali.

I have no doubt in my mind that Murali would have been a lot more effective in the World Cup Finals had him and Dhoni not played together for CSK.

 

[smash84]

No, I don't give higher ranking to batting, what I consider most important is how well they performed both as bowlers/batsmen/fielders at all times during their career.

I don't question Imran's batting skills either, I think he was a very dependable batsman in the later phase of his career when he was no longer the great bowler he once used to be earlier in his career during which he wasn't the dependable batsmen he became later on.

Again, that is my logic and I think it is a very valid one and I have always felt the same in last 20 years, I don't think it is going to change. It may not be the most popular criteria but in no way It is an attempt to demean Imran's or Hadlee's value as all rounders.

Fair enough.

Although I do feel that Imran (when he returned from injury) had become a very good all rounder because he was again a very very good bowler and his injury time had allowed him to improve his batting a fair bit

 

[ankitj]

Yes, I think it is such an important factor that often gets missed. I have another great example of how Murali's stint with Chennai Superkings helped Dhoni understand his bowling and prepared him (and perhaps rest of his team) to face Murali.

I have no doubt in my mind that Murali would have been a lot more effective in the World Cup Finals had him and Dhoni not played together for CSK.

Who does the familiarity help more? Bowlers or batsman?

 

[Sanz]

Who does the familiarity help more? Bowlers or batsman?

I thought it was a well documented information who benefited from this but since you have asked this question, the answer would be we do not know. It really depends on how that information is used. In this case it was the Captain and the Batsman who used that information and admitted it in his post match interview.

India v Sri Lanka, final, World Cup 2011: We felt the pressure, says MS Dhoni | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

"He said the decision was based on the logic that as Gambhir was batting well, all Dhoni would need to do was rotate strike. Also, India knew the dew factor was going to kick in and Dhoni believed he had the added advantage of being able to read Muttiah Muralitharan's doosra. "i have played a lot with Murali [for the Chennai Super Kings] and I know his doosra quite well, and he knows that also. I was able to put a bit of pressure on him"

 

[Furball]

Who does the familiarity help more? Bowlers or batsman?

I would imagine that in terms of spin bowling, familiarity would certainly favour the batsman.

 

[NasserFan207]

I would imagine that in terms of spin bowling, familiarity would certainly favour the batsman.

Yeah agreed. Playing spin is more tactical than technical, while playing seam/swing is the opposite.

 

[Jono]

Some good points raised by Sanz. Kudos.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Some really ridiculous arguments on the thread - WI were more at ease in England than in India? So, what accomplishments does Botham have in the West Indies? As for Kapil he more or less topped the bowling averages from either side on not one, but two tours of West Indies. In fact, the barely face saving performance that Botham has against against West Indies is in England. And as a passing mention, Kapil has a run a ball hundred and another run a ball 90 in West Indies. Did Botham even pass 50 in the West Indies?

It's one thing to pick a favorite based on personal preference, but to justify it on the basis of performance is utter rubbish. What's so difficult in admitting Botham sucked against the West Indies but I still rank him above Kapil rather than coming up with half baked and made up arguments to justify your position?

 

[Sanz]

Some really ridiculous arguments on the thread - WI were more at ease in England than in India? So, what accomplishments does Botham have in the West Indies? As for Kapil he more or less topped the bowling averages from either side on not one, but two tours of West Indies. In fact, the barely face saving performance that Botham has against against West Indies is in England. And as a passing mention, Kapil has a run a ball hundred and another run a ball 90 in West Indies. Did Botham even pass 50 in the West Indies?

It's one thing to pick a favorite based on personal preference, but to justify it on the basis of performance is utter rubbish. What's so difficult in admitting Botham sucked against the West Indies but I still rank him above Kapil rather than coming up with half baked and made up arguments to justify your position?

So you say you rank Botham Above Kapil, that's why you voted for Kapil in this poll. I am not sure if anything else needs to be said about rest of your post except that you will always find something to deny Botham his place as an allrounder.

 

[Contra]

So you say you rank Botham Above Kapil, that's why you voted for Kapil in this poll. I am not sure if anything else needs to be said about rest of your post except that you will always find something to deny Botham his place as an allrounder.

Actually that's not what he said (or meant to say). He's saying he wouldn't have a problem if people admitted Botham sucked against WI but still rated him higher overall instead of justifying his failures against WI.

 

[Jacknife]

Personally I rate Botham higher in Test cricket, he had it all and it's hard to believe he went past 200 test wickets in only 41 tests at the same time he'd already smashed 8 centuries, basically he was a true all-rounder, he did both disciplines at the same time, if people want to take points away from him or give them to someone else for longevity fine but he gets more points for being so awesome in those 4/5 years.
I read somewhere and I still find it amazing that after 25 tests, Botham averaged below 20 with the ball and over 40 with the bat.

 

[Jacknife]

Some really ridiculous arguments on the thread - WI were more at ease in England than in India? So, what accomplishments does Botham have in the West Indies? As for Kapil he more or less topped the bowling averages from either side on not one, but two tours of West Indies. In fact, the barely face saving performance that Botham has against against West Indies is in England. And as a passing mention, Kapil has a run a ball hundred and another run a ball 90 in West Indies. Did Botham even pass 50 in the West Indies?

It's one thing to pick a favorite based on personal preference, but to justify it on the basis of performance is utter rubbish. What's so difficult in admitting Botham sucked against the West Indies but I still rank him above Kapil rather than coming up with half baked and made up arguments to justify your position?

What's wrong especially on a forums such as these, thinking and talking about the reasons why he failed against the WI because personally I can't see it being down to him not being good enough, he played against bowlers who were as good or as near to the WI pacers and had success, so why was it. It's something that's been talked about by cricket commentators and reporters for years, so I don't see why it should stop now. You may not like them or think their 'half baked or made up' but that's just your opinion just like it's other people's why the guy may have had problems against them.

 

[Jono]

Personally I rate Botham higher in Test cricket, he had it all and it's hard to believe he went past 200 test wickets in only 41 tests at the same time he'd already smashed 8 centuries, basically he was a true all-rounder, he did both disciplines at the same time, if people want to take points away from him or give them to someone else for longevity fine but he gets more points for being so awesome in those 4/5 years.
I read somewhere and I still find it amazing that after 25 tests, Botham averaged below 20 with the ball and over 40 with the bat.

I agree Botham was better than Kapil, but don't you reckon Kapil was also a "true all-rounder"?

 

[smash84]

what is a true all rounder?

 

[Jono]

In this context, someone who contributes roughly equally with the ball and bat at a specific period in time.

 

[smash84]

you mean someone like Flintoff who had an almost equal batting and bowling average

 

[Zinzan]

As I thought, only Prince & a few Indians voting for Kapil. Botham fairly clearly for me.

 

[smash84]

PEWS generally has a decent analysis. It would be interesting to ask him why he rates Kapil above Botham

 

[Jacknife]

I agree Botham was better than Kapil, but don't you reckon Kapil was also a "true all-rounder"?

Oh yes, in that any given test he could perform with both bat and ball but would he have got picked for his batting alone, I don't know. Botham I believe would have got picked for either discipline in those first 5 years or so.