Comparing Kapil dev and Imran Khan

[Goughy]

so are you telling that we need not give equal weightage to onedays as that to tests?

Each to their own but I give ODIs as much weight age as i do to the bikini beach cricket Lucky Eddie mentioned in another thread. ODIs, IMHO, are not even a handjob compared to ***.

 

[feroz rawther]

Each to their own but I give ODIs as much weight age as i do to the bikini beach cricket Lucky Eddie mentioned in another thread. ODIs, IMHO, are not even a handjob compared to ***.

as you wish. but to me it has equal weightage to tests .my view points are based on that

 

[Goughy]

as you wish. but to me it has equal weightage to tests .my view points are based on that

Fair enough and I respect that even if I disagree with it. ODIs having equal weight as Tests makes me sick to my core but I never said other people had to agree with me. We are all beautiful people with our own opinions.

 

[Coronis]

as you wish. but to me it has equal weightage to tests .my view points are based on that

Yeah... my views are pretty much 100% test cricket, since you know, that is the main form of the game. So do you believe Michael Bevan is one of the greatest batsmen of all time?

 

[feroz rawther]

Yeah... my views are pretty much 100% test cricket, since you know, that is the main form of the game. So do you believe Michael Bevan is one of the greatest batsmen of all time?

had Bevan been atleast 80 % effective in tests....because he had such a great one day career.as it is one day exists for the past 40 years and the skill required to play is slightly
different from tests as we all know. so we need to acknowledge that.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

so are you telling that we need not give equal weightage to onedays as that to tests?

You are on the wrong forum. Most people here don't give a **** about ODIs and the rest don't think it's that important. If you want to analyse someone or start a comparison thread only refer to Tests on Cricket Web, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

 

[feroz rawther]

You are on the wrong forum. Most people here don't give a **** about ODIs and the rest don't think it's that important. If you want to analyse someone or start a comparison thread only refer to Tests on Cricket Web, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

a form of game existing for the past 40 years,a lot of tournaments including a lot of world cups having played based on this game form,a lot of great players specifically for this game form have been emerged over the years, a lot of great players are evaluated based on their adaptability in this game form too... yet you speaks as if it is non existent.

 

[feroz rawther]

kapil the more talented bat, imran the better bowler. debatable whether better support bowlers would have helped kapil, look at hadlee and murali, still have the stats backing them, especially wickets per match which kapil doesn't have.

exacly why i rate these 2 as 2 of the very best bowlers ever.especially Hadlee who was controversial free.i wonder how it would have been had he been in a very strong bowling unit. and this is another reason why i rate him so close to other 3 all rounders even though his batting was a bit not up to level.

 

[harsh.ag]

What I believe in:

a) Test cricket is the premier form of the game of cricket. The skill set, both talent and perseverance wise, to succeed at Test cricket far exceeds that required at the other levels.

b) The closest thing to Test cricket is not ODI cricket, but FC cricket.

c) ODIs are valuable in their own right, but not to gauge the overall greatness of a player. You can't average out Test and ODI performances. You take them separately, and analyze them separately. A great ODI does not automatically make for a great Test player and vice-versa.

I wouldn't like to be presumptuous, but I think most members of this forum think on similar lines.

 

[Prince EWS]

as you wish. but to me it has equal weightage to tests .my view points are based on that

Well that's your problem. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing that, but I don't know of anyone else on this forum who does so that's why you find yourself disagreeing with everyone; your criteria is fundamentally different.

 

[feroz rawther]

What I believe in:

a) Test cricket is the premier form of the game of cricket. The skill set, both talent and perseverance wise, to succeed at Test cricket far exceeds that required at the other levels.

b) The closest thing to Test cricket is not ODI cricket, but FC cricket.

c) ODIs are valuable in their own right, but not to gauge the overall greatness of a player. You can't average out Test and ODI performances. You take them separately, and analyze them separately. A great ODI does not automatically make for a great Test player and vice-versa.

I wouldn't like to be presumptuous, but I think most members of this forum think on similar lines.

agree with that test cricket is the premier form. but cannot agree with that when a player is analysed one day cricket is not taken into account.for eg: why is Viv such a great player? because he was really great in 1 days too.similarly Wasim Akram.because of his
ability to bowl in death overs in one dayers.i have seen in cricket talks, people taking 1 day cricket too to analyse the greatness of a player. i didn't find anything strange in it too.
Infact 1 think it is a must.if a player cannot adapt to a format of the game that exists for more than 40 years, that is a short coming indeed.on the contrary if a player is equally brilliant like Viv or Sachin or Akram he is even more great than some one who is a test specialist or one day specialist

 

[Viscount Tom]

agree with that test cricket is the premier form. but cannot agree with that when a player is analysed one day cricket is not taken into account.for eg: why is Viv such a great player? because he was really great in 1 days too.similarly Wasim Akram.because of his
ability to bowl in death overs in one dayers.i have seen in cricket talks, people taking 1 day cricket too to analyse the greatness of a player. i didn't find anything strange in it too.
Infact 1 think it is a must.if a player cannot adapt to a format of the game that exists for more than 40 years, that is a short coming indeed.on the contrary if a player is equally brilliant like Viv or Sachin or Akram he is even more great than some one who is a test specialist or one day specialist

Even if Viv was average at best in One Dayers we'd still think of him as an ATG. In fact just look to Brian Lara; ATG but nothing overtly special about him in one dayers.

I think Akram's proportion of lower order batsmen wickets has been brought up before though I could be wrong.

Anyway the fact that Test test a full range of skills is the reason why its used as the defining format for deciding an ATG. Bevan might well be the greatest one day batsman but he's not an ATG.

 

[feroz rawther]

Even if Viv was average at best in One Dayers we'd still think of him as an ATG. In fact just look to Brian Lara; ATG but nothing overtly special about him in one dayers.

I think Akram's proportion of lower order batsmen wickets has been brought up before though I could be wrong.

Anyway the fact that Test test a full range of skills is the reason why its used as the defining format for deciding an ATG. Bevan might well be the greatest one day batsman but he's not an ATG.

as i earlier pointed out there are a no: of great batsmen in the history of test cricket who exceeds Viv either in bat average or in total runs scored or both.eg: Walter hammond with an avg: of 58.and we all know the general conception of test cricket is being of 5 days and that occupation at the crease is much more important.quite naturally Viv who only averaged 50.23(8540 runs only) must be inferior batsman to Sunil gavaskar (10122 AT 51.12) in every sense.but he is considered a far superior batsman , infact one of the top 3 in all time great batsmen list.why? because of his aggressive batting... in other words to score the required runs in least no: of balls possible....and this being the basic criteria of one day cricket means we need not look further to think that performance in one day cricket too has great value for being a better test great.

 

[feroz rawther]

Even if Viv was average at best in One Dayers we'd still think of him as an ATG. In fact just look to Brian Lara; ATG but nothing overtly special about him in one dayers.

I think Akram's proportion of lower order batsmen wickets has been brought up before though I could be wrong.

Anyway the fact that Test test a full range of skills is the reason why its used as the defining format for deciding an ATG. Bevan might well be the greatest one day batsman but he's not an ATG.

as i earlier pointed out there are a no: of great batsmen in the history of test cricket who exceeds Viv either in bat average or in total runs scored or both.eg: Walter hammond with an avg: of 58.and we all know the general conception of test cricket is being of 5 days and that occupation at the crease is much more important.quite naturally Viv who only averaged 50.23(8540 runs only) must be inferior batsman to Sunil gavaskar (10122 AT 51.12) in every sense.but he is considered a far superior batsman , infact one of the top 3 in all time great batsmen list.why? because of his aggressive batting... in other words to score the required runs in least no: of balls possible....and this being the basic criteria of one day cricket means we need not look further to think that performance in one day cricket too has great value for being a better test great.

 

[Jono]

and this being the basic criteria of one day cricket means we need not look further to think that performance in one day cricket too has great value for being a better test great.

 

[bagapath]

i pointed out some plain truths. if you feel as all you pointed above...so be it. i have no regrets

cheers mate. yeah i do feel that way. if i get into an argument with you we will both waste too much time i guess. so lets agree to leave it as it stands. hopefully we can discuss other issues soon.

 

[feroz rawther]

cheers mate. yeah i do feel that way. if i get into an argument with you we will both waste too much time i guess. so lets agree to leave it as it stands. hopefully we can discuss other issues soon.

cheers to you as well.

 

[doesitmatter]

I put Kapil at the very top for these reasons

1) If gavaskar taughtt how to defend against the mighty fast bowlers Devils thought how to hit hard right back at a faster speed..
2) If the opposition thought and even as spectators that Indian fbs are there to take the shine of the ball Kapil changed that..

Numbers can never manage to translate the above..When it comes to numbers one thing that is indisputable is Kapil Dev was the best performer against probably the greatest team of all time not Botham may be not Imran and this is in Test and in ODIs who can forget his 30 ball fifty in Berbice against the might of Holding/Roberts/Marshall and Davis..

As we say in our part of the world and i quote "There is no one like Kapil......."..may be not exactly but you get it..Most Natural of cricketers

 

[feroz rawther]

What I believe in:

a) Test cricket is the premier form of the game of cricket. The skill set, both talent and perseverance wise, to succeed at Test cricket far exceeds that required at the other levels.

b) The closest thing to Test cricket is not ODI cricket, but FC cricket.

c) ODIs are valuable in their own right, but not to gauge the overall greatness of a player. You can't average out Test and ODI performances. You take them separately, and analyze them separately. A great ODI does not automatically make for a great Test player and vice-versa.

I wouldn't like to be presumptuous, but I think most members of this forum think on similar lines.

take Kapil and Imran..neither of them were destined to debut a lot before their respective teams started playing one day cricket as was the case with Sobers.they both actively participated in one days as seriously as in tests when ever they represented their country as you would be aware.then what is wrong in comparing their track records as
a whole? infact isn't it more sensible and accurate?

 

[Red]

If I was given the choice between Imran and Kapil as bowling all rounders to be in a test team I was captaining, there is no doubt I'd choose Imran.