Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[TheJediBrah]

I'll check back in 2200

 

[trundler]

I'll check back in 2200

I will keep the forum updated though I fear it'll be a monologue by then cause' I'll outlive y'all

 

[Red]

Imran was a more technically correct batsman than Kapil, played in the GChappell "V' and was quite orthodox. Batted slowly at times and could get bogged down, but difficult to dismiss.

Kapil was more inclined to just go for it. Bit like Gilchrist in he'd play his shots, clean hitter with reasonably orthodox technique and a great eye.

Imran clearly a better bowler than Kapil (Imran is proper gold/platinum tier) but Kapil was exceptionally good as well, and should not be undersold as a bowler.

 

[smash84]

Imran was just more solid bat than Kapil over the course of their careers. I am not talking just the last 3 years of Imran's career where he was one of the top batsmen in the world possibly. Kapil was more aggressive and more flamboyant but he I would expect imran to stick around for longer and be a lot more stable than Kapil

 

[the big bambino]

Just reviewing their stats really reminds you just how good Imran and Kapil were both as all-rounders and cricketers/leaders.

Imran averaged 10 more with the bat than he did with the ball. I don't think we've had any all-rounders that good this millenium, except maybe Kallis but he didn't bowl that much.

Miller

 

[trundler]

Miller

Not this century.

 

[Engle]

" I was caught off this attempt to hook Bob Willis. This was my first Test as captain, and I realized that if I was going to lead by example, I would have to cut out this kind of shot. I ended the series averaging 53 "

So says Imran in his book All-Round View, with a picture for emphasis.

There is no doubt that Imran could flay the bowling if he so chose and I've seen him do it. But as a batting leader, he had to shepherd the tail to the very end, extracting every ounce of runs from his mates.

 

[Migara]

I am not comparing them as bowling allrounders.
I am saying Kapil was better batsman when Imran was better bowler. Despite Imran's higher avg.

The difference between bowling of Imran and Kapil was humungous than the difference between their batting. So, no argument here, if they are bowling all rounders, better bowler is always better.

 

[ankitj]

It's not ridiculous to say that Kapil was a better batsman than Imran as far as natural ability is concerned. Consider the fact that one of Kapil's knock (a century against SA in SA) made it to Wisden 100, the list that Tendulkar could not crack. Incidentally Kapil is only player besides Botham to feature in both bowling and batting Wisden 100 lists. Kapil also played one ODI knock for the ages – the 175* vs Zim in world cup after India was 17/5 or so.

While Imran had better overall returns as shown by his higher average, I continue to hold that as far as raw ability is concerned Kapil was better on the basis of above facts. Of the big four of 80s, only Botham had greater raw ability than Kapil.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

The difference between bowling of Imran and Kapil was humungous than the difference between their batting. So, no argument here, if they are bowling all rounders, better bowler is always better.

Kapil better batsman and vastly better fielder
Imran far better bowler and clearly better cricketer.
IMO.

and this is not even arguable.

Take 80% of their careers, check bat stats.. Runs per innings is almost same and Kapil scores faster. He was arguably most destructive batsman in the history.
Imran compensated in last few years, but then he was inferior bowler.
At any given point of time, he was inferior in 2 disciplines compared to Kapil. Bat and fielding or ball and fielding.
Still Imran better cricketer though

 

[marc71178]

The fact that people are arguing with you and your strange stat snipping shows that it is arguable.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

It's not ridiculous to say that Kapil was a better batsman than Imran as far as natural ability is concerned. Consider the fact that one of Kapil's knock (a century against SA in SA) made it to Wisden 100, the list that Tendulkar could not crack. Incidentally Kapil is only player besides Botham to feature in both bowling and batting Wisden 100 lists. Kapil also played one ODI knock for the ages – the 175* vs Zim in world cup after India was 17/5 or so.

While Imran had better overall returns as shown by his higher average, I continue to hold that as far as raw ability is concerned Kapil was better on the basis of above facts. Of the big four of 80s, only Botham had greater raw ability than Kapil.

Not just raw ability.. Actual runs scored, Strike rate.. Etc gives clear picture. Especially when you remove Imran's specialist Batsman phase.

Widen 100
Only god knows, why they left out 95 ball 100 against Marshall - Holding - Garner - Roberts attack.

There was one Wisden article of early 80s. About Kapil. They were expecting Kapil to break the record of fastest century soon. Though they were 100% sure about Kapil to achieve that feat.. It didn't happen. It was Viv richards who broke the record in 56 balls.

 

[trundler]

Kapil better batsman and vastly better fielder
Imran far better bowler and clearly better cricketer.
IMO.

and this is not even arguable.

Take 80% of their careers, check bat stats.. Runs per innings is almost same and Kapil scores faster. He was arguably most destructive batsman in the history.
Imran compensated in last few years, but then he was inferior bowler.
At any given point of time, he was inferior in 2 disciplines compared to Kapil. Bat and fielding or ball and fielding.
Still Imran better cricketer though

That's just plain wrong. Not even remotely arguable. Anyway you seem to be hell bent on comparing 80% of their careers which is pointless and unfair on Imran who had a slow start.

 

[marc71178]

That's just plain wrong. Not even remotely arguable. Anyway you seem to be hell bent on comparing 80% of their careers which is pointless and unfair on Imran who had a slow start.

Not forgetting removing the bit where Imran was playing as a specialist batsman for some reason. How is that not relevant to respective batting abilities if one of the players was good enough to play as a batsman when he couldn’t bowl?

 

[Engle]

Might as well say that Afridi had greater natural ability than Tendulkar - and I don't mean in just bowling

 

[ankitj]

Might as well say that Afridi had greater natural ability than Tendulkar - and I don't mean in just bowling

Sure if you can support with kind of facts I did. Please go ahead.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That's just plain wrong. Not even remotely arguable. Anyway you seem to be hell bent on comparing 80% of their careers which is pointless and unfair on Imran who had a slow start.

Comparing Imran's whole career bat stats to any other bowling allrounder's is pointless and unfair to them.

In this case

Kapil and Imran's career first 80%
Kapil better bat, Imran better bowler

Last 20%
Kapil better bowler, Imran better bat

You can not have it both ways.
When you are selecting Imran for an alltime 11.

Even for whole career, Kapil is better bat for me. Negligible difference in runs per match, huge difference in strike rate.

Whats bothering me most is, People thinks Imran was 37 avg (which itself is skewed) type batsman and premium atg bowler at same time. No he was not.

 

[smash84]

It's not ridiculous to say that Kapil was a better batsman than Imran as far as natural ability is concerned. Consider the fact that one of Kapil's knock (a century against SA in SA) made it to Wisden 100, the list that Tendulkar could not crack. Incidentally Kapil is only player besides Botham to feature in both bowling and batting Wisden 100 lists. Kapil also played one ODI knock for the ages – the 175* vs Zim in world cup after India was 17/5 or so.

While Imran had better overall returns as shown by his higher average, I continue to hold that as far as raw ability is concerned Kapil was better on the basis of above facts. Of the big four of 80s, only Botham had greater raw ability than Kapil.

It is not ridiculous to suggest that Kapil may have been a better batsman but he wasn't. In the last 3-4 years of his career Imran was one of the most solid batsmen in the world. Averaged 50+. And as Marc pointed out Imran was good enough to play as a specialist batsman so it's not a straight forward argument that Kapil had the higher potential

 

[ankitj]

I neither said it's straightforward, nor that Kapil can be argued to be better batsman. Ultimately performance trumps ability so I think Imran was better.

 

[marc71178]

People thinks Imran was 37 avg (which itself is skewed) type batsman and premium atg bowler at same time. No he was not.

Clearly you don't know me if that's what you think I think about Imran.