On bowling alone Kapil ain't making the Australian 5th XI but they've had a ridiculous amount of talent.is kapil definitively better than peter siddle?
In all seriousness, nois kapil definitively better than peter siddle?
Is this the same simulation in which 29 average Bevan isn't weak against the short ballIn all seriousness, no
The OP has. Though I'd say just Bond, Cowie (and Jamieson will be).Name the non-Hadlee definitely better than Kapil then?
I personally can't see how bowlers who didn't touch 100 test wickets are better than him.The OP has. Though I'd say just Bond, Cowie (and Jamieson will be).
Oh I am just copy pasting an old post I made on the same forum before , but hey if you think that debunking Kapil's failiure in England is related to arguing he was better then kiwis there , then maybe you need some real education rather then being a cheerleader on a forum.i love how 2 earnest mfers wrote 5000 word essays and pilch just goes "kiwis were better in england lol"
that's gotta be a combined 60 minutes of post writing rekt in one 5 second line. just beautiful.
That's fine. But if that's the criteria then Kapil is always going to win it because of opportunity, not necessarily greatness. I mean I'm ok with it if someone chooses that as their reason. I think it's ok to look at other reasons to make up for the other's lack of opportunities. Cowie only played against Aus and Eng (both full strength allowing for injuries etc) and showed consistent form from ages 27 to 37 with a war intervening. Bond was a scary bowler. He could do what Kapil did at 10-15k quicker. Jamieson, on reflection, not yet.I personally can't see how bowlers who didn't touch 100 test wickets are better than him.
Year | Mat | O | M | R | W | 5w | 10w | Best | Avg | S/R | E/R |
2001 | 4 | 123.1 | 20 | 439 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 4/47 | 31.36 | 52.79 | 3.56 |
2002 | 4 | 119.2 | 31 | 412 | 24 | 2 | 0 | 5/78 | 17.17 | 29.83 | 3.45 |
2003 | 2 | 59.0 | 13 | 194 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3/97 | 38.80 | 70.80 | 3.29 |
2005 | 2 | 47.0 | 14 | 120 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 6/51 | 9.23 | 21.69 | 2.55 |
2006 | 4 | 131.4 | 24 | 471 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 5/69 | 26.17 | 43.89 | 3.58 |
2007 | 1 | 33.0 | 2 | 133 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4/73 | 26.60 | 39.60 | 4.03 |
2009 | 1 | 48.5 | 9 | 153 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 5/107 | 19.13 | 36.63 | 3.13 |
18 | 562.0 | 113 | 1922 | 87 | 5 | 1 | 6/51 | 22.09 | 38.76 | 3.42 |
Shane Bond beats Kapil Dev because of his amazing longevity. Seen it allBond is def superior to dev , remained consistently amazing for almost a decade
Year Mat O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R 2001 4 123.1 20 439 14 0 0 4/47 31.36 52.79 3.56 2002 4 119.2 31 412 24 2 0 5/78 17.17 29.83 3.45 2003 2 59.0 13 194 5 0 0 3/97 38.80 70.80 3.29 2005 2 47.0 14 120 13 1 1 6/51 9.23 21.69 2.55 2006 4 131.4 24 471 18 1 0 5/69 26.17 43.89 3.58 2007 1 33.0 2 133 5 0 0 4/73 26.60 39.60 4.03 2009 1 48.5 9 153 8 1 0 5/107 19.13 36.63 3.13 18 562.0 113 1922 87 5 1 6/51 22.09 38.76 3.42
Actually he needs 13 more wickets to be better than Dev.Bond is def superior to dev , remained consistently amazing for almost a decade
Year Mat O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R 2001 4 123.1 20 439 14 0 0 4/47 31.36 52.79 3.56 2002 4 119.2 31 412 24 2 0 5/78 17.17 29.83 3.45 2003 2 59.0 13 194 5 0 0 3/97 38.80 70.80 3.29 2005 2 47.0 14 120 13 1 1 6/51 9.23 21.69 2.55 2006 4 131.4 24 471 18 1 0 5/69 26.17 43.89 3.58 2007 1 33.0 2 133 5 0 0 4/73 26.60 39.60 4.03 2009 1 48.5 9 153 8 1 0 5/107 19.13 36.63 3.13 18 562.0 113 1922 87 5 1 6/51 22.09 38.76 3.42
I am incredibly biased toward Bond , I have to make excuses for Bond's tally of 18 matches over a decade.Shane Bond beats Kapil Dev because of his amazing longevity. Seen it all
Genuine question, would you say Cowie is also better than Anderson?That's fine. But if that's the criteria then Kapil is always going to win it because of opportunity, not necessarily greatness. I mean I'm ok with it if someone chooses that as their reason. I think it's ok to look at other reasons to make up for the other's lack of opportunities. Cowie only played against Aus and Eng (both full strength allowing for injuries etc) and showed consistent form from ages 27 to 37 with a war intervening. Bond was a scary bowler. He could do what Kapil did at 10-15k quicker. Jamieson, on reflection, not yet.
He needs to play two matches in a row and actually bowl on pitches suited to cricket.Actually he needs 13 more wickets to be better than Dev.