_00_deathscar
International Regular
Weren’t you of the opinion that it’s silly to have Bond over Kapil?
The same applies for Harris.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Kapil Dev vs Ryan Harris
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
The same applies for Harris.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There’s a difference between the two tbf. Bond’s record was cool but inflated by minnow bashing and friendly wickets. Harris actually did the business against all comers for like 40% more tests.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
You want him to never post on cricket?
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
They’re probably lucky they didn’t pick him because he’d been retired for three and five years respectively, so he probably would have been under done
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Agreed. And so many votes for Harris over Kapil actually is a stupid joke. Harris is a nobody compared to Kapil.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Kapil had the better career by virtue of length but Harris is a better bowler, the same way Mohammad Asif, Colin Croft, Ian Bishop and Shoaib were better bowlers than Kapil.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
The absolute best version of Harris might have been better than the absolute best version than Kapil but that doesn't make him a better bowler.
The worst thing about this kind of comparison is that being meh in Tests seems to count much more against players than being nowhere near good enough for Tests at the same age.
Yeah this isn’t as open and shut as people are trying to make it…
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Harris is the 3rd* best Australian seamer I've seen behind McGrath and Cummins.
* Didn't see enough/can't remember enough of Bruce Reid.
Better than McDermott, Big Merv, Reiffel, Gillespie, Clark, Johnson, Pattinson, Hazlewood, Starc
* Didn't see enough/can't remember enough of Bruce Reid.
Better than McDermott, Big Merv, Reiffel, Gillespie, Clark, Johnson, Pattinson, Hazlewood, Starc
Last edited:
cnerd123
likes this
If the criteria is who bowled the best single delivery during their Test career then maybe it's Harris for that ball to Cook. But any other criteria or metric then no ****ing way.
Harris barely belongs in the same breath as Kapil. They're two men who bowled fast swing at Test level. That's it. One is monumentally more accomplished than the other.
Harris barely belongs in the same breath as Kapil. They're two men who bowled fast swing at Test level. That's it. One is monumentally more accomplished than the other.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Harris' was a completely worldclass bowler for his entire career bowling consistent, quality, tireless spells in different conditions. He was rated very highly by his opposition and peers of his time. It is just that his career was brief.
We don't know how Harris would have done if he debuted earlier. Maybe he would have failed, maybe he would have stepped up to the plate. Better to judge him by his actual career as an international bowler.
Kapil had his good years but was never seen in the same light as Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, etc. or even as Garner, Holding, etc. even during his peak from 78 to 83.
I don't mind those putting Kapil ahead by default for having a full career, but I think those who recognize that Harris' brief career was enough to establish him in a superior class of bowler should be understood as well. The same way posters who recognize Bumrah and Cummins are simply better bowlers than Kapil despite being early in their careers.
Last edited:
sunilz
International Regular
Yeah Kapil certainly wasn't rated very high by his peers. This is why in Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century votes Kapil received 5 votes , Marshall, Akram received 3 votes , Ambrose, Donald received 1 vote and Waqar received 0 votes. ??
So either peer rating is flawed method to compare cricketers or Kapil is highly under rated cricketer by statsguru morons on this forum
So either peer rating is flawed method to compare cricketers or Kapil is highly under rated cricketer by statsguru morons on this forum
Attachments
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
So you are saying Kapil was rated up there with Lillee and Marshall as a bowler in his time?
cnerd123
likes this
what utter garbage. The man wasn't good enough to be picked for park cricket, that's why he didn't debut earlier.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
In 2018 DOG ranked the top 100 bowlers (top 10: Murali, Barnes, Hadlee, Steyn, Warne, McGrath, Marshall, Imran, Lillee, Waqar).
Kapil was 53rd.
Harris was 34th.
I found it through a Google search of "top 100 bowlers of all time".
Kapil was 53rd.
Harris was 34th.
I found it through a Google search of "top 100 bowlers of all time".
Last edited:
sunilz
International Regular
More believable than Harris being a better bowler than Kapil ?