• 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

Who was the better bowler?(Tests)

  • Kapil Dev

    Votes: 32 71.1%

  • Ryan Harris

    Votes: 13 28.9%
  • Total voters
    45
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
subshakerz said:
Voges played one year pretty much. Harris played international cricket for five years. Five years should be enough to determine what class a bowler belongs to.

Kapil, like Anderson, can play decades more than others but that won't make him break into the worldclass category.
Click to expand...
Anderson is better than Pollock because he's been better for longer but he's not as good as Garner because he's never been that good. Glad we could clear that up.
 
h_hurricane

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
subshakerz said:
Ok so where is the line where a bowler who clearly seems worldclass can play enough to be rated ahead of someone good who played 130 odd tests?

Cummins at 43 tests is fine, but Bumrah and Harris at 30 and 27 tests are not? At least admit its a personal arbitrary judgment call.
Click to expand...
Once again, you are not following Kapil's career rightly. It is not a case of averaging around 30 all through his career. As mentioned earlier, he had 2 clear phases early in his career where he was bowling at ATG levels.

Phase 1 : 27 tests - 118 wickets at 23 (1979 Jan -1981 Nov)
Phase 2: 19 tests - 80 wickets at 23 (1982 Dec - 1983 Dec)

Those are 198 wickets at 23 across 46 tests in just 2 phases. Harris hasn't done close to that much in his whole career though he was at a similar level when he played. Him being thrash early and not playing anything at that time protected his average as PEWS mentioned. You might be thinking I am cherry picking, but Harris's international career was exactly that (started at a period when he was bowling well at a world class level, after a struggle with fitness, and ended at a time when he longer could bowl substantially).

Kapil was meh outside his peak phases, but the proposition is that Harris would have been worse, by eye test, had he played that long.

Cummins has already played as much as the above peak phases as Kapil and done better, so he is clearly the better bowler.

I would say the same about Bumrah as I said about of Harris, except that he hasn't been thrash at any point and also has a phase ahead, so he could go ahead of Kapil in the near future.
 
RiderJake

RiderJake

Cricket Spectator
trundler said:
Since 2010 his stats are better than Pollock. Same home/away split. He's been just as good/better for just as long so it would be dumb to rate him lower.
Click to expand...
As practice shows, statistics is important, but it cannot be relied upon.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
h_hurricane said:
Once again, you are not following Kapil's career rightly. It is not a case of averaging around 30 all through his career. As mentioned earlier, he had 2 clear phases early in his career where he was bowling at ATG levels.

Phase 1 : 27 tests - 118 wickets at 23 (1979 Jan -1981 Nov)
Phase 2: 19 tests - 80 wickets at 23 (1982 Dec - 1983 Dec)

Those are 198 wickets at 23 across 46 tests in just 2 phases. Harris hasn't done close to that much in his whole career though he was at a similar level when he played. Him being thrash early and not playing anything at that time protected his average as PEWS mentioned. You might be thinking I am cherry picking, but Harris's international career was exactly that (started at a period when he was bowling well at a world class level, after a struggle with fitness, and ended at a time when he longer could bowl substantially).

Kapil was meh outside his peak phases, but the proposition is that Harris would have been worse, by eye test, had he played that long.

Cummins has already played as much as the above peak phases as Kapil and done better, so he is clearly the better bowler.

I would say the same about Bumrah as I said about of Harris, except that he hasn't been thrash at any point and also has a phase ahead, so he could go ahead of Kapil in the near future.
Click to expand...
So your argument is "look, we can selectively clip those parts of Kapil's career that match up with Harris', ignore all the meh before and after as if it doesn't actually affect Kapil's standing as a bowler, and assume that Harris would have done worse than Kapil if he played as long based on first class record and injuries."

Rather than use this sketchy speculative argument, why not just say that Kapil did good enough long enough that he overtakes Harris who didn't play long enough to be considered better? That is a respectable position.
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
subshakerz said:
So your argument is "look, we can selectively clip those parts of Kapil's career that match up with Harris', ignore all the meh before and after as if it doesn't actually affect Kapil's standing as a bowler, and assume that Harris would have done worse than Kapil if he played as long based on first class record and injuries."

Rather than use this sketchy speculative argument, why not just say that Kapil did good enough long enough that he overtakes Harris who didn't play long enough to be considered better? That is a respectable position.
Click to expand...
Except that is neither sketchy nor speculative when Harris wasn't even getting picked regularly in domestic cricket according to what everyone else is saying? Harris would have done worse if he did play as long as Kapil and the evidence for that lies in the simple reason that he wasn't anywhere near being called up nationally for large swathes of his career
 
h_hurricane

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
subshakerz said:
So your argument is "look, we can selectively clip those parts of Kapil's career that match up with Harris', ignore all the meh before and after as if it doesn't actually affect Kapil's standing as a bowler, and assume that Harris would have done worse than Kapil if he played as long based on first class record and injuries."

Rather than use this sketchy speculative argument, why not just say that Kapil did good enough long enough that he overtakes Harris who didn't play long enough to be considered better? That is a respectable position.
Click to expand...
Just ask yourself, why Harris didn't play more than 27 tests ? Was it because of a world war or a decade long pandemic or a career ending injury? He simply wasn't good enough to get picked. Replace Harris with Croft or Bishop, and you have a good case against Kapil.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Socerer 01 said:
Except that is neither sketchy nor speculative when Harris wasn't even getting picked regularly in domestic cricket according to what everyone else is saying? Harris would have done worse if he did play as long as Kapil and the evidence for that lies in the simple reason that he wasn't anywhere near being called up nationally for large swathes of his career
Click to expand...
So in the first half he was really bad, and then next half he is world class, and that next half happens to coincide with playing five years in international cricket in which he was one of the best bowlers in the world? Yeah, he gets ahead of Kapil.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
h_hurricane said:
Just ask yourself, why Harris didn't play more than 27 tests ? Was it because of a world war or a decade long pandemic or a career ending injury? He simply wasn't good enough to get picked. Replace Harris with Croft or Bishop, and you have a good case against Kapil.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if Harris didnt struggled as much with injuries after he debuted, he would have played more tests and there wouldnt be any doubt of him being a better bowler.
 
sunilz

sunilz

International Regular
subshakerz said:
On the other hand, if Harris didnt struggled as much with injuries after he debuted, he would have played more tests and there wouldnt be any doubt of him being a better bowler.
Click to expand...
Ryan Harris debuted at the age of 30 years. Imagine being so bad that guys like Kasprowicz, Hilfenhaus, Peter Siddle or Brad Williams keep you out of the team.

Now I am waiting for you to claim that all these 4 players are better than Kapil so his late debut was justified
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
sunilz said:
Ryan Harris debuted at the age of 30 years. Imagine being so bad that guys like Kasprowicz, Hilfenhaus, Peter Siddle or Brad Williams keep you out of the team.

Now I am waiting for you to claim that all these 4 players are better than Kapil so his late debut was justified
Click to expand...
Low average good high average bad
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
sunilz said:
Ryan Harris debuted at the age of 30 years. Imagine being so bad that guys like Kasprowicz, Hilfenhaus, Peter Siddle or Brad Williams keep you out of the team.

Now I am waiting for you to claim that all these 4 players are better than Kapil so his late debut was justified
Click to expand...
Nobody is arguing that Harris wasn't a late bloomer and ended up in the side late like Hussey. But I am willing to judge him based on how he was once he hit his strides and then was considered good enough for international cricket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top