Kapil Dev vs Ryan Harris

[BazBall21]

All I can say w.r.t Kapil is that he is one player who is soo under rated by many fans because of his plain averages. They just ignore the adversities
Kapil had to face thru out and also the highlights of his career.

Extremely weak support bowling, huge word load( first 62 tests in just 5 years, 3000 balls bowled before he turned 21 , never took a break despite injuries etc etc are some of the features of this factor , ) insane longevity, fair play( he never resorted to unfair tactics like ball tampering) all affected his end bowling average.
W.r.t batting , he was convincingly dominating than even the great Viv Richards( str: of 81-82.5 against Viv's 70), played many iconic back to the wall high quality innings, upped his normal batting standard against the mighty Windies in Windies( GOAT team) etc etc.
Add to that his ODI credentials, brilliant all round fielding , captaincy , he for me was such a high calibre all rounder.

He would be my 3rd or 4rth GOAT all rounder behind Kallis, Sobers and perhaps Shaun Pollock.

Kapil’s batting SR was absurd. Several rampaging knocks.

 

[TheJediBrah]

OP is clearly worded ambiguously "Who was the better bowler" could mean anything.

Harris at his best during his 5-year Test career was better than anything Kapil was but he was also much worse for most of his life. The only people who are "wrong" in this thread are those who insist there's a clear objective answer and any opposing opinion is wrong

 

[subshakerz]

OP is clearly worded ambiguously "Who was the better bowler" could mean anything.

Harris at his best during his 5-year Test career was better than anything Kapil was but he was also much worse for most of his life. The only people who are "wrong" in this thread are those who insist there's a clear objective answer and any opposing opinion is wrong

Exactly. I understand those rating Kapil ahead but it's not crystal clear.

 

[CricAddict]

OP is clearly worded ambiguously "Who was the better bowler" could mean anything.

Harris at his best during his 5-year Test career was better than anything Kapil was but he was also much worse for most of his life. The only people who are "wrong" in this thread are those who insist there's a clear objective answer and any opposing opinion is wrong

How do you know this? Kapil at his peak was also very very good. And why we all find it wrong is that a legend is being compared to a novice. It is a clear objective answer and opposing opinion is indeed wrong and insulting.

It is like saying Pant or Rizwan is better than Adam Gilchrist and considering that as an opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

How do you know this? Kapil at his peak was also very very good. And why we all find it wrong is that a legend is being compared to a novice. It is a clear objective answer and opposing opinion is indeed wrong and insulting.

It is like saying Pant or Rizwan is better than Adam Gilchrist and considering that as an opinion.

Kapil is no Gilchrist as a bowler, its a BS comparison.

When you look at his career in context, Kapil's bowling peak between the late 70s and 83 was 52 tests and 218 wickets@26. Good but not worldclass. And why should Kapil just be defined by his peak anyways?

I don't know why you just don't argue that since Harris didn't have that long a career, by default he can't be rated ahead of Kapil. That is a fine argument rather than insisting that Kapil was by all means a superior bowler.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Mate tbh Harris was barely getting picked in the Shield earlier in his career. he was cod ordinary. Like, he was never going to be near the test side sooner than when he daybooed.

 

[Burgey]

More believable than Harris being a better bowler than Kapil ?

They're about as unbelievable as each other tbh

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It is like saying Pant or Rizwan is better than Adam Gilchrist and considering that as an opinion.

No, it isn't as Gilchrist had a better batting average than both of them. It is like saying Pant or Rizwan are better than Adam Parore or Dave Richardson. (They are better overall - better batsmen, but worse keepers).

 

[Burgey]

Based on peer rating, Imran isn’t a top tier bowler. I’ve never seen a player mention him when it comes to the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s.

And frankly nor should they. He had a few decent years when he scrubbed the ball dry with bottle tops, then reverted to basically being pretty average again. The extent to which Imran cheated is always glossed over here for some bizarre reason. It's an open secret among blokes who played with and against him at every level. The man set a standard for ball tampering which has never been surpassed.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

And frankly nor should they. He had a few decent years when he scrubbed the ball dry with bottle tops, then reverted to basically being pretty average again. The extent to which Imran cheated is always glossed over here for some bizarre reason. It's an open secret among blokes who played with and against him at every level. The man set a standard for ball tampering which has never been surpassed.

I wonder if the main difference between Imran and Walsh was just ball tampering and biased home umpires. Very similar away records, but Imran’s home record is far better.

 

[Burgey]

Imran obviously one of the greats and as a skipper the best Pakistan has had by miles, but this aspect of his record is just glossed over completely.

 

[subshakerz]

And frankly nor should they. He had a few decent years when he scrubbed the ball dry with bottle tops, then reverted to basically being pretty average again. The extent to which Imran cheated is always glossed over here for some bizarre reason. It's an open secret among blokes who played with and against him at every level. The man set a standard for ball tampering which has never been surpassed.

Did he cheat in England, Australia and WI where he rocked it in his peak?

And please, everyone was tampering in that era. Don't be in denial. At least Imran had the balls to admit it unlike other ATGs who scratched the ball or lifted the seam regularly yet pretend they are angels.

To quote Holding, "I will never pretend like I never tampered with the ball."

 

[subshakerz]

Mate tbh Harris was barely getting picked in the Shield earlier in his career. he was cod ordinary. Like, he was never going to be near the test side sooner than when he daybooed.

My point is that it doesn't matter because we are judging them primarily as international cricketers.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Did he cheat in England, Australia and WI where he rocked it?

And please, everyone was tampering in that era. Don't be in denial.

He averages 28.5 in Australia, 24.6 in England, 25.1 in West Indies. He averages 19.2 at home in Pakistan which is supposed to be a much harder place to bowl pace lol.

 

[Burgey]

Did he cheat in England, Australia and WI where he rocked it in his peak?

And please, everyone was tampering in that era. Don't be in denial. At least Imran had the balls to admit it unlike other ATGs who scratched the ball or lifted the seam regularly yet pretend they are angels.

To quote Holding, "I will never pretend like I never tampered with the ball."

He never really did that much here tbh with the ball. Had a couple of terrific tests in 76-77 but that was about it.

 

[subshakerz]

He never really did that much here tbh with the ball.

In his peak from 80 to 88 he had four series in Australia, England and WI and averaged 19, 18, 21 and 18 in them. Took 91 wickets in 14 tests. Fluke?

 

[subshakerz]

He averages 28.5 in Australia, 24.6 in England, 25.1 in West Indies. He averages 19.2 at home in Pakistan which is supposed to be a much harder place to bowl pace lol.

His averages are affected by playing as a specialist bat and part-time bowler in late career, and debuting exceptionally early at 18 years. If you see his proper bowling years he is even better.

Him doing better at home is the norm for SC bowlers. Srinanth, Kapil and Vaas all average something like 6 points better at home.

 

[Burgey]

I don't much care about what he did in England especially or the WI, I'm talking about what he did here. TBF to him though he didn't bowl here in 83/84.

It's a bit like Waqar - we always hear how devastating he was but he didn't do much here. It's just the way it went, but it's the sort of discrepancy which other players get marked down for, but for some reason it's overlooked in Imran's case. His record here is ok, that's about it.

 

[Burgey]

His averages are affected by playing as a specialist bat and part-time bowler in late career

Word on the street is if you don't bowl, your actual average doesn't suffer.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't much care about what he did in England especially or the WI, I'm talking about what he did here. TBF to him though he didn't bowl here in 83/84.

It's a bit like Waqar - we always hear how devastating he was but he didn't do much here. It's just the way it went, but it's the sort of discrepancy which other players get marked down for, but for some reason it's overlooked in Imran's case. His record here is ok, that's about it.

Imran has a good record in Australia though so this is a weird criticism, whereas Waqar was an outright failure in Australia. Imran's record is like Steyn's, he had impact but his average is higher.

76 tour was his breakthrough series as a young bowler and he took a matchwinning tenfer.

78 was a two-tester and yeah he didn't do well.

81 was in his post-WSC peak and he did terrific against a strong Aussie side.

83 he toured but was injured from bowling in his peak and played as a batsman. Frankly, I think if he played this series he would have taken that average down a bit.

90 he played as a part-timer bowler and batsman.

If you ignore the last series, he took 41 wickets in 8 tests @27 as a frontline bowler, which is pretty good.