• 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
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Xix2565 said:
Also please stop saying Harris played at a world-class level for 5 years, the man only played 27 Tests in 5 years. Kapil played 3 more Tests per year than Harris ever managed, so don't use the number of years played here as some sort of argument for Harris when he barely managed to play 5 Tests a year.
Click to expand...
Except he literally did play at a worldclass level for for five years, the same way Bumrah has played at a worldclass level for five years.
 
sunilz

sunilz

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Except he literally did play at a worldclass level for for five years, the same way Bumrah has played at a worldclass level for five years.
Click to expand...
Please don't insult Bumrah by comparing to Harris. Bumrah misses those tests in which IND wins ( easy tests) whereas Harris misses all those tests in which Aus loses (tough tests)
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Argument 1: Kapil was good for a longer time and therefore ranks ahead of Harris who was great for a shorter time.

Argument 2: Harris being great though for a shorter time was enough to rank ahead of Kapil.

Fanboy Argument 3: Kapil was an occasional great and Harris wasn't even that great. Kapil was just an outright better bowler, records be damned.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
sunilz said:
Please don't insult Bumrah by comparing to Harris. Bumrah misses those tests in which IND wins ( easy tests) whereas Harris misses all those tests in which Aus loses (tough tests)
Click to expand...
In other words, Australia misses Harris more than India misses Bumrah?
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Except he literally did play at a worldclass level for for five years, the same way Bumrah has played at a worldclass level for five years.
Click to expand...
Again, never understood this idea of measuring careers by years for people with short careers. Extremely misleading and hilariously on the same level of stats manipulation that some Kapil fan posters here get accused of.
 
sunilz

sunilz

International Regular
I have no problem with short careers if a player doesn't miss any difficult tours. For eg. I have no problem if someone says Steve Smith is better than Tendulkar if Smith retires today.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Like I get it if people have skewed records for injuries and other reasons, but that's not going to be some sort of benefit or boost for them when it comes to player comparisons and I don't know why people want to pretend otherwise just because they liked what they saw.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
Argument 1: Kapil was good for a longer time and therefore ranks ahead of Harris who was great for a shorter time.

Argument 2: Harris being great though for a shorter time was enough to rank ahead of Kapil.

Fanboy Argument 3: Kapil was an occasional great and Harris wasn't even that great. Kapil was just an outright better bowler, records be damned.
Click to expand...
Maybe you could deal with the best argument instead of lazy ones.

Kapil achieved what Harris achieved. Between Dec 1978 and Mar 1981, Kapil took 117 wickets in 27 tests at an average of 24 and SR of 50. That is already Harris' career who took 113 wickets in 27 tests at an average of 23 and SR of 50. Kapil even did it in lesser number of innings. 47 compared to Harris' 52.

So anything he did beyond that is just a plus and not a minus when compared to Rhino (who was fantastic and it was privilege to watch him put his injury prone body on the line with every game he played).

Please put forth your thoughts.
 
anil1405

anil1405

International Captain
harsh.ag said:
Maybe you could deal with the best argument instead of lazy ones.

Kapil achieved what Harris achieved. Between Dec 1978 and Mar 1981, Kapil took 117 wickets in 27 tests at an average of 24 and SR of 50. That is already Harris' career who took 113 wickets in 27 tests at an average of 23 and SR of 50. Kapil even did it in lesser number of innings. 47 compared to Harris' 52.

So anything he did beyond that is just a plus and not a minus when compared to Rhino (who was fantastic and it was privilege to watch him put his injury prone body on the line with every game he played).

Please put forth your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for killing the fun.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
harsh.ag said:
Maybe you could deal with the best argument instead of lazy ones.

Kapil achieved what Harris achieved. Between Dec 1978 and Mar 1981, Kapil took 117 wickets in 27 tests at an average of 24 and SR of 50. That is already Harris' career who took 113 wickets in 27 tests at an average of 23 and SR of 50. Kapil even did it in lesser number of innings. 47 compared to Harris' 52.

So anything he did beyond that is just a plus and not a minus when compared to Rhino (who was fantastic and it was privilege to watch him put his injury prone body on the line with every game he played).

Please put forth your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Debunked this logic already, in this thread. Cricket doesn't work like that. Anyone with a long career is going to have periods you can break up where they performed a lot better than average, just as they will have periods where they were worse than average. Often it's largely a result of form, but it can just as much be due to a good run of conditions, opposition, general circumstances etc. It's a quirk of statistics in a large sample.

The fact that you can do that with these guys should be all the credit to them for playing as long as they did but, while I understood your logic, you can't compare a guy's whole career with another guys well above average period of the same number of matches and conclude that during that period he must have been bowling just as good as the other guy. That's not how cricket, or statistics, work.

As someone mentioned you can do something similar (in microcosm) with Harris by taking a 19 Test "period" where he averaged 21.

That Kapil had a longer, better career and achieved more as an individual player is beyond doubt, but the Indian bloc here are trying to have their cake and eat it too by pretending that he has Harris covered in every way, and making the place resemble a facebook comments section in the process. Just because you have the majority and group-think mentality doesn't make it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top