Kapil Dev vs Ryan Harris

[TheJediBrah]

Textbook projection. Where is Dr.Phil

Good banter but I don't think it makes sense in this case haha

 

[Xix2565]

the Indian bloc here are trying to have their cake and eat it too by pretending that he has Harris covered in every way

Isn't this what you and subshakerz are trying with Harris as well? Pretending that he's played long enough to be considered great just by numbers and how he made you feel while conveniently excluding reasons for his late start/lack of games in more varied conditions?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Isn't this what you and subshakerz are trying with Harris as well? Pretending that he's played long enough to be considered great just by numbers and how he made you feel while conveniently excluding reasons for his late start/lack of games in more varied conditions?

I haven't said anything like that at any point, no. Quite the opposite actually. All I said that you brahs didn't like was that Harris at his best was better than Kapil at his best.

and I voted for Kapil in the poll btw

 

[rtramdas]

Isn't this guy on bail himself? Anyways leave the politics out of it

Mr:Shahbaz just publicly spoke about a fact he was aware of himself being informed by some means. What is political about it?

 

[harsh.ag]

I haven't said anything like that at any point, no. Quite the opposite actually. All I said that you brahs didn't like was that Harris at his best was better than Kapil at his best.

and I voted for Kapil in the poll btw

Possible. No statistical reason to think so though, unless you don't think 2 years is enough time for someone's best to be considered that.

Since neither of us have seen Kapil bowl in 79-80, I guess that should make us both wary of having firm opinions based on just watching Harris bowl.

 

[sunilz]

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.

If Indian bloc were so biased here then Botham vs Kapil or Pollock vs Kapil poll wouldn't have ended so one sided

To quote Dr Strange " I have seen 14000605 possible multiverse and in not even 1 Harris ends with a sub-25 average if plays 8 tests in IND + UAE and against SA at home in 12 in his peak between 10-15".

 

[TheJediBrah]

Possible. No statistical reason to think so though, unless you don't think 2 years is enough time for someone's best to be considered that.

Since neither of us have seen Kapil bowl in 79-80, I guess that should make us both wary of having firm opinions based on just watching Harris bowl.

2 years is a small enough period to be heavily affected by conditions and opposition, and for a bowler to return significantly above-average performance as a result. I'm not going to do the digging because I just don't care quite that much about it, but I'd guess you could do a similar statistical exercise with most bowlers too.

For an extreme example, find one of those period where India played a whole lot home tests in a row about 5-10 years ago and you could find a 2 year block where Ashwin and Jadeja had ridiculous stats. It would be inaccurate then to look back at that and claim that they bowled at that level for those 2 years. It's just the statistical variance of a long career.

On an emotional level one thing I dislike the most about the "take a part of long career to match whole of short career and claim equivalence" is it just invalidates any discussion comparing the 2. Not only is it statistically dishonest, it also ruins the fun.

 

[sunilz]

If Harris had ended with 180 wkts @24 after playing those 10 tests against IND/PAK/SA, then we would have no problem in rating Harris higher. There are atleast 30 fast bowlers better than Kapil . Guess what Harris would have been 31st bowler to be better.
But we won't rate Macgill better than Kumble no matter you accuse us of anything.

 

[harsh.ag]

2 years is a small enough period to be heavily affected by conditions and opposition, and for a bowler to return significantly above-average performance as a result. I'm not going to do the digging because I just don't care quite that much about it, but I'd guess you could do a similar statistical exercise with most bowlers too.

For an extreme example, find one of those period where India played a whole lot home tests in a row about 5-10 years ago and you could find a 2 year block where Ashwin and Jadeja had ridiculous stats. It would be inaccurate then to look back at that and claim that they bowled at that level for those 2 years. It's just the statistical variance of a long career.

On an emotional level one thing I dislike the most about the "take a part of long career to match whole of short career and claim equivalence" is it just invalidates any discussion comparing the 2. Not only is it statistically dishonest, it also ruins the fun.

Fair enough

Fwiw this is the breakdown for that period I mentioned for Kapil:

in Australia	1981-1981	3	5	120.5	26	333	14	5/28	6/69	23.78	2.75	51.7	2	0
in England	1979-1979	4	5	173.5	49	495	16	5/146	5/146	30.93	2.84	65.1	1	0
in India	1978-1980	19	35	627.4	143	1837	80	7/56	11/146	22.96	2.92	47.0	5	1
in New Zealand	1981-1981	1	2	54.0	13	146	7	4/34	7/146	20.85	2.70	46.2	0	0

 

[TheJediBrah]

If Indian bloc were so biased here then Botham vs Kapil or Pollock vs Kapil poll wouldn't have ended so one sided

I'm not saying any group is more biased than any other on here. I've laughed along with stephen plenty of times. Kiwi brahs have their moments and of course Migara exists. But be honest, no other group has the same presence or numbers in a pile-on as you boys.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair enough

Fwiw this is the breakdown for that period I mentioned for Kapil:

in Australia	1981-1981	3	5	120.5	26	333	14	5/28	6/69	23.78	2.75	51.7	2	0
in England	1979-1979	4	5	173.5	49	495	16	5/146	5/146	30.93	2.84	65.1	1	0
in India	1978-1980	19	35	627.4	143	1837	80	7/56	11/146	22.96	2.92	47.0	5	1
in New Zealand	1981-1981	1	2	54.0	13	146	7	4/34	7/146	20.85	2.70	46.2	0	0

Those stats in India are immense. Already as much as anything Harris did tbh

 

[Xix2565]

No one's more nauseatingly self-righteous like Aussie brahs tbfh.

 

[Starfighter]

 

[Flem274*]

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.

nah bro let's update this with a modern player who isn't viewed through the eyes of nostalgia.

i know a bowler who took 92 @ 23 from mid-2012 to the end of 2014 as a young man and 114 @ 22 from 2018 - 2021 (in the ballpark of harris's wicket tally). if we put a poll up, no one on this forum would vote for this bowler over ryan harris and rightly so, because we saw them both bowl in the same era and harris was better.

the bowler is tim southee, who is on his way to being an ATVG (arguably is already but i care less and less about atg rankings these days) but clearly not in the harris talent or effectiveness tier unless he goes on a massive tear. this is why longevity being weighted so highly in general online is dumb, because it ignores what selectors go for when they need to win a test match.

picking kapil is still cool. in reality they would not be competing for the same spot and i never saw the guys full career so ****ed if i know my firm opinion on him tbh, he might well be better at his peak or something. however i think using a modern player contextualises this a lot better, especially since southee has a slightly better average than kapil.

 

[Shri]

southee is as good as anderson atm tbh

 

[mr_mister]

No one's more nauseatingly self-righteous like Aussie brahs tbfh.

Have you seen the way you post

 

[sunilz]

nah bro let's update this with a modern player who isn't viewed through the eyes of nostalgia.

i know a bowler who took 92 @ 23 from mid-2012 to the end of 2014 as a young man and 114 @ 22 from 2018 - 2021 (in the ballpark of harris's wicket tally). if we put a poll up, no one on this forum would vote for this bowler over ryan harris and rightly so, because we saw them both bowl in the same era and harris was better.

the bowler is tim southee, who is on his way to being an ATVG (arguably is already but i care less and less about atg rankings these days) but clearly not in the harris talent or effectiveness tier unless he goes on a massive tear. this is why longevity being weighted so highly in general online is dumb, because it ignores what selectors go for when they need to win a test match.

picking kapil is still cool. in reality they would not be competing for the same spot and i never saw the guys full career so ****ed if i know my firm opinion on him tbh, he might well be better at his peak or something. however i think using a modern player contextualises this a lot better, especially since southee has a slightly better average than kapil.

May be because Kapil like Southee didn't average 42,34 and 42 against 3 major teams of his time( AUS, ENG ,SA)

I will give you he averages 25 against IND but during last decade IND are at par with SL , BAN against moving ball. Our best batsman Kohli is one of the worst player against moving ball

please do look career average of Kapil against WI , PAK and NZ 3 best team of 80s.
Also he was part of side that drew a 3 Test series against AUS consisting of Chappell, Lillee in 81 and he took 2 5 wkt hauls and averaged 24 in that series

 

[subshakerz]

nah bro let's update this with a modern player who isn't viewed through the eyes of nostalgia.

i know a bowler who took 92 @ 23 from mid-2012 to the end of 2014 as a young man and 114 @ 22 from 2018 - 2021 (in the ballpark of harris's wicket tally). if we put a poll up, no one on this forum would vote for this bowler over ryan harris and rightly so, because we saw them both bowl in the same era and harris was better.

the bowler is tim southee, who is on his way to being an ATVG (arguably is already but i care less and less about atg rankings these days) but clearly not in the harris talent or effectiveness tier unless he goes on a massive tear. this is why longevity being weighted so highly in general online is dumb, because it ignores what selectors go for when they need to win a test match.

picking kapil is still cool. in reality they would not be competing for the same spot and i never saw the guys full career so ****ed if i know my firm opinion on him tbh, he might well be better at his peak or something. however i think using a modern player contextualises this a lot better, especially since southee has a slightly better average than kapil.

I honestly don't think these posters even believe in the method they are employing to defend Kapil i.e. take snippets of worldclass streaks out of a long goodish career to overtake someone's entire quality short career. I think if someone did it with a non-Indian great like Anderson or Walsh they would immediately call BS on it.

 

[subshakerz]

2 years is a small enough period to be heavily affected by conditions and opposition, and for a bowler to return significantly above-average performance as a result. I'm not going to do the digging because I just don't care quite that much about it, but I'd guess you could do a similar statistical exercise with most bowlers too.

For an extreme example, find one of those period where India played a whole lot home tests in a row about 5-10 years ago and you could find a 2 year block where Ashwin and Jadeja had ridiculous stats. It would be inaccurate then to look back at that and claim that they bowled at that level for those 2 years. It's just the statistical variance of a long career.

On an emotional level one thing I dislike the most about the "take a part of long career to match whole of short career and claim equivalence" is it just invalidates any discussion comparing the 2. Not only is it statistically dishonest, it also ruins the fun.

What is worse is that between Kapil's two streaks he had a year in which he flopped in England and Pakistan. And perhaps those flops can explain why he wasn't rated that high in world cricket anyways even in his peak.

 

[sunilz]

Short quality career which consisted of missing 10 tests against IND , PAK and SA and Aus losing 9 out of those 10 tests and all the 3 series.