• 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.

Ravichandran Ashwin vs Kapil Dev

Who is the greater test cricketer?


  • Total voters
    32

kyear2

International Coach
Necessity? Eh
Yes ...

Doenst have to be a great one, but no team walks into a test match or series without someone capable of turning over their hand that can be relied on in some extent.

I honestly wonder if you've ever watched a match or as someone suggested just goes through score cards.
 

kyear2

International Coach
kapil is our 3rd best test fast bowler ever

ash the best spinner

the comparison doesn't matter because they will both be in india's all time xi
The premise of the thread is literally the comparison.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Again disingenuous and intelctually dishonest.

I've explained this no less than 5 times already and you ignore to being up an explained, corrected and moot point.

I've explained that from every perspective but you continue to focus on one vote. So yeah, ridiculous.
Again, there is not an ounce of anything disingenuous here really. I rate Ashwin higher, but Kapil being higher is something which is very much admissible given the difference in their batting and fielding; which you will just go and overlook. I will ask you this then; who is the better player:
Botham or Ashwin?
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Yes ...

Doenst have to be a great one, but no team walks into a test match or series without someone capable of turning over their hand that can be relied on in some extent.

I honestly wonder if you've ever watched a match or as someone suggested just goes through score cards.
Lol. This is very disingenuous in every aspect..... So, to quote you, who was he again to turn hands for Australia in the early 2000s???
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
How? One is a match winning phenomenon at home and a far superior bowler there.

I hope this isn't just because one is an all rounder and one isn't
Comparative advantage of spinner vs pacer for Indian team. India couldn't afford to let Kapil go (especially bowling peak Kapil), under any circumstances.

Ashwin I think is still better, but you could still have a great Indian spin attack without him with both Jadeja and Kumble.
 

kyear2

International Coach
They are close as bowlers. I think Ashwin is very marginally the better bowler, but there is more condition dependability about his bowling than Kapil. Kapil held the bowling together for well over a decade with no support. Even the spin bowlers of his time were pretty ****. After Bedi, Chandra and Pras retired at the beginning of Kapil's career, who exactly India had until Kumble came along ?

It isn't close between as batsmen which is why many are voting him ahead of Ashwin. Kapil was capable of ATG knocks as a batsman, Ashwin is not (though I rate his lower order contributions)

Since Marshall was your hero, I am pretty sure you followed Kapil's career closely as well. He was immense against WI and had to do the donkey job of bowling, bowling and bowling for ever, without the luxury of not getting picked when it doesn't suit his style of bowling like Ashwin. There is no other example of a pace bowling all rounder in history who played as much as 131 tests, which is why his career stats need to be taken with context.

I agree that Ashwin is more conditions dependant, and that the best argument for Kapil is that he may have more impact in more conditions.

The difference for me though, and where I come down on this side of the argument, is that Ashwin, in the right conditions, is an ATG and a match winner. Don't think Kapil hits that standard anywhere.

I take what you're saying, but and I know how he had to bear the burden of his attack on how own. But he also played in one of the most bolwer friendly eras, he averaged pretty well in India, which was the hardest place to bowl and as you said he did well vs the best team of the era.

But his average was closer to Sober's than it was to Aswin's, far less Hadlee who, yes had better home conditions and primarily played in his own backyard and England, but also had to near the burden of his attack.

Yes I've acknowledged that I probably under rate the importance of lower order batting, but I still believe it's over rated by many. Yes, like all 3 secondary skills it is a crucial add on, but it's insufficient to carry or consistently rescue a team on its own. So yes, for me the gap in their primary skills aren't made up by (to me) a smaller gap in their lesser secondary skills.

The highlighted portion, as well as the bit immediately after, are indeed crucial points. That's what keeps from for being totally sold on Ashwin being an indiputed ATG, and as I said at the start, Kapil would probably have a bigger impact a greater number of places. But again, don't think he has the same match winning potential there over Ashwin at home.

Yes the long career, like with Punter impacted his stats, but don't believe Kapil was ever that too tier performer with the ball either, not close to the premier guys of his era at least.

Yes, they both make an ATG India team, and both would be crucial to the team, but Ashwin's potential at home wins it for me?

Is that reasonable?
 

kyear2

International Coach
Again, there is not an ounce of anything disingenuous here really. I rate Ashwin higher, but Kapil being higher is something which is very much admissible given the difference in their batting and fielding; which you will just go and overlook. I will ask you this then; who is the better player:
Botham or Ashwin?

That's not what I was talking about.

It's that annoying af thing you do of bringing up Sobers in every argument.

With regards to your point. I think the gap in their bowling supersedes the difference and influence of their secondary skills.

I don't over look them but 2 points.
1. Ashwin isn't a mug with the bat either, though his numbers can be a little misleading.
2. Yes out fielding is also important in cricket, it's not as impactful as close catching, so again it isn't weighted as highly for me.

Contrary to what you believe I don't rate Botham as highly as most. Ashwin is also a really difficult person to rate. He's a master and ATG at home, less so outside of the SC.

Botham has match winning potential everywhere with bat and ball, and almost everywhere, though inconsistent.

So the question of preference depends on the team in question (for Ash) and if we get to decide the period in question (for Botham).

Becuse of match winning potential, and his peak I rate Botham slightly above Dev, so this is more difficult, but for what he has done for India at home throughout his career, I would possibly go Ash.
 
Last edited:

kyear2

International Coach
Comparative advantage of spinner vs pacer for Indian team. India couldn't afford to let Kapil go (especially bowling peak Kapil), under any circumstances.

Ashwin I think is still better, but you could still have a great Indian spin attack without him with both Jadeja and Kumble.
I'm not saying don't play Kapil. I'm saying the thread asks which is better, which you yourself is saying is Ash.

What's the argument then, I'm just answering the question of the thread, which you apparently agree with.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
That's not what I was talking about.

It's that annoying af thing you do of bringing up Sobers in every argument.

With regards to your point. I think the gap in their bowling supersedes the difference and influence of their secondary skills.

I don't over look them but 2 points.
1. Ashwin isn't a mug with the bat either, though his numbers can be a little misleading.
2. Yes our fielding is also important in cricket, it's not as impactful as close catching, so again it isn't weighted as highly for me.

Contrary to what you believe I don't rate Botham as highly as most. Ashwin is also a really difficult person to rate. He's a master and ATG at home, less so outside of the SC.

Botham has match winning potential everywhere with bat and ball, and almost everywhere, though inconsistent.

So the question of preference depends on the team in question (for Ash) and of we get to decide the period in question (for Botham).

Becuse of match winning potential, and his peak I rate Botham slightly above Dev, so this is more difficult, but for what he does for aindia at home throughout his career, I would possibly go Ash.
Disagree, but the rest is alright.
What?

Don't understand the question. Who was who against?
That's what I was getting at. You always bring how the 80s WI and 2000s Aus succeeded without any all-rounders, so just used that to show how the best team ever didn't had any 5th bowler.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Let me be clear, the question wasn't who would be better or more important on an AT team or who would be more replaceable.

It's who was the better player.

That's the question I'm answering.
 

Coronis

International Coach
Yes ...

Doenst have to be a great one, but no team walks into a test match or series without someone capable of turning over their hand that can be relied on in some extent.

I honestly wonder if you've ever watched a match or as someone suggested just goes through score cards.
lol. I’d say 4 bowlers is a necessity. 5 is ideal. More is a luxury. But that’s just me.

fwiw I watched almost every Australian home series from the ages of 7-19, and whatever other tests I’ve managed to grab during and since then around my schedule (also have watched many ODIs and occasional T20s). Its nothing compared to some members here but I’d consider it enough to have some idea about the game. But hey, I could be wrong.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Disagree, but the rest is alright.

That's what I was getting at. You always bring how the 80s WI and 2000s Aus succeeded without any all-rounders, so just used that to show how the best team ever didn't had any 5th bowler.
The highlighted part, with all due respect, isn't up for debate. Out fielding in test cricket is very important, it's not nearly as crucial as slip catching. It's a reason the best guys go into the slips, and the absolute best at 2nd (1st for spin). Sobers, Waugh and Ponting were brilliant everywhere, they stood at 2nd slip to the pacers.

I try to always be careful to add imo, or to be clear I'm speaking just for myself but that one is pretty clear isn't it?

You can look back at both posts on question, I never used the word all rounder.

I specifically said 5th bowler, and specified someone who can turn their hand over and provide support, preferably without getting taken apart.

The WI had Richards and Harper. Australia had Waugh. So yes, they did have 4th bowlers.

Where they didn't have all rounders as specified in previous arguments were bowling all rounders, again both had guys who were rabbits in Marshall and Warne.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
The highlighted part, with all due respect, isn't up for debate. Out fielding in test cricket is very important, it's not nearly as crucial as slip catching. It's a reason the best guys go into the slips, and the absolute best at 2nd (1st for spin). Sobers, Waugh and Ponting were brilliant everywhere, they stood at 2nd slip to the pacers.

I try to always be careful to add imo, or to be clear I'm speaking just for myself but that one is pretty clear isn't it?

You can look back at both posts on question, I never used the word all rounder.

I specifically said 5th bowler, and specified someone who can turn their hand over and provide support, preferably without getting taken apart.

The WI had Richards and Harper. Australia had Waugh. So yes, they did have 4th bowlers.

Where they didn't have all rounders as specified in previous arguments were bowling all rounders, again both had guys who were rabbits in Marshall and Warne.
The highlighted part, with due respect, is something you overplay significantly. To put it bluntly, most safe fielders will take 85% of all catches. On the other hand, a top tier fielder can make a difference of 20-30 runs each innings.

Waugh retired early 2000s. Australia dominated for quite some time to come.
 

kyear2

International Coach
lol. I’d say 4 bowlers is a necessity. 5 is ideal. More is a luxury. But that’s just me.

fwiw I watched almost every Australian home series from the ages of 7-19, and whatever other tests I’ve managed to grab during and since then around my schedule (also have watched many ODIs and occasional T20s). Its nothing compared to some members here but I’d consider it enough to have some idea about the game. But hey, I could be wrong.
Well most of your views says otherwise 🤷🏽‍♂️
 

ma1978

International Debutant
I don't think the pace bowling gap is as big here, and again, you still lose out on batting with Kumble in just like the pace comparison.

No way is that conventional wisdom. Not with Gavaskar/Ashwin/Kumble around.

Is Ashwin not just as much of a unicorn? Or is this just a made up definition to exclude players that aren't preferred?
Wisden rated Kapil Dev as the Indian cricketer of the century in 2002 over Tendulkar and Gavaskar.

Ashwin is an amazing cricketer but the context of Kapil Dev who came when India was a cricketing mediocrity and opened the bowling with spin bowling outshines Ashwin who came when India is a cricketing powerhouse
 

kyear2

International Coach
The highlighted part, with due respect, is something you overplay significantly. To put it bluntly, most safe fielders will take 85% of all catches. On the other hand, a top tier fielder can make a difference of 20-30 runs each innings.

Waugh retired early 2000s. Australia dominated for quite some time to come.
Yes saving runs is important, as we discussed with discussing scoring rates, which you may have disagreed with if I recall correctly... But I digress.

But catching is literally taking wickets, and while most "safe" fielders may take about let's say 70% of chances, the greats like Kallis, Hammond, Simpson, Waugh, Sobers, Richardson, Hooper, Taylor, Barlow, Chappell, Ponting, Lloyd etc during their primes not only snared almost everything, they take the half chances that the "safe fielders" don't even attempt to go at.
In the last test in SL, during the 2nd innings I saw two changes go abegging that weren't even attempted. The great ones make a difference, and that's one hill I'm willing to die on.

Go look at some of Sobers catches, he created chances and caught balls at slip, leg slip and short leg (for the spinners obviously) that most are not even getting close to. That's why he was there (once required) and not in the outfield.

I've seen Richardson (and Richards to a slightly lesser extent and regularity) constantly take catches at 3rd that were unbelievable and that most just take an the half volley. That helped to elevate the team and the bowlers the same way that Waugh, Taylor and co did for McGrath, that Coney and Crowe did for Hadlee and the Chappells did for Lillee and I can keep going.


The slips have higher priority and impact. When the field is spread, then Sobers, Richards, Waugh and Ponting can roam the outfield and shine there.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Wisden rated Kapil Dev as the Indian cricketer of the century in 2002 over Tendulkar and Gavaskar.

Ashwin is an amazing cricketer but the context of Kapil Dev who came when India was a cricketing mediocrity and opened the bowling with spin bowling outshines Ashwin who came when India is a cricketing powerhouse
That a good point, and speaks to developmental impact.

Not sure of so much speaks to which is better. But your point is taken.
 

Top