• 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.

Battle of the Subcontinent

silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Beleg said:
Are you debating the fact that Anwar was a vastly superior batsman then Kapil Dev?

Kapil Dev was a competent enough bowler and a good lower order batsman. The only real edge he has IMO is that he maintained his bowling average for such a long period of time - otherwise, his reputition is blown out of propotion because of the fact that he was THE indian star for much of his career, purely as a bowler or a batsman his performance isn't particularly extraordinary.

In any case the difference between them certainly isn't big enough to warrant idiotic responses like yours and Anil's 'oh-so-easily'.
Click to expand...
If you're going by averages only, then Anwar is nothing but a competent opener (mid 40s) who only played 55 tests, and Sehwag is a much better opener......but obviously a lot of people would disagree with that, wouldn't they?
 
Fusion

Fusion

Global Moderator
Second battle in a row where I'm gonna vote against one of my fav players! But IMO, Sehwag is better.
 
Beleg

Beleg

International Regular
If you're going by averages only, then Anwar is nothing but a competent opener (mid 40s) who only played 55 tests, and Sehwag is a much better opener......but obviously a lot of people would disagree with that, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...
They would, I would too, as a matter of fact, but I am not going by averages only - that'd be rather silly. By the way, mid 40's is more then Victor Trumper, Clem Hill or several other illustrious cricketers ever achieved. ;) Remind me of the number of matches played by Barnes, Trumper and someone called Bradman... :p
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Beleg said:
They would, I would too, as a matter of fact, but I am not going by averages only - that'd be rather silly. By the way, mid 40's is more then Victor Trumper, Clem Hill or several other illustrious cricketers ever achieved. ;) Remind me of the number of matches played by Barnes, Trumper and someone called Bradman... :p
Click to expand...
In case you've forgotten, the batsman of 80's and 90's tended to play a lot more matches than 55. Different era, different standards.

You can't judge Anwar's average by Trumper's...you have to judge it by his contemporaries. Sehwag has to be judged against Langer/Hayden. When everyone's averages are up, its not necessarily because the skill level has all of a sudden increased in batting.

So if you are not going by averages, and you can call Anwar a great batsman despite having a mediocre average, then why can't someone else do the same with Kapil Dev when it comes to bowling? And I am ignoring his batting, which though not upto par with Imran and Botham, saved India's collective arse on numerous occasions and was a vital part of the World Cup Campaign.

I am not claiming that Kapil was an all time great bowler, but you have to keep the standards the same if you are going to judge two players. Again, I don't think he was an all time great bowler, or even necessarily a great bowler, but to say he was 'competent enough' is underestimating his ability and value IMO.
 
Last edited:
R_D

R_D

International Debutant
Beleg said:
Are you debating the fact that Anwar was a vastly superior batsman then Kapil Dev?

Kapil Dev was a competent enough bowler and a good lower order batsman. The only real edge he has IMO is that he maintained his bowling average for such a long period of time - otherwise, his reputition is blown out of propotion because of the fact that he was THE indian star for much of his career, purely as a bowler or a batsman his performance isn't particularly extraordinary.

In any case the difference between them certainly isn't big enough to warrant idiotic responses like yours and Anil's 'oh-so-easily'.
Click to expand...
Being a cricketer isn't just about batting, you have to look at the player as whole.. it be like comparing Imran Khan's batting with Dravid and picking Dravid because he's a superior batsman.
So how do you suppose he maintained his bowling average low for such long periods of time? Maybe because he was good bowler ? Clearly taking 434 wickets and being the strike bowler for your country for much of your career isn't an extraordinary feet is it now. 8-) 8-) 8-)

I think playing 131 matches and taking 434 wickets and averaging 31 with the bat would make you far superior cricketer than someone who averages 48 with bat. Its common sense.. you can't go by oh Anwar could've been much better if he played longer or whatever ifs and buts. We have to go by facts and fact is Kapil Dev has proven to be far superior crickter than Anwar and there's no case for Anwar really.
 
Last edited:
A

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Beleg said:
Are you debating the fact that Anwar was a vastly superior batsman then Kapil Dev?

Kapil Dev was a competent enough bowler and a good lower order batsman. The only real edge he has IMO is that he maintained his bowling average for such a long period of time - otherwise, his reputition is blown out of propotion because of the fact that he was THE indian star for much of his career, purely as a bowler or a batsman his performance isn't particularly extraordinary.

In any case the difference between them certainly isn't big enough to warrant idiotic responses like yours and Anil's 'oh-so-easily'.
Click to expand...
no one disputes that anwar wasn't a much better batsman, he had to be, he was a specialist batsman, that was his only job and he did it pretty well....kapil was an excellent lower-middle order batsman for most of his career, an exceptional pace bowler for all but the last 1/5th of his career and a brilliant fielder, he is rightly considered among the best allrounders the game has ever seen(and not just an indian star as you try to paint him), if you don't know enough about his career to judge him objectively that's your problem, anwar would rank among the best openers of his era but all all-time great he is not...before you start getting personal and brand others idiots, try to ask them why they choose what they choose...8-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top