ESPN's legends of cricket series

[Bazza]

That Imran was the best batsman of those three, followed by Botham then Kapil. At least in ODI cricket.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by suchchin
IF a better batsman is one who is more aggresive than surely Srikant should be regarded as a better opener than Sunil Gavaskar!!

That was just one of the trait I mentioned in Kapil's batting.Kapil had a more wider range of shots then Imran but was a little less consitent then Imran which in my opinion places them at par on overall batting performance.

And I was talking about tests only and not ODIs.Imran did improve his batting in the later years of his career and that's pretty much borne out by the stats.

Beefy in my opinion was the better batsman among all these three although he spoiled his averages in the later part of his career in both bowling as well as batting.

 

[suchchin]

I think the most important factor is consistency, for example the major reason as to why Sachin is recognized as a better batsman to Lara is because Sachin is Consistent while Lara is not!
Kapil Dev was a gifted Batsman but i feel he didn't do justice with his talent.Imran started slowly as far as his batting was concerned but he kept on improving and at one time he was the second best Pakistani middle order batsmen after Miandad. Bothom was superb with both bat and the ball in the beginning, but he faded away rather too early!

 

[marc71178]

That was just one of the trait I mentioned in Kapil's batting.Kapil had a more wider range of shots then Imran but was a little less consitent then Imran which in my opinion places them at par on overall batting performance.

A wide range of shots doesn't mean someone is automatically a better player - Imran was a far better player than Kapil.

 

[royGilchrist]

AB, as suchin said being aggressive doesnt make the batsman better. Also, Imran could hit the ball harder than pretty much anyone in the game, if thats what you referring to, but that also doesnt prove anything. And strike rate doesnt mean much either, otherwise Afridi would be the best batsman in the world right now.

Secondly, Im not sure how you say Kapil had a wider array of shots, Imran had been the best puller/hooker in the team for a long time, could ut the ball well, although Miandad was the best, and probably off the back foot was the best player in the team. Also, against fast bowling I think Imran had the best tehnique in the team, and he wasnt too shabby againt spin, obvioulsy not as good as Malik and Miandad. I dont think Kapil had such an array of shots.

But inspite of it, this in no way proves that Imran or Kapil were better than the other becuase they had a wider array of shots. This is not a conclusive argument in any way, just like the argument about a player being aggressive.

You say that Imran improved in his later years, how many years would you be talking about? And would you say that in that time he was better than Kapil or was Kapil still better?

 

[royGilchrist]

hmmm I think you should go back to that autobiograbhy
it wan't his first match, it was a county game. And that phrase refers to the inconsistent line and length he bowled then.

Hmmm, I think I messed up there, it might have not been his first match, but he did very poorly in his first match, just got an odd over or two, yes I knew the phrase did refer to his inconsistent line and length, thats what I was referring to.

 

[suchchin]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
You say that Imran improved in his later years, how many years would you be talking about? And would you say that in that time he was better than Kapil or was Kapil still better?

Well from '82 to 92 Imran averaged 50 with bat in 53 tests, so if any other allrounder was a better batsman then Imran during those ten years then surely he would have averaged more than 50!!

 

[royGilchrist]

yeah for a large part of his career Imran could be called the mainstay of Pakistan batting lineup and one of the two most dependable batsmen in the team, and I dont think that could be said about other all roudners, certainly not Kapil.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by marc71178

A wide range of shots doesn't mean someone is automatically a better player - Imran was a far better player than Kapil.

Imran was definitely a better bowler then Kapil, but on batting I rate them at par for reasons I gave earlier.I have seen them bat from late seventies till the end of their career and the stats don't prove that one was vastly superior in batting comapared to the other.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
Secondly, Im not sure how you say Kapil had a wider array of shots, Imran had been the best puller/hooker in the team for a long time, could ut the ball well, although Miandad was the best, and probably off the back foot was the best player in the team. Also, against fast bowling I think Imran had the best tehnique in the team, and he wasnt too shabby againt spin, obvioulsy not as good as Malik and Miandad. I dont think Kapil had such an array of shots.

Kapil was the best player against fast bowling in the team after Gavaskar and Amarnath, and could pull and hook real well.Actually he made his own version of the hook shot which was called the "Nataraj shot" and after Amarnath he was the best hook shot player in the team.He had all the normal shots that wristy Indian batsman play(on drives,flicks etc.) and used to play those ferocious square cuts very well.

Imran's career average takes a dip of over 10 runs against the WI which had the most potent bowling attack during that era.Kapil's average stays almost the same and he scored 3 hundreds against them compared to Imran's one.

Kapil's 129 at a minefiled of a wicket in Port Elizabeth against a rampaging Alan Donald in 1992 was a lesson on how to play the short and fast stuff in a hard topped wicket similar to his 100 not out in Georgetown Guyana in 1982.

But inspite of it, this in no way proves that Imran or Kapil were better than the other becuase they had a wider array of shots. This is not a conclusive argument in any way, just like the argument about a player being aggressive.

That's what my whole point is.I am rating tthem at par and not saying that one was better then the other in batting.Imran was somewhat more consistent in the later part of his career while I would argue that Kapil was the more gifted of the two in batting.While in bowling Imran was definitely better.

You say that Imran improved in his later years, how many years would you be talking about? And would you say that in that time he was better than Kapil or was Kapil still better?

Imran scored 4 of his 6 hundreds and 10 of his 18 fifties in the period between 1986 and 1992.

As I said before, Imran showed the consistency in that period while Kapil lacked in that somewhat all through his career although in my opinion was the more talented among these two batsman.


[Edited on 12/12/2002 by aussie_beater]

 

[royGilchrist]

As far as talent goes, everyone has their own opinion and its difficult to prove one way or the other, heck no one is even sure if there is such a thing as talent....so anyways, if you say Kapil or Botham was more talented than Imran, I have no argument there.

Kapil was the best player against fast bowling in the team after Gavaskar and Amarnath

In the beginning of his career Gavaskar was as good a puller/hooker as any. Vengsarkar was also better than Kapil in pulling and hooking.

Fast bowling - Vengsarkar and Vishwanath were both better than Kapil. We are not talking one off innings here btw, but consistent performance. If one off innings are the criteria, than Hadlee has played a few as well.

Imran's career average takes a dip of over 10 runs against the WI which had the most potent bowling attack during that era.

Here we should not be comparing Imran iwth Imran but Imran with Kapil. Secondly, its not accurate to compare records against individual teams, the orignal arugment was , which one of them is a better batsman. Period. It wasnt who was a better batsman against WI, or something like that. If you are trying to prove that Kapil was good against quality bowling like WI, then how do you explain an avergae of 15 against NZ? or 26 against Aus? Thats where the argument goes out the roof.

Imran scored 4 of his 6 hundreds and 10 of his 18 fifties in the period between 1986 and 1992.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
In the beginning of his career Gavaskar was as good a puller/hooker as any. Vengsarkar was also better than Kapil in pulling and hooking.

Gavaskar's success against fast bowling is not as much as his pulling and hooking as his technique and application in leaving the right ball and playing the one that he had to.

Vengsarkar's niche was his exquisite drives on both sides of the wicket.But I would agree that Vengsarkar had a better record then Kapil against the WI.

And Viswanath played most of his cricket before Kapil became a big draw.

Here we should not be comparing Imran iwth Imran but Imran with Kapil. Secondly, its not accurate to compare records against individual teams, the orignal arugment was , which one of them is a better batsman. Period. It wasnt who was a better batsman against WI, or something like that. If you are trying to prove that Kapil was good against quality bowling like WI, then how do you explain an avergae of 15 against NZ? or 26 against Aus? Thats where the argument goes out the roof.

Kapil played only 10 tests against NZ and although that's no excuse fo rhis poor average against NZ, it kinda weighs in when you see that he was not a very consistent performer in the first place.

And 26 against Aus is just about 5 runs less then his career average and so it does not prove a whole lot.

Imran scored 4 of his 6 hundreds and 10 of his 18 fifties in the period between 1986 and 1992.

Is that a bad thing? [/quote]

Not a bad thing at all...but it goes to prove that Imran improved his batting in the later part of his career.

See, I am not saying Kapil was better then Imran in batting.I just don't subscribe to the view that Imran was better then Kapil either, and I am saying that they were at par in batting and the stats cannot prove decisively either way.

 

[royGilchrist]

AB, I think we should leave this debate at this, its not going anywhere. I think that although you obviously favor India, but have always been quite logical and reasonable in your posts just like Anil and dont resort to name calling (like some others), so before we start getting offensive, we should just agree to disagree.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
AB, I think we should leave this debate at this, its not going anywhere. I think that although you obviously favor India, but have always been quite logical and reasonable in your posts just like Anil and dont resort to name calling (like some others), so before we start getting offensive, we should just agree to disagree.

Suits fine with me.... I am not for name calling at any cost, and was just trying to have a discussion and I don't think it ever degenerated to a flamefest.Let's keep it that way.

Cheers !

 

[Neil Pickup]