Ian Botham vs Kapil Dev

[smash84]

I think its always been illegal to tamper with the ball, but what amounts to tampering hasn't always been clear - an example is using resin for, whatever bowlers use resin for, which was widespread but in 1931 the ACB declared it was illegal - bowlers weren't happy, and who knows, if they hadn't made that decree maybe DRJ wouldn't have felt it necessary to use the tactics that he did a couple of years later?

Interesting.

Didn't the bowlers have some sort of leeway? What was Irish swing?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Interesting.

Didn't the bowlers have some sort of leeway? What was Irish swing?

Irish swing was reverse swing. They just didn't know why it was happening and that tampering could help get more of it

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Also, there's clearly a reverse effect with some players when they have to come into the national side before they're up to the standard that would be considered a finished product in other places or times.

Tim Southee debuted at 19 and averages 30.69, Trent Boult debuted at 22 and a half and averages 26.59. I don't think Boult is four runs per wicket better than Southee.

 

[Migara]

Clive Rice?

Ya!

 

[Singh Is King]

]Botham is the greatest all round cricketer in history[/B]. Unfortunately his lack of dedication means it wasn't shown in his performances beyond the peak years for a Human Being where you can get away with it.

Are you for real? Sobers? Kallis?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Are you for real? Sobers? Kallis?

Leaving aside your pathetic attempt at editing other people's posts, neither Sobers nor Kallis are more gifted cricketers than Ian Botham. Had he had greater fitness and spent more time in the nets and not the pub he could with his ability have achieved similar records.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Leaving aside your pathetic attempt at editing other people's posts, neither Sobers nor Kallis are more gifted cricketers than Ian Botham. Had he had greater fitness and spent more time in the nets and not the pub he could with his ability have achieved similar records.

By that logic I could say that Jesse Ryder could have achieved similar records to Wally Hammond.

 

[fredfertang]

By that logic I could say that Jesse Ryder could have achieved similar records to Wally Hammond.

The difference is that Jesse Ryder has always flattered to deceive - for half a decade Sir Beefy was something very special indeed

 

[rtramdas]

Leaving aside your pathetic attempt at editing other people's posts, neither Sobers nor Kallis are more gifted cricketers than Ian Botham. Had he had greater fitness and spent more time in the nets and not the pub he could with his ability have achieved similar records.

this is just like saying had Kapil practised a little more in his batting he could easily have achieved 40+ avg:

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's amazing how people on here gets more dense as the years go by. (3 points and back to prison I think).

 

[fredfertang]

It's amazing how people on here gets more dense as the years go by. (3 points and back to prison I think).

I don't think anyone who didn't live through his career will ever understand what thee and me say about Botham

 

[rtramdas]

I don't think anyone who didn't live through his career will ever understand what thee and me say about Botham

i have followed a lot of their careers.more over in present days with the likes of cricinfo making the career record of players a lot more transparent to common fans than in the past , it has become possible to do deeper analysis and their by reaching to more conclusive results.

 

[fredfertang]

You can't measure the extent to which Botham squandered his talent on statsguru

 

[Furball]

I don't understand the idea of measuring Botham at his peak.

You might as well say that Anil Kumble is the greatest bowler of all-time, with the qualification that his peak begins and ends in the innings he took all 10 wickets.

Let's not be ridiculous.

 

[Jassy]

The difference is that Jesse Ryder has always flattered to deceive - for half a decade Sir Beefy was something very special indeed

Subtitute Sehwag or Nathan Astle instead of Ryder in his argument and his point stands though.

The thing is, we can't really be using arguments like ''if he had shown more application/worked harder... etc'' because you could say that for just about anyone with incredible numbers at their peak. Sehwag was scoring 100s for fun in his peak; you could say the same about him couldn't you? That if he had shown more application, patience and dedication he'd have ended up Bradman's rival.

To insinuate Botham would have kept up his insane standards throughout his career with more discipline is a big leap of faith - there is a reason it is called 'prime' or 'peak'. Waqar Younis is a similar case - had incredible stats at his peak but his returns tapered off.

The point raised by kiwiviktor is not ridiculous - far from it. When we talk about 'peaks' we are cherry picking stats. Who decides whether a peak is 1 test or 10 or 20? If we're talking peaks in terms of one innings only (sounds ridiculous I know), Kumble and Lara stand tall. Make it one test and it's Jim Laker. Similarly you'll have different names for 5, 10, 15 - take your pick- tests and merely choosing a number that suits X or Y serves no real purpose. Not sure if I am right on this but I'd say Michael Hussey's best 20 test period must be better than Lara's or Tendulkar's. Since he also satisifies Prince EWS' criteria that one must have been the best or among the best of their time to be considered, can we say that Hussey was more gifted than Lara or Tendulkar?

All said and done, what one thinks was wasted talent may well have been an inability to sustain it for a longer period. There is no objective way to prove it either way, but logic and history would seem to suggest it is humanely impossible to sustain insane performances for too long. Maybe Botham put so much into those few years that he didn't have much in the tank for later....maybe (say) Kallis wanted to make sure he performed at a high level for a longer than a very high level for a shorter time and hence didn't put in his absolute best game after game? It's like a fast bowler who bowls 150 km/h for 5 overs and runs out of gas; there's another who bowls 145km/h for 15 overs and we use that to say the former was faster/better....

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Subtitute Sehwag or Nathan Astle instead of Ryder in his argument and his point stands though.

The thing is, we can't really be using arguments like ''if he had shown more application/worked harder... etc'' because you could say that for just about anyone with incredible numbers at their peak. Sehwag was scoring 100s for fun in his peak; you could say the same about him couldn't you? That if he had shown more application, patience and dedication he'd have ended up Bradman's rival.

To insinuate Botham would have kept up his insane standards throughout his career with more discipline is a big leap of faith - there is a reason it is called 'prime' or 'peak'. Waqar Younis is a similar case - had incredible stats at his peak but his returns tapered off.

The point raised by kiwiviktor is not ridiculous - far from it. When we talk about 'peaks' we are cherry picking stats. Who decides whether a peak is 1 test or 10 or 20? If we're talking peaks in terms of one innings only (sounds ridiculous I know), Kumble and Lara stand tall. Make it one test and it's Jim Laker. Similarly you'll have different names for 5, 10, 15 - take your pick- tests and merely choosing a number that suits X or Y serves no real purpose. Not sure if I am right on this but I'd say Michael Hussey's best 20 test period must be better than Lara's or Tendulkar's. Since he also satisifies Prince EWS' criteria that one must have been the best or among the best of their time to be considered, can we say that Hussey was more gifted than Lara or Tendulkar?

All said and done, what one thinks was wasted talent may well have been an inability to sustain it for a longer period. There is no objective way to prove it either way, but logic and history would seem to suggest it is humanely impossible to sustain insane performances for too long. Maybe Botham put so much into those few years that he didn't have much in the tank for later....maybe (say) Kallis wanted to make sure he performed at a high level for a longer than a very high level for a shorter time and hence didn't put in his absolute best game after game? It's like a fast bowler who bowls 150 km/h for 5 overs and runs out of gas; there's another who bowls 145km/h for 15 overs and we use that to say the former was faster/better....

Whatever criteria Prince EWS uses he always supplements it with common sense - something sadly lacking in this pointless drivel.

 

[Jassy]

Whatever criteria Prince EWS uses he always supplements it with common sense - something sadly lacking in this pointless drivel.

If I dedicated more time to posting and cricketweb instead of spending time in pubs I'd have better posts to show for

 

[fredfertang]

Subtitute Sehwag or Nathan Astle instead of Ryder in his argument and his point stands though.

The thing is, we can't really be using arguments like ''if he had shown more application/worked harder... etc'' because you could say that for just about anyone with incredible numbers at their peak. Sehwag was scoring 100s for fun in his peak; you could say the same about him couldn't you? That if he had shown more application, patience and dedication he'd have ended up Bradman's rival.

To insinuate Botham would have kept up his insane standards throughout his career with more discipline is a big leap of faith - there is a reason it is called 'prime' or 'peak'. Waqar Younis is a similar case - had incredible stats at his peak but his returns tapered off.

The point raised by kiwiviktor is not ridiculous - far from it. When we talk about 'peaks' we are cherry picking stats. Who decides whether a peak is 1 test or 10 or 20? If we're talking peaks in terms of one innings only (sounds ridiculous I know), Kumble and Lara stand tall. Make it one test and it's Jim Laker. Similarly you'll have different names for 5, 10, 15 - take your pick- tests and merely choosing a number that suits X or Y serves no real purpose. Not sure if I am right on this but I'd say Michael Hussey's best 20 test period must be better than Lara's or Tendulkar's. Since he also satisifies Prince EWS' criteria that one must have been the best or among the best of their time to be considered, can we say that Hussey was more gifted than Lara or Tendulkar?

All said and done, what one thinks was wasted talent may well have been an inability to sustain it for a longer period. There is no objective way to prove it either way, but logic and history would seem to suggest it is humanely impossible to sustain insane performances for too long. Maybe Botham put so much into those few years that he didn't have much in the tank for later....maybe (say) Kallis wanted to make sure he performed at a high level for a longer than a very high level for a shorter time and hence didn't put in his absolute best game after game? It's like a fast bowler who bowls 150 km/h for 5 overs and runs out of gas; there's another who bowls 145km/h for 15 overs and we use that to say the former was faster/better....

If I appear to be insinuating that Botham would have had ten or 15 years at the top had he knuckled down and spent two hours a day in the nets then I have not expressed myself very well. The point I am trying to make is simply that the bloke was a waster, and a bloody frustrating one, because he didn't try to make up what Anno Domini took away with a bit of hard work, or indeed any hard work. His bowling was never going to remain top class because of his injuries (although I still wonder what he might have achieved had he, like Mike Procter, tried bowling spin instead) but with the bat he never lost the excellent basic technique he had, but once he lost his genius, whether his eye went a little or his reflexes I don't know, but he seldom seemed to make any allowance for that - I remember one innings against Pakistan where he helped save a Test by getting his head down and batting defensively for a long time, but that was all - that glimpse of what he might have been able to achieve just made him all the more annoying

 

[rtramdas]

Whatever criteria Prince EWS uses he always supplements it with common sense - something sadly lacking in this pointless drivel.

i think there is lot of common sense in this msg:

 

[viriya]

Botham in Tests: cricrate | Best Test All-Round Careers
Kapil in ODIs (assuming people care): cricrate | Best ODI All-Round Careers