Ian Botham vs Kapil Dev

[Howe_zat]

Well, I voted for Kapil.

I believe that during Botham's peak, he was the best cricketer the world has ever seen. However, his peak just didn't last long enough for mine and the rest of his career severely drags him down. When I judge a cricketer I take his whole career into account - including the longevity of said career - and when I compare cricketers I ask myself "which career would be more valuable across a cross-section of Test sides?" - and in this case, I'd take Kapil's career. Achieving a mystically high level of skill and performance over a relatively short term is not, IMO, more valuable than achieving a level a little below that for a longer period, even though it may be more impressive.

The thing is, the reason us mere mortals watch professional cricket in the first place is to be impressed, isn't it?

 

[Flem274*]

I wonder how the poms felt about Botham on one thing-was that five years worth the fall he suffered for so long? Must have been unbelievably frustrating watching and getting your hopes up that Beefy might finally turn himself around and get back to his best. Was the awesomeness of his peak outweighed by the frustration?

 

[Prince EWS]

The thing is, the reason us mere mortals watch professional cricket in the first place is to be impressed, isn't it?

Yeah, but a player's debt is to his team. His job is to help his team win and/or save matches; that's what makes him a better player. I'm wholly unimpressed by Chris Gayle because I can't stand watching him bat but that does not make him crap, or even worse than someone like Atapattu who was only slightly less effective but far more impressive to me.

 

[Top_Cat]

Botham, even taking into account longevity, etc. Some serious under-rating of Botham's mid-career work going on up in here.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, but a player's debt is to his team. His job is to help his team win and/or save matches; that's what makes him a better player. I'm wholly unimpressed by Chris Gayle because I can't stand watching him bat but that does not make him crap, or even worse than someone like Atapattu who was only slightly less effective but far more impressive to me.

How much of that was Botham's fault for being crap and how much of that was down to the selectors for picking a crap player?

 

[Prince EWS]

How much of that was Botham's fault for being crap and how much of that was down to the selectors for picking a crap player?

I wouldn't rate Botham any higher if his Test career consisted only of his peak and his spent the rest of the time being a middling county level player though. That's why I value longevity so highly; as long as you're better than whoever gets left out then you're contributing.

 

[Jono]

Botham, even taking into account longevity, etc. Some serious under-rating of Botham's mid-career work going on up in here.

By who? Botham is dominating the poll!

Unless you're referring to Prince only.

 

[Furball]

                   Tests   W  Ave  5w   Runs   Ave   50 100  

28/7/77 - 8/7/82      51 231 23.06 19   2833  38.80  10  11
29/7/82 - 10/1/87     38 135 34.25  8   1992  30.64  11   3
4/6/87  - 18/6/92     13  17 54.05  0    375  22.05   1   0
Career               102 383 28.40 27   5200  33.54  22  14

5 years as a legend, 5 years as a servicable cricketer who would occasionally produce an outstanding performance, and 13 Tests spread over 5 years where he was a joke cricketer.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's the number of hundreds and five-fors in those early years that's really startling.

And that first row, I believe, includes a period where his career was nearly wrecked by captaincy.

 

[Jacknife]

Looking at Kapil's stats and I was surprised how poorly he bowled in some of the countries with the more favorable bowling conditions, like England averaged 39 & NZ 42. He's also got poor stats in Pakistan which is hard to understand because he bowled so well at home.
Botham has got that hole in his stats against the WI where he averaged 39 and the one test he played in Pakistan where he got 2 wickets but everywhere else he averages under 30.

 

[Furball]

It's the number of hundreds and five-fors in those early years that's really startling.

And that first row, I believe, includes a period where his career was nearly wrecked by captaincy.

Split into blocks of 34 Tests:

                   Tests   W  Ave  5w   Runs   Ave   50 100  

28/7/77 - 27/3/81     34 166 21.15 14   1549  32.27   4   6
10/4/81 - 14/6/84     34 121 32.57  7   2359  41.38  12   7
28/6/84 - 18/6/92     34  96 35.73  6   1292  25.84   6   1
Career               102 383 28.40 27   5200  33.54  22  14

It's really Botham's last 13 Tests that hurt him - even in that last period up until the end of the Ashes in 86/87 he was still averaging 31 with the ball and 30 with the bat over 21 Tests (ie doing what Kapil averaged over a career despite being crap.)

 

[Jacknife]

                   Tests   W  Ave  5w   Runs   Ave   50 100  

28/7/77 - 8/7/82      51 231 23.06 19   2833  38.80  10  11
29/7/82 - 10/1/87     38 135 34.25  8   1992  30.64  11   3
4/6/87  - 18/6/92     13  17 54.05  0    375  22.05   1   0
Career               102 383 28.40 27   5200  33.54  22  14

5 years as a legend, 5 years as a servicable cricketer who would occasionally produce an outstanding performance, and 13 Tests spread over 5 years where he was a joke cricketer.

Yes the real drop off was in '87, which is where he should of called it a day and the selectors should have left him well alone. Even though he wasn't the player he was during this time period, like you say he was still playing to a very good standard as a all rounder, who was still capable of winning a match by himself.

 

[Furball]

Kapil's career splits:

                   Tests   W  Ave  5w   Runs   Ave   50 100  

16/10/78 - 5/10/83    56 218 28.93 16   2299  31.49  12   3
21/10/83 - 2/12/88    39 111 30.44  3   1697  32.63   9   3
25/3/89  - 19/3/94    36 105 30.29  4   1252  28.45   6   2
Career               131 434 28.40 23   5248  31.05  27   8

                   Tests   W  Ave  5w   Runs   Ave   50 100  

16/10/78 - 27/11/81   33 131 26.29  9   1234  27.42   6   1
9/12/81  - 12/12/84   33 121 30.66  9   1410  32.04   8   2
13/1/85  - 28/4/89    33  95 30.69  3   1443  34.35   7   3
15/11/89 - 19/3/94    32  87 32.13  2   1161  30.55   6   2
Career               131 434 28.40 23   5248  31.05  27   8

 

[Top_Cat]

By who? Botham is dominating the poll!

Unless you're referring to Prince only.

'Up in here' = CW. Should have said that.

 

[Furball]

How mucb of Botham's decline was down to injuries? His cricinfo profile mentions back issues but doesn't really expand on it.

 

[Teja.]

So, essentially, Both players had careers of similar lengths and ended up with almost identical statistics. One player had the better peak and reached incredible highs which the other never reached but also incredible lows that the other never fell down to.

It's ultimately whether you'd rate a batsman higher for averaging 60 for 6 years and 40 for 6 years to reach an average of 50 higher than a bat who averaged 50 throughout assuming other things equal because the former hit a higher peak. I wouldn't.

 

[hang on]

So, essentially, Both players had careers of similar lengths and ended up with almost identical statistics

bit of stretch to say that the stats are identical. a 2.5 runs higher batting average for botham with many more 100s. a 1.25 run difference (in botham's favour) in bowling with more 10 and 5 fors, accompanied by considerably better strike rate.

the only thing in dev's favour were his batting strike rate and his far superior performances against the windies.

 

[smash84]

                   Tests   W  Ave  5w   Runs   Ave   50 100  

28/7/77 - 8/7/82      51 231 23.06 19   2833  38.80  10  11
29/7/82 - 10/1/87     38 135 34.25  8   1992  30.64  11   3
4/6/87  - 18/6/92     13  17 54.05  0    375  22.05   1   0
Career               102 383 28.40 27   5200  33.54  22  14

5 years as a legend, 5 years as a servicable cricketer who would occasionally produce an outstanding performance, and 13 Tests spread over 5 years where he was a joke cricketer.

Should have retired in 1982.

19 5fers and 10 hundreds in that period. Friggin hell

 

[Jono]

So, essentially, Both players had careers of similar lengths and ended up with almost identical statistics. One player had the better peak and reached incredible highs which the other never reached but also incredible lows that the other never fell down to.

It's ultimately whether you'd rate a batsman higher for averaging 60 for 6 years and 40 for 6 years to reach an average of 50 higher than a bat who averaged 50 throughout assuming other things equal because the former hit a higher peak. I wouldn't.

How does that resonate with Waqar vs. Ambrose

 

[smash84]

How does that resonate with Waqar vs. Ambrose

haha.....I thought of the same thing