Ian Botham vs Kapil Dev

[fredfertang]

btw does any one know when did cricket's ball tampering laws come into existence? (Fred?)

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?

 

[Red]

Kapil averaged 42.33 with the bat and 24.94 with the ball as captain in the WI.these are the figures that a specialist batsman or bowler would have wanted so badly against the best team of their era. even his over all figures against WI were much better than other 3 all rounders.as for captaincy let us not forget that Imran is much highly regarded even for this factor alone.again each to his own. just informed

Don't be dishonest with the captaincy stuff. Kapil averaged 30 with the bat against the WIs over his career, and only 28 when playing in the WIs.

As captain- overall Kapil only averaged 25 with the bat against the WIs in his 11 tests as captain. The "42.33" you quoted came from only 5 tests in one series in the WIs.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

That's clearly ridiculous, but the question for me is, if you are going to choose a period of a player's best performance, how small does one draw the scope?

Interestingly, if you take Daniel Vettori's best five years (2005-2009) he averaged 45 with the bat and 31 with the ball.

I'm not big on peaks at all - I think they're next to meaningless without the context of an entire career - but I think what they're all about is looking at how highly someone was rated at any one time. When we look back throughout history we tend to argue peaks as more a performance over set period, but to me one's peak is his highest level of rating.

For example, you'd have a concept in your mind of how good Kane Williamson is right now based on his previous performances and his talent and which batsmen you'd pick him ahead of given the choice. His peak when his career is over will be the highest this rating we form of him reached in our minds.

That's what separates something like Botham's peak - where his performances made people rate him extremely highly for a time - from something like the best ball Mohammad Sami ever bowled or Kumble taking ten wickets in an innings. Even after those things occurred, sensible judges didn't rate them either of them the best bowler in the world or anywhere close to it, because those events taking into context didn't make them likely to repeat them regularly for any meaningful period. For a time, Botham would've been unquestionably the name down in a "current players draft" type thing for a team to play a match next week. That what his peak is all about; not numbers between Date A and Date B.

 

[rtramdas]

Don't be dishonest with the captaincy stuff. Kapil averaged 30 with the bat against the WIs over his career, and only 28 when playing in the WIs.

As captain- overall Kapil only averaged 25 with the bat against the WIs in his 11 tests as captain. The "42.33" you quoted came from only 5 tests in one series in the WIs.

read carefully .....Kapil averaged 42.33 with the bat and 24.94 with the ball "as captain in the WI"

 

[Red]

I'm not big on peaks at all - I think they're next to meaningless without the context of an entire career - but I think what they're all about is looking at how highly someone was rated at any one time. When we look back throughout history we tend to argue peaks as more a performance over set period, but to me one's peak is his highest level of rating.

For example, you'd have a concept in your mind of how good Kane Williamson is right now based on his previous performances and his talent and which batsmen you'd pick him ahead of given the choice. His peak when his career is over will be the highest this rating we form of him reached in our minds.

That's what separates something like Botham's peak - where his performances made people rate him extremely highly for a time - from something like the best ball Mohammad Sami ever bowled or Kumble taking ten wickets in an innings. Even after those things occurred, sensible judges didn't rate them either of them the best bowler in the world or anywhere close to it, because those events taking into context didn't make them likely to repeat them regularly for any meaningful period. For a time, Botham would've been unquestionably the name down in a "current players draft" type thing for a team to play a match next week. That what his peak is all about; not numbers between Date A and Date B.

I think of a peak as a period of time in this context, otherwise it's not helpful. Maybe more as a purple patch, like Ponting between 2000-2003. Better term is probably "his prime".

 

[Viscount Tom]

read carefully .....Kapil averaged 42.33 with the bat and 24.94 with the ball "as captain in the WI"

And when not captain in the Windies a rather less impressive average of 15.16, as a bowler in the Windies he was very good in both series he played there, as a batsman there he had 1 good series.

Monk didn't misread what you wrote he just basically called you out on the stats massaging.

 

[Red]

read carefully .....Kapil averaged 42.33 with the bat and 24.94 with the ball "as captain in the WI"

I know what you wrote. My point was that the stats you isolated was only relevant 5 tests- 1 series.

 

[watson]

I think that the ICC definition of peak is the best;

What do the ratings measure?
Think of the Reliance Mobile ICC ratings as a system for identifying the players who could be selected for an ICC World XI if it was picked today. Take a look at the latest top tens, and you should find that most of the players at the top would be candidates for your current World XI. The ratings have often been described as a measure of form, but this is a simplification. A form rating would only look at what a player has done in (say) the last year, whereas our ratings take into account a player's entire career - though they put more emphasis on what he has done recently.

What is the best way to determine the "best players of all time". Can you produce a definitive list?
represent a player's standing have compiled a list of "best-ever ratings" which are effectively snapshots of greatness. When it comes to judging a player's greatness over his career, it's necessary to look at his entire graph rather than his peak. It's not so much how high a player gets as how long he stays there. If you think of a player's rating graph as being the shape of a mountain, then the greats will have graphs shaped more like Kilimanjaro than the Matterhorn. Hence Tendulkar would be deemed greater than Clyde Walcott despite the latter's higher peak. One way of assessing a player would be to calculate his 'average rating' over his career though of course this could penalize a player whose long career included a slow start. So it's over to you to make your own judgment by comparing graphs, or by other more subjective means.

In the case of Botham, he reached his ICC batting peak on 8th July 1982, and his ICC bowling peak on 15th February 1980. Since he started his career on 28th July 1977 we can say that it took Botham about 5 years to climb to his batting summit, and less than 3 years to climb to his bowling summit. Afterwards is was a gradual decent for about 3 years before an eventual steep decline toward retirement.

The other obvious way to measure a peak is to take a lengthy period of time and then disregard everything before and after that period of time. It is difficult to define 'lengthy', but I have seen 10 years used, and I reckon that this is fair enough as a decade of high performance is a sure sign of greatness. Any reasonable player can fluke a goodly couple of years.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Agree with the ICC thingy, theres a difference between a peak and a plateau. If a player manages to maintain their peak for a significant amount of time, in relation to the span of their career, then imo that players greatness can be justified by that period of time.

 

[rtramdas]

And when not captain in the Windies a rather less impressive average of 15.16, as a bowler in the Windies he was very good in both series he played there, as a batsman there he had 1 good series.

Monk didn't misread what you wrote he just basically called you out on the stats massaging.

i just filtered out those stats to show that Kapil was a very good captain too.and just like Botham's peak deserve extra marks, Kapil's captaincy deserve extra marks too.
as we all know it is not those transparent numbers like bat: avg:, bowl econ: that need to be counted, but these things like peaks,captaincy specialities etc as well.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Those stats don't say that he was a good captain though, all they imply is that he declined as a batsman and his reactions slowed by the time the other tour came around.

To quote Disraeli, "Lies, damned lies and statistics."


Peaks are handy at understanding the natural talent of a player but they don't tell the whole story same goes for stats. To my mind Lara is more talented than Tendulkar and I think his peak performances attest to that, but at the same time I would say that Tendulkar's average performance was better than Laras and guess what his stats back that up. I think the same goes for Botham and Dev, Botham was more talented perhaps let down by himself more than anything; the stats don't and never have done told the whole story they imply at best that Dev didn't suffer as a result of the captaincy, they don't say he was a good captain on that tour.

What stats can't account for is captaincy, some handle it better than others Graeme Smith averaged a shade under 50 captaining the most awkward Test side politically.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

once after i posted my msg 3 guys have put reply in defence of Botham. but the fun part of it is that no one stated valid reasons for this.

The fun part is that you've registered on a Forum for no other reason that to revive a thread that died a death over two years ago just so you can prattle on endlessly about a slightly above average all-rounder with a daft moustache.

 

[Red]

I'd hazard a guess that most players peak when/as they become captain. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Captains have been on the test scene for a few years, and know their games well, and are generally chosen as captain because they are going well...

 

[rtramdas]

Those stats don't say that he was a good captain though, all they imply is that he declined as a batsman and his reactions slowed by the time the other tour came around.

To quote Disraeli, "Lies, damned lies and statistics."


Peaks are handy at understanding the natural talent of a player but they don't tell the whole story same goes for stats. To my mind Lara is more talented than Tendulkar and I think his peak performances attest to that, but at the same time I would say that Tendulkar's average performance was better than Laras and guess what his stats back that up. I think the same goes for Botham and Dev, Botham was more talented perhaps let down by himself more than anything; the stats don't and never have done told the whole story they imply at best that Dev didn't suffer as a result of the captaincy, they don't say he was a good captain on that tour.

What stats can't account for is captaincy, some handle it better than others Graeme Smith averaged a shade under 50 captaining the most awkward Test side politically.

when you analyse a player of the nature of Kapil what you have to take into account as very vital is his highly aggressive style of play ie: his str: rate of >80. hence it is quite natural to assume that his career graph need not be of that consistant nature. this is very much evident in his first tour of SAF in 1991 where he took on a rampant Donald and company to avg: 40.4 there which included a brilliant come from behind 129 at Port Elizabeth.So based on what you said he should have averaged much worse than what he achieved in his 2nd WI tour in 1989.

then w.r.t captaincy there is a general principle in cricketing circles 'lead from the front' as you would be aware of. so if a player performed much better than his normal stuff while captaining he deserves extra points for captaincy. Dhoni's knock of 91 in 2011 world cup final is so special in the eyes of many because he lead from the front at one of the most critical situations. i am not saying Kapil was one of the all time great captains of all time, but when his credentials as a captain is discussed definitely this performance in WI as captain would be counted because he rose to the occasion and raised his performance a bit above his normal self against the best team of his time in their own backyard .

 

[rtramdas]

I'd hazard a guess that most players peak when/as they become captain. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Captains have been on the test scene for a few years, and know their games well, and are generally chosen as captain because they are going well...

then what happend to Botham ?why SRT or Lara were not great captains?

 

[Red]

then what happend to Botham ?why SRT or Lara were not great captains?

I'd hazard a guess that most players peak when/as they become captain. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Captains have been on the test scene for a few years, and know their games well, and are generally chosen as captain because they are going well...

.

 

[rtramdas]

.

ok.... each to his own

 

[Red]

I actually think Kapil was important as India's captain in his attitude. I'm not sure he was a great captain tactically, but according to players who played under him, he changed the mindset of Indian cricket from a subservient sort of team to one that was aggressive in its attitude and outlook.

 

[rtramdas]

I actually think Kapil was important as India's captain in his attitude. I'm not sure he was a great captain tactically, but according to players who played under him, he changed the mindset of Indian cricket from a subservient sort of team to one that was aggressive in its attitude and outlook.

tactics, changing mind set of players, leading from the front , man handling,making the most of available resource at hand etc etc ... all being factors needed for a captain...Kapil's results as captain shows that he was a good captain over all.the main point here is that going by general cricketing principles captaincy credentials are taken as part of all round ability of a player.hence for me this factor also is influencial in thinking him a better all rounder than Botham

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I'm not big on peaks at all - I think they're next to meaningless without the context of an entire career - but I think what they're all about is looking at how highly someone was rated at any one time. When we look back throughout history we tend to argue peaks as more a performance over set period, but to me one's peak is his highest level of rating.

For example, you'd have a concept in your mind of how good Kane Williamson is right now based on his previous performances and his talent and which batsmen you'd pick him ahead of given the choice. His peak when his career is over will be the highest this rating we form of him reached in our minds.

That's what separates something like Botham's peak - where his performances made people rate him extremely highly for a time - from something like the best ball Mohammad Sami ever bowled or Kumble taking ten wickets in an innings. Even after those things occurred, sensible judges didn't rate them either of them the best bowler in the world or anywhere close to it, because those events taking into context didn't make them likely to repeat them regularly for any meaningful period. For a time, Botham would've been unquestionably the name down in a "current players draft" type thing for a team to play a match next week. That what his peak is all about; not numbers between Date A and Date B.

Fair enough. Curious to know where you'd put Bond in the pantheon of all-time greats, both for NZ and in world ATG level.