Kapil Dev vs Courtney Walsh

[Johan]

Kapil>Sunny at home

@capt_Luffy why are you sad, I thought you knew I'd take 37/26 over 50 or 51, plus, Kapil has a much tougher job in India imo

 

[capt_Luffy]

@capt_Luffy why are you sad, I thought you knew I'd take 37/26 over 50

That's the sad part actually.....

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sympathies?

Your entire argument has been hyper partisan.

As I said, you're better than this.

Saying 26 and 37 isn't ATG output deserves nothing less truthfully.

 

[kyear2]

If you want, sure do that. Among the ones who haven't voted, only Baz expressed his opinion explicitly.

What argument though. Who's picking Kapil over Walsh for a test team?

What's the argument for that?

 

[capt_Luffy]

What argument though. Who's picking Kapil over Walsh for a test team?

What's the argument for that?

Dude, it's 34 pages long. That's way too late to ask that. Go and read the replies from Page 1.

 

[Johan]

That's..... Actually probably true. At home, not sure whether Sachin was better as well.

Kapil is one of my favourite SC Cricketers ever, so I don't mind

 

[capt_Luffy]

Kapil is one of my favourite SC Cricketers ever, so I don't mind

Yeah, he is kinda cool

 

[Johan]

Yeah, he is kinda cool

India wouldn't be what it is in Cricket without the 83 WC imo

 

[kyear2]

Saying 26 and 37 isn't ATG output deserves nothing less truthfully.

No.

But ignoring 33 and 26 deserves what? How can anyone be an ATG performer with those away numbers, you're yet to even address that.

I've said this too many times to mention.

I'm not elevating a cricketer who isn't ATG on either disciple to that based on a secondary skill.

Not to add the layers of context for said home numbers.

I acknowledge that some of this has to do with how you look at cricket and that lower order batting added to anything automatically makes it better.

But arguing Pant over Knott and Healy is bad enough (not even including the ridiculous Flower argument), but Kapil over Walsh doesn't make sense when your primary job is to take wickets.

 

[kyear2]

India wouldn't be what it is in Cricket without the 83 WC imo

Everyone agrees.

But that doesn't make him an ATG Test cricketer.

 

[Johan]

Everyone agrees.

But that doesn't make him an ATG Test cricketer.

I don't got him far from Sunny at all in terms of quality, Sunny distinctly better but not massively so, and the consensus of the time would agree with me.

and Sunny is pretty comfortably ATG for me.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No.

But ignoring 33 and 26 deserves what? How can anyone be an ATG performer with those away numbers, you're yet to even address that.

I've said this too many times to mention.

I'm not elevating a cricketer who isn't ATG on either disciple to that based on a secondary skill.

Not to add the layers of context for said home numbers.

I acknowledge that some of this has to do with how you look at cricket and that lower order batting added to anything automatically makes it better.

But arguing Pant over Knott and Healy is bad enough (not even including the ridiculous Flower argument), but Kapil over Walsh doesn't make sense when your primary job is to take wickets.

Great numbers in WI and Australia, good in Pakistan with the ball, pretty good in England and SA with the bat, only bad in NZ. Same reply as the previous time.
Dude, you literally argued for Sobers over Don.....

 

[Coronis]

Wasim played for half of Kapil's career, and Waqar for a decent portion too, which included just about his entire peak.

Ah yeah I was only focusing on the 80’s. iirc in the latter stages of Kapil’s career it was their bowling improving and their batting suffering a bit.

 

[kyear2]

Great numbers in WI and Australia, good in Pakistan with the ball, pretty good in England and SA with the bat, only bad in SA. Same reply as the previous time.
Dude, you literally argued for Sobers over Don.....

So it was only a matter of time before that came up.

I don't rate Don Bradman to be twice as good as anyone else. That doesn't apply only to Sobers, but Hobbs, Sachin, Viv etc

Even in the 60's Bradman wasn't seen to be twice as good as Hobbs and many saw them as peers.

Sobers is a top 4 or 5 batsman, top 5 slip catcher, and a bowler who from the time he started primarily bowling pace, until the decline at the end, was averaging 27 with the ball on top of his other two skills.

He was the best batsman of the 60's while being a top 5 bowler and almost taking two catches a match (during his peak)

While during his career facing the likes of Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Davidson, Benaud, Snow, Underwood, the quartet, Lillee etc etc.

I can find and show you articles of Sobers being called the greatest cricketer, greatest all round cricketer, none of which originated in the Caribbean.

Sobers is unanimously rated as one of the two greatest test crickets of all time and in the ultimate pantheon with said Bradman.

Kapil was 4th among the 4 all rounders of his own era.

What I've said is Bradman is likely better, but there's an argument to be made. And Bradman is no. 1 on my rankings.

Stop.

 

[h_hurricane]

I have always believed that the single biggest factor due to which Kapil's numbers are messed up a bit is him playing every test possible. A lot of the top players of his era played 70-80 tests, and they didn't have to go through the rigours that his body went through. A better workload management and a better bowling support would have improved his stats. The extent is debatable though. Him consistently averaging around his career average right through his playing period means he didn't have the support or workload luxury at any stage. The top bowlers of that era(undoubtedly better than him, but by a lesser extent than the gap in bowling average suggests) took a proper career break when they were down with injury and came back fresher. Just not him. One could call that stupid, but he neither had an understanding team management, nor any backup. He was clearly not an ATG bowler, but every bowler who becomes the most successful wicket taker of all time at some stage is close to ATVG. He had the stamina of a marathon runner which is valuable in a way, not the awesomeness of a sprinter.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Top 2 in his era were WI and Pak.

Depends which years tbh. In the late 70s and early 80s, Australia were definitely stronger. Mid/Late 80s, Pak and NZ took over.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So it was only a matter of time before that came up.

I don't rate Don Bradman to be twice as good as anyone else. That doesn't apply only to Sobers, but Hobbs, Sachin, Viv etc

Even in the 60's Bradman wasn't seen to be twice as good as Hobbs and many saw them as peers.

Sobers is a top 4 or 5 batsman, top 5 slip catcher, and a bowler who from the time he started primarily bowling pace, until the decline at the end, was averaging 27 with the ball on top of his other two skills.

He was the best batsman of the 60's while being a top 5 bowler and almost taking two catches a match (during his peak)

While during his career facing the likes of Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Davidson, Benaud, Snow, Underwood, the quartet, Lillee etc etc.

I can find and show you articles of Sobers being called the greatest cricketer, greatest all round cricketer, none of which originated in the Caribbean.

Sobers is unanimously rated as one of the two greatest test crickets of all time and in the ultimate pantheon with said Bradman.

Kapil was 4th among the 4 all rounders of his own era.

What I've said is Bradman is likely better, but there's an argument to be made. And Bradman is no. 1 on my rankings.

Stop.

You should be the one to stop after saying Sobers has a case over Don but Kapil none over Walsh.

 

[Johan]

You should be the one to stop after saying Sobers has a case over Don but Kapil none over Walsh.

I agree with this.

the gap between Kapil the bowler and Walsh the bowler is certainly way smaller than the one between Sobers and Bradman in batsmenship

 

[OverratedSanity]

You should be the one to stop after saying Sobers has a case over Don but Kapil none over Walsh.

Yes exactly, its ridiculous he has an aneurysm when someone rates Kapil on par with Walsh, which isn't even that outrageous an opinion imo.

 

[h_hurricane]

So it was only a matter of time before that came up.

I don't rate Don Bradman to be twice as good as anyone else. That doesn't apply only to Sobers, but Hobbs, Sachin, Viv etc

Even in the 60's Bradman wasn't seen to be twice as good as Hobbs and many saw them as peers.

Sobers is a top 4 or 5 batsman, top 5 slip catcher, and a bowler who from the time he started primarily bowling pace, until the decline at the end, was averaging 27 with the ball on top of his other two skills.

He was the best batsman of the 60's while being a top 5 bowler and almost taking two catches a match (during his peak)

While during his career facing the likes of Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Davidson, Benaud, Snow, Underwood, the quartet, Lillee etc etc.

I can find and show you articles of Sobers being called the greatest cricketer, greatest all round cricketer, none of which originated in the Caribbean.

Sobers is unanimously rated as one of the two greatest test crickets of all time and in the ultimate pantheon with said Bradman.

Kapil was 4th among the 4 all rounders of his own era.

What I've said is Bradman is likely better, but there's an argument to be made. And Bradman is no. 1 on my rankings.

Stop.

See, the moment we speak of Sobers, the secondary and tertiary skills become valuable. In the case of Kapil, who you clearly don't like, they become obsolete.

Also, conveniently choosing a part of Sobers' career when he averaged 27, ignoring the crap part before and after that period when averaged in the 40s. If you are true to yourself and go with your own words of quality over quantity, Sobers shouldn't pick a ball in an ATG setup, the only setup you believe that exists.