exactlyKapil was a good bowler and a decent bat with great longevity.
and 69 when he did not. That is well passed Tendulkar.And averaged only 40 with bat when he was WK.
I'm guessing he will argue different eras.How are Willis and Walsh not better bowlers than Kapil?
He has become a bit if a forgotten figure and a little underrated. Him and Big Merv were a good attack.Craig McDermott was a better bowler than Kapil Dev
Roberts and Willis were the same eraI'm guessing he will argue different eras.
Botham?
Craig McDermott was a better bowler than Kapil Dev
Off the top of my head… Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Garner, Lillee, Holding, Roberts, Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh, Alderman, Willis, Qasim…
Probably forgot someone in there, and thats before you get into bowlers who are comparable to him..
Which would be silly imo. Walsh debuted in 84 so played an entire decade alongside Kapil, no possible argument there. Willis played 6 years and almost 50 tests (a majority of his career). Easily same era imo but one could try to clutch at straws.I'm guessing he will argue different eras.
Walsh not same era IMOHow are Willis and Walsh not better bowlers than Kapil?
Walsh played plenty of games during Kapil's time and Willis is virtually an identical contemporary of Roberts who was included.Walsh not same era IMO
I agree that not including no balls gives his record a notable boost, but I still think Willis was the better bowler and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.Willis was better than Dev but probably not by a lot. He bowled a metric ton of no-balls that didnt count against his personal stats at the time. His average would shoot up to over 28 if they were actually counted properly IIRC. It brings their records closer together than one would think.