• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Kapil Dev vs Ryan Harris

Who was the better bowler?(Tests)

  • Kapil Dev

    Votes: 32 71.1%
  • Ryan Harris

    Votes: 13 28.9%

  • Total voters
    45

BazBall21

International Captain
All I can say w.r.t Kapil is that he is one player who is soo under rated by many fans because of his plain averages. They just ignore the adversities
Kapil had to face thru out and also the highlights of his career.

Extremely weak support bowling, huge word load( first 62 tests in just 5 years, 3000 balls bowled before he turned 21 , never took a break despite injuries etc etc are some of the features of this factor , ) insane longevity, fair play( he never resorted to unfair tactics like ball tampering) all affected his end bowling average.
W.r.t batting , he was convincingly dominating than even the great Viv Richards( str: of 81-82.5 against Viv's 70), played many iconic back to the wall high quality innings, upped his normal batting standard against the mighty Windies in Windies( GOAT team) etc etc.
Add to that his ODI credentials, brilliant all round fielding , captaincy , he for me was such a high calibre all rounder.

He would be my 3rd or 4rth GOAT all rounder behind Kallis, Sobers and perhaps Shaun Pollock.
Kapil’s batting SR was absurd. Several rampaging knocks.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
OP is clearly worded ambiguously "Who was the better bowler" could mean anything.

Harris at his best during his 5-year Test career was better than anything Kapil was but he was also much worse for most of his life. The only people who are "wrong" in this thread are those who insist there's a clear objective answer and any opposing opinion is wrong
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
OP is clearly worded ambiguously "Who was the better bowler" could mean anything.

Harris at his best during his 5-year Test career was better than anything Kapil was but he was also much worse for most of his life. The only people who are "wrong" in this thread are those who insist there's a clear objective answer and any opposing opinion is wrong
Exactly. I understand those rating Kapil ahead but it's not crystal clear.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
OP is clearly worded ambiguously "Who was the better bowler" could mean anything.

Harris at his best during his 5-year Test career was better than anything Kapil was but he was also much worse for most of his life. The only people who are "wrong" in this thread are those who insist there's a clear objective answer and any opposing opinion is wrong
How do you know this? Kapil at his peak was also very very good. And why we all find it wrong is that a legend is being compared to a novice. It is a clear objective answer and opposing opinion is indeed wrong and insulting.

It is like saying Pant or Rizwan is better than Adam Gilchrist and considering that as an opinion.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
How do you know this? Kapil at his peak was also very very good. And why we all find it wrong is that a legend is being compared to a novice. It is a clear objective answer and opposing opinion is indeed wrong and insulting.

It is like saying Pant or Rizwan is better than Adam Gilchrist and considering that as an opinion.
Kapil is no Gilchrist as a bowler, its a BS comparison.

When you look at his career in context, Kapil's bowling peak between the late 70s and 83 was 52 tests and 218 wickets@26. Good but not worldclass. And why should Kapil just be defined by his peak anyways?

I don't know why you just don't argue that since Harris didn't have that long a career, by default he can't be rated ahead of Kapil. That is a fine argument rather than insisting that Kapil was by all means a superior bowler.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
We don't know how Harris would have done if he debuted earlier. Maybe he would have failed, maybe he would have stepped up to the plate. Better to judge him by his actual career as an international bowler.
Mate tbh Harris was barely getting picked in the Shield earlier in his career. he was cod ordinary. Like, he was never going to be near the test side sooner than when he daybooed.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
It is like saying Pant or Rizwan is better than Adam Gilchrist and considering that as an opinion.
No, it isn't as Gilchrist had a better batting average than both of them. It is like saying Pant or Rizwan are better than Adam Parore or Dave Richardson. (They are better overall - better batsmen, but worse keepers).
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Based on peer rating, Imran isn’t a top tier bowler. I’ve never seen a player mention him when it comes to the great bowlers of the 70s and 80s.
And frankly nor should they. He had a few decent years when he scrubbed the ball dry with bottle tops, then reverted to basically being pretty average again. The extent to which Imran cheated is always glossed over here for some bizarre reason. It's an open secret among blokes who played with and against him at every level. The man set a standard for ball tampering which has never been surpassed.
 

PlayerComparisons

International Vice-Captain
And frankly nor should they. He had a few decent years when he scrubbed the ball dry with bottle tops, then reverted to basically being pretty average again. The extent to which Imran cheated is always glossed over here for some bizarre reason. It's an open secret among blokes who played with and against him at every level. The man set a standard for ball tampering which has never been surpassed.
I wonder if the main difference between Imran and Walsh was just ball tampering and biased home umpires. Very similar away records, but Imran’s home record is far better.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Imran obviously one of the greats and as a skipper the best Pakistan has had by miles, but this aspect of his record is just glossed over completely.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
And frankly nor should they. He had a few decent years when he scrubbed the ball dry with bottle tops, then reverted to basically being pretty average again. The extent to which Imran cheated is always glossed over here for some bizarre reason. It's an open secret among blokes who played with and against him at every level. The man set a standard for ball tampering which has never been surpassed.
Did he cheat in England, Australia and WI where he rocked it in his peak?

And please, everyone was tampering in that era. Don't be in denial. At least Imran had the balls to admit it unlike other ATGs who scratched the ball or lifted the seam regularly yet pretend they are angels.

To quote Holding, "I will never pretend like I never tampered with the ball."
 
Last edited:

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Mate tbh Harris was barely getting picked in the Shield earlier in his career. he was cod ordinary. Like, he was never going to be near the test side sooner than when he daybooed.
My point is that it doesn't matter because we are judging them primarily as international cricketers.
 

PlayerComparisons

International Vice-Captain
Did he cheat in England, Australia and WI where he rocked it?

And please, everyone was tampering in that era. Don't be in denial.
He averages 28.5 in Australia, 24.6 in England, 25.1 in West Indies. He averages 19.2 at home in Pakistan which is supposed to be a much harder place to bowl pace lol.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Did he cheat in England, Australia and WI where he rocked it in his peak?

And please, everyone was tampering in that era. Don't be in denial. At least Imran had the balls to admit it unlike other ATGs who scratched the ball or lifted the seam regularly yet pretend they are angels.

To quote Holding, "I will never pretend like I never tampered with the ball."
He never really did that much here tbh with the ball. Had a couple of terrific tests in 76-77 but that was about it.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
He averages 28.5 in Australia, 24.6 in England, 25.1 in West Indies. He averages 19.2 at home in Pakistan which is supposed to be a much harder place to bowl pace lol.
His averages are affected by playing as a specialist bat and part-time bowler in late career, and debuting exceptionally early at 18 years. If you see his proper bowling years he is even better.

Him doing better at home is the norm for SC bowlers. Srinanth, Kapil and Vaas all average something like 6 points better at home.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't much care about what he did in England especially or the WI, I'm talking about what he did here. TBF to him though he didn't bowl here in 83/84.

It's a bit like Waqar - we always hear how devastating he was but he didn't do much here. It's just the way it went, but it's the sort of discrepancy which other players get marked down for, but for some reason it's overlooked in Imran's case. His record here is ok, that's about it.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
I don't much care about what he did in England especially or the WI, I'm talking about what he did here. TBF to him though he didn't bowl here in 83/84.

It's a bit like Waqar - we always hear how devastating he was but he didn't do much here. It's just the way it went, but it's the sort of discrepancy which other players get marked down for, but for some reason it's overlooked in Imran's case. His record here is ok, that's about it.
Imran has a good record in Australia though so this is a weird criticism, whereas Waqar was an outright failure in Australia. Imran's record is like Steyn's, he had impact but his average is higher.

76 tour was his breakthrough series as a young bowler and he took a matchwinning tenfer.

78 was a two-tester and yeah he didn't do well.

81 was in his post-WSC peak and he did terrific against a strong Aussie side.

83 he toured but was injured from bowling in his peak and played as a batsman. Frankly, I think if he played this series he would have taken that average down a bit.

90 he played as a part-timer bowler and batsman.

If you ignore the last series, he took 41 wickets in 8 tests @27 as a frontline bowler, which is pretty good.
 
Last edited:

Top