Ok. When you share an attack with other great bowlers you won’t take as many wickets as if you were the only good but not great bowler in a generally **** house attack when you will get more opportunities to take wickets as you opponents routinely smash 500. That’s why averages mediate such distinctions. Kapil just had more opportunities but he wasn’t a better bowler... or batsman ... or fielder.
Ok then. Kapil isn’t a modern era player so let us rate Chris Woakes above him.
Funny how you make this reply exclusively for me when I never mentioned Miller. Are the rest of our posts just blending into one big mess? And this 'after x tests/innings' argument is tiresome, as it depends on opportunities that vary due to team strength, composition, opposition strength, conditions and so on without affecting the quality of the player in question, which is why averages are a great indicator of individual quality. And Kapil played in unfavourable conditions - to what? If they were unfavourable to bowling, then they were favourable to batting. Plus India's batting average is the highest of any team during Kapil's career, so clearly they can't have been that weak in some areas at least. You can't make that argument work for an allrounder.
Well played. A genuinely Whisky Tango Foxtrot assertion that one.
Miller was better batsman.
Actually I loved his qualifier “if all things are equal”. But they’re not. Miller has a better bowling and batting average. Better fielder too I’d say.
Everything is not equal yet.
The only thing Kapil has over Miller as a bowler is that he had much better endurance while Miller was sometimes limited due to pre-career back injuries. Miller was faster and more skilled and could come back and break the opposition's innings at a moment's notice. Fielding is hard to compare given lack of footage but the common accounts of Miller taking catches and his reputation compared to his peers puts him on a higher level than Kapil, at least compared to his own peers.
Wait for the reply that Kapil played more tests. You know, the one thing least under the control of the player.
Ready and waiting with a baseball bat.
My argument was, Kapil was better batsman than Imran when Imran was better bowler.
I don't think it's getting more competitive. As I said in another thread, the gap between team batting home and away is the largest it's ever been. Increasingly few players have the technique to be able to grind out a draw when needed. Bowlers may come out with plenty of tricks for T20s but have a very hard time competing without favourable conditions and I'd say swing bowling skill is about the lowest it's been after WWII except maybe the early 2000s (generally, not talking about individuals like Anderson) thanks to the Kookaburra ball. And most bowling attacks that are brilliant at home manage to be rubbish overseas.
I was replying for your longevity comment and disrespect towards Kapil.
Is this your way of saying Woakes is better?
I wasn't even the one who made the original longevity comment. Perhaps you should reply to them. The Big Bambino and I have quite different usernames and avatars, perhaps that should clue you in. And why is stating facts disrespectful? And more importantly, why does respect matter at all?
Not my comments.
Under what possible measure?
In your mind, but maybe not in the real world.
Probably due to players giving more importance to shorter formats.
Ah, short-form cricket, the precise reason given for tests getting less competitive recently. So you're admitting that tests are actually not more competitive now? Plus your point about interest in the game being at it's highest isn't the best because yes, numerically it's high due to India's huge population but it's arguably at an all time low in England and the West Indies, both major teams, and India can only be one team out of twelve.