Ian Botham vs Kapil Dev

[Anil]

Okay I don't agree, but that explains your position very well

thanks but what don't you agree with?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's a nice stereotype.

The reality is, though, that caught-down-leg is always rare, there's no way to cause that;

No one was suggesting that he deliberately attempted to get wickets that way, merely that he took a lot of wickets with bad balls.

 

[JerseyGuy]

Kapil because he won India the world cup!!!

 

[archie mac]

thanks but what don't you agree with?

A lot of cricketers go on past their best, Richards, Mark Waugh, Slater, Donald etc
I don't think you can take just one series but if they are at the top for a period as in the case of Botham 5 years then you can take that as the player we are debating. You could say the same about a certain Pakistani fast bowler

 

[neville cardus]

It wasn't, really, and Bob Willis' description of it (obviously in jest for the greater part)

Willis and jest? Now there's a novel collaboration. Anyway, he said it with a face as pokerishly frank as a seminarian's.

 

[subshakerz]

A lot of cricketers go on past their best, Richards, Mark Waugh, Slater, Donald etc
I don't think you can take just one series but if they are at the top for a period as in the case of Botham 5 years then you can take that as the player we are debating. You could say the same about a certain Pakistani fast bowler

Using that argument, Waqar Younis from 90-95 is perhaps the greatest fast bower there ever was. Too bad its not true.

 

[R_D]

Anyway while we are at it... I haven't read a great deal about Botham so just interested. What lead to him from being such a terrfic player to being pretty average to bad in latter part of his career. Obviousally he wasn't past it but did he have injury or somthing.

 

[Sanz]

Anyway while we are at it... I haven't read a great deal about Botham so just interested. What lead to him from being such a terrfic player to being pretty average to bad in latter part of his career. Obviousally he wasn't past it but did he have injury or somthing.

Over usage.

 

[archie mac]

Using that argument, Waqar Younis from 90-95 is perhaps the greatest fast bower there ever was. Too bad its not true.

He was a class act, and I have little doubt he is one of the best I have ever watched, maybe a lack of variety cost him being one of the all time greats

 

[archie mac]

Over usage.

Yes that combined with a back injury

 

[Sanz]

Yes that combined with a back injury

Indeed. Btween 1977-83 Botham played 63 tests, bowled 14727 deliveries, Between 1978-84 Kapil played 66 tests bowled 14035 deliveries, btween 1976-82 Imran played 41 tests bowled 10728 deliveries. Not to forget , Botham also batted 100 times compared to Kapil's 98 and Imran's 63. Needless to say he batted much more than those two.

 

[biased indian]

Why? When was that rule passed

One of the best batsmen to play for india and may be in the world..... Vinod kambli...

just have a look at his prime what a player

 

[biased indian]

so wht is the big difference between kapil and botham..thy seem to have bowled and batted almost simillar..may be botham have played more FC ????

 

[biased indian]

for me its how valuable they where for their team....so my order of the four will be

Hadlee,Imran,Kapil and Botham

 

[Anil]

A lot of cricketers go on past their best, Richards, Mark Waugh, Slater, Donald etc
I don't think you can take just one series but if they are at the top for a period as in the case of Botham 5 years then you can take that as the player we are debating. You could say the same about a certain Pakistani fast bowler

that's exactly my point...you could say the same about a few other greats as well...and in botham's case as in any of the other cases, taking a 4-5 year period in a 15 year career and stating he was second to bradman doesn't make any sense...his career and his worth as a cricketer is a sum of all the constituent parts, the great, the good, the not so good and the ugly and only makes sense when evaluated as such, especially when considering all-time calibre...

 

[Manee]

It's a nice stereotype.

What is?

 

[Perm]

What is?

Botham got his wickets with poor deliveries.

 

[archie mac]

that's exactly my point...you could say the same about a few other greats as well...and in botham's case as in any of the other cases, taking a 4-5 year period in a 15 year career and stating he was second to bradman doesn't make any sense...his career and his worth as a cricketer is a sum of all the constituent parts, the great, the good, the not so good and the ugly and only makes sense when evaluated as such, especially when considering all-time calibre...

So a batsman averages 60 for 10 years and then 35 for the next 7 he is marked down?

Does not seem right to me, especially if he only stayed on to help the younger players

 

[Perm]

So a batsman averages 60 for 10 years and then 35 for the next 7 he is marked down?

Does not seem right to me, especially if he only stayed on to help the younger players

You have to take it in context. For example, I'd rather have somebody who averages 50 over ten years than somebody who averages 65 for five years, and then 35 for the next five. Consistency is the key in cricket, and if you can produce that kind of performance for your country then you will often win matches, despite not generally being regarded as 'match-winners'.

The player in question would be marked down because he couldn't display consistency throughout his career, but quite often people will remark upon the two different phases of his career.

 

[JBH001]

You've also go to look past the initial 77 - 81 period where Botham was arguably the greatest. He was still very good all the way to 84/85 (though fading with the bat).

I think a reasonable assessment of career can be:
77 - 81: Great.
81 - 84: Very Good/Good.
84 - 87: Mediocre (if that).
87 - 92: really bad.

However, Anil you do make a good point regarding longevity.

Kapil had a long and consistent career, except for the last 3 - 4 years. IIRC he was useless with the ball after the 90/91 series against Australia where he took 25 wickets (I remember reading about his 5 for and Sachin's 100 and Shastri's 200 and Warne's debut in an issue of Sportstar as a boy - do they still publish that magazine in India?) and up until his retirement was merely bowling 15 - 20 overs a game and taking a wicket or so a match until he passed Hadlee. So I guess you could always look at his record until the end of 90/91 series and compare it to Botham's. It would probably make for a fairer assessment (though to even things out you would probably have to look at Botham up until the 86/87 series in Aus)