Who's the better all rounder, Kapil Dev vs Ian Botham?

[Richard]

The fact is he failed, and any reason aside from being injured doesn't cut it. Truly great performers rise to challenges, and Botham played the West Indies in nine tests in his prime and didn't produce one performance of note. Heck, Botham didn't even score a century against the West Indies in his entire career. Captaincy or no, there are no excuses for that.

Kapil Dev, on the other hand, had very impressive stats against the West Indies, and remains quite underrated.

It's not neccessarily a case of "cutting it" - I'm not trying to excuse Botham for failing to score or bowl well. I am trying to decipher whether or not it was the challenge of captaincy that caused his failures or the challenge of a superior team to any others. Both are perfectly conceivable, and I wish we could know with more accuracy.

 

[Goughy]

Peter Willey had better batting stats against WI than Botham. Doesnt mean he was as good a batsman.

This thread question shouldnt even have to be asked.

Botham was better batsman, bowler and fielder.

Kapil had longevity on his side but in terms of what they were capable of he is lucky to be included along side the other 3 allrounders of the era. He was good for a longtime but never reached much higher than that.

There is a lot to respect Kapil for. His consistency and longevity being 2 things. However, there is no need to overstate them by comparing him to a Botham.

 

[JerseyGuy]

Kapil was more talented but Botham was more successful....mainly because of support available to Kapil (lack of) and home pitches mainly prepared for spin.

 

[Goughy]

Kapil was more talented but Botham was more successful....mainly because of support available to Kapil (lack of) and home pitches mainly prepared for spin.

No, not a chance

 

[silentstriker]

If you just watch Botham during his prime years, there is no way you could say that anyone was more talented than that. If he had continued in that vein for the rest of his career, he'd be up there with Bradman in the all time stakes.

 

[Anil]

Peter Willey had better batting stats against WI than Botham. Doesnt mean he was as good a batsman.

This thread question shouldnt even have to be asked.

Botham was better batsman, bowler and fielder.

Kapil had longevity on his side but in terms of what they were capable of he is lucky to be included along side the other 3 allrounders of the era. He was good for a longtime but never reached much higher than that.

There is a lot to respect Kapil for. His consistency and longevity being 2 things. However, there is no need to overstate them by comparing him to a Botham.

oh yeah kapil has earned his place among the other 3 great allrounders in that era plus clive rice...in fact he was a far better allrounder than hadlee...if he had been used primarily as a strike bowler and if he had bowled in more swing friendly conditions, he would have had much more impressive stats(not that his stats aren't otherwise impressive)...as it transpired, he was a strike bowler combined into a stock bowler for india for a large portion of his career...which basically meant that he had to keep the runs down, bowl long spells and also pick up wickets basically because of the lack of anything resembling world class support at the other end...his consistency and longevity aren't the only reasons to rate him, he had tremendous talent as well...botham was definitely the more talented batsman and bowler(and by the way kapil was a brilliant fielder too although botham had many more catches being a regular in the slips cordon) but in terms of mental strength and discipline, he had his failings and they show up clearly in his career graph...

these two can certainly be compared although botham is a greater talent and there is nothing ridiculous in the comparison, hell you see people putting a freddie flintoff next to botham...

 

[Anil]

If you just watch Botham during his prime years, there is no way you could say that anyone was more talented than that. If he had continued in that vein for the rest of his career, he'd be up there with Bradman in the all time stakes.

the point is he couldn't sustain that kind of brilliance like bradman did, and that brings him back to the pack a fair bit...

 

[silentstriker]

the point is he couldn't sustain that kind of brilliance like bradman did, and that brings him back to the pack a fair bit...

I was talking about talent...

 

[Sanz]

oh yeah kapil has earned his place among the other 3 great allrounders in that era plus clive rice...in fact he was a far better allrounder than hadlee...if he had been used primarily as a strike bowler and if he had bowled in more swing friendly conditions, he would have had much more impressive stats(not that his stats aren't otherwise impressive)...as it transpired, he was a strike bowler combined into a stock bowler for india for a large portion of his career...which basically meant that he had to keep the runs down, bowl long spells and also pick up wickets basically because of the lack of anything resembling world class support at the other end...his consistency and longevity aren't the only reasons to rate him, he had tremendous talent as well...botham was definitely the more talented batsman and bowler(and by the way kapil was a brilliant fielder too although botham had many more catches being a regular in the slips cordon) but in terms of mental strength and discipline, he had his failings and they show up clearly in his career graph...

these two can certainly be compared although botham is a greater talent and there is nothing ridiculous in the comparison, hell you see people putting a freddie flintoff next to botham...

AWTA. IMO Kapil was a pretty good batsman who bailed India out on many occasions with his batting (most notable WC 1983, and tied test 1986). Only thing that seperated him from being a great batsman was his mental approach to his batting. He treated himself as a tailender and rarely put money on his wicket.

And I am not the only one saying that, many of his contemporaries like Imran, Gavaskar etc have said the same thing about his batting.

That Said, Still Botham is the no. 1.

 

[Pratters]

AWTA. IMO Kapil was a pretty good batsman who bailed India out on many occasions with his batting (most notable WC 1983, and tied test 1986). Only thing that seperated him from being a great batsman was his mental approach to his batting. He treated himself as a tailender and rarely put money on his wicket.

And I am not the only one saying that, many of his contemporaries like Imran, Gavaskar etc have said the same thing about his batting.

I only remember seeing him 1991-1993/4 and was a small kid back then but it was very annoying how he tried to hit so many balls he should not have. I share the same view that he could have generated much more returns as a batsman given the talent he possessed for the art.

 

[Burgey]

the point is he couldn't sustain that kind of brilliance like bradman did, and that brings him back to the pack a fair bit...

True, otherwise you could say Flintoff, because of his 2005 Ashes series, was in the Bradman class.

At their respective bests though, I'd have to say Botham, not deriding Kapil's achievements in doing so.

 

[haroon510]

Ian Botham any day.. any type of match.

 

[bagapath]

Ian Botham any day.. any type of match.

disagree. kapil was better in one dayers, definitely. please check the records. since this poll was assumed to be for test cricket, or for both test and one day comibined, botham is getting the votes, including mine. had it been limited to one dayers i am sure kapil would come ahead of beefy.

 

[Richard]

I'd be disappointed if anyone even had to ask the question relating to ODIs TBH. Kapil is blatantly obviously the better there. I hope the question solely relates to Tests. Most comparison threads tend to.

 

[Anil]

I was talking about talent...

agreed...although talent for me isn't just the pure ability to strike/bowl a cricket ball...there are lot of factors that go into determining the talent of a player and natural ability while being one of the most important is certainly not the only one...

 

[Anil]

True, otherwise you could say Flintoff, because of his 2005 Ashes series, was in the Bradman class.

At their respective bests though, I'd have to say Botham, not deriding Kapil's achievements in doing so.

botham sustained it far longer than flintoff ever did...and sure, botham was clearly better than kapil when you take their peaks..

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Ian Botham,but the difference is not as huge as some people here are trying to suggest.

For first 4 years of his career,Botham was as good a bowler as Waqar Younis was in first 5 years of his career.But people forget that during that 4 year period,he was nothing more an ordinary batsman.After that he saw good & bad patches in terms of batting but was never anything special tobe declared leaps & bounds ahead of Kapil.Botham was definitely better batsman but difference was minute.Kapil's batting was always affected(especially in last few years of his career) by load of being only quality medium pacer in the team.
As a batsman: Botham>Kapil

Botham might have been exceptional bowler in first few years of his career(averaging 18 in first 4 years) but then he got worst & worst and gave good performances very rarely i.e in very few series.On the other hand,Botham was a very good bow;er at the start of his career but his bowling deterioated as he grew older and played probably 40 more tests for the reason that there was no other quality pacer available to India at that time.Botham also played about 25 more tests then he should've.After these 2 very good bowlers were past their best,Botham's averaged dropped much more than that of Kapl.So,Botham might have been a much better bowler than Kapil at the start but after analyzing what they ended up with,I have to say its almost impossible to split these two.
As a bowler: Botham=Kapil

As an allrounder: Botham>Kapil

And that just because he was marginally better batsman than Kapil.

 

[Goughy]

Ian Botham,but the difference is not as huge as some people here are trying to suggest.

For first 4 years of his career,Botham was as good a bowler as Waqar Younis was in first 5 years of his career.But people forget that during that 4 year period,he was nothing more an ordinary batsman.

You know in that 4 year perid that Botham scored 7 centuries in under 40 Tests and that Kapil only scored 8 over his entire career?

A very strange statememnt

 

[Sanz]

You know in that 4 year perid that Botham scored 7 centuries in under 40 Tests and that Kapil only scored 8 over his entire career?

A very strange statememnt

Kapil scored 8 centuries batting @ 6-8 position. 5 100s, 14 50s @ no. 7, 2 100s 11 50s @ No. 8 and 1 @ no. 6. He batted only 6 times above no. 6 position.

Kapil scored less 100s because he didn't have as many opportunties as Botham did(as his high no. of 50+ scores would suggest) . He would have ended up with more 100s had he batted up the order.

As a batsman He(Kapil) wasn't as good as Botham but the difference isn't as much as you are claiming at least in the case where you are using the stats(e.g. no. of test 100s) to make that argument.

 

[Dissector]

I think Bhupinder has it about right. Botham was a marginally better test cricketer but not nearly as much as his supporters think. If we consider tests and ODI's, both I would rate Kapil higher.

Even Botham's much-touted "peak period" is over-rated since he failed consistently against the West Indies. I would easily pick Imran in the 80's over Botham from 1977-1981.