Even in that era, he held his own as an all rounder. IMO he truly is one of the greatest talents ever to play cricket. He was an outstanding athlete (infact he still is), never missed a match due to injury in his 15-16 year career. Indian cricket used him both as a stock bowler and as a strike bowler and for years he did both with distinction, day in and day out.A truly great player, who had he been born 10 years earlier or 10 years later would have reigned virtually unchallenged as the world's outstanding all round cricketer for much of his career.
Well said. And yeah, I certainly didn't mean to imply that he was overshadowed or didn't hold his own - more that because of the timing of his career he was part a small group of great all-rounders at the top of world cricket, rather than being alone at the top as he would have been during many other eras.Even in that era, he held his own as an all rounder. IMO he truly is one of the greatest talents ever to play cricket. He was an outstanding athlete (infact he still is), never missed a match due to injury in his 15-16 year career. Indian cricket used him both as a stock bowler and as a strike bowler and for years he did both with distinction, day in and day out.
Gavaskar gave us the belief that we could be the best, Kapil gave us the belief that we could beat the best and be the world Champs.
1983 and Kapil Dev Nikhanj Changed Indian and world Cricket forever .
'83 was the best WC after '96.Even in that era, he held his own as an all rounder. IMO he truly is one of the greatest talents ever to play cricket. He was an outstanding athlete (infact he still is), never missed a match due to injury in his 15-16 year career. Indian cricket used him both as a stock bowler and as a strike bowler and for years he did both with distinction, day in and day out.
Gavaskar gave us the belief that we could be the best, Kapil gave us the belief that we could beat the best and be the world Champs.
1983 and Kapil Dev Nikhanj Changed Indian and world Cricket forever .
Any shortcomings of that particular tournament were more than compensated for by THAT over from Wasim Akram in the final.'91/92 wasn't really the stuff dreams are made of.
'91/92 was an excellent tournamen which featured excellent cricket and very little uncompetetive cricket. 2002/03 and 2007 both featured horrendous amounts of it and were both as such awful tournaments in my book - 2007 was even worse than 2002/03.That's becoming a bit meaningless really Rich. It's either the third worst, or alternatively, second best WC of the four WCs you've seen.
I thought 96 was decent - there were some very good performances, and a bit of an upset in the final. 02/03 was a great tournament in my opinion. 2007 wasn't great, and what I remember of it, '91/92 wasn't really the stuff dreams are made of.