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

[Richard]

I'm not claiming Botham to be the second-greatest ever, though - never mind the second-greatest in a field as broad as batsmen. And if you look closely, you'll see that I clearly said what tipped the scales was what came after the peak had passed.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not claiming Botham to be the second-greatest ever, though - never mind the second-greatest in a field as broad as batsmen. And if you look closely, you'll see that I clearly said what tipped the scales was what came after the peak had passed.

Let's thank the lord for that. But I accept that reasoning. It actually makes sense for once.

 

[Anil]

Kapil could never have been picked for batting alone.

that's not correct, kapil was considered as a lower middle order batsman for most of his career and indian batting lineups were picked considering him also as a batting option...he was essentially a bowling allrounder but his batting wasn't all that shabby, he definitely wasn't a hit-or-miss batsman...botham at his peak was a better test batsman but when you take their entire careers, they are much closer than people think...

 

[Richard]

From 1984 onwards, Kapil was very much a better batsman than Botham, indeed.

 

[Engle]

that's not correct, kapil was considered as a lower middle order batsman for most of his career and indian batting lineups were picked considering him also as a batting option...he was essentially a bowling allrounder but his batting wasn't all that shabby, he definitely wasn't a hit-or-miss batsman...botham at his peak was a better test batsman but when you take their entire careers, they are much closer than people think...

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Botham possessed the batting sophistication to defend, against his attacking instincts,against Pakistan thereby ensuring a draw (with Gatting).

We all know what Kapil did, when called upon to defend for the draw.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Botham possessed the batting sophistication to defend, against his attacking instincts,against Pakistan thereby ensuring a draw (with Gatting).

We all know what Kapil did, when called upon to defend for the draw.

Technically, Botham was excellent. I'd put him as the better batsman, definitely. At their peak, he was far better, but overall too.

 

[bagapath]

voted for botham coz that is the truth.

but while botham's exploits in 1981 ashes and in jubilee test/bombay are part of cricketlore kapil dev has had his share of amazing moments too. the four sixers in lords, 175 not out from 17 for 5, and that cup winning catch off richards' bat.

fast medium swing bowling, diving catches, towering sixers, fearless attitude - both these guys are so similar. what brilliant champions they were!

lets not pore over numbers for a moment and salute two absolutely wonderful champions who could turn a match singlehandedly. their style, charisma, power and talent cant be expressed in mere numbers.

 

[Anil]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Botham possessed the batting sophistication to defend, against his attacking instincts,against Pakistan thereby ensuring a draw (with Gatting).

We all know what Kapil did, when called upon to defend for the draw.

botham was better technically but if but you are pointing to one instance and saying one is a good batsman while the other isn't...i am just saying it isn't as simple as that...kapil has played a fair number of innings which helped india climb out of holes, in both tests and one dayers...besides for all his lack of technique, if you compare their records against the best attack of that time(the windies), kapil has done significantly better as a batsman(21 against 30 or something like that)....

 

[Richard]

While obviously being captain didn't affect Botham's technique, I've never seen the "he failed against West Indies" as an entirely fair criticism, due to the fact that we can't know for sure whether the captaincy or the class of the bowling-attack in 1980 and 1981 was the biggest reason. The fact that he continued to look awful against Australia at the start of the summer of '81 makes me think just possibly the latter, though obviously it was merely 2 Tests.

And obviously, his failures in 1984 and 1986 were in common with his failures against other teams at that time.

I've always wished Botham was never given the captaincy in 1980, much as there wasn't really a hell of a lot of alternative. Because that way we'd know for sure one way or the other.

 

[Anil]

While obviously being captain didn't affect Botham's technique, I've never seen the "he failed against West Indies" as an entirely fair criticism, due to the fact that we can't know for sure whether the captaincy or the class of the bowling-attack in 1980 and 1981 was the biggest reason. The fact that he continued to look awful against Australia at the start of the summer of '81 makes me think just possibly the latter, though obviously it was merely 2 Tests.

And obviously, his failures in 1984 and 1986 were in common with his failures against other teams at that time.

I've always wished Botham was never given the captaincy in 1980, much as there wasn't really a hell of a lot of alternative. Because that way we'd know for sure one way or the other.

he did fail as a batsman against them whether it was captaincy or the quality of the attack or a combination of both...why wouldn't it be a fair criticism even if it was just captaincy?

 

[Richard]

Because if it was just captaincy, it wasn't the fact that the best attack going around was far too good for him where others had been easy-meat. It was the fact that the captaincy weighed him down.

As I say, though - we'll never truly know what the reasons for his failures in those series in 1980 and 1981 were. Which is why I wish he'd never been given the captaincy.

 

[Anil]

Because if it was just captaincy, it wasn't the fact that the best attack going around was far too good for him where others had been easy-meat. It was the fact that the captaincy weighed him down.

As I say, though - we'll never truly know what the reasons for his failures in those series in 1980 and 1981 were. Which is why I wish he'd never been given the captaincy.

in other words, his mental fragility...again not sure how that is above criticism or cannot be incorporated into the logic to see how good or bad he was...the mental aspect is a big part of the total package....

 

[Lillian Thomson]

in other words, his mental fragility...again not sure how that is above criticism or cannot be incorporated into the logic to see how good or bad he was...the mental aspect is a big part of the total package....

I think the point is that it's unclear whether it's a valid criticism or not so you can't hold it against him.

 

[Richard]

in other words, his mental fragility...again not sure how that is above criticism or cannot be incorporated into the logic to see how good or bad he was...the mental aspect is a big part of the total package....

Of course it is. What I am saying is that we don't know whether Botham's failures were caused by said mental frailties or the fact that the West Indian attack was too good for him. The way some people talk it's taken for granted that the bowlers were too good for him.

That he did not succeed in a challenge is not in doubt. What is in doubt is which challenge it was that he failed - was it West Indies, or was it captaincy? I don't find it inconceivable that a) had his first captaincy series' been against someone else, he'd have done badly too and b) had he not been given the captaincy in 1980 he'd have done rather better against the West Indies bowlers than he ended-up doing, though obviously not as well as he'd done against others. But we can never know for certain.

 

[Anil]

I think the point is that it's unclear whether it's a valid criticism or not so you can't hold it against him.

ok we are unclear on that, if we just discount that, it leaves us with him not being good enough a batsman to survive/flourish against those pace attacks...of course this is by no means an insult to botham, they were some of the greatest attacks in cricketing history and a lot of really good players have come to grief against them...

 

[Anil]

Of course it is. What I am saying is that we don't know whether Botham's failures were caused by said mental frailties or the fact that the West Indian attack was too good for him. The way some people talk it's taken for granted that the bowlers were too good for him.

That he did not succeed in a challenge is not in doubt. What is in doubt is which challenge it was that he failed - was it West Indies, or was it captaincy? I don't find it inconceivable that a) had his first captaincy series' been against someone else, he'd have done badly too and b) had he not been given the captaincy in 1980 he'd have done rather better against the West Indies bowlers than he ended-up doing, though obviously not as well as he'd done against others. But we can never know for certain.

well we only know what happened, guessing what could've been is futile...and we have to draw our conclusions on him based on that...

 

[Richard]

Yep, absolutely. And the best conclusion I can come to, but one I'm far from 100% convinced on, is that it was captaincy. I've not seen so much as a single one of his dismissals from either series, however, and were I to see them all or at least most I might revise that idea.

Of course, once we've come to the conclusions, we can make some guesses about what might have happened had whichever factor it was not happened. It'll always be "if-only only", though, naturally.

 

[subshakerz]

Botham as an AR could have been picked on the strength of his batting or bowling.
Kapil could never have been picked for batting alone.

Botham for me.

Not for most of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Because if it was just captaincy, it wasn't the fact that the best attack going around was far too good for him where others had been easy-meat. It was the fact that the captaincy weighed him down.

As I say, though - we'll never truly know what the reasons for his failures in those series in 1980 and 1981 were. Which is why I wish he'd never been given the captaincy.

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.

 

[Richard]

Not for most of his career.

Well, it depends. Would picking him purely as a bowler for most of his career have been successful? No. Would it have happened? I'd be prepared to bet he'd have been picked as a bowler for a very large proportion of the Tests he played in, rightly or wrongly.

And as a batsman, it's pretty much irrefutable that he'd have played and been worth his place as a specialist bat until midway through 1984 - and given this, he'd have had at least a couple of series' grace before being left-out.

Botham was a good batsman for longer than most people seem to realise. It's true that his good spell with the ball, if you exclude his captaincy period, does number just 30 Tests, which is not all that many over what amounts to little more than 3 years. But with the bat, again excluding captaincy matches as he lost effect there even worse, he played 57 matches before ceasing to be a force. This is more of his career than not.