Pick the Best All-Rounder Combos

[subshakerz]

Who is talking about batting? I already mentioned he is a tier above Kapil for me in that department.

Lol what the heck man? Please check the last page and a half, this entire conversation evolved around disagreement over his batting. If you are going to butt in then at least know the context.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv was never truly 'bad' unlike Botham. Not to mention it's a huge reason why I rank Sunny over Viv. And probably that's our difference; you value peaks more; I give troughs close to equal importance.

Viv averaged 36 in his last 19 tests.

And yeah I value peaks more as long as the trough are not too long, like in Ponting's case.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lol what the heck man? Please check the last page and a half, this entire conversation evolved around disagreement over his batting. If you are going to butt in then at least know the context.

Man, please read my replies whole. I explicitly stated in my first reply that Kapil is a tier below Botham batting wise and only I commented that saying a no 7 can't be better than a no 6 is disingenuous. Next, I commented when you were talking about how you rate them as bowlers.

Viv averaged 36 in his last 19 tests.

And yeah I value peaks more as long as the trough are not too long, like in Ponting's case.

That's the point. Neither 36 batting is too bad neither the no. is like half of Viv's career.

 

[subshakerz]

Man, please read my replies whole. I explicitly stated in my first reply that Kapil is a tier below Botham batting wise and only I commented that saying a no 7 can't be better than a no 6 is disingenuous. Next, I commented when you were talking about how you rate them as bowlers.

The whole career stage thing was to compare them mainly as bats.

That's the point. Neither 36 batting is too bad neither the no. is like half of Viv's career.

Bad by ATG bat standards.

 

[Victor Ian]

I give troughs close to equal importance.

This is ****ing stupid. The troughs only exist because of a crazy peak that created a hero. Without it the trough would be terminated before it ruined figures.

Troughs at the backend of a career should never be considered. That is a selection issue rather than anything else

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is ****ing stupid. The troughs only exist because of a crazy peak that created a hero. Without it the trough would be terminated before it ruined figures.

Troughs at the backend of a career should never be considered. That is a selection issue rather than anything else

That's a ****ing stupid take. If you are getting selected, I am taking into count how you play. Kapil Dev played for more years than Botham; not to mention all those steps without a Break. Thinking nothing after Botham's first 50 Tests matters is stupid.

 

[subshakerz]

This is ****ing stupid. The troughs only exist because of a crazy peak that created a hero. Without it the trough would be terminated before it ruined figures.

Troughs at the backend of a career should never be considered. That is a selection issue rather than anything else

I don't go that far. Troughs that go on too long because a cricketer wants to extend his career should be penalised. But if it's a sharp but brief trough that brings someone's stats down, then that should be contextualized.

That's a ****ing stupid take. If you are getting selected, I am taking into count how you play. Kapil Dev played for more years than Botham; not to mention all those steps without a Break. Thinking nothing after Botham's first 50 Tests matters is stupid.

Why is Kapil playing for more years important? It's not like Botham had a short career.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why is Kapil playing for more years important? It's not like Botham had a short career.

Kapil playing for more years isn't really important, the fact that he played all those matches almost consecutively, missing only one; is.

 

[subshakerz]

Kapil playing for more years isn't really important, the fact that he played all those matches almost consecutively, missing only one; is.

Not really in these types of comparisons.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not really in these types of comparisons.

It's the same kind. You can't just ignore this factors. You asked me why his longevity counts; that's why.

 

[Victor Ian]

I don't go that far. Troughs that go on too long because a cricketer wants to extend his career should be penalised. But if it's a sharp but brief trough that brings someone's stats down, then that should be contextualized.

No. Any trough at the backend of a career is due to selection failures. You don't penalise a player for getting selected when they shouldn't be. Taking your boy, Ponting, as a perfect example, he would have been dropped years earlier if Australia was not at the end of their production line of greats. What he did was service to their country at the expense of his record.

 

[subshakerz]

No. Any trough at the backend of a career is due to selection failures. You don't penalise a player for getting selected when they shouldn't be. Taking your boy, Ponting, as a perfect example, he would have been dropped years earlier if Australia was not at the end of their production line of greats. What he did was service to their country at the expense of his record.

I agree and disagree:

- It takes a while to know that a player, especially a great player, is actually in bad form enough to be droppable for selectors. Dropping Ponting in 2008/9 wouldn't have made sense. From the standpoint of hindsight, we can recognize though when that person's trough actually started.

- However, in certain cases, such as Ponting, when it is clear by his own words he extended his career end for reasons outside of just his own batting, then I don't mind contextualising that, which means we don't totally ignore end career numbers but we understand that his overall record should appear a bit better than he ended up with. Similar to Imran the bowler.

So I have softened my earlier position on this somewhat. However, it is depending on the case, but it's not a general rule to ignore a late career trough since I think it is part of the challenge of any cricketer to handle those latter years. If a cricketer thinks he can still perform when he is past his best, it is his responsibility.

 

[subshakerz]

It's the same kind. You can't just ignore this factors. You asked me why his longevity counts; that's why.

It's not a longevity issue since Botham also had a long career. It's a fitness issue.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's not a longevity issue since Botham also had a long career. It's a fitness issue.

Those two things are inherently linked. Don't you devalue Shoaib Akhtar for missing many matches in ongoing series? Kapil gets a significant boost there from me.

 

[subshakerz]

Those two things are inherently linked. Don't you devalue Shoaib Akhtar for missing many matches in ongoing series? Kapil gets a significant boost there from me.

Depends who I am comparing him with.

If its someone with 300 wickets, then Shoaib's longevity comes into play.

If it is someone with roughly the same wickets, then fitness comes into play.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Depends who I am comparing him with.

If its someone with 300 wickets, then Shoaib's longevity comes into play.

If it is someone with roughly the same wickets, then fitness comes into play.

Yeah, kinda the same. Had it not for Botham's fitness to begin with; we wouldn't be even having this conversation.

 

[Coronis]

@capt_Luffy you yourself may not have been talking much about batting comparison but certain posters in this thread over the recent pages have been incessantly trying to say Kapil is just as good a batsman as Botham, which is why its still being brought up.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@capt_Luffy you yourself may not have been talking much about batting comparison but certain posters in this thread over the recent pages have been incessantly trying to say Kapil is just as good a batsman as Botham, which is why its still being brought up.

And I inherently have no problem with that. The gap between their batting is sufficient enough for me to not put them in the same tier. I am mostly talking about the bowling; and only have commented once on the batting position argument. And as far as I have followed; no one actually has till now said that Kapil was a better batter; neither ma1978 nor PFK.

 

[ma1978]

I don't go that far. Troughs that go on too long because a cricketer wants to extend his career should be penalised. But if it's a sharp but brief trough that brings someone's stats down, then that should be contextualized.



Why is Kapil playing for more years important? It's not like Botham had a short career.

by definition, if you play at the same or similar level for longer, you are a more valuable player and have had a better career.

 

[ma1978]

And I inherently have no problem with that. The gap between their batting is sufficient enough for me to not put them in the same tier. I am mostly talking about the bowling; and only have commented once on the batting position argument. And as far as I have followed; no one actually has till now said that Kapil was a better batter; neither ma1978 nor PFK.

Once can make the case Botham is a better batter bit differences between them are marginal at best as reflected in the averages, and the context of how they respectively performed against the Windies and the additional length of Kapil’s career