Kapil Dev vs Courtney Walsh

[capt_Luffy]

I mean, Imran wasn't one down the order either. He was adaptable in a way Kapil was not.

But I don't begrudge those thinking Kapil was better as a bat and he may get in different sides based on that.

Imran clearly a better bowler though. I'm surprised this has to be debated.

Yeah me too. Given Kapil averages 0.8 higher, has a 0.2 better eco and 71 more wickets. In the last poll, he was ranked 27th, Imran 39th

 

[sayon basak]

You study Bio???? You disgust me

Don't think you hate biology more than me.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah me too. Given Kapil averages 0.8 higher, has a 0.2 better eco and 71 more wickets. In the last poll, he was ranked 27th, Imran 39th

both were rated fairly imo.

 

[DrWolverine]

let's just make Kapil vs Imran in ODI context

Ok

 

[capt_Luffy]

both were rated fairly imo.

Would have Imran in the 30ish region honestly

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Don't think you hate biology more than me.

Study CS instead

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

1980s
Kapil SR was 117 for 30+ scores
Imran 86

Thats huge difference.

 

[ataraxia]

But as I have shown above, Kapil is more valuable than Tendulkar. That can't be right! Where have I messed it up?

Hi @kyear2 it's polite to respond to questions.

 

[kyear2]

Ok i have to admit I was sleepy responding to your query earlier. But I get it now. For Lara and Sachin to to even remotely look out of place as atgs, you'd have to have like a handful of batsmen, imo, doing something significantly better than they did: average 60+, score a century every 5 innings or so, average 55 away, have one or two 300 + scores etc. And do so over a reasonable number of tests (100+) vs a mix of great and mediocre bowling. Steve Smith was close for a while when he was going at 64+ after what 80 tests. But we see where he is now. And even then, you'd need like a half dozen or more Steve Smith g-modes over a decent length test career.

Also, for me to consider someone as an atg from a stats pov you have to meet certain thresholds (with few exceptions):

Batting: average 50+, average 45 + away, score a hundred every 5 or so tests, have a monster series or two and,/or have a great series vs a challenging attack etc. Have a good/great record vs the best of your time etc

Bowling: average 25 or less overall (spinners under 30), average 25 or under away (under 30 spinners), at least 1 ten for, take at least 4 wpm (or close to it), SR around 55 or less, great series vs great/challenging batting. Good/great record vs the best. Peer/pundits opinions etc Had Compton and Harvey met those standards, I'd rank them unequivocally atg. The likes of Hobbs, Hutton still do.

Now I know you might say, what about someone like Weekes. He averaged 58 overall and 49 away , yet I don't consider him atg. It's because he sucked vs the best of his time. What about if Viv never got his average back over 50? No doubt it'd take a bit of shine off his greatness imo.

Again, in order for Sachin as an example, to not be considered atg imo, standards would have to go through the roof, which imo is very unlikely to happen.

Both the bowling standards are pretty generous tbh.

 

[kyear2]

@subshakerz @kyear2 crazy that you two let Migara get away with saying Kapil Dev was a greater Batsmen of spin bowling than Sir Viv Richards ngl, absolutely insane work.

Don't take much that @Migara or @Pap Finn Keighl say seriously.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Don't take much that @Migara or @Pap Finn Keighl say seriously.

Add @akilana to that

 

[kyear2]

Not related to Viv Richards.

What is the argument against Joe Root? He has been arguably the best batsman this decade which happens to be a bowling friendly era.

Really not sure, think I underrate him to an extent as well.

 

[Johan]

Don't take much that @Migara or @Pap Finn Keighl say seriously.

True

 

[kyear2]

Australia, nothing else I guess. he is arguably better than Ponting/Sanga/Kallis, most likely will end up comfortably higher after he's done.

I know I acknowledge that I possible underated him, but I don't think he's quite that high.

 

[Johan]

I have him around Jack/Punter, people underestimate how different 2000s was, and how different it is to bat behind Hayden/Langer, Amla/Smith and Crawley/Pope.

 

[Thala_0710]

I have him around Jack/Punter, people underestimate how different 2000s was, and how different it is to bat behind Hayden/Langer, Amla/Smith and Crawley/Pope.

Yeah pretty much this, around the same level as these guys. Without a big series in Aus he ends at around the bottom of this tier, with 1 he ends it at around the top.

 

[kyear2]

He consistently maintained a good level, but if he was a considerably better bowler than his raw numbers, he would have had a top drawer sustained peak or better overall overseas numbers. Gillespie was definitely a higher quality bowler than Kapil imo.

Don't see how this is even in dispute tbh.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, he had flatter tracks, especially at home. That automatically means he is better than his numbers. Had some excellent, even some ATG series in such tracks (83 WI). As I said, that's someone whom I consider better than numbers, not necessarily someone with an excellent peak and a huge downfall like Botham (he is better than his numbers too btw) is better than numbers.

How are you better than your numbers if you were pretty consistent throughout your career. There's no Botham or Punter decline that takes away from from they did during their prime.

Near ATG in WI and Great in Australia, and again, by context decent in both Eng and especially Pakistan. NZ is just poor though

There's no context where he was decent in England no Pakistan.

It is objectively poor.

 

[kyear2]

Kapil Dev wasn’t a great bowler.
But being a great all rounder makes him valuable.

So this I will as you differently.

If you're a "good" bowler and a below par batsman. How does than combination Mae you an ATG?

You gotta be great at something right?

 

[kyear2]

Pakistan was a very tough assignment (albeit I'd still fancy Gillespie to do better) but I would expect better output in England.

I think Kapil's longevity is testament to outstanding stamina, professionalism, and certainly being a good bowler, but not testament to being qualitively superior to his output because whatever his career length is, the production will remain similar.

Basically this.