Ian Botham vs Kapil Dev

[subshakerz]

Nah, you're a Mod, you should know the most important rule of CW at present - Every Thread Where There Is The Slightest Of Chance Shalt Become About Imran Khan Eventually.

You're right we should all get back on topic.

 

[The Sean]

Nah, you're a Mod, you should know the most important rule of CW at present - Every Thread Where There Is The Slightest Of Chance Shalt Become About Imran Khan Eventually.

Ah, the old rule of ETWTITSOCSBAIKE. I like that, actually - has a certain ring to it.

 

[Richard]

(H)
z

 

[Sanz]

Jesus, this thread is about Botham and Dev.....

TBF, this is the type of fan worship that made me dislike Tendulkar and I have seriously started to dislike Imran Khan. There was a period when one couldn't talk about any other batsman until tendulkar fans made sure that he was the best after Sir Don.

 

[Fusion]

TBF, this is the type of fan worship that made me dislike Tendulkar and I have seriously started to dislike Imran Khan. There was a period when one couldn't talk about any other batsman until tendulkar fans made sure that he was the best after Sir Don.

I seriously don't get that. More than one person has stated that they have started to dislike Imran because of Bhupinder. What exactly is Imran's fault here? Is he urging Bhupinder to create threads for him? You can have issues with a poster, but I don't see how you would start disliking a Tendulkar, Imran, or whoever else because of their fans. While I respect the opinions of posters on CW, their antics would never cause me to negatively judge a legendary player. If I did that, I would seriously have no one to like or follow in cricket, because all great players have their fanatical supporters!

 

[Richard]

Wasn't going to say anything, but will say "I agree with Fus" as he's stated the statement.

 

[Sanz]

I seriously don't get that. More than one person has stated that they have started to dislike Imran because of Bhupinder. What exactly is Imran's fault here? Is he urging Bhupinder to create threads for him? You can have issues with a poster, but I don't see how you would start disliking a Tendulkar, Imran, or whoever else because of their fans. While I respect the opinions of posters on CW, their antics would never cause me to negatively judge a legendary player. If I did that, I would seriously have no one to like or follow in cricket, because all great players have their fanatical supporters!

I am not judging him negatively.Its not like I have started calling him a crap bowler or his great perfomances as crap. Its just that next time someone comes and wants to start a discussion by saying ' Imran was a great cricketer', my response would be 'Yeah Whatever'.

 

[shortpitched713]

A batsman's average is nothing to do with runs per innings or the amount of innings he has, it's based on the number of times he's dismissed. In Imran's case he was Not Out about 20% of the time and his average was thus inflated.

20*, 20*, 20*, 20*, 20 is harder to get imo than a 100.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

20*, 20*, 20*, 20*, 20 is harder to get imo than a 100.

It irrelevant whether it's harder to get it, the average of 100 is inflated beyond the average score.

 

[Richard]

Not-outs are part of the recognition that not getting out is an essential point of batting. It's senseless to penalise a batsman for being unable to get more than 20*. An average must always be taken in context, but removing the fact that not-outs don't count as dismissals should never, ever be done.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not-outs are part of the recognition that not getting out is an essential point of batting. It's senseless to penalise a batsman for being unable to get more than 20*. An average must always be taken in context, but removing the fact that not-outs don't count as dismissals should never, ever be done.

No one has suggested they should be taken out. Someone seemed surprised at the high average so I just pointed out that the batsman average is nothing to do with the number of innings he plays, only the number of times he's dismissed, which means his average can be above his highest score.

 

[shortpitched713]

It irrelevant whether it's harder to get it, the average of 100 is inflated beyond the average score.

No its not, because I would back a batsman who consistently gets starts and has the innings end to be able to convert a big score if given the chance.

Comparatively speaking there are many more batsmen who's averages would suffer if they didn't have a chance to play longer innings because they struggle to get off to starts, but often will convert a start into a big score if given the opportunity.

 

[Richard]

No one has suggested they should be taken out. Someone seemed surprised at the high average so I just pointed out that the batsman average is nothing to do with the number of innings he plays, only the number of times he's dismissed, which means his average can be above his highest score.

It can, which is why an average composed of lots of 35*s doesn't say much about a batsman's ability to get big scores. Which is why Imran, despite a fine batting average and undoubtedly being an excellent lower-order batsman, is rarely considered more than that. Had he promoted himself to the top-order regularly, it's very conceivable that he'd have performed that role well. He didn't often do this, however, so as things stand his batting can only be rated as what most people rate it as.

In that, while he may indeed have been superior to the Ramiz Rajas of this World, he isn't actually as good as Botham (sans-captaincy) was between '77 and the middle of '84.

 

[shortpitched713]

It irrelevant whether it's harder to get it, the average of 100 is inflated beyond the average score.

Depends on your definition of inflated, really.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No its not, because I would back a batsman who consistently gets starts and has the innings end to be able to convert a big score if given the chance.

Comparatively speaking there are many more batsmen who's averages would suffer if they didn't have a chance to play longer innings because they struggle to get off to starts, but often will convert a start into a big score if given the opportunity.

Completely irrelevant again.......the only point of my original post about averages was to outline how they're calculated........nothing more, nothing less, and nothing to do with the difficulty level of hypothetical situations.

 

[shortpitched713]

Completely irrelevant again.......the only point of my original post about averages was to outline how they're calculated........nothing more, nothing less, and nothing to do with the difficulty level of hypothetical situations.

Sorry, thought you were stirring the pot again. Can't really blame me for thinking that, considering your posting habits.

 

[Richard]

Oh dear...

 

[JBH001]

Well, in an effort to bring this thread ever so slightly back on track, here are some of their respective career figures. I demarcated ITB's figures to the end of the 86/87 series against Australia (his last 'decent' series) and KD's figures to the end of the 91/92 series against Australia (his last good series, at least with the ball).

ITB

unfiltered           102  5200 208   33.54  14  22 383  8/34   28.40 27 120  0
filtered              89  4825 208   34.96  14  21 366  8/34   27.21 27 106  0

v Australia           33  1611 149*  30.39   4   6 145  6/78   26.56  9  54  0
v India               14  1201 208   70.64   5   5  59  7/48   26.40  6  14  0
v New Zealand         14   830 138   43.68   3   4  61  6/34   23.34  6  13  0
v Pakistan             7   407 108   37.00   2   2  33  8/34   23.54  2   9  0
v Sri Lanka            2    19  13    9.50   0   0  10  6/90   26.90  1   0  0
v West Indies         19   757  81   21.02   0   4  58  8/103  35.84  3  16  0

home                  47  2610 208   37.28   8  12 212  8/34   25.39 17  49  0
away                  42  2215 142   32.57   6   9 154  7/48   29.71 10  57  0

KD

unfiltered           131  5248 163   31.05   8  27 434  9/83   29.64 23  64  0
filtered             115  4690 163   30.25   7  24 401  9/83   29.66 23  58  0

v Australia           20   687 119   26.42   1   3  79  8/106  25.35  7  16  0
v England             24  1254 116   40.45   2   7  78  6/91   38.98  4   8  0
v New Zealand          9   189  40   14.53   0   0  23  4/34   34.43  0   5  0
v Pakistan            29  1054  84   27.02   0   8  99  8/85   30.12  7   9  0
v Sri Lanka            8   427 163   38.81   1   2  33  5/110  26.06  1   3  0
v West Indies         25  1079 126*  30.82   3   4  89  9/83   24.89  4  17  0

home                  58  2594 163   36.53   5  13 204  9/83   26.73 11  37  0
away                  57  2096 110   24.95   2  11 197  8/85   32.69 12  21  0

Although, strangely enough KD's figures hold up well...even though his bowling in terms of penetration fell away markedly it does not seem to have affected his average all that much, and his batting avg improves slightly.

Maybe there is more to KD's consistency than I had originally thought...

 

[subshakerz]

The argument for Kapil:

• More consistent throughout his career with bat and ball, unlike Botham who had a five-year star run and a decade of inconsistency
  
• A very impressive record against the West Indies, unlike Botham who never really performed well throughout his career against them

The argument for Botham:

• Unbelievable start to his cricketing career, one of the greatest peaks ever
  
• Notably better batting record
  
• Greater matchwinning ability when on song

 

[Richard]

Well, in an effort to bring this thread ever so slightly back on track, here are some of their respective career figures. I demarcated ITB's figures to the end of the 86/87 series against Australia (his last 'decent' series) and KD's figures to the end of the 91/92 series against Australia (his last good series, at least with the ball).

ITB

unfiltered           102  5200 208   33.54  14  22 383  8/34   28.40 27 120  0
filtered              89  4825 208   34.96  14  21 366  8/34   27.21 27 106  0

v Australia           33  1611 149*  30.39   4   6 145  6/78   26.56  9  54  0
v India               14  1201 208   70.64   5   5  59  7/48   26.40  6  14  0
v New Zealand         14   830 138   43.68   3   4  61  6/34   23.34  6  13  0
v Pakistan             7   407 108   37.00   2   2  33  8/34   23.54  2   9  0
v Sri Lanka            2    19  13    9.50   0   0  10  6/90   26.90  1   0  0
v West Indies         19   757  81   21.02   0   4  58  8/103  35.84  3  16  0

home                  47  2610 208   37.28   8  12 212  8/34   25.39 17  49  0
away                  42  2215 142   32.57   6   9 154  7/48   29.71 10  57  0

KD

unfiltered           131  5248 163   31.05   8  27 434  9/83   29.64 23  64  0
filtered             115  4690 163   30.25   7  24 401  9/83   29.66 23  58  0

v Australia           20   687 119   26.42   1   3  79  8/106  25.35  7  16  0
v England             24  1254 116   40.45   2   7  78  6/91   38.98  4   8  0
v New Zealand          9   189  40   14.53   0   0  23  4/34   34.43  0   5  0
v Pakistan            29  1054  84   27.02   0   8  99  8/85   30.12  7   9  0
v Sri Lanka            8   427 163   38.81   1   2  33  5/110  26.06  1   3  0
v West Indies         25  1079 126*  30.82   3   4  89  9/83   24.89  4  17  0

home                  58  2594 163   36.53   5  13 204  9/83   26.73 11  37  0
away                  57  2096 110   24.95   2  11 197  8/85   32.69 12  21  0

Although, strangely enough KD's figures hold up well...even though his bowling in terms of penetration fell away markedly it does not seem to have affected his average all that much, and his batting avg improves slightly.

Maybe there is more to KD's consistency than I had originally thought...

Kapil was indeed an astoundingly durable player, both with bat and ball. It never fails to amaze me when I look at his cumulative career averages.