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

[Richard]

He didn't fail "consistently" against West Indies, he failed in 9 Tests, in a row. And he was captain for all of these games, which could easily have played a bigger part than the calibre of the bowlers.

Yes, most people would pick Imran 1980/81-1987/88 over Botham 1977-1981. But that isn't the matter up for question here. Kapil was not in Imran's class as bowler or batsman - ever.

 

[Dissector]

I don't buy the captaincy excuse; after all both Kapil and Imran produced good performances against the West Indies while being captain.

And actually I think there is a tendency to over-rate Botham in 77-81: several posters here talk about it as if it was the pinnacle of all-round cricket by anyone which it most certainly wasn't.

You had two top-class series against good Australian sides, one great test in India, a series of flops against the West Indies and good performances against generally weak sides including what was basically an Australia A side. Overall it's impressive but not something utterly extraordinary by the standards of genuine all-rounders.

 

[subshakerz]

He didn't fail "consistently" against West Indies, he failed in 9 Tests, in a row. And he was captain for all of these games, which could easily have played a bigger part than the calibre of the bowlers.

Yes, most people would pick Imran 1980/81-1987/88 over Botham 1977-1981. But that isn't the matter up for question here. Kapil was not in Imran's class as bowler or batsman - ever.

Botham got plenty of chances to shine against the West Indies, and the fact is he didn't, which shows he wasn't up to the ultimate challenge like other great cricketers of his era were.

He played 9 tests in his prime, but those are apparently discounted because his captaincy somehow hampered his playing style, which is a failure in itself. And he played 11 tests after that, but his failures in those are discounted because he was not in his prime. For someone touted as the ultimate matchwinner, not doing well against the best team in 20 tests is inexcusable.

 

[Richard]

I don't buy the captaincy excuse; after all both Kapil and Imran produced good performances against the West Indies while being captain.

And actually I think there is a tendency to over-rate Botham in 77-81: several posters here talk about it as if it was the pinnacle of all-round cricket by anyone which it most certainly wasn't.

You had two top-class series against good Australian sides, one great test in India, a series of flops against the West Indies and good performances against generally weak sides including what was basically an Australia A side. Overall it's impressive but not something utterly extraordinary by the standards of genuine all-rounders.

It wasn't "the pinnacle of all-round cricket" but it was a damn superb few years (the year of captaincy excluded) of performance. Obviously, Garfield Sobers and Imran Khan produced better performances. This is not in dispute. But it's pretty silly to suggest Botham '77-'81 was anything other than exceptional.

BTW, Botham didn't actually do especially well against Australia A in 1978/79, certainly not with the bat. It was against the full-strength sides of 1977 and 1981 that he did best, then had a mini-renaissance in 1985 too.

 

[Richard]

Botham got plenty of chances to shine against the West Indies, and the fact is he didn't, which shows he wasn't up to the ultimate challenge like other great cricketers of his era were.

He played 9 tests in his prime, but those are apparently discounted because his captaincy somehow hampered his playing style, which is a failure in itself.

Really - I have never once attempted to excuse Botham's failures against West Indies in '80 and '81, but it'd be foolhardy to suggest there was no chance that the captaincy played a bigger part than the calibre of the opposition. All I've ever said is that it's a shame he got the captaincy, because this way we don't really know whether it was captaincy or West Indies that caused the slump.

And he played 11 tests after that, but his failures in those are discounted because he was not in his prime. For someone touted as the ultimate matchwinner, not doing well against the best team in 20 tests is inexcusable.

The fact that he failed against West Indies from '84 onwards is unsurprising, because he didn't do well against anyone after that date. It makes no sense to pick-out just one failing of those post-'84. They're all the same.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

You know in that 4 year perid that Botham scored 7 centuries in under 40 Tests and that Kapil only scored 8 over his entire career?

A very strange statement

Botham's average of 33 in those 4 years(which is also his career average) and more centuries doen't make him a hugely superior batsman to Kapil considering he(Botham) played in the middle order for almost all of his carrer where as Kapil played in the lower order for a considerable proportion of his career.

Moreover,if people can associate Botham's poor performances against WI to captaincy then Kapil's less 100s could also be related to pressure of being only quality medium pacer in the team.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah ....lets forget rehashing all the stats. When you are talking about players like this, it kind of goes out the window. Both players were out and out match winners, and great entertainers, and both gave huge amounts to their respective cricketing nations

Straight up, Botham was the superior batsman, technically and production wise, and of genuine middle order quality for much of his career. Kapil was a very dangerous lower middle order batsman.

Re;the bowling, there is no doubt Kapil had the longevity, and to be fair is quite underated...but he cannot compare to those first 5 years of Bothams test career.

Fielding...no comparison, Botham all the way


So, at their peaks I would be quite easily giving it to Botham.
If you were looking at the tail ends of their careers, yeah Dev gets it.

 

[Anil]

Fielding...no comparison, Botham all the way

why, because he has more catches? kapil was one of the most brilliant and athletic fielders of his time but he wasn't a regular in the slip cordon like botham was, that accounts to a large extent for the disparity in the catches taken...

 

[subshakerz]

why, because he has more catches? kapil was one of the most brilliant and athletic fielders of his time but he wasn't a regular in the slip cordon like botham was, that accounts to a large extent for the disparity in the catches taken...

Yes, Kapil was a better all-round fielder than Botham was.

 

[Richard]

Botham's average of 33 in those 4 years(which is also his career average) and more centuries doen't make him a hugely superior batsman to Kapil considering he(Botham) played in the middle order for almost all of his carrer where as Kapil played in the lower order for a considerable proportion of his career.

There's a few things to remember, though:

The period in question while normally referred to as "4 years" doesn't mean exactly 4 years, it's actually to 28 Jul '77 to 27 Nov '81. And while Botham's batting-average is just 32 in that time;

An average of 32 is not really an accurate reflection of Botham's performance in that time, because in Tests where he was not captain he averaged 41 in 30 Tests, and as captain he averaged 13 in 12. There's two different periods contained within this one "peak" often referred to.

After his all-round brilliance had faded (the last time he truly fitted the mould of brilliant bowler was the infamous Mumbai Test in 1981/82) Botham's performances with the bat reached new levels, and this lasted nearly 3 years. When his bowling went from brilliant to poor, his batting went from pretty good to excellent.

Only from mid-1984 onwards did Botham cease to be of great use, and even then he still had his occasional moments until the end of 1987.

Moreover,if people can associate Botham's poor performances against WI to captaincy then Kapil's less 100s could also be related to pressure of being only quality medium pacer in the team.

Well, possibly. I think it's a little more tenuous than the suggestion that captaincy was what affected Botham.

 

[Swervy]

why, because he has more catches? kapil was one of the most brilliant and athletic fielders of his time but he wasn't a regular in the slip cordon like botham was, that accounts to a large extent for the disparity in the catches taken...

nothing to do with the number of catches....Botham was one of the greatest slip fielders there has been

 

[Richard]

And Kapil was a damn good outfielder. And might well have been a damn good slipper had he fielded there.

As, obviously, Botham might well have been a damn good outfielder had he not done the slips.

 

[Swervy]

And Kapil was a damn good outfielder. And might well have been a damn good slipper had he fielded there.

As, obviously, Botham might well have been a damn good outfielder had he not done the slips.

ok , lets put it this way, Botham excelled in his fielding position a whole heep more than Dev did away from the slip cordon. To be honest I dont really remember Devs fielding being as outstanding as is being made out here.

 

[Anil]

ok , lets put it this way, Botham excelled in his fielding position a whole heep more than Dev did away from the slip cordon. To be honest I dont really remember Devs fielding being as outstanding as is being made out here.

i am not making out anything, it is a fact that he was an exceptional fielder and anyone who has watched enough of his games would know...and another thing, you cannot really compare slip fielding to fielding elsewhere and decide one fielder was better than the other, botham was an outstanding slip fielder and dev was an exceptional outfielder and that's really all there is to it...in any case, kapil fielded in the slips every now and then while he was captain and did pretty well there as well..

 

[BhupinderSingh]

There's a few things to remember, though:

The period in question while normally referred to as "4 years" doesn't mean exactly 4 years, it's actually to 28 Jul '77 to 27 Nov '81. And while Botham's batting-average is just 32 in that time;

An average of 32 is not really an accurate reflection of Botham's performance in that time, because in Tests where he was not captain he averaged 41 in 30 Tests, and as captain he averaged 13 in 12. There's two different periods contained within this one "peak" often referred to.

After his all-round brilliance had faded (the last time he truly fitted the mould of brilliant bowler was the infamous Mumbai Test in 1981/82) Botham's performances with the bat reached new levels, and this lasted nearly 3 years. When his bowling went from brilliant to poor, his batting went from pretty good to excellent.

Only from mid-1984 onwards did Botham cease to be of great use, and even then he still had his occasional moments until the end of 1987.

Well, possibly. I think it's a little more tenuous than the suggestion that captaincy was what affected Botham.

IMO,Not performing as captain(under pressure) should count against a player and not in his favour.If you don't have the balls,don't accept the responsibility.Botham was definitely better allrounder than Kapil but 7 centuries & average of just 32 means you failed a lot & hence don't deserve to be rated as hugely better than the other guy averaging same but with less centuries.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Yeah ....lets forget rehashing all the stats. When you are talking about players like this, it kind of goes out the window. Both players were out and out match winners, and great entertainers, and both gave huge amounts to their respective cricketing nations

Straight up, Botham was the superior batsman, technically and production wise, and of genuine middle order quality for much of his career. Kapil was a very dangerous lower middle order batsman.

Re;the bowling, there is no doubt Kapil had the longevity, and to be fair is quite underated...but he cannot compare to those first 5 years of Bothams test career.

Fielding...no comparison, Botham all the way


So, at their peaks I would be quite easily giving it to Botham.
If you were looking at the tail ends of their careers, yeah Dev gets it.

Performing for 3 or 4 years means very little in the career of a guy who played international cricket regularly for 15 years.

Considering just the peaks is not the proper way of rating players.If it was,then
Yousuf in 2005=Bradman
Hirwani in his debut series=best bowler ever

Beside just peak,you should also consider overall careers also.S0,peak period + overall career should be used to analyze the quality of a player.

 

[Swervy]

Performing for 3 or 4 years means very little in the career of a guy who played international cricket regularly for 15 years.

Considering just the peaks is not the proper way of rating players.If it was,then
Yousuf in 2005=Bradman
Hirwani in his debut series=best bowler ever

Beside just peak,you should also consider overall careers also.S0,peak period + overall career should be used to analyze the quality of a player.

ok, so looking at the stats, Botham better batting average, better bowling average over whole career...bobs ya uncle, Botham wins

how simple

 

[Sanz]

ok, so looking at the stats, Botham better batting average, better bowling average over whole career...bobs ya uncle, Botham wins

how simple

When did he say otherwise ?

 

[Swervy]

When did he say otherwise ?

He didn't, I was just making a statement

 

[Sanz]

He didn't, I was just making a statement

What was the point ? He never said that Botham wasn't better.