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

[Swervy]

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

I just like making statements

 

[Richard]

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.

I'm not saying his failures as captain shouldn't count against him - though I challenge anyone to turn-down the offer of Test captaincy (yes, I know Younis Khan did, and I know the odd other person here and there has, but such people are tiny, tiny minorities).

I'm simply saying that you shouldn't view Botham 1977-1981 as one thing. It was very clearly two. Yes, the awfulness (with the bat) as captain should count against him - it was a challenge, and he failed it (not the only man not to be up to Test captaincy at 24 years of age, let's remember). But it shouldn't disguise the fact that he was brilliant with the bat when not captain.

 

[Richard]

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

Botham shouldn't have played again after 1987, though. His career should've spanned 10, not 15, years. You know only too well in the Imran case that no-one should hold his selection (as it was a considerable mistake) for 1971 and 1974 against him. It's ridiculous to say "Imran was crap for 5 years" as some do, because most people would be crap when they don't merit selection.

And likewise, Botham should not be judged in any way, shape or form by the tiny handful of Tests he played in 1989, 1991, 1991/92 and 1992. Because he shouldn't have been playing. No-one has any right to hold those games against him and say "he was crap for 5 years". If selection had been done well, no-one would have said a thing.

 

[Anil]

And likewise, Botham should not be judged in any way, shape or form by the tiny handful of Tests he played in 1989, 1991, 1991/92 and 1992. Because he shouldn't have been playing. No-one has any right to hold those games against him and say "he was crap for 5 years". If selection had been done well, no-one would have said a thing.

did someone force him to play? if he was crap, he could've stepped aside and said "i am past it, i am quitting"...didn't do that did he? so how should a bad selection policy prevent anyone judging his performances in the matches he did play?

 

[Richard]

Of course he could and should have retired of his own accord after 1987. He accomplished next to nothing after that year.

But had good selection been applied, he'd not have been picked anyway. It makes no more sense to say that those games should count against Botham than to say "well if Bradman had played until his 80th birthday he'd have been poor too" IMO.

 

[Anil]

Of course he could and should have retired of his own accord after 1987. He accomplished next to nothing after that year.

But had good selection been applied, he'd not have been picked anyway. It makes no more sense to say that those games should count against Botham than to say "well if Bradman had played until his 80th birthday he'd have been poor too" IMO.

well they don't take away too much from his overall greatness as a player, but botham as well as kapil(to get the world record number of wickets) hung on well past their sell by dates and that certainly diminishes the lustre of their careers...and it's not the same as saying "if bradman has played until his 80th..." simply because one is a fact and the other is at best a hypothesis...

 

[Swervy]

well they don't take away too much from his overall greatness as a player, but botham as well as kapil(to get the world record number of wickets) hung on well past their sell by dates and that certainly diminishes the lustre of their careers...and it's not the same as saying "if bradman has played until his 80th..." simply because one is a fact and the other is at best a hypothesis...

it only diminishes their careers in the eyes of those who use stats as the be all and end all.

I wouldnt really be that bothered if both players batting averages had ended up at 20 and the bowling averages over 35, both Dev and Botham would probably (most def. Botham, anyway) in the top 10 allrounders of all time.

 

[weldone]

Botham shouldn't have played again after 1987, though. His career should've spanned 10, not 15, years. You know only too well in the Imran case that no-one should hold his selection (as it was a considerable mistake) for 1971 and 1974 against him. It's ridiculous to say "Imran was crap for 5 years" as some do, because most people would be crap when they don't merit selection.

And likewise, Botham should not be judged in any way, shape or form by the tiny handful of Tests he played in 1989, 1991, 1991/92 and 1992. Because he shouldn't have been playing. No-one has any right to hold those games against him and say "he was crap for 5 years". If selection had been done well, no-one would have said a thing.

Richard, this is highly debatable... Think of a batsman (say Sachin)... According to your logic that one's stats should be taken till the time they merit selection in their sides to be fair, Sachin will probably make the Indian team (as one of the best 4 middle-order test batsman) till probably 45 years of age... So according to you he should play till that time for us to get a fair view of his calibre from his stats?... In the same way one may argue that Sachin's stats should be considered only for the time period when he was among the best 2 (or 1 or 3, for that matter) test batsmans of India...

I don't know if I was able to express my thoughts well in the para above. Tell me if you don't get it, I can probably try to say it in a different way...

 

[Richard]

well they don't take away too much from his overall greatness as a player, but botham as well as kapil(to get the world record number of wickets) hung on well past their sell by dates and that certainly diminishes the lustre of their careers...

Despite Kapil not being what he once had been as he played on and on, he still remained a very good Test cricketer and one who unquestionably merited a place in India's side. Botham was totally different. He was clearly no longer benefiting anyone by playing.

and it's not the same as saying "if bradman has played until his 80th..." simply because one is a fact and the other is at best a hypothesis...

I'm aware one happened and the other did not, but really, I don't see any great difference. I don't really think there's a particularly large amount of guesswork involved in the suggestion that if Bradman had played to 80 his basic career batting average would be lower and he wouldn't be a Test-class batsman for quite a few of those later years. I don't feel a cricketer who was once Test-class, and was so for a very long time, should be judged on a time when he had ceased to be so. Because it happens to everyone and everyone. Some stop playing soon after they realise it's happened; some stop before, without even allowing it to happen (generally I tend to prefer this); but some play too long after, and this list includes Botham.

For those who insist every part of a career must count equally, this will distort players of the lattermost category's standing in these people's eyes.

 

[Richard]

Richard, this is highly debatable... Think of a batsman (say Sachin)... According to your logic that one's stats should be taken till the time they merit selection in their sides to be fair, Sachin will probably make the Indian team (as one of the best 4 middle-order test batsman) till probably 45 years of age... So according to you he should play till that time for us to get a fair view of his calibre from his stats?... In the same way one may argue that Sachin's stats should be considered only for the time period when he was among the best 2 (or 1 or 3, for that matter) test batsmans of India...

I don't know if I was able to express my thoughts well in the para above. Tell me if you don't get it, I can probably try to say it in a different way...

I'm not sure, but personally I'm more than happy if he plays until 45, if he remains good enough for that long. I have to say I doubt it though (at the moment I reckon he could do 40, easily, but probably not 45). I hope he plays as long as he is good enough, and ideally no more than a few matches longer than that (maybe even a bit before it happens).

Obviously, his career should be judged in the parts it falls into. Already he had a long, long spell (August 1990 to November 2002) where he was clearly the best batsman going around for most of it (Graham Gooch was better for the first 4 years, Brian Lara for the next 2). He then had a spell where he struggled, badly, and his place in the team was, rightly, beginning to be questioned. Now it seems he's back - not, maybe, to quite where he had been before, but back unquestionably to being one of if not the best around. He also had a handful of games at the start where he wasn't quite up to it, but again I touch on what I said above - personally those games mean approximately sod-all to me - he was 16 years old, and no-one has ever been up to Test cricket at 16. It's pretty astonishing that he was soon to be so at 17, pretty well no-one (whose age is known accurately) has ever been before. So I don't take any notice of those few games when judging Tendulkar. I do take notice of the December 2002 to April 2006 games, but they're of lesser importance compared to the aforementioned August 1990 to November 2002 ones. And they'll become lesser still if he gets back to or near to his former self again in the next few years.

 

[Anil]

it only diminishes their careers in the eyes of those who use stats as the be all and end all.

I wouldnt really be that bothered if both players batting averages had ended up at 20 and the bowling averages over 35, both Dev and Botham would probably (most def. Botham, anyway) in the top 10 allrounders of all time.

i too consider them as easily among the top 10 allrounders ever...but one of the factors that go into determining greatness(at least for me) is consistency and the lack of it is a weakness that has to be taken into account while judging their greatness...it is not a question of just putting up good stats...

 

[Richard]

Of course lack of consistency is a weakness, and of course for that reason Botham falls comfortably behind Imran and Keith Miller (as well as obviously Sobers) in that he was only able to perform particularly well (regardless of the fact that pretty well was sensational) for 3 years out of his first 4.

Nonetheless, I'm only comfortable in criticising Botham for '81/82-'87, and not any further.

 

[Anil]

Despite Kapil not being what he once had been as he played on and on, he still remained a very good Test cricketer and one who unquestionably merited a place in India's side. Botham was totally different. He was clearly no longer benefiting anyone by playing.

not really, he wasn't a good bowler for that last year and a half or so and was definitely playing on past glory, accurate at best, distinctly average at worst...and worse, him clinging on definitely hampered srinath's early development...

I'm aware one happened and the other did not, but really, I don't see any great difference. I don't really think there's a particularly large amount of guesswork involved in the suggestion that if Bradman had played to 80 his basic career batting average would be lower and he wouldn't be a Test-class batsman for quite a few of those later years. I don't feel a cricketer who was once Test-class, and was so for a very long time, should be judged on a time when he had ceased to be so. Because it happens to everyone and everyone. Some stop playing soon after they realise it's happened; some stop before, without even allowing it to happen (generally I tend to prefer this); but some play too long after, and this list includes Botham.

For those who insist every part of a career must count equally, this will distort players of the lattermost category's standing in these people's eyes.

it is completely different, unless you judge a player only by his peaks..also botham was not 80(or close to it) when he played his last few years, the comparison doesn't make sense at all, the point is that he played in test matches while not being test-class..as i said, you have to look at a career in its entirety to evaluate a player...

 

[Anil]

Nonetheless, I'm only comfortable in criticising Botham for '81/82-'87, and not any further.

i have no such qualms, i am as comfortable with criticizing his weaknesses as praising the effervescent brilliance of his early days...

 

[Richard]

not really, he wasn't a good bowler for that last year and a half or so and was definitely playing on past glory, accurate at best, distinctly average at worst...and worse, him clinging on definitely hampered srinath's early development...

I see. Yet he still took wickets at a decent rate, which was beyond many other bowlers who played around that time. Which suggests he was probably still worth his place, to me at least.

it is completely different, unless you judge a player only by his peaks..also botham was not 80(or close to it) when he played his last few years, the comparison doesn't make sense at all, the point is that he played in test matches while not being test-class..

Botham was also not anywhere near as good a cricketer as Bradman, hence the exaggerated requirement when Bradman is brought in. I could just as easily have said, for example, Greg Chappell at 40, or 45.

as i said, you have to look at a career in its entirety to evaluate a player...

I think you have to look at the parts of a career that obviously should have happened, and no more. Judging a player who was once great on a time he was no longer close to being so is not fair, IMO.

 

[Anil]

I think you have to look at the parts of a career that obviously should have happened, and no more. Judging a player who was once great on a time he was no longer close to being so is not fair, IMO.

there is no fair or foul in this, it happened, it is a part of his career whether you wish it wasn't or not...you are using should've, could've in your evaluation and blocking out a portion of his career, basically means it is your personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less...i don't see any objectivity at all here...

 

[Richard]

Of course it's personal opinion, no two people's criteria for assessing a cricketer will be exactly the same. It's my opinion that there are portions of some (many, indeed) players careers (almost only ever short) that are irrelevant when assessing them, regardless of the fact that they did happen. I'm not, however, exclusively concerned with what did happen - if there is a what should have happened relevant, I'll also consider this.

It's perfectly objective, though - I apply it to all players, regardless of differences between them. Be that player Ian Botham, Vivian Richards, Sachin Tendulkar or Allan Donald. I do the exact same for all of them, and many, many more besides.

 

[Anil]

I see. Yet he still took wickets at a decent rate, which was beyond many other bowlers who played around that time. Which suggests he was probably still worth his place, to me at least.

it can probably be argued that he was worth his place, only because of the paucity of good pace bowlers in india at that time(with the exception of srinath) but he was definitely not world class during that period...

 

[Anil]

Of course it's personal opinion, no two people's criteria for assessing a cricketer will be exactly the same. It's my opinion that there are portions of some (many, indeed) players careers (almost only ever short) that are irrelevant when assessing them, regardless of the fact that they did happen. I'm not, however, exclusively concerned with what did happen - if there is a what should have happened relevant, I'll also consider this.

It's perfectly objective, though - I apply it to all players, regardless of differences between them. Be that player Ian Botham, Vivian Richards, Sachin Tendulkar or Allan Donald. I do the exact same for all of them, and many, many more besides.

when the subjectivity about the could've, should've(in terms of periods to block out, periods to highlight etc) is arbitrarily(however logical you feel it is, it is still just your feeling) decided by you, it would be almost impossible to apply the same criteria(even similar parameters would be tough) to all these players because all these players had quite different careers in terms of length, achievements, injury time-outs, teams they played in, the roles they handled etc and the only thing binding them is that they were all great...and at that point, any objectivity goes for a toss...

 

[Richard]

it can probably be argued that he was worth his place, only because of the paucity of good pace bowlers in india at that time(with the exception of srinath) but he was definitely not world class during that period...

Oh, no, I'm certainly not suggesting he was. But he was a damn sight better than Botham was. And yes, this is indeed to his credit - but this would be the same if Botham had not played after '87.