Let's thank the lord for that. But I accept that reasoning. It actually makes sense for once.I'm not claiming Botham to be the second-greatest ever, though - never mind the second-greatest in a field as broad as batsmen. And if you look closely, you'll see that I clearly said what tipped the scales was what came after the peak had passed.
that's not correct, kapil was considered as a lower middle order batsman for most of his career and indian batting lineups were picked considering him also as a batting option...he was essentially a bowling allrounder but his batting wasn't all that shabby, he definitely wasn't a hit-or-miss batsman...botham at his peak was a better test batsman but when you take their entire careers, they are much closer than people think...Kapil could never have been picked for batting alone.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.that's not correct, kapil was considered as a lower middle order batsman for most of his career and indian batting lineups were picked considering him also as a batting option...he was essentially a bowling allrounder but his batting wasn't all that shabby, he definitely wasn't a hit-or-miss batsman...botham at his peak was a better test batsman but when you take their entire careers, they are much closer than people think...
Technically, Botham was excellent. I'd put him as the better batsman, definitely. At their peak, he was far better, but overall too.Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Botham possessed the batting sophistication to defend, against his attacking instincts,against Pakistan thereby ensuring a draw (with Gatting).
We all know what Kapil did, when called upon to defend for the draw.
botham was better technically but if but you are pointing to one instance and saying one is a good batsman while the other isn't...i am just saying it isn't as simple as that...kapil has played a fair number of innings which helped india climb out of holes, in both tests and one dayers...besides for all his lack of technique, if you compare their records against the best attack of that time(the windies), kapil has done significantly better as a batsman(21 against 30 or something like that)....Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Botham possessed the batting sophistication to defend, against his attacking instincts,against Pakistan thereby ensuring a draw (with Gatting).
We all know what Kapil did, when called upon to defend for the draw.
he did fail as a batsman against them whether it was captaincy or the quality of the attack or a combination of both...why wouldn't it be a fair criticism even if it was just captaincy?While obviously being captain didn't affect Botham's technique, I've never seen the "he failed against West Indies" as an entirely fair criticism, due to the fact that we can't know for sure whether the captaincy or the class of the bowling-attack in 1980 and 1981 was the biggest reason. The fact that he continued to look awful against Australia at the start of the summer of '81 makes me think just possibly the latter, though obviously it was merely 2 Tests.
And obviously, his failures in 1984 and 1986 were in common with his failures against other teams at that time.
I've always wished Botham was never given the captaincy in 1980, much as there wasn't really a hell of a lot of alternative. Because that way we'd know for sure one way or the other.
in other words, his mental fragility...again not sure how that is above criticism or cannot be incorporated into the logic to see how good or bad he was...the mental aspect is a big part of the total package....Because if it was just captaincy, it wasn't the fact that the best attack going around was far too good for him where others had been easy-meat. It was the fact that the captaincy weighed him down.
As I say, though - we'll never truly know what the reasons for his failures in those series in 1980 and 1981 were. Which is why I wish he'd never been given the captaincy.
I think the point is that it's unclear whether it's a valid criticism or not so you can't hold it against him.in other words, his mental fragility...again not sure how that is above criticism or cannot be incorporated into the logic to see how good or bad he was...the mental aspect is a big part of the total package....
Of course it is. What I am saying is that we don't know whether Botham's failures were caused by said mental frailties or the fact that the West Indian attack was too good for him. The way some people talk it's taken for granted that the bowlers were too good for him.in other words, his mental fragility...again not sure how that is above criticism or cannot be incorporated into the logic to see how good or bad he was...the mental aspect is a big part of the total package....
ok we are unclear on that, if we just discount that, it leaves us with him not being good enough a batsman to survive/flourish against those pace attacks...of course this is by no means an insult to botham, they were some of the greatest attacks in cricketing history and a lot of really good players have come to grief against them...I think the point is that it's unclear whether it's a valid criticism or not so you can't hold it against him.
well we only know what happened, guessing what could've been is futile...and we have to draw our conclusions on him based on that...Of course it is. What I am saying is that we don't know whether Botham's failures were caused by said mental frailties or the fact that the West Indian attack was too good for him. The way some people talk it's taken for granted that the bowlers were too good for him.
That he did not succeed in a challenge is not in doubt. What is in doubt is which challenge it was that he failed - was it West Indies, or was it captaincy? I don't find it inconceivable that a) had his first captaincy series' been against someone else, he'd have done badly too and b) had he not been given the captaincy in 1980 he'd have done rather better against the West Indies bowlers than he ended-up doing, though obviously not as well as he'd done against others. But we can never know for certain.
Not for most of his career.Botham as an AR could have been picked on the strength of his batting or bowling.
Kapil could never have been picked for batting alone.
Botham for me.
The fact is he failed, and any reason aside from being injured doesn't cut it. Truly great performers rise to challenges, and Botham played the West Indies in nine tests in his prime and didn't produce one performance of note. Heck, Botham didn't even score a century against the West Indies in his entire career. Captaincy or no, there are no excuses for that.Because if it was just captaincy, it wasn't the fact that the best attack going around was far too good for him where others had been easy-meat. It was the fact that the captaincy weighed him down.
As I say, though - we'll never truly know what the reasons for his failures in those series in 1980 and 1981 were. Which is why I wish he'd never been given the captaincy.
Well, it depends. Would picking him purely as a bowler for most of his career have been successful? No. Would it have happened? I'd be prepared to bet he'd have been picked as a bowler for a very large proportion of the Tests he played in, rightly or wrongly.Not for most of his career.