Ravindra Jadeja vs Kapil Dev in Tests

[putrevus]

20 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Kapil was always a mediocre batsman who occasionally played a special knock. 8 hundreds in 134 tests vs 14 hundreds in 100 games.

 

There is no comparison. It is like comparing Flintoff batting vs Stokes batting.

Who said Kapil was mediocre batsman.While Kapil might not have been better than Botham at his best.It does not mean he was mediocre.

 

He walked into Indian team as batsman in both format.He was far better batsman than Imran and Hadlee. If he played today he would have been an upgrade over Stokes and Flintoff in whiteball cricket as he had ability to score runs almost anywhere.

 

Stokes is better test batsmen than Kapil dev.

Edited February 22 by putrevus

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

It matters. Kapil didn't produced any test knock that changed the consequence of the series like Botham's Headingley did. Absolutely turned the game on its head.

No, it doesnt matter. As i said, you are comparing two players who have very similar averages - 2-3 points difference. We are not comparing a Lara to a Ganguly. As i said, it matters not if you play basketball, baseball, football, ice hockey or cricket - people with similar stats will ALWAYS be judged by who did better against the best teams/important occasions. Kapil too has plenty of knocks that's changed the outcome of the match and thus the series. He did it against west indies, which beefy was never good enough for. As i said, beefy is akin to a player who couldnt average 30 vs McWarne but averaged 150 vs Zimbabwe.

 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Who said Kapil was mediocre batsman.While Kapil might not have been better than Botham at his best.It does not mean he was mediocre.

 

He walked into Indian team as batsman in both format.He was far better batsman than Imran and Hadlee. If he played today he would have been an upgrade over Stokes and Flintoff in whiteball cricket as he had ability to score runs almost anywhere.

 

Stokes is better test batsmen than Kapil dev.

 

Botham at his best never averaged more than 30 in a series vs West Indies and has 3 full series where he didnt even average 20 with the bat vs them. Kapil before his knee injury, played two full series and averaged 53 with the bat vs West Indies and scored 2 tons. There's no comparison, Botham was a far, far inferior batsman to Kapil. 

A good comparison would be VVS laxman vs Jayawardene - the latter has better stats, but if you look closely, a total zero vs any good team in away conditions, while the former is a total hero vs the best team in away conditions.

 

[putrevus]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Botham at his best never averaged more than 30 in a series vs West Indies and has 3 full series where he didnt even average 20 with the bat vs them. Kapil before his knee injury, played two full series and averaged 53 with the bat vs West Indies and scored 2 tons. There's no comparison, Botham was a far, far inferior batsman to Kapil. 

A good comparison would be VVS laxman vs Jayawardene - the latter has better stats, but if you look closely, a total zero vs any good team in away conditions, while the former is a total hero vs the best team in away conditions.

 

You are getting too hung up on his record against WI. He was captain in one series against WI in 1981 where he was under lot duress.And by 1986 he was way past his prime.

 

VVS laxman in million years is not better batsman than Mahela.

 

Mahela declined during latter stages but he was a superb batsman.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You are getting too hung up on his record against WI. He was captain in one series against WI in 1981 where he was under lot duress.And by 1986 he was way past his prime.

 

VVS laxman in million years is not better batsman than Mahela.

 

Mahela declined during latter stages but he was a superb batsman.

VVS is a far better batsman than Mahela. because Mahela was a 30 average batsman in SENA countries- if that. 

Record against the best is the difference maker amongst similar stat players. Its always been, it always will be. You dont get to be better by beating up on high school teams and then dropping turds against world class opposition over a guy who isnt bashing up high school kids but contributes against the best. 

 

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

VVS is a far better batsman than Mahela. because Mahela was a 30 average batsman in SENA countries- if that. 

Record against the best is the difference maker amongst similar stat players. Its always been, it always will be. You dont get to be better by beating up on high school teams and then dropping turds against world class opposition over a guy who isnt bashing up high school kids but contributes against the best. 

 

I don't think so. SENA records has some significance but it cannot be the only metric.

 

It is not like VVS was Bradman in those places. Mahela is in hall of fame where VVS might not sniff hall of fame.

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I don't think so. SENA records has some significance but it cannot be the only metric.

 

It is not like VVS was Bradman in those places. Mahela is in hall of fame where VVS might not sniff hall of fame.

SENA metrics become the decisive metric when you are within 3-4 points of average of someone else and you've never averaged more than 30 in any series in SENA nations and that someone else has utterly smashing performance in those alien conditions. 

Its the same reason why despite however many wicket he takes, Badaal Anderson will never be even half the bowler Srinath was : man is a total zero outside of england, while Sri actually has had series he's dominated against the best teams in their own backyard.

 

[putrevus]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

SENA metrics become the decisive metric when you are within 3-4 points of average of someone else and you've never averaged more than 30 in any series in SENA nations and that someone else has utterly smashing performance in those alien conditions. 

Its the same reason why despite however many wicket he takes, Badaal Anderson will never be even half the bowler Srinath was : man is a total zero outside of england, while Sri actually has had series he's dominated against the best teams in their own backyard.

 

You are completely wrong on all accounts. Laxman  has better avg than Dravid in Aust, SL and SA, it does not make Laxman better batsman than Dravid.

 

Mahela is a better batsman than VVS.

 

Anderson is again far better bowler than Javagal Srinath ever was at any time in his career.

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You are completely wrong on all accounts. Laxman  has better avg than Dravid in Aust, SL and SA, it does not make Laxman better batsman than Dravid.

 

Mahela is a better batsman than VVS.

 

Anderson is again far better bowler than Javagal Srinath ever was at any time in his career.

No, i am not. 

What part of 'when you are in the same class of players in terms of averages/records, your performance against the best is the decisive angle in ratings' was hard to understand ? VVS and Mahela are in the same bracket for overall performance. Like Kapil and Botham are. VVS and Dravid are NOT in the same bracket of performance, same as Sobers and Botham/Kapil arent for batting. 

 

Anderson is a shittier bowler than Srinath because Anderson is literally worse than Srinath everywhere outside of England, duh. 

You dont get to be considered a good pace bowler if you cant average below 35 overseas in a career spanning 15+ years. 

 

[Majestic]

2 hours ago, putrevus said:

Who said Kapil was mediocre batsman.While Kapil might not have been better than Botham at his best.It does not mean he was mediocre.

 

He walked into Indian team as batsman in both format.He was far better batsman than Imran and Hadlee. If he played today he would have been an upgrade over Stokes and Flintoff in whiteball cricket as he had ability to score runs almost anywhere.

 

Stokes is better test batsmen than Kapil dev.

Kapil was mediocre batsman assuming that standards are such that Botham batting is considered mediocre too. Personally, neither are mediocre batters.

 

Imran averaged 72 in his last 15 tests with bat. Kapil was better batsman than Imran but I won't say by much. 

Edited February 22 by Majestic

[Majestic]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No, it doesnt matter. As i said, you are comparing two players who have very similar averages - 2-3 points difference. We are not comparing a Lara to a Ganguly. As i said, it matters not if you play basketball, baseball, football, ice hockey or cricket - people with similar stats will ALWAYS be judged by who did better against the best teams/important occasions. Kapil too has plenty of knocks that's changed the outcome of the match and thus the series. He did it against west indies, which beefy was never good enough for. As i said, beefy is akin to a player who couldnt average 30 vs McWarne but averaged 150 vs Zimbabwe.

 

And averaged pretty well vs India, Pakistan, South Africa, England, New Zealand etc also. So, just because he averaged poor vs Windies, he becomes bad 

 

If you think they are at same level, how come Botham has almost same runs tally as Kapil has inspite of latter playing 30 tests more?

 

Why Botham has 6 more centuries than Kapil inspite of latter playing 30 tests more?

 

Name the knocks of Kapil vs Windies which changed the consequence of match/series completely in India's favour like Botham's Headingley did in Ashes?

[Majestic]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

SENA metrics become the decisive metric when you are within 3-4 points of average of someone else and you've never averaged more than 30 in any series in SENA nations and that someone else has utterly smashing performance in those alien conditions. 

Its the same reason why despite however many wicket he takes, Badaal Anderson will never be even half the bowler Srinath was : man is a total zero outside of england, while Sri actually has had series he's dominated against the best teams in their own backyard.

 

Oh dear! Stop embarassing now.

 

Anderson has won matches and series in India and Australia.

 

Srinath has won nothing in SWENA. He was India's spearhead in 90s. Pacers win you matches overseas and I am sure you know very well how many India won overseas in 90s.

Edited February 22 by Majestic

[Muloghonto]

29 minutes ago, Majestic said:

And averaged pretty well vs India, Pakistan, South Africa, England, New Zealand etc also. So, just because he averaged poor vs Windies, he becomes bad 

How many times do i have to say that if you can't perform against the best, you wont be considered the best amongst your peer group ?

29 minutes ago, Majestic said:

 

If you think they are at same level, how come Botham has almost same runs tally as Kapil has inspite of latter playing 30 tests more?

Because Beefy bashed a lot of runs against substandard bowling and also batted up the order, which allows one to get centuries easier. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

Oh dear! Stop embarassing now.

 

Anderson has won matches and series in India and Australia.

 

Srinath has won nothing in SWENA. He was India's spearhead in 90s. Pacers win you matches overseas and I am sure you know very well how many India won overseas in 90s.

Srinath has far better performance in SENA than Anderson has outside England. Anderson's literally done jack diddly squat overseas. Anderson overseas is as good a bowler as Jason Holder is overall.

A guy who's total zero outside his home conditions cannot be a great. Its just that simple. Wins and losses are team efforts, not solo efforts. No matter how many matches Graham Thorpe has won, he won't be a better batsman than Andy Flower. Same logic applies here. Anderson is a total zero outside cloud-land. Anderson is a genuine great bowler in cloudy & windy conditions of England. Elsewhere, he would struggle to be in the playing XIs of India, Pakistan & NZ and would have no chance at intl. cricket if he were an aussie or a protea. 

 

 

Edited February 22 by Muloghonto

[Vijy]

5 hours ago, Majestic said:

Kapil was mediocre batsman assuming that standards are such that Botham batting is considered mediocre too. Personally, neither are mediocre batters.

 

Imran averaged 72 in his last 15 tests with bat. Kapil was better batsman than Imran but I won't say by much. 

how many of that was due to NOs? moreover, he played as an almost specialist bat and didn't have to bowl much.

[Majestic]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

How many times do i have to say that if you can't perform against the best, you wont be considered the best amongst your peer group ?

Because Beefy bashed a lot of runs against substandard bowling and also batted up the order, which allows one to get centuries easier. 

You can say it multiple times but that won't take away the fact that Botham was a more complete and superior test batter than Kapil. Kapil doesn't average some 50 vs Windies that it outweighs all the mediocre performance he delivered for so long ending with average of 31.

[Majestic]

5 hours ago, Vijy said:

how many of that was due to NOs? moreover, he played as an almost specialist bat and didn't have to bowl much.

947 runs in 20 innings. That's a definition of world class batsman. We were discussing about batting here.

[Vijy]

4 hours ago, Majestic said:

947 runs in 20 innings. That's a definition of world class batsman. We were discussing about batting here.

that's very good, indeed like a batter (which Imran was in the last stages of his career). but still much lower than 71.

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Majestic said:

You can say it multiple times but that won't take away the fact that Botham was a more complete and superior test batter than Kapil. Kapil doesn't average some 50 vs Windies that it outweighs all the mediocre performance he delivered for so long ending with average of 31.

A guy who doesnt score any centuries and averages barely 20 vs the strongest team of their era isnt the better batter than the guy who averages 30+ and has multiple centuries vs them, when they average nearly the same. Botham = weak team bully. Nothing more. despite twice as many centuries as kapil, he has a similar average - meaning, even by beating up on weaker teams, he still was way more inconsistent than Kapil with the bat. 

 

[Majestic]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

A guy who doesnt score any centuries and averages barely 20 vs the strongest team of their era isnt the better batter than the guy who averages 30+ and has multiple centuries vs them, when they average nearly the same. Botham = weak team bully. Nothing more. despite twice as many centuries as kapil, he has a similar average - meaning, even by beating up on weaker teams, he still was way more inconsistent than Kapil with the bat. 

 

Botham - 100/14 = 7.14

Kapil - 134/8=16.75

 

That's match per century. Proves that Botham is twice the batsman Kapil ever was. Performance vs one team don't mean much and that too an average of 30 lol.