Who is India's best pacer of all-time in Tests, ODIs and T20Is?

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

Not just Srinath. Ian Bishop, Bruce Ried, Bumrah, etc. irrespective of the stats and games player, are better bowlers. 
 

There is no game where players do not score runs or pick up wickets. No one has said that Kapil is bad or cannot pick up wkts. Just that there are better bowlers! 
 

 

 

 

 

We are not talking about Pandya here. They are better than Pandya for sure. Discussion is about Kapil Dev. You haven't given a single factual argument in favour of anyone of them yet while I have already put multiple in my posts if you care to read them rather than just arguing for the sake of it.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

Kapil Dev 62 tests, 247 wickets- that's not cherry picking. It is as good as a career of a lot of fast bowlers. 

 

 

It is cherry-picking. Most cricketers will have a good patch in their careers. As already mentioned, Botham has picked up 267 wickets at 25 in 61 tests. 

 

 

 

Quote

What is cherry picking? Mentioning one random series which you did for Srinath and repeating it again for other players.

 

"read" what I said as I have already expanded on that twice. 

 

 

Quote

I didn't said that Kapil is better bowler than Imran or Hadlee, I was pointing out his terrific performance vs Windies which was better than those two and Windies were a GOAT test team.

 

And Mohinder Amarnath has that too with the bat. 

 

 

Quote

Kapil inspite of playing so long maintained an average higher than Srinath. So, basically Kapil was operating at that level for 134 tests while Srinath could only operate for 60 tests at same level. It is stupidity if you claim the latter is better bowler especially considering the latter couldn't even win India one overseas test that whole decade. What kind of express bowler is this that he can't even win one test overseas? Atleast Zak won in England 2007.

 

The 90s is considered to be one of the weakest phases of Indian cricket. Guys like Srinath stood out for India. Guys like Kapil would not even last against 90s SL, the Aus post 1995, SA, etc. 2000s is known to be a batsman friendly era. 

 

As I said, I usually advise noobs to stay away from stats!

 

 

 

[zen]

37 minutes ago, Majestic said:

We are not talking about Pandya here. They are better than Pandya for sure. Discussion is about Kapil Dev. You haven't given a single factual argument in favour of anyone of them yet while I have already put multiple in my posts if you care to read them rather than just arguing for the sake of it.

 

I can see that like most noobs, you are now attempting unnecessarily to bring Pujara and Pandya into the mix as if I am trying to get any certificates from anyone (and as if I claim that they are the best around (have I said Pandya is a better bowler than Srinath) and as if it matters to me if they aren't. I rate them for specific skills, attributes, as packages, etc.  Even if they score 10 ducks in a row, it does not matter to me. I mostly praise them when they do well to support them as a fan  ... To a certain degree, I am a Kapil fan too and I praise him for his performances like the 175*). 

 

Points have already been made - "read". 

Edited June 6, 2023 by zen

[cricspirit]

I would still place Kapil as the best to have played for India. Others come close but not enough to be the best.

 

Kapil Dev

Shami/Zaheer Khan/ Srinath

Bumrah << yeah his stats look good and I am a fan but he is no.5 at this point. 

[Majestic]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

It is cherry-picking. Most cricketers will have a good patch in their careers. As already mentioned, Botham has picked up 267 wickets at 25 in 61 tests. 

 

 

 

 

"read" what I said as I have already expanded on that twice. 

 

 

 

And Mohinder Amarnath has that too with the bat. 

 

 

 

The 90s is considered to be one of the weakest phases of Indian cricket. Guys like Srinath stood out for India. Guys like Kapil would not even last against 90s SL, the Aus post 1995, SA, etc. 2000s is known to be a batsman friendly era. 

 

As I said, I usually advise noobs to stay away from stats!

 

 

 

Botham record vs Windies was poor though. Nevertheless, he is an excellent test bowler too but he had it relatively easier than Kapil because he had support from Willis. He is an ATG all rounder and a better batsman than Kapil. Purely in tests, he is also a better all rounder than him.

 

But Mohinder Amarnath doesn't have a large sample. Imagine Amarnath having those great series vs Windies with a sample of 100 tests, he would have been rated among the very best. It is because he got exposed after a purple patch of 1.5 years, he is not considered among the best batsman for India. You bringing Amarnath only validates the fact that longevity matters.

 

90s is considered one of the weakest phase for Indian cricket inspite of India having SRT, Kumble, Azharuddin, Sidhu, Ganguly, Dravid, Srinath and Prasad. This basically means Srinath didn't do anything extraordinary in that decade because being the lead Indian pacer, you expect him to deliver overseas more than anyone else and he didn't which is why India won zero tests.

 

None of your points proved anything. Here are some facts now:

 

1. Kapil Dev stood up against the best team of all-time, Windies.

 

2. Kapil averages better than Srinath inspite of having a longer career than him and without any support in form of Kumble or even V Prasad who supported him in the second half. 

 

3. You are saying that Srinath didn't do much for India in 90s because it was a dull decade for India but he himself averages 35 overseas with bowl. It was actually him not supporting the Indian batters like Tendulkar, Azhar, Ganguly,Dravid a reason for India not winning overseas in 90s. Couldn't win a single test overseas with his bowling performance in that whole decade.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Majestic

[Majestic]

18 minutes ago, cricspirit said:

I would still place Kapil as the best to have played for India. Others come close but not enough to be the best.

 

Kapil Dev

Shami/Zaheer Khan/ Srinath

Bumrah << yeah his stats look good and I am a fan but he is no.5 at this point. 

Bumrah can definitely become no.1 but as of now he isn't. Hence, one must wait for the right time before rewarding him with that title. He has some excellent performances overseas in England and Australia but you would want him to contribute for about 55-60 tests before awarding him that no.1 tag.

[express bowling]

2 hours ago, Majestic said:

Roberts played 47 tests because in 70s, there weren't a lot of games played.

 

Roberts played from 1974 to 1983.  

 

Kapil played 60 odd tests from 1978 to 1983.

 

Actually, there were a lot more tests played in the late 70s and early 80s as that was the only highly esteened format then. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Majestic said:

Kapil picked 247 wickets in 62 tests in first 5 years. If Bumrah can reach that mark at average under 25, he will be the best bowler for India otherwise 150-160 wickets won't be enough.

 

200 test wickets is good enough.

 

2 hours ago, Majestic said:

 

It is not easy to produce bowlers averaging under 25 that you can replace them after every 50 tests.

 

You don't replace them if they are performing. Objective should be to pick performing players only.

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, Majestic said:

Broad has been a flop in Asia and he wasn't your lead bowler like Anderson.

 

Anderson > Kapil > Broad for me.

 

Kapil is nowhere near Bumrah or Shami as a fast bowler. 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

Botham record vs Windies was poor though. Nevertheless, he is an excellent test bowler too but he had it relatively easier than Kapil because he had support from Willis. He is an ATG all rounder and a better batsman than Kapil. Purely in tests, he is also a better all rounder than him.

 

But Mohinder Amarnath doesn't have a large sample. Imagine Amarnath having those great series vs Windies with a sample of 100 tests, he would have been rated among the very best. It is because he got exposed after a purple patch of 1.5 years, he is not considered among the best batsman for India. You bringing Amarnath only validates the fact that longevity matters.

 

90s is considered one of the weakest phase for Indian cricket inspite of India having SRT, Kumble, Azharuddin, Sidhu, Ganguly, Dravid, Srinath and Prasad. This basically means Srinath didn't do anything extraordinary in that decade because being the lead Indian pacer, you expect him to deliver overseas more than anyone else and he didn't which is why India won zero tests.

 

None of your points proved anything. Here are some facts now:

 

1. Kapil Dev stood up against the best team of all-time, Windies.

 

2. Kapil averages better than Srinath inspite of having a longer career than him and without any support in form of Kumble or even V Prasad who supported him in the second half. 

 

3. You are saying that Srinath didn't do much for India in 90s because it was a dull decade for India but he himself averages 35 overseas with bowl. It was actually him not supporting the Indian batters like Tendulkar, Azhar, Ganguly,Dravid a reason for India not winning overseas in 90s. Couldn't win a single test overseas with his bowling performance in that whole decade.

Unnecessary arguments as people are not rating based on stats alone. 
 

If you rate Kapil high based on cherry picking his 60 odd tests, someone can rate Botham high or higher too based on such practices. 

If Kapil is swapped with Srinath or Shami or Bumrah or Zak, they will likely do better than what Kapil did with the support Kapil had and against the team that Kapil played against. While Kapil would likely struggle even more in this era (See what SL did to Prabhakar for e.g., who for a period did better than Kapil when bowling with Kapil. Even Chetan Sharma has done better overseas in many countries). 

 

Not even Indian bowlers, if Hadlee played for India, he would have outperformed Kapil. 
 

Kapil Dev was never the competitive bowler when compared with his counterparts in other teams. Marshall,(and other such WI bowlers), Lillee, Imran, Akram, Hadlee, etc., were in a tier above Kapil. 
 

Kapil was in the second tier with Botham, McDermott, etc. 
 

 

Srinath & Zak competed with the best relatively more. While Bumrah and Shami are as good as the best of their time. 
 

There is no competition here (Kapil fans since ages have tried to big up his bowling but there is hardly ever much enthusiasm from neutral cricket fans). 

 

 

 

 

 

[zen]

Additionally, Kapil did not play 130 tests based on merit alone. He is said to have not encourage upcoming pacers as well iirc, probably fearing getting outshined. If I am not wrong, Srinath is said to have shown such a concern. 
 

Kapil Dev has and continues to milk Indian cricket based on the 1983 win (and many folks continue to act as if they owe him)  

[Lord]

12 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

I said 40 odd tests ... and Andy Roberts is a good example.  

 

Roberts with 47 tests, Holding with 58 and Garner with 60 tests under their belt are all considered far greater bowlers than Kapil. 

 

No one has ever said that they can't be compared with Kapil because they have played 35% to 45% of what Kapil has played. 

 

Infact, we need to move on from Superstars playing for ever at a moderate level and look for players who perform at a high level for 50 to 60 tests and move away after that.

 

 

Big difference in 30 Tests (Bumrah) and 47,58,60 Tests. These days they used to play county cricket too.

 

Longevity doesn't mean 100 Test only. But 30 is still too less. Give examples of that if any to compare.

[Lord]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Additionally, Kapil did not play 130 tests based on merit alone. He is said to have not encourage upcoming pacers as well iirc, probably fearing getting outshined. If I am not wrong, Srinath is said to have shown such a concern. 
 

Kapil Dev has and continues to milk Indian cricket based on the 1983 win (and many folks continue to act as if they owe him)  

any source?

[zen]

2 hours ago, Lord said:

any source?

 

In the 90s, there were reports in papers of pace bowlers being sidelined. One such example is Shekar, who was said to be ignored for medium pacers (I have not seen, or recall, Shekar bowl to comment on how good was).

 

Srinath would have liked to debut at least a couple of years earlier. Despite making his debut in 1991/2 series in Aus (where Mark Taylor, IIRC, remarked that he was the fastest bowler, or something to that order, he had faced), he only got to play in India in 1994. Kapil was said to be played to help him go past Hadlee (rather than developing younger bowlers). If my memories serve me right, Srinath also did not get desired guidance from Kapil, which one would expect from an experienced bowler. The delay in getting more opportunities probably also meant that he was a late boomer (that was an era when Indian players tended to have a long learning curve to adapt to international cricket). 

 

 

PS I found this article on Shekar - Link  - "The story goes that  clearly  there were sections within the bowling department of the Indian team that were overwhelmed at the pace of TA Sekar and hence were not in favour of someone who had the tag of the ‘fastest Indian bowler’."

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by zen

[Majestic]

3 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

Roberts played from 1974 to 1983.  

 

Kapil played 60 odd tests from 1978 to 1983.

 

Actually, there were a lot more tests played in the late 70s and early 80s as that was the only highly esteened format then. 

 

 

 

200 test wickets is good enough.

 

 

You don't replace them if they are performing. Objective should be to pick performing players only.

Well that's greatness of Kapil Dev that he played so many consecutive game during this period. 

 

If you compare among the Windies pacers between 1974 and 1983, the matches played are :

 

Roberts 47

Holding 42

Garner 32

croft 27

Marshall 23

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;qualmin1=75;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=31+Dec+1983;spanmin1=01+Jan+1974;spanval1=span;team=4;template=results;type=bowling

 

 

Considering that back then , there was hardly any pacer picking 300+ test wickets, Roberts sample size was pretty good enough.

 

As for picking performing players is concerned, Kapil Dev merit the place as all rounder even in early 90s because he was an all rounder.

 

If he wasn't an all rounder he might not have played that many tests but still would have ended with close to 110 tests. However, point here is that he got his 250 wickets in first 6 years of his career only with hardly any support. Greatness was written right there for him.

 

 

[Majestic]

14 minutes ago, zen said:

 

In the 90s, there were reports in papers in papers of pace bowlers being sidelined. One such example is Shekar, who was said to be ignored for medium pacers (I have not seen, or recall, Shekar bowl to comment on how good was).

 

Srinath would have liked to debut at least a couple of years earlier. Despite making his debut in 1991/2 series in Aus (where Mark Taylor, IIRC, remarked that he was the fastest bowler, or something to that order, he had faced), he only got to play in India in 1994. Kapil was said to be played to help him go past Hadlee (rather than developing younger bowlers). If my memories serve me right, Srinath also did not get desired guidance from Kapil, which one would expect from an experienced bowler. The delay in getting more opportunities probably also meant that he was a late boomer. 

 

 

PS I found this article on Shekar - Link  - "The story goes that  clearly  there were sections within the bowling department of the Indian team that were overwhelmed at the pace of TA Sekar and hence were not in favour of someone who had the tag of the ‘fastest Indian bowler’."

 

So, the suggestion here is that India had plethora of high quality bowlers in early 90s that Srinath could only find a place if an all rounder Dev was dropped?

[zen]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

So, the suggestion here is that India had plethora of high quality bowlers in early 90s that Srinath could only find a place if an all rounder Dev was dropped?

 

yeah, an "all-rounder" (good to see the tag of the bowler being removed) who was delusional enough to continue to play to break a "bowling" milestone for which he would eventually get laughed at, and in the process also hurt Indian cricket 

[Majestic]

3 hours ago, zen said:

Unnecessary arguments as people are not rating based on stats alone. 
 

If you rate Kapil high based on cherry picking his 60 odd tests, someone can rate Botham high or higher too based on such practices. 

If Kapil is swapped with Srinath or Shami or Bumrah or Zak, they will likely do better than what Kapil did with the support Kapil had and against the team that Kapil played against. While Kapil would likely struggle even more in this era (See what SL did to Prabhakar for e.g., who for a period did better than Kapil when bowling with Kapil. Even Chetan Sharma has done better overseas in many countries). 

 

Not even Indian bowlers, if Hadlee played for India, he would have outperformed Kapil. 
 

Kapil Dev was never the competitive bowler when compared with his counterparts in other teams. Marshall,(and other such WI bowlers), Lillee, Imran, Akram, Hadlee, etc., were in a tier above Kapil. 
 

Kapil was in the second tier with Botham, McDermott, etc. 
 

 

Srinath & Zak competed with the best relatively more. While Bumrah and Shami are as good as the best of their time. 
 

There is no competition here (Kapil fans since ages have tried to big up his bowling but there is hardly ever much enthusiasm from neutral cricket fans). 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure how many times I have to repeat same thing.

 

60 tests is a cherry picking stat according to you but you are rating bowlers who hasn't even played 60 tests or picked that many wickets higher than Dev? What is the logic for that?

 

Botham is an all time great of the game. You are clubbing Botham with Kapil as if Botham was some average bowler 

 

No, if you swap Kapil with Srinath or Zak, their performance will go down compared to Kapil because their averages are lower than Kapil and especially overseas performance of Srinath is worse. Kapil stood up against the greatest team of all-time, the Windies of 80s.

 

Yes, Shami's average is better than Kapil but he has got great support from other pacers and has the luxury of bowling in bowling friendly conditions which Kapil didn't had.

 

Kapil Dev is an all time great all rounder of the game and purely as a bowler, he is an Indian great too. Zak and Srinath are comfortably a level below them.

[Lord]

25 minutes ago, zen said:

 

In the 90s, there were reports in papers in papers of pace bowlers being sidelined. One such example is Shekar, who was said to be ignored for medium pacers (I have not seen, or recall, Shekar bowl to comment on how good was).

 

Srinath would have liked to debut at least a couple of years earlier. Despite making his debut in 1991/2 series in Aus (where Mark Taylor, IIRC, remarked that he was the fastest bowler he had faced), he only got to play in India in 1994. Kapil was said to be played to help him go past Hadlee (rather than developing younger bowlers). If my memories serve me right, Srinath also did not get desired guidance from Kapil, which one would expect from an experienced bowler. The delay in getting more opportunities probably also meant that he was a late boomer. 

 

 

 

So in short, no source just your imaginations as always

[Majestic]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

 

yeah, an "all-rounder" (good to see the tag of the bowler being removed) who was delusional enough to continue to play to break a "bowling" milestone for which he would eventually get laughed at, and in the process also hurt Indian cricket 

That doesn't answer the question. How was Kapil the all rounder blocking the place of Srinath the bowler who could barely hold a bat? 

 

Are you saying that the other pacers alongside Kapil were Ambrose/Walsh, Donald/Pollock, Wasim/Waqar level that Srinath had to wait for Kapol's retirement to find a place in the team? 

[zen]

Just now, Majestic said:

Not sure how many times I have to repeat same thing.

 

 

Then don't repeat as repeating will not add any value to your posts 

 

Quote

60 tests is a cherry picking stat according to you but you are rating bowlers who hasn't even played 60 tests or picked that many wickets higher than Dev? What is the logic for that?

 

Already been explained multiple times through various examples. Quality > Quantity.  Kapil Dev is a second tier bowler. Likes of Bond, who have played less, are better (and you accepted that in one of the posts). Similarly, I rate Srinath, Zak, Shami, and Bumrah higher than Kapil. 

 

 

Quote

Botham is an all time great of the game. You are clubbing Botham with Kapil as if Botham was some average bowler 

 

As an AR yes, As a bowler, much like Kapil, he was a tier below. Though very good in English conditions. Even Kapil was mostly good at home. 

 

 

Quote

No, if you swap Kapil with Srinath or Zak, their performance will go down compared to Kapil because their averages are lower than Kapil and especially overseas performance of Srinath is worse.

 

They bowled to different lineups and in different periods (for e.g. 2000s was a batting friendly era relatively speaking. Already mentioned this before). 

 

Kapil would struggle to bowl versus a post-1995 Aus, SA, etc. 

 

 

Quote

Kapil stood up against the greatest team of all-time, the Windies of 80s.

 

And as mentioned before, even Mohinder Amarnath did (do did Hirwani). Being the greatest team of all time or whatever does not mean that its entire lineup was made up of great batsmen. India too had a competitive lineup with the likes of Gavaskar and Amarnath in it. Imran Khan picked up like 23-34 wickets in a 3 match series in WI in 1988/9 to help Pak draw the series (which many feel Pak should have won). 

 

 

Quote

Yes, Shami's average is better than Kapil but he has got great support from other pacers and has the luxury of bowling in bowling friendly conditions which Kapil didn't had

.

Again it is beyond averages. Ignoring exceptions, Shami can bounce, york, swing, seam, reverse swing, etc. ... Kapil is relatively a limited bowler. Shami with the same support as Kapil, bowling to teams Kapil bowled to, would go better over a 100 test. 

 

Quote

Kapil Dev is an all time great all rounder of the game and purely as a bowler, he is an Indian great too. Zak and Srinath are comfortably a level below them.

 

 

As bowlers, for noobs, who rely on stats to make up their minds, probably ... For those who watch them bowl, understand skills, potential, etc., no 

 

Kapil was a solid all rounder, no doubts about that.