Kapil vs Botham as batsman

[rtmohanlal]

That would certainly make a player a better cricketer but that doesn't mean they are better in every format and the formats are very different' date=' some players are test specialists, some ODI specialists (bevan).[/quote'] again ... based on data in my OP, I firmly believe it is Kapil even if we take tests alone. then you shall have your choice. no regrets:winky:

[gazza]

again ... based on data in my OP' date=' I firmly believe it is Kapil even if we take tests alone. then you shall have your choice. no regrets:winky:[/quote'] And I firmly believe the other way for reasons i've stated, no drama's.

[gazza]

I just don't think strike rate holds that much weight in this situation(well in tests). Performance against the windies is more valid but I believe botham has many more positives than kapil does in tests, people don't have to agree so it's fine if they don't, it's a good debate.

[rtmohanlal]

I just don't think strike rate holds that much weight in this situation(well in tests). Performance against the windies is more valid but I believe botham has many more positives than kapil does in tests' date=' people don't have to agree so it's fine if they don't, it's a good debate.[/quote'] again as i said... both being almost similar in their approach to batting, and both have almost similar bat avg:, this is where Kapil's huge str: rate come into play.Kapil had 58 >35 scores means once in every 3.15 inns Kapil would come and score 74.74 runs on the average in double quick time, i.e a str rate of 88.39.i think this completely puts opposition bowlers on the back foot.Kapil belonged to a weak team and hence the effect of all such knocks on the results of the matches were not that emphatic, but that doesn't minimise a bit the impact value of such knocks of his. no need of a drama here ..we had some healthy points in another topic w.r.t this....that's why i stated thus

[gazza]

But botham is proven to be more capable at scoring centuries and 120+ scores, kapil had plenty of chances to score more tons than he did but couldn't, botham could. I'd say that's more relevant than strike rate, each to their own.

[rtmohanlal]

But botham is proven to be more capable at scoring centuries and 120+ scores' date=' kapil had plenty of chances to score more tons than he did but couldn't, botham could. I'd say that's more relevant than strike rate, each to their own.[/quote'] yes Botham has more 100+ scores , more 120+ scores etc etc, but as i earlier said it all sums up to "only a difference of 9.28 in avg: but difference of 20 w.r.t str: rate in favour of Kapil. that means Botham took 184.15 balls to score 140.78 runs where as Kapil took only 136.34 balls to score 131.5 runs in >75 inns".that means Kapil scored only 9.28 runs less in huge scores but did that in 47.81 less balls. see neither Botham nor Kapil were genuine batsmen who occupied the crease a lot, who played lot of +250 ball consuming inns , lot of + 150 runs scored inns etc etc.based on this only we can evaluate the performance of the 2. it is here the value of their performance come into play.this is more reflected in their +35 scores. you are saying str: rate is not important.but just imagine the situation in practical terms. when the team is down at say 150 for 5, or say 250 for 6 etc which player is better? Kapil came to the crease and scored 74.74 runs in just 84.56 balls on the avg: once in every 3.15 inns.here as we have seen in a lot of real match situations the bowlers get in a state of disarray.Botham too scored 79.35 runs , but only of 113.96 balls .this makes a real difference especially in lower team scores where runs scored quickly can affect the psyche of opposition players.

[gazza]

yes Botham has more 100+ scores , more 120+ scores etc etc, but as i earlier said it all sums up to "only a difference of 9.28 in avg: but difference of 20 w.r.t str: rate in favour of Kapil. that means Botham took 184.15 balls to score 140.78 runs where as Kapil took only 136.34 balls to score 131.5 runs in >75 inns".that means Kapil scored only 9.28 runs less in huge scores but did that in 47.81 less balls. see neither Botham nor Kapil were genuine batsmen who occupied the crease a lot, who played lot of +250 ball consuming inns , lot of + 150 runs scored inns etc etc.based on this only we can evaluate the performance of the 2. it is here the value of their performance come into play.this is more reflected in their +35 scores. you are saying str: rate is not important.but just imagine the situation in practical terms. when the team is down at say 150 for 5, or say 250 for 6 etc which player is better? Kapil came to the crease and scored 74.74 runs in just 84.56 balls on the avg: once in every 3.15 inns.here as we have seen in a lot of real match situations the bowlers get in a state of disarray.Botham too scored 79.35 runs , but only of 113.96 balls .this makes a real difference especially in lower team scores where runs scored quickly can affect the psyche of opposition players.

It comes down to kapil not being as capable at that aspect of batting which has to be consider when discussing who is the better batsman.

[gazza]

Gilchrist wasn't a genuine batsman in that he was a keeper batsman and all rounder yet look at what he achieved batting at #7 with a high strike rate it comes down to what the players actually achieved and botham achieved more in more aspects than kapil did. Kapil's strong points: achieved against windies and high strike. Although those are 2 things botham didn't achieve with consistency strike rate isn't a big enough issue to make it such a difference maker (especially when botham's strike rate is also high for test matches). The windies issue is valid but as I've shown there are so many other positives for botham that he is ahead of kapil in that I don't believe kapil should be put ahead of him overall in tests.

[Muloghonto]

Gilchrist wasn't a genuine batsman in that he was a keeper batsman and all rounder yet look at what he achieved batting at #7 with a high strike rate it comes down to what the players actually achieved and botham achieved more in more aspects than kapil did. Kapil's strong points: achieved against windies and high strike. Although those are 2 things botham didn't achieve with consistency strike rate isn't a big enough issue to make it such a difference maker (especially when botham's strike rate is also high for test matches). The windies issue is valid but as I've shown there are so many other positives for botham that he is ahead of kapil in that I don't believe kapil should be put ahead of him overall in tests.

What positives ? Kapil was all alone as bowler on unhelpful surfaces...those two are pretty huge handicaps. As a batsman, he played in a weaker lineup for most of his career and often came in when match was dead, in 2nd innings. Despite this, kapil did better against best teams. That makes him better. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[gazza]

What positives ? Kapil was all alone as bowler on unhelpful surfaces...those two are pretty huge handicaps. As a batsman, he played in a weaker lineup for most of his career and often came in when match was dead, in 2nd innings. Despite this, kapil did better against best teams. That makes him better. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

If you can't find any positives in botham's record or his game then you're being biased. I mentioned plenty of positives in the other thread and some in this one.

[rtmohanlal]

It comes down to kapil not being as capable at that aspect of batting which has to be consider when discussing who is the better batsman.

if you point at putting inns of +150 runs or +250 balls was Botham any better?it is crystal clear from what i wrote that Botham put a mere digital runs more but Kapil was way too aggresive and hence a convincingly better impact player. more over Kapil was better player of quality bowling over all. this all he did being in a weak Indian team of 80s with decisively better longevity too. in one dayers the lesser said the better.

[gazza]

if you point at putting inns of +150 runs or +250 balls was Botham any better?it is crystal clear from what i wrote that Botham put a mere digital runs more but Kapil was way too aggresive and hence a convincingly better impact player. more over Kapil was better player of quality bowling over all. this all he did being in a weak Indian team of 80s with decisively better longevity too. in one dayers the lesser said the better.

circular argument, kapil is better in some area's of course, i've never denied that and even agreed, but in other area's (the majority) botham was better. also being able to convert 50s into 100s is important for a batsman and so is being able to make bigger scores you can't just fob those aspects off as if they are nothing.

[gazza]

Miller better than both anyway, he's also a better batsman and genuine all rounder than Imran.

[gazza]

What positives ? Kapil was all alone as bowler on unhelpful surfaces...those two are pretty huge handicaps. As a batsman, he played in a weaker lineup for most of his career and often came in when match was dead, in 2nd innings. Despite this, kapil did better against best teams. That makes him better. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

are you serious? kapil played in an era where Indian batting was very strong. e.g. gavaskar (average of 51.12), amarnath (average 42.5), vengsarkar (average 42.13), viswanath (average 41.93) then later in his career there was sachin who ended averaging 53.78, azharuddin (average 45.03) and manjrekar (average 37.14). botham had some good players with him like gower (average 44s), gooch (42s) and boycott (average 47s) then had some decent players like chris broad (average 39s) then guys like gatting and lamb who averaged around 35/36 but also guys like athey and rose who averaged low to mid 20s. it's just not true that india had a weak batting line-up in that period even if you think it was weaker than england's (which it wasn't). as far as unhelpful surfaces well botham did well on those unhelpful surfaces (61 with the bat and 25 with the ball) and he also did a pretty decent job on the supposedly easier surfaces (in england) averaging 34.92 with the bat and mid 27s with the ball). how did kapil go on the easier surfaces? 35 batting average, sure that's pretty decent no qualms good on him but a bowling average in the 39s. considering botham actually did well in india which is supposedly tougher and kapil did poorly in england (with the ball) it's not logical to say kapil suffered because of his indian surfaces. fact is kapil should have taken advantage of the english surfaces if he was so good but he couldn't adapt whereas botham could. what are you trying to say if roles where reversed then botham's record would have been even worse? or that kapil's would have been better? with the ball at least, evidence certainly suggests otherwise besides going by how botham did in india he would have been a demi god if he'd played most of his matches in india. the arguement about surfaces is nullified but the fact botham did great on kapil's turf in both batting and bowling but kapil couldn't do much on botham's turf with the ball (and falls well short with the bat compared to what botham achieved with the bat in india).

[gazza]

btw according to ICC and it's best ever ratings botham comes into the batting ratings at #87, kapil doesn't make it. for bowling botham is #9 and kapil is #36. botham is the only player to achieve 10 test centuries and 10 test 5fers, he's got the record of the most centuries and 5fers in the one match at 5 with the next closest being 2, he's got 14 test tons which is equal to the combined number from both kapil and imran together. there were points in botham's career where he was one of the top 5 batsmen at the time and the best bowler in the world (he did these things simultaneously). there are plenty of positives to botham, does kapil have as many accolades like these? fair enough if you think kapil is better, no qualms (he was a great all rounder), but don't disrespect botham give credit where credit is due.

[rtmohanlal]

are you serious? kapil played in an era where Indian batting was very strong. e.g. gavaskar (average of 51.12), amarnath (average 42.5), vengsarkar (average 42.13), viswanath (average 41.93) then later in his career there was sachin who ended averaging 53.78, azharuddin (average 45.03) and manjrekar (average 37.14). botham had some good players with him like gower (average 44s), gooch (42s) and boycott (average 47s) then had some decent players like chris broad (average 39s) then guys like gatting and lamb who averaged around 35/36 but also guys like athey and rose who averaged low to mid 20s. it's just not true that india had a weak batting line-up in that period even if you think it was weaker than england's (which it wasn't). as far as unhelpful surfaces well botham did well on those unhelpful surfaces (61 with the bat and 25 with the ball) and he also did a pretty decent job on the supposedly easier surfaces (in england) averaging 34.92 with the bat and mid 27s with the ball). how did kapil go on the easier surfaces? 35 batting average, sure that's pretty decent no qualms good on him but a bowling average in the 39s. considering botham actually did well in india which is supposedly tougher and kapil did poorly in england (with the ball) it's not logical to say kapil suffered because of his indian surfaces. fact is kapil should have taken advantage of the english surfaces if he was so good but he couldn't adapt whereas botham could. what are you trying to say if roles where reversed then botham's record would have been even worse? or that kapil's would have been better? with the ball at least, evidence certainly suggests otherwise besides going by how botham did in india he would have been a demi god if he'd played most of his matches in india. the arguement about surfaces is nullified but the fact botham did great on kapil's turf in both batting and bowling but kapil couldn't do much on botham's turf with the ball (and falls well short with the bat compared to what botham achieved with the bat in india).

you quoted a list of Indian batsmen and their avgs:. infact that is not the way to look at it in this regard. combined strength of the team does not mean batting alone.India was the 2nd best from bottom barring the then minnow SL if test results from 80s are concerned. again w.r.t your other arguements i too am not that much a supporter of this ' had Kapil been on helpful surfaces theory' .yes Botham did well on Indian surfaces and credit to him for that. infact it was a stupendous effort from him to do well on indian pitches which were completely alien to him. But we must not forget that Indian bowling especially was near minnow standard.the only standard threat be it spin or pace was Kapil dev.especially if we take the years from 1970 to 2010 spin bowling was at its weakest from 80-90.Indian spinners usually were toothless abroad and dangerous in India in general going by the records.but this spin attack was an exception in that it was non dangerous any where except for a few sparkles here and there in India.and quite naturally India didn't posses a good spinner with longevity and avg: combined during the 80s.any way Botham's performance is a highlight which deserves extra marks indeed. But w.r.t Kapil's batting in ENG we must not forget that getting runs vs 'Willis-Botham' & others unit was much diffucult than getting runs vs Kapil & others. that is why i a am not at all a huge supporter of this 'tit for tat' comparison.the thing for me is the runs they got against quality bowling and here Kapil is slightly better. now the most important thing that i feel is in Kapil's favour is 'lack of bowling support'.and this is where for me Kapil is the better bowler slightly. Botham had Willis who was a better bowler than him. Once Willis retired Botham struggled hugely.Even in WI when Willis was nullified Botham couldn't do much.

[gazza]

The list was more than just averages and names, those batsmen were very good batsmen, some were great, I realise bowling plays a role but I believe the context of the comment I responded to was purely talking about batting strength.

[gazza]

kapil had some pretty decent spinners around him during certain period of his career especially at the very beginning (bedi, chandra) then he had doshi for a few years and then later kumble, hirwani and raju. as far as pace binny was his main supporter for most of his career with ghavri, chetan sharma and srinath being there helping him at varous points. he may not of had the best pace support but it was decent and he played with quite a few spinners which would have made it hard for someone like botham when he went to india. it's not like england is a horrible place for spinners either so even with weaker seam support kapil had much better spin support. also just because someone doesn't have much support doesn't mean it's so bad for them, hadlee succeeded greatly even without a lot of support for much of his career, so if we go by the same principle as we are for kapil saying no support negatively affects the bowling stats then what does that mean for hadlee? he's already one of the best bowlers of all time does that push him up to being the best as it must mean if he had support he would have been even better? more support may have helped kapil but it may not have it's a what if just like saying botham was horrible without willis. fact is botham was already in decline when willis retired so it's hard to say whether the good botham (77-82) would have have been horrible without willis or whether he still would have done fine.

[rtmohanlal]

The list was more than just averages and names' date=' those batsmen were very good batsmen, some were great, I realise bowling plays a role but I believe the context of the comment I responded to was purely talking about batting strength.[/quote'] yes . India had perhaps slightly better batting strength.again some one like Gooch cannot be evaluated just based on his avg: he was convincingly better than his avg: reveals. if we add Boycott to the equation and take over all performances of both batsmen of ENG and IND from those days in away conditions , India if any was only slightly better.but bowling wise it was a much wider gap.that is reflected in win-loss team performance too. India at the bottom just above SL.

[gazza]

for me the reason it's difficult to separate kapil and botham to any large degree is because botham had a much better peak and reached heights for a good period that kapil never did. but kapil was more reliable, he may not of had the highs that botham reached but you could always count on him to get a couple of wickets and make some runs whereas botham was just awesome for a period but then after that you couldn't expect much from him after a certain point in his career (aside from glimpses of his former self from time to time). both have their positives and both have their negatives, if i wanted someone who i knew would take a couple of wickets and make a few runs every game i'd take kapil, but if i was up against the wall and playing someone i didn't think i could beat and we were down and out then i'd take botham because he's more likely to have one of those days where he destroy's the opposition. even in decline botham managed to take an 8fer then score 81 (strike rate 78) against the west indies, a team that included greenidge, haynes, gomes, richards, lloyd, dujon, marshall, garner and harper. imo that really shows just how capable he was and how much talent he had.