Kapil vs Botham as batsman

[gazza]

even if you exclude the years of world series cricket botham still got 11 tons (more than kapil) and close to 300 wickets (296). only 4 out of his 30+ test series were played during world series cricket. world series cricket ended in april 79 and he was still peaking all the way until the end of 82 or in some peoples imo his peak went through to 84. the only teams he played in that period were australia, NZ and pakistan. the aussie team in the july/aug 77 series still had greg chappell, mccosker, hookes, davis, walters, robinson, marsh, o'keefe, walker, thomson, pascoe. it was still a strong side. the first NZ series still had hadlee and was full strength, the second NZ series in july/aug 1978 also had hadlee and he was the only NZer to play world series cricket. the pakistan series still had miandad, nawaz and haroon rashid, so although it was weakened it wasn't completely. so pretty much he only played 2 series in his whole career that were affected by world series cricket and the other 2 series he still played against relatively strong sides, it's not like they were completely depleted. and he didn't fail against quality opposition, he still did some very good things against WI, just not consistently e.g. the 8fer then rapid 81 in the same match in 84 as i said earlier. did he decline? yes, was he hopeless and unable to perform against quality opposition? no, he was inconsistent in doing so (after 1982) but still performed very well at times showing that he was capable of doing it.

[rtmohanlal]

botham has plenty of moments bringing his team back from the brink' date=' like his 5/1 in the ashes along with his 149*, that's just a couple of examples, he came through for england quite a few times.[/quote'] Kapil has his too .not going into details

[gazza]

Kapil has his too .not going into details

And I never said he didn't.

[rtmohanlal]

"captaincy is a non issue when talking about batting or all rounder performance". 'all round ability'' means ability in every discipline of the game.any way each to his own "botham's all round performances were much more than "slightly" better you just don't want to believe it". we shall agree to disagree based on 'support bowling cast', Kapil's bat str: rate,opposition overall strength, playing conditions etc etc w.r.t these all round performances. - botham was the better fielder, he was a considerably better catcher and close in fielder in that regard he's right up there, kapil may have been a really good fielder but he's not considered up there with the very best, for slip catching at least, botham is. as far as i know Botham was brilliant in slips.Kapil better over all.for once i can't imagine Botham taking that Viv catch in `1983 running `20 yards backwards.more over Kapil was better than Botham in pick and throw at one stretch from the deep. " being a better one-day player at best means botham and kapil are equal. being a better test player is more important imo." one day cricket has its own challenges as you would know.fast scoring, containment in bowling,running between the wkts and ground fielding takes much more importance in this format.so though test is more important, when measuring over all credentials of a player, one day comes into play. " kapil with more longevity yet couldn't achieve as much as botham could, therefore longevity is not a plus for kapil." except from test runs, Kapil achieved more test wkts, more one day runs & wkts.the basis is he maintained his figures like 'bat avg' bowl avg etc after playing more matches than Botham.conversely due you sincerely feel had Botham went on and on and played the same no: of matches in both formats as Kapil would he have maintained his avgs:? i do not feel so. - statistical 100s are significant because kapil clearly had a problem converting 75+ scores to 100+ scores, that means kapil wasn't mentally as capable in this regard as botham. do you want your batsmen to be capable of scoring tons or not? you are speaking as if Botham scored huge 100s.statistical 100s are significant only if there is significant difference in the NO: of 150+ scores between these players. as i pointed out if their is only a difference of 9.28 in avg: but difference of 20 w.r.t str: rate in favour of Kapil, what is the meaning of Botham's 100s apart from mere statistical attraction? " strike rate is a non issue in test matches and even if you make it an issue botham still had a strike rate in the 60s which is still rapid in the format meaning kapil's higher strike rate isn't as big of a deal. why doesn't every select sehwag in their all time XI? an opener averaging nearly 50 with a strike rate of 80+, because strike rate isn't a big issue in test matches that's why" no..because here we are comparing only 2 players.W.r.t Sehwag's place in all time X1s, there are lot of contenders.Sehwag in his own right is a great batsman in the eyes of many. because of his huge str: rate as an opener and his mammoth 150+ scores.if we go thru Sehwag's record he has sub 30 avgs: in ENG,SAF &NZL....places which are the most alien for a subcontinent batsman along with AUS.yet he is considered so highly than say Mahela because of his str: rate as far as i know. W.r.t. , Viv , a middle order bat, with -12 str: rate when compared to Sehwag is considered one among the all time 4 or 5 bats(includes Ken Barrington with 58+ avg:) of all time just because in addition to str: rate Viv possesed good to great avg:s in all countries he played. going by same yard stick Kapil from the same era as Viv, having a str: rate of +11.63 as that of Viv can't be better than a batsman with only +2.49 avg:, but -20 str: rate? hence for me Kapil is better.

[rtmohanlal]

"captaincy is a non issue when talking about batting or all rounder performance". 'all round ability'' means ability in every discipline of the game.any way each to his own "botham's all round performances were much more than "slightly" better you just don't want to believe it". we shall agree to disagree based on 'support bowling cast', Kapil's bat str: rate,opposition overall strength, playing conditions etc etc w.r.t these all round performances. - botham was the better fielder, he was a considerably better catcher and close in fielder in that regard he's right up there, kapil may have been a really good fielder but he's not considered up there with the very best, for slip catching at least, botham is. as far as i know Botham was brilliant in slips.Kapil better over all.for once i can't imagine Botham taking that Viv catch in `1983 running `20 yards backwards.more over Kapil was better than Botham in pick and throw at one stretch from the deep. " being a better one-day player at best means botham and kapil are equal. being a better test player is more important imo." one day cricket has its own challenges as you would know.fast scoring, containment in bowling,running between the wkts and ground fielding takes much more importance in this format.so though test is more important, when measuring over all credentials of a player, one day comes into play. " kapil with more longevity yet couldn't achieve as much as botham could, therefore longevity is not a plus for kapil." except from test runs, Kapil achieved more test wkts, more one day runs & wkts.the basis is he maintained his figures like 'bat avg' bowl avg etc after playing more matches than Botham.conversely due you sincerely feel had Botham went on and on and played the same no: of matches in both formats as Kapil would he have maintained his avgs:? i do not feel so. - statistical 100s are significant because kapil clearly had a problem converting 75+ scores to 100+ scores, that means kapil wasn't mentally as capable in this regard as botham. do you want your batsmen to be capable of scoring tons or not? you are speaking as if Botham scored huge 100s.statistical 100s are significant only if there is significant difference in the NO: of 150+ scores between these players. as i pointed out if their is only a difference of 9.28 in avg: but difference of 20 w.r.t str: rate in favour of Kapil, what is the meaning of Botham's 100s apart from mere statistical attraction? " strike rate is a non issue in test matches and even if you make it an issue botham still had a strike rate in the 60s which is still rapid in the format meaning kapil's higher strike rate isn't as big of a deal. why doesn't every select sehwag in their all time XI? an opener averaging nearly 50 with a strike rate of 80+, because strike rate isn't a big issue in test matches that's why" no..because here we are comparing only 2 players.W.r.t Sehwag's place in all time X1s, there are lot of contenders.Sehwag in his own right is a great batsman in the eyes of many. because of his huge str: rate as an opener and his mammoth 150+ scores.if we go thru Sehwag's record he has sub 30 avgs: in ENG,SAF &NZL....places which are the most alien for a subcontinent batsman along with AUS.yet he is considered so highly than say Mahela because of his str: rate as far as i know. W.r.t. , Viv , a middle order bat, with -12 str: rate when compared to Sehwag is considered one among the all time 4 or 5 bats(includes Ken Barrington with 58+ avg:) of all time just because in addition to str: rate Viv possesed good to great avg:s in all countries he played. going by same yard stick Kapil from the same era as Viv, having a str: rate of +11.63 as that of Viv can't be better than a batsman with only +2.49 avg:, but -20 str: rate? hence for me Kapil is better.

[gazza]

Again those what ifs about if botham played longer is irrelevant, when a player had a long career you don't use what ifs you use what actually happened. What if kapil played only 102 test matches? He'd have less wickets, less runs etc and the gap between kapil an botham would be greater. Plus you are ignoring the fact that botham bar total wickets achieved as much and in most cases more than kapil did in less matches that just as impressive if not more so than kapil's so called better longevity even though he still couldn't surpass botham with it. When a player achieves as much or more than another in a shorter period that makes them better not worse.

[gazza]

Kapil couldn't convert to centuries stop acting as if it means nothing. How many 130+ scores did botham get and how many did kapil get? How many 75+ scores did botham fail to convert? How many did kapil fail to convert?

[Muloghonto]

Yeah except he wasn't.

I'd call suceeding for the first quarter of ur career in an age before instant tv footage analysis and then sucking balls for te next 3/4th of the career to be found out. I'd also consider abject failure throughout the career against the best team and mediocre performance at the home of 2nd best team to b a minnow basher Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[gazza]

I'd call suceeding for the first quarter of ur career in an age before instant tv footage analysis and then sucking balls for te next 3/4th of the career to be found out. I'd also consider abject failure throughout the career against the best team and mediocre performance at the home of 2nd best team to b a minnow basher Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

if botham sucked then so did kapil as kapil achieved less in his career. you are very immature learn some respect.

[gazza]

I'd call suceeding for the first quarter of ur career in an age before instant tv footage analysis and then sucking balls for te next 3/4th of the career to be found out. I'd also consider abject failure throughout the career against the best team and mediocre performance at the home of 2nd best team to b a minnow basher Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

if botham sucked then so did kapil as kapil achieved less in his career. you are very immature learn some respect. and get your facts straight.

[gazza]

I'd call suceeding for the first quarter of ur career in an age before instant tv footage analysis and then sucking balls for te next 3/4th of the career to be found out. I'd also consider abject failure throughout the career against the best team and mediocre performance at the home of 2nd best team to b a minnow basher Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

if botham sucked then so did kapil as kapil achieved less in his career. you are very immature learn some respect. and get your facts straight.

[putrevus]

anyone in right mind would not say botham sucked, he is one of the greatest players who ever played, he did everything, batting bowling and slip catching. To me he was best allrounder of 80s and second best all rounder after Sobers. Kapil was never in his class ,neither were tailenders Imran Khan or Richard hadlee.

[Muloghonto]

if botham sucked then so did kapil as kapil achieved less in his career. you are very immature learn some respect. and get your facts straight.

My facts r staight. Botham for first 4-5 years =better than keith millers numbers. Botham for next 10-11 years = darren sammy numbers. That suggests a few things. Injury alone is not reason enough to have such terminal numbers for so long. Kapil, hadlee, imran al had bad injuries before midway and they managed to turn in stellar returns with bator ball or both later in their careers. Botham just got crappier and crappier. And its easy to see why people consider bothams bowling to be the worst of the four by far: botham was easily the most wayward of the four, even at his peak. Bothams power was he could get the not too occasional ball to move much more and catch them by surprise. The west indies found a counter to this- they simply stood far enough out of their crease to negate his seam movement. Later, people copied. Botham still xaught out the noobs now and again, occasionally even a good well set bat, but people learnt. Botham didnt have a potent bouncer so, he didnt adapt well. Later, when he got old, fat n slow like the rest of them, his slw pace made him literally, useless . Rhis is botham to a nutshell. So no, he is way, way below kd for me. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[Muloghonto]

I agree that botham was easily tge best close in catcher of the four . but kd in his prime was a gun outfielder too. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[gazza]

My facts r staight. Botham for first 4-5 years =better than keith millers numbers. Botham for next 10-11 years = darren sammy numbers. That suggests a few things. Injury alone is not reason enough to have such terminal numbers for so long. Kapil, hadlee, imran al had bad injuries before midway and they managed to turn in stellar returns with bator ball or both later in their careers. Botham just got crappier and crappier. And its easy to see why people consider bothams bowling to be the worst of the four by far: botham was easily the most wayward of the four, even at his peak. Bothams power was he could get the not too occasional ball to move much more and catch them by surprise. The west indies found a counter to this- they simply stood far enough out of their crease to negate his seam movement. Later, people copied. Botham still xaught out the noobs now and again, occasionally even a good well set bat, but people learnt. Botham didnt have a potent bouncer so, he didnt adapt well. Later, when he got old, fat n slow like the rest of them, his slw pace made him literally, useless . Rhis is botham to a nutshell. So no, he is way, way below kd for me. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

then you are in the minority.

[rtmohanlal]

Again those what ifs about if botham played longer is irrelevant, when a player had a long career you don't use what ifs you use what actually happened. What if kapil played only 102 test matches? He'd have less wickets, less runs etc and the gap between kapil an botham would be greater. Plus you are ignoring the fact that botham bar total wickets achieved as much and in most cases more than kapil did in less matches that just as impressive if not more so than kapil's so called better longevity even though he still couldn't surpass botham with it. When a player achieves as much or more than another in a shorter period that makes them better not worse.

here we are comparing ' 2 players in particular'.the criteria being this, if a player was in terminal decline that element also need to be considered.had Kapil played only 102 test matches his wkts/test value and bowl avg: would have been slightly better.you yourself can check.his bat avg: would have been more or less same( it is to his credit he maintained this bat avg: for much more tests). w.r.t one dayers the gap in bat and bowl numbers between Kapil and Botham wuld have been much wider had Kapil played only 116 matches as Botham did. so that only would have resulted in strengthening Kapil's credentials as test bowler.yet you are claiming as to Botham achieved more in less matches.it is a matter of common cricketing sense that longevity in general has adverse effects to the career figures of a player.it happend with Sachin, Viv, Ponting and a lot others.if we go by facts Botham would have been much affected had he gone on to play same matches as Kapil in both forms.his career graph is testimony to it.

[rtmohanlal]

anyone in right mind would not say botham sucked, he is one of the greatest players who ever played, he did everything, batting bowling and slip catching. To me he was best allrounder of 80s and second best all rounder after Sobers. Kapil was never in his class ,neither were tailenders Imran Khan or Richard hadlee.

i on my part,do not have any thing against Botham. if any huge huge appreciation as an all time great.him being a great all rounder means his value for me is manifold.but having just gone deep into both players career stats, i feel Kapil to be better.this is after impartial rational thinking based on these career data.again each to his own

[gazza]

here we are comparing ' 2 players in particular'.the criteria being this, if a player was in terminal decline that element also need to be considered.had Kapil played only 102 test matches his wkts/test value and bowl avg: would have been slightly better.you yourself can check.his bat avg: would have been more or less same( it is to his credit he maintained this bat avg: for much more tests). w.r.t one dayers the gap in bat and bowl numbers between Kapil and Botham wuld have been much wider had Kapil played only 116 matches as Botham did. so that only would have resulted in strengthening Kapil's credentials as test bowler.yet you are claiming as to Botham achieved more in less matches.it is a matter of common cricketing sense that longevity in general has adverse effects to the career figures of a player.it happend with Sachin, Viv, Ponting and a lot others.if we go by facts Botham would have been much affected had he gone on to play same matches as Kapil in both forms.his career graph is testimony to it.

Except he didn't so its irrelevant. as far as comparing two players isn't this a botham versus kapil thread specifically regards to batting? that is what has made this about comparing 2 players in particular. and you're the one who made the thread...

[gazza]

also you still haven't answered properly in regards to centuries, you think kapil is just as good because he has as many or a similar amount of 75+ scores. first he has many less 100s this 75+ score thing is just a stat manipulation to try and make kapil look better than he was unfortunately it fails because, 2nd botham only failed twice from 75-99 and kapil failed many times clearly indicating kapil had an issue with converting 75+ scores to tons. botham has more centuries, more 140+ scores he even has a double. again how is scoring between 75-99 the equal to a double ton? the answer is it isn't similar amount of 75+ scores or not. don't throw average runs or whatever at me, that's not the point i'm making and it's not a relevant case against a player being mentally or technically tough enough to score the big scores which is my point. you can stat manipulate all you want, we all do it to push the players we want pushed (looking at peaks etc) but in this case it favours kapil less than it aids him. now you've also said something like these 2 aren't genuine batsmen, first i'd argue that at least talent wise (for both) and 2nd it doesn't matter whether they are or aren't, we are comparing these 2 specifically as per the thread title and just because they aren't genuine batsmen (by your opinion) it doesn't mean they aren't still given the same criteria, even if we were comparing kapil to say tendulkar you still look at the stats the same way for both players, heck even if it was lara V mcgrath you'd do it the same. whether they were or were not genuine batsmen is irrelevant, you still compare what they achieved as batsmen in the same way.

[gazza]

i on my part' date='do not have any thing against Botham. if any huge huge appreciation as an all time great.him being a great all rounder means his value for me is manifold.but having just gone deep into both players career stats, i feel Kapil to be better.this is after impartial rational thinking based on these career data.again each to his own[/quote'] i've got nothing against kapil either, and i'm also looking at things impartially, i never rated botham until recently when i looked deeper into his career, i use to think he was way way overrated, by looking at his career performance i realise he isn't overrated. i've also gained much respect for kapil recently looking deeper into his career but it still doesn't change my opinion because i haven't seen anything yet that warrants me to.