Kapil vs Botham as batsman

[rtmohanlal]

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.

infact i have answered more than once for your question w.r.t conversion into 100s.it is 'whether or not the 2 players converted their 75s to 100s' which is that much important here, but it is 'the total amount of runs they put among these mammoth scores and the rate of scoring' which is more important here especially because these 2 players are 6-7 bat position players . i have selected '75' here as the cut of point because though there is a difference of 6 between the 2 players w.r.t 100s, they differ in +75 scores by only 1.more over almost all of their 100s are not those big +150s just like those of a genuine top order batsman. as i pointed out 'there is only a difference of 9.28 in bat avg: in favour of Botham, but difference of 20 w.r.t str: rate in favour of Kapil in their +75 scores' means Kapil's inns were of much impact than Botham's. hope you are clear. other wise you shall have your own coclusion w.r.t this.

[gazza]

infact i have answered more than once for your question w.r.t conversion into 100s.it is 'whether or not the 2 players converted their 75s to 100s' which is that much important here, but it is 'the total amount of runs they put among these mammoth scores and the rate of scoring' which is more important here especially because these 2 players are 6-7 bat position players . i have selected '75' here as the cut of point because though there is a difference of 6 between the 2 players w.r.t 100s, they differ in +75 scores by only 1.more over almost all of their 100s are not those big +150s just like those of a genuine top order batsman. as i pointed out 'there is only a difference of 9.28 in bat avg: in favour of Botham, but difference of 20 w.r.t str: rate in favour of Kapil in their +75 scores' means Kapil's inns were of much impact than Botham's. hope you are clear. other wise you shall have your own coclusion w.r.t this.

batting 6-7 doesn't change the fact kapil struggled to convert 100s and botham didn't (an important criteria for a test match batsman), again you are ignoring it, and stop talking about 150+ scores, botham still scored a lot more bigger 100s than kapil. some batsman just aren't that good at converting, kapil was on of them. botham converted 50s to 100s 63.6% of the time, kapil only 29.6% of the time. for 75+ scores botham converted 87.5% of the time kapil only converted around 45-50% of the time, that's a massive difference. then of 100+ scores botham converted to 120 plus many more times than kapil did (and that's being nice to kapil because he only converted 1 score to over 130), botham is clearly ahead in all of those. let's create a different cut off point then, if you can do it so can i. kapil has only 1 score over 130 botham has i think 6 from memory, big difference, especially when botham has 6 more test tons than kapil and he made 5 more 130+ scores than kapil did. in other words they have a similar amount of sub 130 tons but botham many more 130+ tons. you can take the cut off point wherever you like though, botham still comes out on top. As far as 150+ scores a double is tougher to achieve than 163 is.

[gazza]

Botham was a more complete batsman.

[Muloghonto]

Botham was a more complete batsman.

Not really. He batted higher, that helps in conversion. they are lot closely matched as batters but I saw them both, kapil had much more raw talent and accomplished just as much with the bat. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[gazza]

Not really. He batted higher, that helps in conversion. they are lot closely matched as batters but I saw them both, kapil had much more raw talent and accomplished just as much with the bat. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

Botham scored 5 or 6 tons batting at 7, gilchrist scored even more, kapil especially with his strike rate and 75+ scores should have scored more tons.

[Muloghonto]

Botham scored 5 or 6 tons batting at 7' date=' gilchrist scored even more, kapil especially with his strike rate and 75+ scores should have scored more tons.[/quote'] Thats rather foolish. Scoring tons from #7 is dependant of getting support. Indias middle order n lower order often didnt provide as much support as english or aussie loeer middle orders. as I said, bothams career indices reveal that after first few years, he got found out. Especially as a bowler but also as a batsman. Pretty much only reason bothams overall stats r superior to kapils because botham beat up against a really poor india and kapil failed against new zealand. Against west indies ,kapil has 3 tons, botham zero. much lower average, too. Against australia and pakistan, they have similar records. Against an english attack, kapil averages 40 plus. Against india, botham averages 70 plus. Botham was a good allrounfer but his numbers are bloated and he has a lot of cheap runs and wickets. In order of bowling, I rate the four in this order: hadlee, imran, kapil, botham. In terms of batting, I rate them as kapil, imran, botham, hadlee. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[gazza]

Thats rather foolish. Scoring tons from #7 is dependant of getting support. Indias middle order n lower order often didnt provide as much support as english or aussie loeer middle orders. as I said, bothams career indices reveal that after first few years, he got found out. Especially as a bowler but also as a batsman. Pretty much only reason bothams overall stats r superior to kapils because botham beat up against a really poor india and kapil failed against new zealand. Against west indies ,kapil has 3 tons, botham zero. much lower average, too. Against australia and pakistan, they have similar records. Against an english attack, kapil averages 40 plus. Against india, botham averages 70 plus. Botham was a good allrounfer but his numbers are bloated and he has a lot of cheap runs and wickets. In order of bowling, I rate the four in this order: hadlee, imran, kapil, botham. In terms of batting, I rate them as kapil, imran, botham, hadlee. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

India's middle order did and perhaps more than the English.

[Muloghonto]

India's middle order did and perhaps more than the English.

No. english lower middle order was far stronger than indian lower middle order. A #7 does not benefit from a strong top order and is not encumbered by a weak one either. England dyring bothams time had a weaker top order than indias. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[gazza]

India had a strong middle order throughout kapil's career.

[rtmohanlal]

"In order of bowling, I rate the four in this order: hadlee, imran, kapil, botham. In terms of batting, I rate them as kapil, imran, botham, hadlee." same for me if both tests and one dayers are concerned. and the basic reason of my thinking of Kapil as the best batsman from what all evolved from these discussions shortens to ' Viv Richards is considered one among the all time 4 or 5 bats(includes Ken Barrington with 58+ avg:,Walter Hammond(58.45),Sangakkara(58.07) and some others with high above 50 avgs:) of all time basically because he possesed a str: rate of 69.28 despite having an avg: of only 50.23.going by same yard stick why can't Kapil from the same era as Viv, having a str: rate of +11.63 as that of Viv be better than a batsman with only +2.49 avg:, but -20 str: rate? hence for me Kapil is better than Botham'.

[rtmohanlal]

batting 6-7 doesn't change the fact kapil struggled to convert 100s and botham didn't (an important criteria for a test match batsman), again you are ignoring it, and stop talking about 150+ scores, botham still scored a lot more bigger 100s than kapil. some batsman just aren't that good at converting, kapil was on of them. botham converted 50s to 100s 63.6% of the time, kapil only 29.6% of the time. for 75+ scores botham converted 87.5% of the time kapil only converted around 45-50% of the time, that's a massive difference. then of 100+ scores botham converted to 120 plus many more times than kapil did (and that's being nice to kapil because he only converted 1 score to over 130), botham is clearly ahead in all of those. let's create a different cut off point then, if you can do it so can i. kapil has only 1 score over 130 botham has i think 6 from memory, big difference, especially when botham has 6 more test tons than kapil and he made 5 more 130+ scores than kapil did. in other words they have a similar amount of sub 130 tons but botham many more 130+ tons. you can take the cut off point wherever you like though, botham still comes out on top. As far as 150+ scores a double is tougher to achieve than 163 is.

you shall stick on with your opinion and i shall with mine's:winky:

[rtmohanlal]

Thats rather foolish. Scoring tons from #7 is dependant of getting support. Indias middle order n lower order often didnt provide as much support as english or aussie loeer middle orders. as I said, bothams career indices reveal that after first few years, he got found out. Especially as a bowler but also as a batsman. Pretty much only reason bothams overall stats r superior to kapils because botham beat up against a really poor india and kapil failed against new zealand. Against west indies ,kapil has 3 tons, botham zero. much lower average, too. Against australia and pakistan, they have similar records. Against an english attack, kapil averages 40 plus. Against india, botham averages 70 plus. Botham was a good allrounfer but his numbers are bloated and he has a lot of cheap runs and wickets. In order of bowling, I rate the four in this order: hadlee, imran, kapil, botham. In terms of batting, I rate them as kapil, imran, botham, hadlee. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

what you said w.r.t Botham's batting being boosted by his stats against India is absolutely spot on.if we go thru his year wise records 1982 was the only one where he averaged over 40, infact a very good 49.77 .and here we can see 3 100s against India. If we remove these 3 100s his avg: sinks down to normal 32.47 in 1982 itself. so i feel this Botham's peak too is overrated because apart from this year 1982(which itself is based on 3 100s against India) he is pretty normal on either side of 1982.

[gazza]

"In order of bowling, I rate the four in this order: hadlee, imran, kapil, botham. In terms of batting, I rate them as kapil, imran, botham, hadlee." same for me if both tests and one dayers are concerned. and the basic reason of my thinking of Kapil as the best batsman from what all evolved from these discussions shortens to ' Viv Richards is considered one among the all time 4 or 5 bats(includes Ken Barrington with 58+ avg:,Walter Hammond(58.45),Sangakkara(58.07) and some others with high above 50 avgs:) of all time basically because he possesed a str: rate of 69.28 despite having an avg: of only 50.23.going by same yard stick why can't Kapil from the same era as Viv, having a str: rate of +11.63 as that of Viv be better than a batsman with only +2.49 avg:, but -20 str: rate? hence for me Kapil is better than Botham'.

Because viv averaged 60 for a lot of his career and ended it at 50, kapil's average is nowhere near 50 and he never averaged 60 at any stage, that's why people rate viv and it's not only because of strike rate either.

[gazza]

what you said w.r.t Botham's batting being boosted by his stats against India is absolutely spot on.if we go thru his year wise records 1982 was the only one where he averaged over 40, infact a very good 49.77 .and here we can see 3 100s against India. If we remove these 3 100s his avg: sinks down to normal 32.47 in 1982 itself. so i feel this Botham's peak too is overrated because apart from this year 1982(which itself is based on 3 100s against India) he is pretty normal on either side of 1982.

That's just silly, makes no sense, lets remove everyone's good performances out of their records.

[rtmohanlal]

Because viv averaged 60 for a lot of his career and ended it at 50' date=' kapil's average is nowhere near 50 and he never averaged 60 at any stage, that's why people rate viv and it's not only because of strike rate either.[/quote'] yes Viv averaged 60 , but not like you said 'for a lot of his career' infact till his 45th test. in his next 76 tests he avg:ed only 43.93. if you intended a 'high 50' avg: , then also we can see that Viv was behind several batsmen at the cut of point where these batsmen finished their careers. for eg: take Len Hutton. he avg:ed 56.67 at the end of 79 tests. Viv's avg: at this stage stood at 53.56. so we can see the role of str: rate in Viv's reputation. same criteria need to be used for all rounders too in my opinion.why double standards?Kapil is to be compared with all rounders. not with specialist batsmen. .

[rtmohanlal]

That's just silly' date=' makes no sense, lets remove everyone's good performances out of their records.[/quote'] no.i just intended that Botham's peak period especially w.r.t batting is just because of a matter of 1 peak year.it is not as if Botham avged: 38(his avg: for peak period) thru out peak years. for 1 year he had great avg: . for other 3 0r 4 years of this peak period it was all normal batting. in cricketing terms, way too inconsistant for a peak period.

[gazza]

yes Viv averaged 60 , but not like you said 'for a lot of his career' infact till his 45th test. in his next 76 tests he avg:ed only 43.93. if you intended a 'high 50' avg: , then also we can see that Viv was behind several batsmen at the cut of point where these batsmen finished their careers. for eg: take Len Hutton. he avg:ed 56.67 at the end of 79 tests. Viv's avg: at this stage stood at 53.56. so we can see the role of str: rate in Viv's reputation. same criteria need to be used for all rounders too in my opinion.why double standards?Kapil is to be compared with all rounders. not with specialist batsmen. .

when comparing batting you are comparing batting regardless of being an all rounder or not. viv would have been considered a very very good batsmen even if his strike rate was much lower so again it wasn't just about his strike rate.

[gazza]

no.i just intended that Botham's peak period especially w.r.t batting is just because of a matter of 1 peak year.it is not as if Botham avged: 38(his avg: for peak period) thru out peak years. for 1 year he had great avg: . for other 3 0r 4 years of this peak period it was all normal batting. in cricketing terms, way too inconsistant for a peak period.

he was inconsistent that is true, but despite being inconsistent he consistently scored a lot of tons. in the period i mentioned where he got 11 tons he also got 9 ducks, it proves he was inconsistent but those centuries also prove how good he was and as has been said in this thread gooch was much better than his average suggests and the same can be said of botham, maybe kapil as well. anyway none of that takes away the fact that botham was considered one of the best and most dangerous batsmen going around at the time, the same was said of his bowling. kapil's batting may have been dangerous but he didn't get the big scores like botham did and thus wasn't rated as one of the best going around, same went for his bowling. kapil has always been considered very good, botham at times has been considered great.

[rtmohanlal]

when comparing batting you are comparing batting regardless of being an all rounder or not. viv would have been considered a very veyr good batsmen even if his strike rate was much lower so again it wasn't just about his strike rate.

i can't get the sense of your msg:. what do we need to do here?. compare Kapil and Botham with specialist batsmen like Viv, Sachin, Ponting etc?yes... Viv would have been considered as very very good but certainly not ' among the top 4 or 5 of all time' with out str: rate.

[rtmohanlal]

he was inconsistent that is true' date=' but despite being inconsistent he consistently scored a lot of tons. in the period i mentioned where he got 11 tons he also got 9 ducks, it proves he was inconsistent but those centuries also prove how good he was and as has been said in this thread gooch was much better than his average suggests and the same can be said of botham, maybe kapil as well. anyway none of that takes away the fact that botham was considered one of the best and most dangerous batsmen going around at the time, the same was said of his bowling. kapil's batting may have been dangerous but he didn't get the big scores like botham did and thus wasn't rated as one of the best going around, same went for his bowling. kapil has always been considered very good, botham at times has been considered great.[/quote'] each to his own