Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[Starfighter]

Hmm.. Far superior.. May be.. Kapil not Imran.
Imran
88 tests 126 innings
3807 runs, HS 136, 6 x 100, 18 x 50, 40plus SR
Kapil
First 88 tests 126 innings
3668 runs, HS 163 , 5 x100, 21 x 50, 80 plus SR
First 70 tests
Imran 101 innings
2770 runs, HS 135 N.O, 4 x 100, 11 x 50, 40 plus SR
Kapil 105 innings
2914 runs, HS 126 N.O, 3 X 100, 16 x 50, 80 plus SR
Nothing seperates them much except for Kapil's freaky strike rate and Imrans low strike rate.
For that alone, we can say Kapil is better and more capable batsman.. I wont say far superior.. But better.
Other facts
Kapil batted lower in the order.
Kapil has more ATG performances.
Kapil was more capable of performing with bat and ball simultaneously.
Kapil's stats are not skewed.
He could have batted in 65 strike rate (higher in the order.. may be) and average 40, he didn't care.. Ability was there.. So in that sense, he was a far superior batsman.

You can't chop up a player's career like that. Include all of Kapil's innings and compare averages (which you have conveniently left out) or don't do anything at all. Your 'could'a-would'a' assertions about Dev have nothing more than your emotions behind them. Both Kapil's batting and bowling stats are just as skewed as Imran's home and away as Imran's, so unless you're using a different measure of skewness that I've never seen used on here I don't know what you mean or where you're getting this fact from. And stop this strike rate fetishisation, faster scoring is not necessarily more valuable.

In Wasim Akram's opinion, Kapil was a 7000 runs type batsman than 5000 type considering his ability. ESPN LEGENDS.
No one is going to say Imran could have scored 500 runs more for his ability. Just saying.

Cricketers value flash over substance. There's nothing in Kapil's record at either test or first class level to suggest he could've scored more than what he did. Wasim Akram can say what he wants but that doesn't make it true.

I have a strong feeling that if Kapil was not from your own country you wouldn't be making this argument.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You can't chop up a player's career like that. Include all of Kapil's innings and compare averages (which you have conveniently left out) or don't do anything at all. Your 'could'a-would'a' assertions about Dev have nothing more than your emotions behind them. Both Kapil's batting and bowling stats are just as skewed as Imran's home and away as Imran's, so unless you're using a different measure of skewness that I've never seen used on here I don't know what you mean or where you're getting this fact from. And stop this strike rate fetishisation, faster scoring is not necessarily more valuable.


Cricketers value flash over substance. There's nothing in Kapil's record at either test or first class level to suggest he could've scored more than what he did. Wasim Akram can say what he wants but that doesn't make it true.

I have a strong feeling that if Kapil was not from your own country you wouldn't be making this argument.

I dont think there is any big difference between Kapil's first 88 test bat stats and entire career bat stats. I took 88 tests just to compare with Imran's career, which makes the comparison simple and easy to understand.
Everybody knows Imran's avg is much better than Kapil's, and it is the basic reason behind Imran better bat myth. Why should i state the obvious.

Ok, Imran's first 70 tests is basically 80% of his career, Kapil scored more runs in same number of tests and with almost double strike rate. Also Kapil proved multiple times that he can dominate ATG bowling attacks, we can not say same thing about Imran.
Strike Rate is not necessarily the indication of better batsman, but its important to an extent when the difference is almost 100% and the batsmen in discussion is capable of scoring a 50 or more in every 5 outings.

Is there any reason other than not out boosted avg to suggest Imran better bat than Kapil? Please explain.

I found it strange, a batsman rated lesser due to his extra ordinary strike rate. It should be the opposite.

Imran scored less runs in same number of matches, but he did it slower.. So he is better.
Wait.. What?

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're trying way too hard. Kapil was a great player but not as good as you are trying to claim.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Also, I am not comparing Imran the batsman to Kapil the batsman.

Comparison is between bat stats of Kapil the bowling allrounder and Imran the bowling allrounder.

Imran was not the same cricketer throughout the career.
When he was better bat he was lesser bowler.
You can not combine different phases and say he was good enough to avg mid 30s with bat low 20s with ball while taking 4 plus wickets per test.

 

[trundler]

Also I do not buy for one second that Imran was striking in the 40s. He was a pretty aggressive batsman, not as much of a hitter as Kapil but no way was he that slow. If I'm not wrong all 4 of them scored pretty quickly.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You're trying way too hard. Kapil was a great player but not as good as you are trying to claim.

He was good enough to avg 30 plus at 80 plus strike rate. Just check his stats.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Also I do not buy for one second that Imran was striking in the 40s. He was a pretty aggressive batsman, not as much of a hitter as Kapil but no way was he that slow. If I'm not wrong all 4 of them scored pretty quickly.

I dont know the exact strike rates, but Imran 40 plus and Kapil 80 plus are the stats i remember from various articles and discussions.
Just checked cricbuzz
Imran around 58 and Kapil around 95.. I dont know if it is correct, even then the point still stands.

 

[trundler]

It really doesn't though. Imran wasn't a slow scorer and he scored more so it's a moot point.

 

[smash84]

yeah, 40 SR for Imran sounds very slow. I don't remember him being too slow compared to his peers.

Imran averages 36.33 with the bat and 18.74 with the ball from 1979-1989 compared to Kapil who has 31.96 with the bat and 29.44 with the ball in the same period.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Imran the bowling allrounder, which you are trying to compare, is just much better than Kapil.

 

[Starfighter]

I dont think there is any big difference between Kapil's first 88 test bat stats and entire career bat stats. I took 88 tests just to compare with Imran's career, which makes the comparison simple and easy to understand.

It's not a great way of doing though, you omit other factors such as age and career progression and so on. Imran in the early seventies is not the same Imran that was Pakistan's best player, and your cutting Imran's career to include a large proportion of this in your weird, pointless 70 test analysis includes a larger proportion of this part of his career. If you took his last 70 tests he'd average 10 more than Kapil did over the same part of his career. I don't know where you were going with that 'analysis' except a desperate attempt to prove a point.

Why should i state the obvious.

Cause you haven't provided much evidence to back your assertion that Kapi's better. It's only obvious to you.

Ok, Imran's first 70 tests is basically 80% of his career, Kapil scored more runs in same number of tests and with almost double strike rate.See above. Also Kapil proved multiple times that he can dominate ATG bowling attacks, we can not say same thing about Imran.

He scored some centuries against pretty spiffy bowling attacks such as Clarke, Croft, Garner and Marshall in 1980. That's good enough for me. Plus where are you getting your strike rate information from, afaik balls faced information for Imran is not complete and in a quick search I found one source saying Imran struck at 57.7, which is not exceptional but not slow and certainly not half Dev's 80.5

Strike Rate is not necessarily the indication of better batsman, but its important to an extent when the difference is almost 100% and the batsmen in discussion is capable of scoring a 50 or more in every 5 outings.

See above. And strike rate is not that important unless you are the sort who thinks David Warne's better than Len Hutton. It's test cricket, haste is rarely necessary.

Is there any reason other than not out boosted avg to suggest Imran better bat than Kapil? Please explain.

You do know that remaining not out means foregoing runs you could otherwise have scored. It may boost your average a little but it depresses your RpI. Average is the accepted measure of batting though so we'll stick with that.

I found it strange, a batsman rated lesser due to his extra ordinary strike rate. It should be the opposite.

Firstly if you weren't intellectually dishonest you'll see that I never said that a high strike rate should be rated less, I merely said it shouldn't be rated higher.

Imran scored less runs in same number of matches, but he did it slower.. So he is better.
Wait.. What?

Imran only did worse if you chop up his career in a way that disadvantages him and use non-standard measures. Stop feeling the need to twist things to boost one of your own countrymen, you don't see me saying Lillee is better than Marshall here even though Lillee's from my country.

 

[srbhkshk]

Imran only did worse if you chop up his career in a way that disadvantages him and use non-standard measures. Stop feeling the need to twist things to boost one of your own countrymen, you don't see me saying Lillee is better than Marshall here even though Lillee's from my country.

AFAIK he argues for Procter and Akram is the same manner so this is a bit uncalled for.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

yeah, 40 SR for Imran sounds very slow. I don't remember him being too slow compared to his peers.

Imran averages 36.33 with the bat and 18.74 with the ball from 1979-1989 compared to Kapil who has 31.96 with the bat and 29.44 with the ball in the same period.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Imran the bowling allrounder, which you are trying to compare, is just much better than Kapil.

I am not comparing them as bowling allrounders.
I am saying Kapil was better batsman when Imran was better bowler. Despite Imran's higher avg.

 

[Starfighter]

Imran was not the same cricketer throughout the career.
When he was better bat he was lesser bowler.

If we use your seventy test measure and take Imran's last seventy tests that he averages 42.66 with the bat and 20.18 with the ball. Both of those are better. So clearly his batting and bowling periods did have some substantial co-incidence.

 

[Starfighter]

I am not comparing them as bowling allrounders.
I am saying Kapil was better batsman when Imran was better bowler. Despite Imran's higher avg.

Ahem, you said:

Kapil better batsman than Imran.

That's pretty unequivocal and unambiguous.

 

[Starfighter]

AFAIK he argues for Procter and Akram is the same manner so this is a bit uncalled for.

In fairness, I didn't see that. I'm probably be a bit out of line there. But there's certainly some strong emotional undercurrent.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I took 70 tests just randomly,
But i checked now, last 18 tests he took just 51 wickets.
Last 17 tests 40 wickets. Whoa.

Kapil was same at any point of his career. A very good bowler who can avg 30 plus at 80 plus strike rate. (except for normal decline period)

But its not the case with Imran. You will never get an Imran who is Atg pacer + better bat than kapil. At any point of his career.

Average is pointless if it is not converting to runs. Imrans runs tally is not matching with his average.
Nobody worries about actual runs scored and the way it was scored.

Imran is arguably greatest Asian cricketer ever.. Clearly superior to Kapil. There is no argument there.
Just Imran was not a better batsman than Kapil when he was better bowler.

Did SJS ever address this issue? What was his opinion?

Have to leave now. Will come back later.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

AFAIK he argues for Procter and Akram is the same manner so this is a bit uncalled for.

I will do the same for Imran if someone under rates him.

 

[trundler]

I took 70 tests just randomly,
But i checked now, last 18 tests he took just 51 wickets.
Last 17 tests 40 wickets. Whoa.

Kapil was same at any point of his career. A very good bowler who can avg 30 plus at 80 plus strike rate. (except for normal decline period)

But its not the case with Imran. You will never get an Imran who is Atg pacer + better bat than kapil. At any point of his career.

Average is pointless if it is not converting to runs. Imrans runs tally is not matching with his average.
Nobody worries about actual runs scored and the way it was scored.

Imran is arguably greatest Asian cricketer ever.. Clearly superior to Kapil. There is no argument there.
Just Imran was not a better batsman than Kapil when he was better bowler.

Did SJS ever address this issue? What was his opinion?

Have to leave now. Will come back later.

You do have a point about Khan's batting and bowling peaks not coinciding but at his best he was a top 10 of all time bowler and a good enough batsman. He did complete the double of ton and ten-for so not like he was a **** bat. Khan really took off after his first 23 tests IIRC.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just reviewing their stats really reminds you just how good Imran and Kapil were both as all-rounders and cricketers/leaders.

Imran averaged 10 more with the bat than he did with the ball. I don't think we've had any all-rounders that good this millenium, except maybe Kallis but he didn't bowl that much.

 

[trundler]

Just reviewing their stats really reminds you just how good Imran and Kapil were both as all-rounders and cricketers/leaders.

Imran averaged 10 more with the bat than he did with the ball. I don't think we've had any all-rounders that good this millenium, except maybe Kallis but he didn't bowl that much.

Easier to have a bigger average difference if you're a batting all rounder IMO. You're right though the millennium is young.