Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Clearly you don't know me if that's what you think I think about Imran.

I said people.
Thats the general perception. Not intended on you.
I think..
1. Imran was not good for 37 avg
2. In his batting peak, he was just a supporting bowler.

In isolation, you can take his overall batting stats to rate Imran the batsman.
But you can not combine it with his bowling stats and present him as a cricketer who was capable of 35 bat avg while being atg pacer. Never happened.

 

[Bolo]

I said people.
Thats the general perception. Not intended on you.
I think..
1. Imran was not good for 37 avg
2. In his batting peak, he was just a supporting bowler.

In isolation, you can take his overall batting stats to rate Imran the batsman.
But you can not combine it with his bowling stats and present him as a cricketer who was capable of 35 bat avg while being atg pacer. Never happened.

If you want to slice it up by period, Imran 80-85. 42 with the bat, 16 with the ball, over 5wpm.

Alternatively, Imran career stats.

 

[the big bambino]

Not this century.

I was responding to the bowling batting differential rather than the millennium comment. Miller being even more unique amongst all rounders in that he managed to maintain both his batting and bowling at the same time, whereas many others usually lose effectiveness in one discipline when excelling in the other.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I thought you meant Colin Miller and were just overrating his batting a tad

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

If you want to slice it up by period, Imran 80-85. 42 with the bat, 16 with the ball, over 5wpm.

Alternatively, Imran career stats.

80-85 Imran 29 tests
1260 runs, 42avg, 123HS
2 x 100, 7 x 50
Runs per Innings 34

Kapil 50 tests between 82 and 87
2305 runs, 36 avg, 163 HS
4 x 100, 14 x 50
Runs per Innings 33

Changes nothing.

 

[Starfighter]

80-85 Imran 29 tests
1260 runs, 42avg, 123HS
2 x 100, 7 x 50
Runs per Innings 34

Kapil 50 tests between 82 and 87
2305 runs, 36 avg, 163 HS
4 x 100, 14 x 50
Runs per Innings 33

Changes nothing.

Oh, so you're abandoning the point that Bolo just rebutted and are trying to relate it to an earlier (also disproven) point instead? Make up your mind which argument you are trying to pursue here.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Oh, so you're abandoning the point that Bolo just rebutted and are trying to relate it to an earlier (also disproven) point instead? Make up your mind which argument you are trying to pursue here.

No. I meant he was not that good overall. If you are going by peaks, that too just 29 tests and 5 years, you will see many players with far better stats than their overall career.
8 years or 10 years peaks can be taken seriously, because it's almost entire career for most players.
There is a reason for excluding last 17 tests of Imran when comparing with another bowling allrounder. He was a different cricketer in that phase. Including those 17 tests, over rates him as a batsman and devalues his bowling stats. It works both ways. Its not about peak period stats.

 

[Starfighter]

No. I meant he was not that good overall. If you are going by peaks, that too just 29 tests and 5 years, you will see many players with far better stats than their overall career.
8 years or 10 years peaks can be taken seriously, because it's almost entire career for most players.
There is a reason for excluding last 17 tests of Imran when comparing with another bowling allrounder. He was a different cricketer in that phase. Including those 17 tests, over rates him as a batsman and devalues his bowling stats. It works both ways. Its not about peak period stats.

'Cept that's not what Bolo was replying to. You said:

I said people.
Thats the general perception. Not intended on you.
I think..
1. Imran was not good for 37 avg
2. In his batting peak, he was just a supporting bowler.

In isolation, you can take his overall batting stats to rate Imran the batsman.
But you can not combine it with his bowling stats and present him as a cricketer who was capable of 35 bat avg while being atg pacer. Never happened.

And he quite neatly rebutted that.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

'Cept that's not what Bolo was replying to. You said:


And he quite neatly rebutted that.

Oh.. That "never happened"
Sorry. But i didn't mean it like that.

Genuine 35 avg bat + atg pacer. Never happened.

 

[Starfighter]

Oh.. That "never happened"
Sorry. But i didn't mean it like that.

Genuine 35 avg bat + atg pacer. Never happened.

Except it did. If you want to ignore the statistics that are a hell of a lot more objectively true than your ramblings that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the truth.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Except it did. If you want to ignore the statistics that are a hell of a lot more objectively true than your ramblings that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the truth.

Technically, Andy Gantueme averaged 100 plus in his entire career.

Imrans runs tally (even with specialist batsman phase) not good for 37 avg.
Just like Miller's wicket tally.

 

[Starfighter]

Technically, Andy Gantueme averaged 100 plus in his entire career.

Imrans runs tally (even with specialist batsman phase) not good for 37 avg.
Just like Miller's wicket tally.

Imran's tally is perfectly fine for where he batted. Batting lower in the order provides fewer opportunities for big run scoring innings but has the compensation of greater not outs. Plus you've changed the point you were arguing from:

Genuine 35 avg bat + atg pacer. Never happened.

to

Imrans runs tally (even with specialist batsman phase) not good for 37 avg.

Perhaps choose a point and stick with it.

 

[the big bambino]

Technically, Andy Gantueme averaged 100 plus in his entire career.

Imrans runs tally (even with specialist batsman phase) not good for 37 avg.
Just like Miller's wicket tally.

Look I haven’t really been following your inanities and justifications but there’s nothing wrong with Millers wicket tally. You are just taking advantage of the fact there were fewer tests in his day and he lost six years to the war on top of that. Kapil is not a better player simply bcos he had more matches. He just had more opportunities to show his inferiority.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Imran's tally is perfectly fine for where he batted. Batting lower in the order provides fewer opportunities for big run scoring innings but has the compensation of greater not outs. Plus you've changed the point you were arguing from:



to



Perhaps choose a point and stick with it.

My points
1. Imran's avg is skewed.
Just compare with Kapil. Runs per innings difference is small, avg difference is huge.
2. Imran the bowling allrounder was a lesser batsman than Imran the specialist batsman. Combining these 2 phases will give you a cricketer who never existed.
3. He batted in top 6 for 20% of the career.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Look I haven’t really been following your inanities and justifications but there’s nothing wrong with Millers wicket tally. You are just taking advantage of the fact there were fewer tests in his day and he lost six years to the war on top of that. Kapil is not a better player simply bcos he had more matches. He just had more opportunities to show his inferiority.

Miller is not an ATG bowler. His avg is fine. But 3 wpm is far from ATG league.

Nothing to do with Kapil.

 

[Starfighter]

Look I haven’t really been following your inanities and justifications but there’s nothing wrong with Millers wicket tally. You are just taking advantage of the fact there were fewer tests in his day and he lost six years to the war on top of that. Kapil is not a better player simply bcos he had more matches. He just had more opportunities to show his inferiority.

I like this way of putting it. The crux of my belief that longevity is not that an important a trait, because doing something at a certain level for a long period doesn't make you as good or better than someone who did something at a higher level for a shorter period.

 

[harsh.ag]

I like this way of putting it. The crux of my belief that longevity is not that an important a trait, because doing something at a certain level for a long period doesn't make you as good or better than someone who did something at a higher level for a shorter period.

Of course it does, given a significant difference. Most people have at least a short peak in their lives, and this isn't just about sportsmen.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I like this way of putting it. The crux of my belief that longevity is not that an important a trait, because doing something at a certain level for a long period doesn't make you as good or better than someone who did something at a higher level for a shorter period.

I didn't like it. Kapil is one of the alltime greatest cricketer , and the comment lacked that respect.

 

[Starfighter]

I didn't like it. Kapil is one of the alltime greatest cricketer , and the comment lacked that respect.

Who cares?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Who cares?

Fine.
Longevity doesn't matter.

After 55 tests
Kapil took 45 wickets more than Miller
Miller scored 1649 runs more than Kapil. But he played 16 innings more.

Miller played for a great team in favorable conditions.
Kapil played for a weak team in tough conditions.

Also Modern Era players deserves to be rated higher if everything else is equal.

This Reply is exclusively for Starfighter.