Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[Starfighter]

Might I add, I have a lot of respect for Kapil. He did indeed play for a very long time, and was amazingly consistent during the large part of his career. He pretty much resurrected pace bowling in India, and his springy bowling action is always entertaining to watch. He played some brilliant knocks some in adverse situations and some against great bowling attacks, and was one of the most aggressive and dynamic test batsmen known. He took India to world cup they were't expected to win against a team they seemed ill-equipped to beat. And unlike too many Australian greats he doesn't come across as massive prick. I'd prefer watching him over any of India's batting greats. Yet when I view his career as a whole, I doesn't stack up to say Imran or Miller. Maybe he had a higher ceiling than what we saw and he just hit it infrequently, like Stuart Broad, but I don't rank him up with the bowling greats either. As a bowler his overall figures a merely good rather than great, and unlike Zaheer he was worse away than at home so the tough conditions excuse doesn't wash. Sure he could play entertaining knocks but he wasn't a genuine middle order batsmen like Miller. Batting and bowling combined he was a great player, but he wasn't on the level of others individually. Sometimes you just have to be realistic about what a player achieved, but by all means treasure the good moments.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Might I add, I have a lot of respect for Kapil. He did indeed play for a very long time, and was amazingly consistent during the large part of his career. He pretty much resurrected pace bowling in India, and his springy bowling action is always entertaining to watch. He played some brilliant knocks some in adverse situations and some against great bowling attacks, and was one of the most aggressive and dynamic test batsmen known. He took India to world cup they were't expected to win against a team they seemed ill-equipped to beat. And unlike too many Australian greats he doesn't come across as massive prick. I'd prefer watching him over any of India's batting greats. Yet when I view his career as a whole, I doesn't stack up to say Imran or Miller. Maybe he had a higher ceiling than what we saw and he just hit it infrequently, like Stuart Broad, but I don't rank him up with the bowling greats either. As a bowler his overall figures a merely good rather than great, and unlike Zaheer he was worse away than at home so the tough conditions excuse doesn't wash. Sure he could play entertaining knocks but he wasn't a genuine middle order batsmen like Miller. Batting and bowling combined he was a great player, but he wasn't on the level of others individually. Sometimes you just have to be realistic about what a player achieved, but by all means treasure the good moments.

Fine.
I never said Kapil was better than Miller and Imran.

 

[Starfighter]

Fine.
I never said Kapil was better than Miller and Imran.

Hmm..

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.

Kapil better batsman than Imran.

Better odi batsman not test

Better in both

Comparing Imran's whole career bat stats to any other bowling allrounder's is pointless and unfair to them.

In this case

Kapil and Imran's career first 80%
Kapil better bat, Imran better bowler

Last 20%
Kapil better bowler, Imran better bat

You can not have it both ways.
When you are selecting Imran for an alltime 11.

Even for whole career, Kapil is better bat for me. Negligible difference in runs per match, huge difference in strike rate.

Whats bothering me most is, People thinks Imran was 37 avg (which itself is skewed) type batsman and premium atg bowler at same time. No he was not.

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.

I dunno about that.

 

[the big bambino]

I don't know why the desperation to make Kapil's case. Its not like anyone doubts his greatness. I rate him higher than most on this thread (irrespective of some of the things I've said to be provocative here) and would definitely start him in this mythical Asian XI. Great player. No brainer. His legacy doesn't need advocacy.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Is Borges the new *****

 

[cnerd123]

Everything is not equal yet.
I use it as a tie breaker, because i belive game is getting more and more competitive as more people interested in it.

If you're going to use a time machine and pull players straight out of history, then ofcourse modern players a better. More knowledge, better coaching techniques, more competition, more fitness. Plus they play under fairly different rules and with modern day equipment. Plus no doubt the older era players are going to be unsettled by the whole experience of time-travelling, that could severely affect their cricket.

What we tend to discuss is the inherent talent, personality and psychology of a player - take this person as a young player, bring them into modern times, let them develop their game here so they have all the modern advantages too. This is how there strong cases to be made for the best players of the early eras, even back to the day where the game was essentially played by just two nations. We're talking the elite of the elite - the very best in the world at that time. It's not a far jump to assume that they may have been amongst the best in the world in a more competitive, developed era too.

Without this unspoken agreement, any cricketer from, like, 50 years ago is immediately out of the conversation basically. The game evolves so fast.

 

[the big bambino]

If you're going to use a time machine and pull players straight out of history, then ofcourse modern players a better. More knowledge, better coaching techniques, more competition, more fitness. Plus they play under fairly different rules and with modern day equipment. Plus no doubt the older era players are going to be unsettled by the whole experience of time-travelling, that could severely affect their cricket.

What we tend to discuss is the inherent talent, personality and psychology of a player - take this person as a young player, bring them into modern times, let them develop their game here so they have all the modern advantages too. This is how there strong cases to be made for the best players of the early eras, even back to the day where the game was essentially played by just two nations. We're talking the elite of the elite - the very best in the world at that time. It's not a far jump to assume that they may have been amongst the best in the world in a more competitive, developed era too.

Without this unspoken agreement, any cricketer from, like, 50 years ago is immediately out of the conversation basically. The game evolves so fast.

You could also reverse the argument. recast a modern player's birth date so that he plays in an earlier era and he will play to the standard of that era. He wont play like he does now. Think about it in your personal case. Lets say we were born in 1900. we would have lived exactly the same lives as the people did then, presuming we didn't die of a disease for which a cure has been subsequently found. We wouldn't have brought any modern advantage back with us to make our lives more exceptional than anyone else's.

 

[jimmy101]

If you're going to use a time machine and pull players straight out of history, then ofcourse modern players a better. More knowledge, better coaching techniques, more competition, more fitness. Plus they play under fairly different rules and with modern day equipment. Plus no doubt the older era players are going to be unsettled by the whole experience of time-travelling, that could severely affect their cricket.

What we tend to discuss is the inherent talent, personality and psychology of a player - take this person as a young player, bring them into modern times, let them develop their game here so they have all the modern advantages too. This is how there strong cases to be made for the best players of the early eras, even back to the day where the game was essentially played by just two nations. We're talking the elite of the elite - the very best in the world at that time. It's not a far jump to assume that they may have been amongst the best in the world in a more competitive, developed era too.

Without this unspoken agreement, any cricketer from, like, 50 years ago is immediately out of the conversation basically. The game evolves so fast.

I have always imagined this to be the case as well. By the same token you could take a modern player & teleport them backwards. Remove their protective gear, chunky bats, and get them playing on a sticky dog wicket against the finest bowlers of the day & I'm sure you'd see some crazy results!

 

[jimmy101]

Lol Bambino and I just made the same case.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think it's getting more competitive. As I said in another thread, the gap between team batting home and away is the largest it's ever been. Increasingly few players have the technique to be able to grind out a draw when needed. Bowlers may come out with plenty of tricks for T20s but have a very hard time competing without favourable conditions and I'd say swing bowling skill is about the lowest it's been after WWII except maybe the early 2000s (generally, not talking about individuals like Anderson) thanks to the Kookaburra ball. And most bowling attacks that are brilliant at home manage to be rubbish overseas.

I don't think you guys are using the same definition of competitive. He means the standard is getting higher, not that match results are closer.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hmm..











I dunno about that.

Thats just batting not overall (kapil vs imran)

Miller vs Kapil i was not serious

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think you guys are using the same definition of competitive. He means the standard is getting higher, not that match results are closer.

Frankly I'm unconvinced that the standard is getting higher either. The wide disparity in match results is imo an indication of a decline in batting standards particularly with respect to defence, and the inability to play certain types of bowling.

 

[cnerd123]

Frankly I'm unconvinced that the standard is getting higher either. The wide disparity in match results is imo an indication of a decline in batting standards particularly with respect to defence, and the inability to play certain types of bowling.

On the surface, more people playing cricket (which is certainly the case now than compared to the 1940s or the 1880s or whatever) = more competition for a spot on the National team.

But that does not take into account stuff like a higher % of casual/social players (especially with the advent of limited overs cricket) and increased number of teams/leagues (diluting the quality)

 

[Shadowplayer]

A class player then would still be a class player now, probably more so, batsmen didn't have helmets back then either and they were still facing bowlers at 85mph. They played on uncovered wickets too not the pampered roads you tend to get these days. I'd love to see Kohli facing Larwood doing Bodyline bowling, just see what he averages then!

 

[Migara]

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.

Kapil in his last dozen of games was a supporting bowler too. People of Karnataka were protesting at one time for selecting an under performing Kapil over Javagal Srinath, just to get his world record.

 

[Borges]

Woo, we are back to Kapil very great vs Kapil truly horrible once again.

I like it! Hopefully, the other stalwarts too would now jump right back in and resume this edifying debate.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Kapil in his last dozen of games was a supporting bowler too. People of Karnataka were protesting at one time for selecting an under performing Kapil over Javagal Srinath, just to get his world record.

I think he was still good enough to get the selection. 2 wpm at 30 aprx avg. + mid 30s with bat.
And the selection is based on expectations and probability. You can not write off an atg player that soon.

Kapil's is a normal decline, Imran case is different/strange . In Imran's case, combining stats of that phase with rest of the career gives you a false impression about his allround abilities.
Nothing to do with peak or decline.

 

[_00_deathscar]

A class player then would still be a class player now, probably more so, batsmen didn't have helmets back then either and they were still facing bowlers at 85mph. They played on uncovered wickets too not the pampered roads you tend to get these days. I'd love to see Kohli facing Larwood doing Bodyline bowling, just see what he averages then!

Are we allowing Kohli to develop from scratch as a youngster in the era or just throwing him in there?
Former - he'd be fine, as he's fine right now.
Latter - he'd likely struggle. Or he may just hook Larwood for six and confuse the **** out of Larwood. How do you think a bowler from then would take to some of the aggressive batting of today? It's a very moot point.

 

[Shadowplayer]

Are we allowing Kohli to develop from scratch as a youngster in the era or just throwing him in there?
Former - he'd be fine, as he's fine right now.
Latter - he'd likely struggle. Or he may just hook Larwood for six and confuse the **** out of Larwood. How do you think a bowler from then would take to some of the aggressive batting of today? It's a very moot point.

I'm talking about today's batsmen being thrown back in then, with no helmets, uncovered pitches and same equipment. Hook him for six you say?, yeah without a helmet I think he'd probably **** hit pants!, Viv Richards on the other hand could probably cope admirably.

 

[marc71178]

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.

The fewer Tests argument doesn't really make a difference to his actual tally of 170 wickets in 55 matches, which is only a fraction over 3 per match.