Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[marc71178]

Thats just batting not overall (kapil vs imran)

Miller vs Kapil i was not serious

So, you're still serious about the Imran vs Kapil thing?

 

[the big bambino]

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.

The more tests you play the more wickets you take and runs you score. Simples.

The wpm thing is dealt with in a subsequent post

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

I'm certain that the standard is much higher, but I wouldn't be surprised if it plateaus out. It's an inevitable result of the massive increase in financial rewards for players, technology and training.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm certain that the standard is much higher, but I wouldn't be surprised if it plateaus out. It's an inevitable result of the massive increase in financial rewards for players, technology and training.

In what way is the standard higher though? Are batsmen better at playing swing, seam and spin bowling in tests than, say 2000 or 1975 even? Are bowlers better at bowling it? To me the answer is a resounding no​.

 

[R!TTER]

In what way is the standard higher though? Are batsmen better at playing swing, seam and spin bowling in tests than, say 2000 or 1975 even? Are bowlers better at bowling it? To me the answer is a resounding no​.

You'd also have to take into account DRS, I'm guessing in the olden days batters could afford to leave more balls or pad up because of home umpires & of course no DRS. Those guys would avg probably 5 to 10 less with the current regime, assuming they'd have no helmets or extra protective gear.

 

[the big bambino]

You'd also have to take into account DRS, I'm guessing in the olden days batters could afford to leave more balls or pad up because of home umpires & of course no DRS. Those guys would avg probably 5 to 10 less with the current regime, assuming they'd have no helmets or extra protective gear.

This could be true. As one example I think a bowler like Doug Wright would have benefitted appreciably. There was a series where the Australian batsmen didn't appear to see his faster, straight ball but were seemingly protected by the umpires from lbw appeals. Supposedly the ball would have skipped over the stumps. How he would have loved to test the on field decisions with the DRS.

 

[Starfighter]

You'd also have to take into account DRS, I'm guessing in the olden days batters could afford to leave more balls or pad up because of home umpires & of course no DRS. Those guys would avg probably 5 to 10 less with the current regime, assuming they'd have no helmets or extra protective gear.

Do you seriously think the difference would be that large? I highly doubt it, and it's unfair to transfer one thing back and not transfer lack of helmets etc. forward to modern players. Justin Langer's test career might only have lasted one ball had his judgement of the short ball been combined with a lack of a helmet.

 

[jimmy101]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned, but the change to the LBW introduced in the late 60's would certainly have an effect on bowling (and bowling tactics).

Also, the size of the ball was reduced in 1927, and the size of the stumps increased in 1931. Two more factors that would surely come into play.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do you seriously think the difference would be that large? I highly doubt it, and it's unfair to transfer one thing back and not transfer lack of helmets etc. forward to modern players. Justin Langer's test career might only have lasted one ball had his judgement of the short ball been combined with a lack of a helmet.

I'm doubtful that DRS does a thing as far as giving anyone an advantage compared to without it. It just makes the right decision happen waaaaaay more often than it would without it, whether it is out or not out.

 

[jimmy101]

IMO DRS doesn't give either side an advantage as TJB said, but it most certainly effects players' tactical decisions. Eg: A batsman may very well be less likely to pad up (offer no shot) to a ball than they would have been prior to the introduction of DRS.

 

[Starfighter]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned, but the change to the LBW introduced in the late 60's would certainly have an effect on bowling (and bowling tactics).

Also, the size of the ball was reduced in 1927, and the size of the stumps increased in 1931. Two more factors that would surely come into play.

It should be mentioned that the ball was in fact originally increased in size sometime around 1890-1900 from smaller to larger than the modern size which as you say was established in '27. Don Bradman said in the art of cricket that he felt that the larger ball may have moved more in the air and maybe it's not coincidental that swing bowling really emerged around 1900, also in concert with, I think even more importantly, the second new ball at 200 runs. There's also the original change in the LBW law in 1935 to consider etc.

I'm doubtful that DRS does a thing as far as giving anyone an advantage compared to without it. It just makes the right decision happen waaaaaay more often than it would without it, whether it is out or not out.

That's what I think too.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

For the naked eyes, todays fielding looks much much better than the past. At least.

 

[jimmy101]

Fielding, and the attitude towards it, is one facet of cricket that has undoubtedly evolved & improved.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

So, you're still serious about the Imran vs Kapil thing?

Imran better cricketer and better bowler
Kapil better batsman and fielder.
There shouldn't be any doubt actually.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kapil wasn't a better batsman though. He was a more aggressive batsman.

 

[Starfighter]

Fielding, and the attitude towards it, is one facet of cricket that has undoubtedly evolved & improved.

That's pretty indisputable.

Imran better cricketer and better bowler
Kapil better batsman and fielder.
There shouldn't be any doubt actually.

'Cept Kapil ain't a better batsmen.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

If we are taking Indian Odi team of 90s as example,
We had only one match winning batsman. Sachin Tendulkar.

If we are chasing 300 plus,
Dravid and Ganguly clearly incapable of scoring in required rate. No matter whether they are in form or not.
Azhar and Jadeja were better attacking batsmen but not that reliable and lacked consistency.
In form Robin Singh can contribute 20 or 25 runs maximum.
So the destiny was dependent on one batsman. Sachin.
For Sri Lanka it was Jayasurya and De silva.
But, today each and every batsman capable of winning matches alone. More competitive. Isnt it?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Kapil wasn't a better batsman though. He was a more aggressive batsman.

Runs per Innings almost same
One scored much much faster.. And was capable of ATG performances against top quality attacks including greatest ever bowling attack in the history.

Still he is not better among the two. Great.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That's pretty indisputable.


'Cept Kapil ain't a better batsmen.

First 80% of the career
Imran better bowler
Kapil better bat

Last 20 %
Imran better bat
Kapil better bowler

Overall
Kapil better bat
Imran better bowler

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think a healthy proportion of what you've said there is correct.