Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[TheJediBrah]

it is not delusion but a reality. Imran's avg:ed better, but it is boosted by huge percentage of notouts in far lesser inns(126: 184 in favour of Kapil).In his first 132 inns or so Kapil avg:ed almost 32.5 and put more or less same runs/inns as that of Imran.And Kapil's str: rate was almost 84 to Imran's 47.5 in his first 132 inns.From that 7nth batting position you expect your all rounder to score as much runs as possible in the company of unreliable tail enders rather than boosting your avg: by remaining not outs a lot.And Kapil was by far better in Windies, the GOAT team as a batsman. And Kapil could play some devastating high quality inns in every sense. These all adds up to make Kapil a convincingly better test batsman.If avg: alone is the criteria I would consider Ravindra Jadeja as good a batsman as Kapil because he too avg: almost 30 vs Kapil's 31 with the help of umpteen not outs , but he is far from it in reality.

Jfc why is this still a thing

I can't even comprehend the logic behind thinking that an average "boosted by not outs" is somehow worth less

 

[cnerd123]

How dare batsmen have the gall to try and not get dismissed for the entire innings

What players batting in the top 9 should do now is throw their wicket away when batting with the numbers 10/11, as to allow for a fair comparison of their batting abilities on cricket forums.

 

[_00_deathscar]

How dare batsmen have the gall to try and not get dismissed for the entire innings

What players batting in the top 9 should do now is throw their wicket away when batting with the numbers 10/11, as to allow for a fair comparison of their batting abilities on cricket forums.

Maybe that’s what the English top order has been upto? If only we could convince the lower order to follow suit..

 

[stephen]

Cleared but given a suspended one match ban. So he was cleared then?

Suck it up boy wonder was a cheat.

More of a cheat that Smith. What Tendulkar did was blatantly against the rules. All Smith did was hold a terrible press conference.

 

[rtramdas]

Jfc why is this still a thing

I can't even comprehend the logic behind thinking that an average "boosted by not outs" is somehow worth less

take R.Jadeja..... he has 12 not outs in 53 inns. That is a whopping 22.64 % share that takes his avg: to 29.17. I am 100% sure, if Jadeja in any circumstances was allowed to continue
with his not out scores till he gets out, his avg: will fall alarmingly because he has till now only proved that much as a batsman. Similar was the case with Imran who has 25 not outs in 126 inns, that is 19.84 % . Kapil in his first 132 inns( naturally he declined after that because of longevity along with additional burden of being an all rounder) had only 11 not outs despite taking all the risks. What he did was to score as much as possible for the team along with tailenders with very limited technique as his huge str: rate of 84 shows.That is what is required from a team's point of view if you are a number 7 batsman.Naturally, several scores of ' what could have been not outs there by hugely inflating averages' resulted in out scores.
For instance take Kapil's 129 vs SAF. He got 10th out. Had he not taken that higher risks towards the fag end of his inns and waited for the number 11 to get out, he could easily have remained not out and thus got his avg: hugely inflated. Similarly there are several inns of Kapil. Hope i made it clear

 

[Starfighter]

Nope, if Kapil takes fewer risks and he remains not out he scores fewer runs and so his average remains more or less the same as it was.

 

[TheJediBrah]

take R.Jadeja..... he has 12 not outs in 53 inns. That is a whopping 22.64 % share that takes his avg: to 29.17. I am 100% sure, if Jadeja in any circumstances was allowed to continue
with his not out scores till he gets out, his avg: will fall alarmingly because he has till now only proved that much as a batsman. Similar was the case with Imran who has 25 not outs in 126 inns, that is 19.84 % . Kapil in his first 132 inns( naturally he declined after that because of longevity along with additional burden of being an all rounder) had only 11 not outs despite taking all the risks. What he did was to score as much as possible for the team along with tailenders with very limited technique as his huge str: rate of 84 shows.That is what is required from a team's point of view if you are a number 7 batsman.Naturally, several scores of ' what could have been not outs there by hugely inflating averages' resulted in out scores.
For instance take Kapil's 129 vs SAF. He got 10th out. Had he not taken that higher risks towards the fag end of his inns and waited for the number 11 to get out, he could easily have remained not out and thus got his avg: hugely inflated. Similarly there are several inns of Kapil. Hope i made it clear

Nah you're wrong. If anything it's the opposite.

Being left not out means that you've had your innings cut short when you're played in and seeing the ball well, and next time you bat you have to start again.

Logic dictates, therefore, that more not outs actually potentially lowers your average than if you had the opportunity to continue your innings without interruption.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Also, for a (relatively) 'minnow' team like India back in the day, a 40* from 100 balls (approx Imran's average) in the lower order is arguably far more valuable than a 40 from 50 balls because of eating up time in a test.

This goes back to the question of what type of opener is better - the one who scores at a 40 S/R or a Sehwag who scores at 70-80 odd S/R.

The answer isn't one or the other, but it does depend on multiple factors including:
- What type of team we're talking about (a dominant force, a rising force, a middling nothing, a minnow?)
- The other opener (solid? Gets out easy?)
- Who is to follow (are they going to crash and burn like England's current middle order or hold their ground and push on?)

Statistics are great - they also need a lot of context.

 

[rtramdas]

Nope, if Kapil takes fewer risks and he remains not out he scores fewer runs and so his average remains more or less the same as it was.

A big no to it . For instance take that 129 vs SAF. 9th wkt fell when team score was 197. After that, 18 runs were scored of which last man scored a mere 2. That means baring a possible extra 1 or 2 runs Kapil scored almost 14 runs. Means if Kapil waited for the last man to have got out sooner after 9th wkt fell there by decided to remain not out , he would have scored a mere 14 runs less , but a whopping
115 runs gets added to his aggregate inflating his average hugely. Like wise several inns.

 

[Starfighter]

Read TJB's comment and start again please.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Read TJB's comment and start again please.

Miyagi would be proud

 

[rtramdas]

Nah you're wrong. If anything it's the opposite.

Being left not out means that you've had your innings cut short when you're played in and seeing the ball well, and next time you bat you have to start again.

Logic dictates, therefore, that more not outs actually potentially lowers your average than if you had the opportunity to continue your innings without interruption.

Would brief this with another example, that of Sachin-Lara. I consider Sachin as a better over all bataman of the 2. But I have no doubt in my mind that in building mammoth scores when every thing favours him, Lara was a level or 2 above Sachin in general.Based on this belief , I am filtering out both batsmen's 100+ scores.

inns not outs runs avg:
Sachin 51 16 7435 212.42
Lara 34 2 5889 184.03

Based on the above data Sachin avg:s more with 212.42 : 184.03 with the help of 16 not outs to Lara's 2. As per your logic, I need to consider Sachin as the better mammoth inns player, which I simply
cannot despite having the added temptation of Sachin being an Indian . This is because Sachin's avg: is inflated by such high number of not outs and my sense of logic just can't simply accept that verdict. My stance is that if Sachin was allowed to continue with all but 2 of his not out scores, he would have scored a fair share of runs more, but would have ended with a level or 2 lesser avg: when compared to Lara.This because elements of getting tired thru the inns,getting a good ball any time etc etc all comes into play.If this is the case with such a legendary batsman Sachin(one dimensional only), do you expect me to happen the reverse with an allrounder(multi dimensional and hence lot more sooner chance of getting wear and tear & far lesser accomplished batsman) ??????? No.... I simply
can't.

 

[cnerd123]

I remember reading these arguments on PlanetCricket in 2006

The more things change, the more they stay the same

 

[jimmy101]

I think the real question here is why does Afghanistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than both Pakistan and India?

 

[TheJediBrah]

The only situation where you can consider not outs helping a player's average is if he keeps ending up not out at a time when he would usually get out soon anyway.

So if a player usually makes 30 then gets out for some reason, and gets a lot of scores of 25* then you could logically argue that it helped his average. But most people have a better chance of getting from 20 to 40 than they do getting 0-20, hence why ending up not out on 20+ is not helpful for their average.

 

[rtramdas]

The only situation where you can consider not outs helping a player's average is if he keeps ending up not out at a time when he would usually get out soon anyway.

So if a player usually makes 30 then gets out for some reason, and gets a lot of scores of 25* then you could logically argue that it helped his average. But most people have a better chance of getting from 20 to 40 than they do getting 0-20, hence why ending up not out on 20+ is not helpful for their average.

then as per your logic a great batsman like Sachin should have more >100 scores when compared to 50-100 scores.But he got out 68 times in between 50-100 when compared to
only 51 >100 scores...why??????? Not only with Sachin, almost every great batsmen has this same trend.Why?????????????

 

[TheJediBrah]

then as per your logic a great batsman like Sachin should have more >100 scores when compared to 50-100 scores.But he got out 68 times in between 50-100 when compared to
only 51 >100 scores...why??????? Not only with Sachin, almost every great batsmen has this same trend.Why?????????????

Not really sure how relevant that is tbh. You might have a point if you had to finish your innings at 100 but you don't. You can keep going and make 150, 200+.

 

[rtramdas]

Not really sure how relevant that is tbh. You might have a point if you had to finish your innings at 100 but you don't. You can keep going and make 150, 200+.

why not relevant ??????? you yourself is saying that a player has a better chance of getting 20-40 when compared to 0-20. This same logic applies to 50-100 & 100-200 too .Simple.But most batsmen gets out lot more in 50-100 range rather than in '100- 200 or more' range. If your logic is true , then '100- 200 or more' range should have more sample size when compared to '50-100' range for every great batsman.
But even for a batsman like Sachin with huge conversion rate it is the reverse. Almost all other premier batsmen have much lesser conversion rates .Why why why ?????????

 

[TheJediBrah]

why not relevant ??????? you yourself is saying that a player has a better chance of getting 20-40 when compared to 0-20. This same logic applies to 50-100 & 100-200 too

No it doesn't. It's a completely different circumstance and that's why I used 20-40 and not 50-100 as an example

 

[CricAddict]

why not relevant ??????? you yourself is saying that a player has a better chance of getting 20-40 when compared to 0-20. This same logic applies to 50-100 & 100-200 too .Simple.But most batsmen gets out lot more in 50-100 range rather than in '100- 200 or more' range. If your logic is true , then '100- 200 or more' range should have more sample size when compared to '50-100' range for every great batsman.
But even for a batsman like Sachin with huge conversion rate it is the reverse. Almost all other premier batsmen have much lesser conversion rates .Why why why ?????????

Can you please have just a single question mark at the end of a sentence in your posts?