Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[cnerd123]

Every run is identical, cricket is played entirely by numbers in a vacuum and context is meaningless. Bust out your cacluators folks, we're in for a ride.

 

[cnerd123]

Special prizes on offer to whoever demonstrates the best extrapolation from a small out of context sample size to reach the most ridiculous conclusions

 

[jimmy101]

***** gets it. Stats suck.

 

[cnerd123]

The only statistical manhandling I approve of is Andy Zaltsman's. The man is a legend.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Every run is identical, cricket is played entirely by numbers in a vacuum and context is meaningless. Bust out your cacluators folks, we're in for a ride.

I took the liberty of calculating some of Tendulkar's stats that rtamdas was so keen on using and they actually do still support the logic for 50-100.

After reaching 100, Tendulkar averaged 74 extra runs per innings. Hence showing that not outs between 50-100 (for him at least) still do not help the average.

For it to support rtamdas view regarding not outs supporting averages, using Tendulkar's 50/100 ratio (68/51) then an average of under 33 after 100 would have been needed. Clearly 74 > 33.

 

[jimmy101]

Not outs only serve to invalidate batting averages. They're mathematical outliers, end of story.

 

[Borges]

Not outs only serve to invalidate batting averages. They're mathematical outliers, end of story.

Right, of course.

But please do not even contemplate making it the end of this particular story. Please do keep going on and on and on and on about it.

 

[jimmy101]

I'd only be repeating what ***** said tbh.

 

[vcs]

How do people not tire of this "not outs inflating averages" discussion.

 

[jimmy101]

"Statistics can be used to prove anything. 14% of all people know that."

- Homer J. Simpson.

 

[jimmy101]

We all know the cricinfo journos scavenge their ideas from this forum. I've got an inkling that this article was inspired by this thread:

 

[marc71178]

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).

Flipping it round, in spite of batting higher up the order on average then Kapil, Imran remained not out more often then Kapil, thus suggesting that he was harder to dismiss and ergo the better batsman.

 

[Starfighter]

Don't you understand Marc? It's all about strike rates. It's all about that six-hitting ability. A strike rate of 58 is just useless. No one cares if a batsman's hard to dismiss.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Don't you understand Marc? It's all about strike rates. It's all about that six-hitting ability. A strike rate of 58 is just useless. No one cares if a batsman's hard to dismiss.

And Kapil Scored more actual runs per innings than Imran the bowling allrounder.

Strike rate is there, six hitting ability is there, atg performances are there.. Above all He scored Actual Runs.

 

[rtramdas]

Flipping it round, in spite of batting higher up the order on average then Kapil, Imran remained not out more often then Kapil, thus suggesting that he was harder to dismiss and ergo the better batsman.

ohhh yes ...just because he remained not out in 25 of 126 inns , then we can say that it was harder to dismiss.....For me it was just that as his str: rate of 47.52 suggests, he only took far lesser risk and hence ended up having such high number of not outs. My firm opinion is that had Imran continued with all those not outs and eventually ended up with only 11 not outs( just like Kapil in his first 132 inns) he would have avg:ed at most 35.5 . And of course in the process he would have increased his runs/inns value by a bit ( otherwise both of them have more or less the same runs/ inns value) for which I fully provide extra marks to Imran too. But Kapil's huge str: rate of 84, his quality of big inns on the avg: when various factors are taken into account, his performance in WI(the best team of their times) make Kapil another level batsman to Imran

Kapil's 2 best inns of 129 vs SAF & 100* in Windies would make even great batsmen like Sachin & Gavaskar humbled considering the circumstances and adversities associated with those inns .

On a side note, we can also conclude that Ravindra Jadeja would have avg:ed much higher than his actual 29 had he gone on and on with all his umpteen not out scores.Isn't it? Nooo ..... I just can't because I have went thru the practical notions a lot .As per this, if Jadeja continued he would have ended with far lesser avg:
than his 29 avg: as of now

 

[Starfighter]

Knew it
Knew it
Knew it
Knew it
Knew it

 

[the big bambino]

Expect to be seeing ban announcement thread appearing in my unread posts list soon.

 

[cnerd123]

My firm opinion is that had Imran continued with all those not outs and eventually ended up with only 11 not outs( just like Kapil in his first 132 inns) he would have avg:ed at most 35.5

It's my firm opinion he would have ended with an average of 55.5

Therefore you are wrong

 

[trundler]

It's my firm opinion he would have ended with an average of 55.5

Therefore you are wrong

Your face is wrong and that's my firm opinion.

 

[rtramdas]

It's my firm opinion he would have ended with an average of 55.5

Therefore you are wrong

ok ...you are entitled to your opinion. Also I would assume that it is ok for you too to estimate a chronic ball tamperor in the same regard as you once used to , despite him being severely exposed from various quarters.