The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[OverratedSanity]

Lmao why on earth is lesser percentage of lbw a good thing?

 

[Logan]

So why do we even try (I personally don't - apart from Bradman, I barely consider any pre-50s/60s players in my all time XIs)?

1. Cricket hasn’t changed that much. At least statistically. The mean batting and bowling averages have pretty much been the same in the last 100 years.

2. There is also a psychological aspect. It is impossible to ignore Don Bradman. So obviously cricket fans would love to know more about the cricket in the first fifty years of last decade.

3. Generally speaking, most ATG teams have pre-1950 cricketers in two positions : The openers and Don Bradman.

It is literally impossible to ignore the likes of Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hutton in an ATG team. In the future if we have an opener averaging 50+ and brilliant in all conditions, maybe we would pick them and those three would be slowly forgotten. Unfortunately since Hutton retired, there has been only one opening batsman in the same caliber as those three.

 

[honestbharani]

Lmao why on earth is lesser percentage of lbw a good thing?

I am assuming due to dodgy home umpires till neutral umpires became a thing in the mid 90s.

 

[Prince EWS]

I am assuming due to dodgy home umpires till neutral umpires became a thing in the mid 90s.

Yeah it's fair enough but anyone who watched both bowl would definitely expect Wasim to have a much higher percentage of lbws anyway. I'm sure he has a higher percentage of bowleds too and that's because he attacked the stumps more.

 

[Logan]

Lmao why on earth is lesser percentage of lbw a good thing?

Pakistan umpires have an alleged reputation to be notoriously biased towards their countrymen.

In Pakistan, Miandad was lbw eight times in 73 dismissals. Outside Pakistan, 25 times in 95.

 

[honestbharani]

@ PEWS: yeah, I agree with you. Just pointing out why I thought Logan might be interested in that stat in this comparison.

 

[Coronis]

You could also argue that during Wasim’s career, he had arguably the worst fielding side, and in Donald’s he had arguably the best, if discussing percentages of dismissal types.

 

[Prince EWS]

You could also argue that during Wasim’s career, he had arguably the worst fielding side, and in Donald’s he had arguably the best, if discussing percentages of dismissal types.

Pakistani conditions lend themselves a lot more to lbws with than South Africa too, umpiring aside.

I think it's fair enough that say Wasim might've benefited from dodgy umpiring, but I don't think lbw percentage is a good way to show it given how many other perfectly legit factors obviously would've increased it as well.

 

[Logan]

Yeah it's fair enough but anyone who watched both bowl would definitely expect Wasim to have a much higher percentage of lbws anyway. I'm sure he has a higher percentage of bowleds too and that's because he attacked the stumps more.

Percentage of LBWs

Waqar : 30%

Akram : 29%

Imran : 22%

Garner : 22%

Marshall : 20%

McGrath : 20%

Hadlee : 19%

Steyn : 15%

Ambrose : 13%

Donald : 12%


P. S : Aaqib Jawad : 28%

 

[Prince EWS]

>"I believe that dodgy home umpriing was a real phenomenon, but don't think lbw percentage is a very meaningful stat to demonstrate that for individual bowlers"

>"Here are a bunch of lbw percentages"

Ok Logan.

 

[Logan]

The bowlers with the highest percentage of LBWs in ODIs(Minimum : 30 wickets)

Rashid Khan : 36%

Mohammad Hafeez : 30%

Abdur Razzak : 28%

 

[jimmy101]

So obviously cricket fans would love to know more about the cricket in the first fifty years of last decade.

Back when timeless Tests really were timeless...

 

[Logan]

>"I believe that dodgy home umpriing was a real phenomenon, but don't think lbw percentage is a very meaningful stat to demonstrate that for individual bowlers"

>"Here are a bunch of lbw percentages"

Ok Logan.

Pakistan is notorious for their umpiring bias.

The three ATGs Akram, Waqar and Imran have a higher percentage of LBWs than other ATGs.

Even someone like Aaqib Javed’s percentage of LBW is way too high.

It is hard to ignore the coincidences

 

[NUFAN]

Its almost as though the Pakistan quicks mastered reverse swinging yorkers..

 

[Daemon]

lol, apparently conditions don't matter.

 

[honestbharani]

Logan, you are taking a very tedious approach to making a point hat most here already seem to agree with. I think the Pak ATG fast bowlers of that era did benefit from dodgy home umpiring but LBW percentages alone cannot be used to determine its extent.

 

[harsh.ag]

If your slip cordon keeps dropping catches, your LBW% is bound to go up

 

[Logan]

Logan, you are taking a very tedious approach to making a point hat most here already seem to agree with. I think the Pak ATG fast bowlers of that era did benefit from dodgy home umpiring but LBW percentages alone cannot be used to determine its extent.

Not saying that LBW alone matter but those high percentages of LBWs add more speculation to their alleged biased umpiring

 

[honestbharani]

Not saying that LBW alone matter but those high percentages of LBWs add more speculation to their alleged biased umpiring

At best, it is like a symptom. But you also have to understand SC skiddy bowlers are always going to attack the stumps more. That factors in equally, if not more, than just dodgy umpiring.

 

[TheJediBrah]

>"I believe that dodgy home umpriing was a real phenomenon, but don't think lbw percentage is a very meaningful stat to demonstrate that for individual bowlers"

>"Here are a bunch of lbw percentages"

Ok Logan.

I'm actually with Logan on this one. Just because lbw percentages aren't a definitive stat to determine biased home umpiring, doesn't mean that it is meaningless as a stat to look into it. IMO deciding that these Pakistan bowlers having unusually high lbw percentages is due purely to factors other than home umpiring is a bigger assumption than the other way around*

*not saying that anyone here is doing that, but I don't get why everyone is jumping down Logan's throat as if he's claiming that these lbw stats are purely definitive proof of biased umpiring and not at all due to other factors, which from what I can tell he isn't