Do SC Pacers Deserve More Credit For Home Performances?

[Bolo.]

I don't see how their away performance makes any difference. If conditions are tougher at home, then them adapting or suffering for it is independent of that fact and they deserve extra credit regardless.

If they are worse away, are conditions tougher for them at home?

 

[subshakerz]

If they are worse away, are conditions tougher for them at home?

Yes conditions are objectively tougher. The fact that they adapt so well inspite of tough conditions to be effective means they deserve more credit, not less.

 

[ankitj]

Indeed. And this is the funniest part:


Literally every Asian batsman's record is considered close to worthless here unless they make runs outside Asia.

Yeah. Sehwag, Yousuf, Jayawardene all have reputations much inferior to their batting averages because of their SENA records.

 

[subshakerz]

Let me be bold enough to say, given the high proportion of tests played in SC conditions, SC pacers deserve a 1-2 point decrease in their bowling averages across the board to reflect their real standing. And I am serious.

 

[Coronis]

Let me be bold enough to say, given the high proportion of tests played in SC conditions, SC pacers deserve a 1-2 point decrease in their bowling averages across the board to reflect their real standing. And I am serious.

Of course you are

 

[Xix2565]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but @subshakerz is right. SENAW frauds get bent smh.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Let me be bold enough to say, given the high proportion of tests played in SC conditions, SC pacers deserve a 1-2 point decrease in their bowling averages across the board to reflect their real standing. And I am serious.

How much point increase should SENA batsmen get?

 

[OverratedSanity]

If they are worse away, are conditions tougher for them at home?

Wouldn't that be too much of a results based approach where you work backwards from the outcome to then decide how difficult the conditions were?

Most people agree Asian pitches (in general, not all of them) have less bounce, less seam movement, the ball doesn't swing in the air as much as in places like England and the SG/kookaburra doesn't swing for as long. All things that make life slightly more difficult as a pacer. Obviously I agree if they suck abroad, that shouldn't be ignored. But that doesn't suddenly make their home conditions any easier. In isolation, they simply are (marginally) more difficult.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes conditions are objectively tougher. The fact that they adapt so well inspite of tough conditions to be effective means they deserve more credit, not less.

Conditions can be both tougher for pace overall and easier for a particular type of pace. Do you think Waqar would have done as well at home if he was from Aus?

 

[subshakerz]

How much point increase should SENA batsmen get?

None. It's the SC bats who get a decrease unless they score in SENA. SENA averages are considered the norm.

 

[Xix2565]

Like look at how pacers benefit from conditions: bounce of the pitch, pace/carry off the surface (how much pace is lost) and seam movement. Swing movement benefits are more indirect, where balls being preserved by grass allows more swing/seam in general and reverse swing coming into the game when conditions rough up the ball a lot more.

I mean you could use these things to judge how good a pacer is based on how well they do when they don't get a lot of these benefits from conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

Conditions can be both tougher for pace overall and easier for a particular type of pace. Do you think Waqar would have done as well at home if he was from Aus?

You're missing the point. Waqars entire game was built on adapting to objectively tougher conditions. It takes a particular form of brilliance to achieve that, it's not a normal thing. It's not qualitatively the same with Rabada on greentops in SA.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I think Shoaib should have a few points decrease in his average for sure

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think his comments shows how deep this anti-SC pacer bias is ingrained as they are literally the only category of cricketers not benefitting from contextualising.

Yeah it's true. SA batsmen (Kallis mainly) always get extra credit for doing well at home, it's acknowledged McGrath in the 2000s and Cummins until a few years ago having great records on Australian pitches was a terrific achievement, Lyon gets extra points compared to Ashwin/Jadeja for doing well on home pitches that dont aid spin, Steyn/Marshall get a lot of kudos for their crazy spells in Asia. And rightly so, by the way.

But when it comes to Asian seam bowlers in Asia, suddenly it's "OMG CAN OF WORMS". Bro, there's only one worm left in the can, the others are all out already.

 

[subshakerz]

Let's take Mohd Shami. The guy is regularly outbowling foreign pacers at home on the same spin friendly pitches. Is his 27 overall average really reflective of that brilliance? He is definitely a guy who deserves a slash in his averages.

 

[Bolo.]

Wouldn't that be too much of a results based approach where you work backwards from the outcome to then decide how difficult the conditions were?

Most people agree Asian pitches (in general, not all of them) have less bounce, less seam movement, the ball doesn't swing in the air as much as in places like England and the SG/kookaburra doesn't swing for as long. All things that make life slightly more difficult as a pacer. Obviously I agree if they suck abroad, that shouldn't be ignored. But that doesn't suddenly make their home conditions any easier. In isolation, they simply are (marginally) more difficult.

I'm acknowledging this kind of stuff in my OP. I just think it's only part of the picture. Pace and bounce help pretty much everyone, but that aside, advantages vary by country and ground.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Babar Azam averages 33 after my average adjustments

 

[subshakerz]

I'm acknowledging this kind of stuff in my OP. I just think it's only part of the picture. Pace and bounce help pretty much everyone, but that aside, advantages vary by country and ground.

Yeah so why is it controversial to say a pacer who has to bowl half his career on low bounce pitches is at a strategic disadvantage?

 

[Bolo.]

You're missing the point. Waqars entire game was built on adapting to objectively tougher conditions. It takes a particular form of brilliance to achieve that, it's not a normal thing. It's not qualitatively the same with Rabada on greentops in SA.

Do you think Pak was objectively tougher for a short, skiddy (R)swing bowler than Aus?

Pace is not a monolith. Different skills work to differing extents in different places. We draw the distinction between pace and spin. It is less notable for styles of pace, but still present.

 

[subshakerz]

Wouldn't that be too much of a results based approach where you work backwards from the outcome to then decide how difficult the conditions were?

Most people agree Asian pitches (in general, not all of them) have less bounce, less seam movement, the ball doesn't swing in the air as much as in places like England and the SG/kookaburra doesn't swing for as long. All things that make life slightly more difficult as a pacer. Obviously I agree if they suck abroad, that shouldn't be ignored. But that doesn't suddenly make their home conditions any easier. In isolation, they simply are (marginally) more difficult.

Yes pretty much this. And the problem is that almost all posters will acknowledge this, yet then in practice will compare Kapil's round average with Bothams by the same standards and simply ignore the extra effort and skill it took Kapil to achieve those home figures.