Do SC Pacers Deserve More Credit For Home Performances?

[Sunil1z]

Away doesn't matter and is irrelevant (Subz) and we are giving Asian bowlers bonus points, even when many are worse outside Asia. Same thought process. And a 50 run averaging batsman roughly equals a 25 or so averaging bowler (generally there are other factors).

I am not against giving bonus points . But you can’t give Elgar a 5 points boost for being a home bully iirc. At max it should be 1-2

 

[subshakerz]

And similarly. SENA batsmen should have their averages adjusted upwards at home since they're at a disadvantage at home vs pace.

Depends on the country. That maybe applies in SA where conditions are way more pace friendly. Not so much Australia.

I don't know why you are so hung up on average adjustment. It basically just a roundabout way of saying certain runs and wickets are more valuable based on the conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

I am not against giving bonus points . But you can’t give Elgar a 5 points boost for being a home bully iirc. At max it should be 1-2

Yeah nobody is calling for huge average boosts here.

 

[Xix2565]

Brains getting fried here lol.

 

[Slifer]

You're overcomplicating this. We only resort to questioning overall averages in a country if we feel that conditions are outside a point where the player is then a strategic disadvantage or advantage in those conditions and therefore the average is unrepresentative. We don't do this for most countries and even if we question the overall average, we explicitly or implicitly have some measure we think they deviated by and its usually not very high.

Not we but you Subz. Using Asia in general as an example, I'm not convinced that fast bowlers in general have done significantly worst there than say somewhere like Australia.

I used the examples of the myriad of test series WI played vs Pakistan home and away vs the WI. You harped on Faislabad and how hard fast bowling was in Pakistan in the 70s and 80s (Lillee comment) but I showed that over the course of 5 series: 3 in Pakistan and 2 in the WI, that fast bowlers did much better in Pakistan than they did in WI. You said I cherry picked, no I stated facts.

And how do you met out bonus points for Asian bowlers who do well at home, but not do the same for foreign bowlers who do well in Asia. Might as well do the same for Lance Gibbs and Warne etc. Where does it end?

 

[Slifer]

I am not against giving bonus points . But you can’t give Elgar a 5 points boost for being a home bully iirc. At max it should be 1-2

Wait, why are we even talking about Dean Elgar? Let's do someone worth a damn instead. Like say: Greame Smith. I never had a dog in the fight when comparing him other openers, but maybe he deserves extra points, as do Gary Kirsten etc. Where do we stop with giving people bonuses?

 

[subshakerz]

Not we but you Subz. Using Asia in general as an example, I'm not convinced that fast bowlers in general have done significantly worst there than say somewhere like Australia.

Home fast bowlers surely have which again is the point.

And how do you met out bonus points for Asian bowlers who do well at home, but not do the same for foreign bowlers who do well in Asia. Might as well do the same for Lance Gibbs and Warne etc. Where does it end?

We've covered this. Foreign fast bowlers are already given special credit for doing well here by all in CW. That is the entire thrust behind Marshall and all being rated so highly rather than just in Aus and Eng. This discrepancy is that home pacers aren't given that credit for a much lengthier run of success there.

 

[Slifer]

Home fast bowlers surely have which again is the point.


We've covered this. Foreign fast bowlers are already given special credit for doing well here by all in CW. That is the entire thrust behind Marshall and all being rated so highly rather than just in Aus and Eng. This discrepancy is that home pacers aren't given that credit for a much lengthier run of success there.

Ok so to what end this:

Imran
Wasim
Waqar
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose
Donald
Lillee

??????

 

[subshakerz]

Wait, why are we even talking about Dean Elgar? Let's do someone worth a damn instead. Like say: Greame Smith. I never had a dog in the fight when comparing him other openers, but maybe he deserves extra points, as do Gary Kirsten etc. Where do we stop with giving people bonuses?

Here, let me assist you.

Sure, we could do slight average adjustment for SA bats. But it is almost unnecessary because there is already a common consensus in CW that their runs and averages at home need to be seen with special lens as conditions are especially tough. Kallis averaging 56 at home is seen by everyone here as worth its weight in gold and it is the number one point in his favor in comparisons.

However, we don't see the same luxury given to SC home pacers to that level. Hence something like average adjustment is a sort of correction to inherent biases among members here who frequently overlook/downplay the degree of their home challenges.

Hope that helps.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok so to what end this:

Imran
Wasim
Waqar
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose
Donald
Lillee

??????

Nobody is saying that SC home record is an auto win that overlooks holes in records. But against close comparisons where the overall records are in near parity it should definitely come into play, similar to Kallis vs Dravid. The only reason you would resist that is you have already made up your mind and don't want to reconsider.

 

[Slifer]

Home fast bowlers surely have which again is the point.


We've covered this. Foreign fast bowlers are already given special credit for doing well here by all in CW. That is the entire thrust behind Marshall and all being rated so highly rather than just in Aus and Eng. This discrepancy is that home pacers aren't given that credit for a much lengthier run of success there.

Yeah we elevate Marshall in terms of his reputation but we don't actually suggest that we lower his overall average. And Marshall played more than a quarter of his tests in Asia. Doing that presents a problem for example Walsh vs Ambrose. Walsh was outstanding in Asia and lowering his average puts him below the likes of Lilllee. I keep saying there are other factors to consider.

You can't just lower Asian bowlers in isolation. You'd have to do the same to all other cricketers in a similarly disadvantaged circumstances. Examples spinners from WI, NZ, RSA, openers in Eng/RSA, etc. Where does it stop? My take is, that you don't start in the first place. You can maybe elevate a status but lopping off stats like that...nope.

 

[Slifer]

Nobody is saying that SC home record is an auto win that overlooks holes in records. But against close comparisons where the overall records are in near parity it should definitely come into play, similar to Kallis vs Dravid. The only reason you would resist that is you have already made up your mind and don't want to reconsider.

The only bowlers I'd definitively rate above Imran are Hadlee, Marshall and McGrath. What's there to reconsider???

 

[subshakerz]

The only bowlers I'd definitively rate above Imran are Hadlee, Marshall and McGrath. What's there to reconsider???

That's fine and I agree actually. But it applies to all SC pacers.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah we elevate Marshall in terms of his reputation but we don't actually suggest that we lower his overall average. And Marshall played more than a quarter of his tests in Asia. Doing that presents a problem for example Walsh vs Ambrose. Walsh was outstanding in Asia and lowering his average puts him below the likes of Lilllee. I keep saying there are other factors to consider.

Again, we don't need to adjust their averages since they are already given sufficient credit for SC achievements and it's not a big portion of their career anyways.

You can't just lower Asian bowlers in isolation. You'd have to do the same to all other cricketers in a similarly disadvantaged circumstances. Examples spinners from WI, NZ, RSA, openers in Eng/RSA, etc. Where does it stop? My take is, that you don't start in the first place. You can maybe elevate a status but lopping off stats like that...nope.

Yeah but I am in favor of doing that for others too, including those who benefit from flat pitches. If you don't want to go as far as adjust averages, at least we declare that the person is better or worse than his average shows.

 

[Slifer]

Again, we don't need to adjust their averages since they are already given sufficient credit for SC achievements and it's not a big portion of their career anyways.


Yeah but I am in favor of doing that for others too, including those who benefit from flat pitches. If you don't want to go as far as adjust averages, at least we declare that the person is better or worse than his average shows.

We already do that. We do that with Viv, Sachin, Lara, Hell even Dev imo etc. We elevate relative to their average. And we lower players like Yousuff, Weekes, Walcott, Rabada, Philander, etc.

 

[Line and Length]

Yeah we elevate Marshall in terms of his reputation but we don't actually suggest that we lower his overall average. And Marshall played more than a quarter of his tests in Asia. Doing that presents a problem for example Walsh vs Ambrose. Walsh was outstanding in Asia and lowering his average puts him below the likes of Lilllee. I keep saying there are other factors to consider.

You can't just lower Asian bowlers in isolation. You'd have to do the same to all other cricketers in a similarly disadvantaged circumstances. Examples spinners from WI, NZ, RSA, openers in Eng/RSA, etc. Where does it stop? My take is, that you don't start in the first place. You can maybe elevate a status but lopping off stats like that...nope.

Well put, Cricket followers look beyond pure stats when assessing players. They are aware of conditions played under etc and take these things into consideration.
Artificial adjustments of averages is a futile and flawed exercise that is purely a hypothetical exercise. Discussions such as this simply go round in circles with too many 'What ifs' than proven facts.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Brains getting fried here lol.

This is why nerds that obsess over stats are ****ing dumb and peer perception is usually actually a better way to judge players

Insane when you think that some IT consultant that's obsessed with cricket but played at best the equivalent of park D grade cricket will post on here with the assumption they know better than professionals. You see it on here every day

 

[Slifer]

That's fine and I agree actually. But it applies to all SC pacers.

Remember when I said not all WI wickets are pace friendly. Is it fair to say we can do the same with Asian wickets ie some (likely most) are unfavorable to pace but every now and then one gets a green top. I say because reaching back into my little brain, I distinctly remember the 3rd test WI vs India in 1994 (don't remember the venue) and the wicket was anything but flat. It had bounce and carry as poor Prabhakar found out in the 2nd innings. Then there's the Kandy test for WI in SL in 2001, another pacey wicket from my recollection. There's more but I'll stop here for now.

 

[Bolo.]

You act like they were reversing it after 10 overs. It was 60 plus overs before they could tap into it.

It's not like Imran and Wasim were one note reverse swingers either, they were terrific with the new ball as well. And there is zero doubt that it's much easier with the new ball in anywhere other than Pakistan.

I don't see the point of downplaying that one set of conditions is simply more difficult for pacers.

Big doubt on 60+ overs. I can't claim any actual knowledge on this, but the first match report that shows up in Google had a 60 over innings in which Imran took 8 with reverse. Ball must have started reversing around 35.

I agree that new ball was tougher there than elsewhere. But there are more overs of reverse, and it is easier.

I'm happy to say it was harder for them if there's a good explanation for home away relative to other ATGs. And it needs to be better than random. That's million to one type odds.

 

[subshakerz]

We already do that. We do that with Viv, Sachin, Lara, Hell even Dev imo etc. We elevate relative to their average. And we lower players like Yousuff, Weekes, Walcott, Rabada, Philander, etc.

Yeah our point is that we don't do that for SC pacers at home. At least not to a degree we do for others.

Well put, Cricket followers look beyond pure stats when assessing players. They are aware of conditions played under etc and take these things into consideration.
Artificial adjustments of averages is a futile and flawed exercise that is purely a hypothetical exercise. Discussions such as this simply go round in circles with too many 'What ifs' than proven facts.

The only reason I broached the idea of average adjustment is because those on the opposing say they already give SC pacers credit at home yet practically don't really state what this credit entails, so giving a 1-2 boost makes it much more real and I don't think it's something radical.