Do SC Pacers Deserve More Credit For Home Performances?

[subshakerz]

.
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.

I think we can agree it was harder for them at home and then evaluate their flaws away separately. Otherwise it's like saying that Kallis' achievements at home should be neutralised by him doing poorly in England. It's a bit unfair even tho I early on used to do that.

 

[Daemon]

I’m with subz until the bit where he tries to quantify it as a 1-2 average point drop across the board.

If you play half your games at home, you’re adjusting that home average down by 4 points if you say the overall average is dropping by 2 (using very simplistic assumptions). That’s huge.

I don’t think applying a blanket adjustment in your head like that is the way to go about it. It just needs to be appreciated more and taken into account like we do with other factors. Which as this thread shows it probably won’t but all you can do is put it out there I guess.

 

[Bolo.]

I think we can agree it was harder for them at home and then evaluate their flaws away separately. Otherwise it's like saying that Kallis' achievements at home should be neutralised by him doing poorly in England. It's a bit unfair even tho I early on used to do that.

Na, we can't agree it was harder for them at home. Their records suggest the opposite. Home record by itself. Home/away split. Home/away split in relation to bowlers of similar quality. These all suggest they had it easier at home than most of the 'pace friendly' countries. Reverse in Pakistan just seemed to be a much more effective weapon than seam in Aus/WI, and swing (or whatever worked best) in NZ.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I’m with subz until the bit where he tries to quantify it as a 1-2 average point drop across the board.

If you play half your games at home, you’re adjusting that home average down by 4 points if you say the overall average is dropping by 2 (using very simplistic assumptions). That’s huge.

I don’t think applying a blanket adjustment in your head like that is the way to go about it. It just needs to be appreciated more and taken into account like we do with other factors. Which as this thread shows it probably won’t but all you can do is put it out there I guess.

Basically anytime a term like "average adjustment" gets thrown around is when a discussion loses all credibility IMO

 

[centurymaker]

Pak really missed out from beating Aus then. They played in Chappells and Lillee's last series and then next was 90 when Aus cricket was back in order.

Pakistan had a chance in 1978/79 series when the main Australian team was playing in the World Series of Cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

Basically anytime a term like "average adjustment" gets thrown around is when a discussion loses all credibility IMO

Lol I mean when I suggested it I knew I would get pushback but as long as we agree that SC home averages aren't representative then it's fine with me.

I’m with subz until the bit where he tries to quantify it as a 1-2 average point drop across the board.

If you play half your games at home, you’re adjusting that home average down by 4 points if you say the overall average is dropping by 2 (using very simplistic assumptions). That’s huge.

I don’t think applying a blanket adjustment in your head like that is the way to go about it. It just needs to be appreciated more and taken into account like we do with other factors. Which as this thread shows it probably won’t but all you can do is put it out there I guess.

Yeah that's a fair point. I likely should have just specified the adjustment to home averages in particular than overall averages. If there is another way to get the same message across I am open.

 

[subshakerz]

Na, we can't agree it was harder for them at home. Their records suggest the opposite. Home record by itself. Home/away split. Home/away split in relation to bowlers of similar quality. These all suggest they had it easier at home than most of the 'pace friendly' countries. Reverse in Pakistan just seemed to be a much more effective weapon than seam in Aus/WI, and swing (or whatever worked best) in NZ.

As has been mentioned, using only results and then working backward to assume how easy or difficult conditions were is a shady method of analysis.

Your method of using away records to overtake home ones seem unfairly punitive towards the effort SC pacers have to put to adapt at home. Strangely you don't seem to apply that with Kallis at home vs in England

And just because a weapon like reverse is more effective (debatable) doesn't mean the conditions to achieve success are easier.

 

[centurymaker]

No , it isn’t. Anderson was once averaging 35. But after consistent hardwork he has brought his bowling average down to 26 . Similarly had Kapil played in England has home venue , he definitely would have brought his average down to 30 .

Predicting what a players home record would be in an away country based on how they did there away is very dumb.

You need a sample size of like at least 50 to do that.

The bias against SC fast bowlers has always been around here. PFK had it right when he rated Akram as the greatest fast bowler of all time, there are no good arguments against him being one but he isn't even considered for the top tier.

.

 

[Bolo.]

As has been mentioned, using only results and then working backward to assume how easy or difficult conditions were is a shady method of analysis.

Your method of using away records to overtake home ones seem unfairly punitive towards the effort SC pacers have to put to adapt at home. Strangely you don't seem to apply that with Kallis at home vs in England

And just because a weapon like reverse is more effective (debatable) doesn't mean the conditions to achieve success are easier.

I agree that using results and working backwards can be dodgy. Ignoring results is a shadier method of analysis though. That's how you end up rating players on style rather than quality. This is the least dodgy kind of working backwards there is. 3 comparable players with similar results and big samples. Control variables in the form of away. And many control variables in the form of other ATGs. Too much data to ignore.

I respect the effort the Pak bowlers have made to 'adapt' at home. I also respect the effort made by Anderson and Philander. They all found favourable aspects of home conditions and abused them. The examples aren't equivalent- there is a lot more to work with than a niche skill in RSA/Eng. But Pak bowlers are not unique in finding a niche.

Reverse was more effective for the Pak bowlers. They have better home records in what are otherwise otherwise less favourable conditions in relation to bowlers of comparable quality. I think a big part of this was the amount of time they could reverse for- new ball movement doesn't last long.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree that using results and working backwards can be dodgy. Ignoring results is a shadier method of analysis though. That's how you end up rating players on style rather than quality. This is the least dodgy kind of working backwards there is. 3 comparable players with similar results and big samples. Control variables in the form of away. And many control variables in the form of other ATGs. Too much data to ignore.

We don't need to see results. We have literally visited these grounds, seen pitch reports and watched the games our entire time as cricket fans to attest that these aren't pace friendly pitches in general and requires a battle to achieve success.

I respect the effort the Pak bowlers have made to 'adapt' at home. I also respect the effort made by Anderson and Philander. They all found favourable aspects of home conditions and abused them. The examples aren't equivalent- there is a lot more to work with than a niche skill in RSA/Eng. But Pak bowlers are not unique in finding a niche.

Pak bowlers were literally pioneers. But it's just objectively more effort and skill required to succeed at reverse, whether it's keeping sufficient pace in often humid weather or taking care of the shine of the ball, on dead pitches in Pak than you need for Anderson and Philander, not this 'same same' narrative you are peddling. Just easier to be a successful pacer in England or SA where the new ball is often a swing bowlers dream, overcast conditions and you have pace and carry off the pitch. Pacers are much more likely to be a threat every stage of the game than in Pak. Not remotely comparable at all.

Also, for every 'reverse-friendly' abrasive Pak wicket there is an absolute pancake where all swing and threat is completely neutralised regardless of any bowling skill.

Reverse was more effective for the Pak bowlers. They have better home records in what are otherwise otherwise less favourable conditions in relation to bowlers of comparable quality. I think a big part of this was the amount of time they could reverse for- new ball movement doesn't last long.

Again, that effectiveness at home itself is a monumental achievement objectively requiring more effort than in SENAW. It's not qualitatively the same as Philander or Rabada averaging 19 in SA and all we are asking is that this be recognized.

And you keep reducing Pak bowlers at home to just reverse swingers when they took plenty with the new ball too.

 

[Daemon]

I respect the effort the Pak bowlers have made to 'adapt' at home. I also respect the effort made by Anderson and Philander. They all found favourable aspects of home conditions and abused them. The examples aren't equivalent- there is a lot more to work with than a niche skill in RSA/Eng. But Pak bowlers are not unique in finding a niche.

Reverse was more effective for the Pak bowlers. They have better home records in what are otherwise otherwise less favourable conditions in relation to bowlers of comparable quality. I think a big part of this was the amount of time they could reverse for- new ball movement doesn't last long.

This is legit the running on lava thing i posted for laughs a while back

 

[subshakerz]

This is legit the running on lava thing i posted for laughs a while back

SC pacers succeeding at home: 'Kudos', 'pat on back', 'respect'

SC pacers not succeeding away: 'Sorry we're going to have to cut points', 'looks like you were gaslighting us with your home numbers'

 

[ankitj]

SC pacers spinners succeeding at home: 'Kudos', 'pat on back', 'respect'

SC pacers spinners not succeeding away: 'Sorry we're going to have to cut points', 'looks like you were gaslighting us with your home numbers'

Ftfy. Isn't this your position without irony?

 

[Xix2565]

Ftfy. Isn't this your position without irony?

It is but we'll let him off for now. Just need to save this thread for future reference.

 

[Daemon]

Ftfy. Isn't this your position without irony?

Lmao

 

[ma1978]

Thread can be renamed - Imran good, Ashwin and Jadeja bad

In fact this is essentially the dumb of subz entire posting history

 

[Bolo.]

We don't need to see results. We have literally visited these grounds, seen pitch reports and watched the games our entire time as cricket fans to attest that these aren't pace friendly pitches in general and requires a battle to achieve success.


Pak bowlers were literally pioneers. But it's just objectively more effort and skill required to succeed at reverse, whether it's keeping sufficient pace in often humid weather or taking care of the shine of the ball, on dead pitches in Pak than you need for Anderson and Philander, not this 'same same' narrative you are peddling. Just easier to be a successful pacer in England or SA where the new ball is often a swing bowlers dream, overcast conditions and you have pace and carry off the pitch. Pacers are much more likely to be a threat every stage of the game than in Pak. Not remotely comparable at all.

Also, for every 'reverse-friendly' abrasive Pak wicket there is an absolute pancake where all swing and threat is completely neutralised regardless of any bowling skill.


Again, that effectiveness at home itself is a monumental achievement objectively requiring more effort than in SENAW. It's not qualitatively the same as Philander or Rabada averaging 19 in SA and all we are asking is that this be recognized.

And you keep reducing Pak bowlers at home to just reverse swingers when they took plenty with the new ball too.

An enthusiastic poodle using a beach ball could castle Bradman in Rabada's conditions. No point bringing him up.

I'm not bringing Anderson and Philander up to compare how hard they had it- I've pointed to the 3 countries that the data shows something more interesting for. You are strawmanning by not drawing a distinction between differing ROW countries. I brought them up because they have a niche skill, like the reverse. Their records are taken with a handful of salt as a result of abusing conditions that suit them. Leaving aside questions on how easy conditions are to abuse (which should simply give a stronger or weaker version of the same result), you seem to be doing the opposite.

If your judgement on conditions is correct, the data should support it. It very much does not. It's one of the few data sets big enough to confidently say it's not a sampling issue. So what is it? I'm happy to go along with what your thesis of Pak being tougher. It just 'feels' more right. But that much data is not off without a reason why it is off, and it can't just be ignored.

 

[subshakerz]

Ftfy. Isn't this your position without irony?

It is literally the reverse though. I suggest SENAW spinners deserve extra credit.

I understand you don't think argument is flattering to Ashwin/Jadeja but at least represent me properly before all the others dogpile.

Thread can be renamed - Imran good, Ashwin and Jadeja bad

In fact this is essentially the dumb of subz entire posting history

Maybe you didn't read the whole thread if you think it was just on Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

An enthusiastic poodle using a beach ball could castle Bradman in Rabada's conditions. No point bringing him up.

Lol thanks for admitting this.

Leaving aside questions on how easy conditions are to abuse (which should simply give a stronger or weaker version of the same result), you seem to be doing the opposite.

No, don't leave aside this point because it's the point of the entire thread which for some reason you are trying to evade. But you seem to concede it here.

If your judgement on conditions is correct, the data should support it. It very much does not. It's one of the few data sets big enough to confidently say it's not a sampling issue. So what is it? I'm happy to go along with what your thesis of Pak being tougher. It just 'feels' more right. But that much data is not off without a reason why it is off, and it can't just be ignored.

Data only can show who is effective in conditions, not how hard they had to work which is up to individual brilliance.

But glad you admit Pak (and by extension SC) is tougher finally.

 

[ma1978]

It is literally the reverse though. I suggest SENAW spinners deserve extra credit.

I understand you don't think argument is flattering to Ashwin/Jadeja but at least represent me properly before all the other dogpile.


Maybe you didn't read the whole thread if you think it was just on Imran.

it was on Ashwin