Do SC Pacers Deserve More Credit For Home Performances?

[Bolo.]

Lol thanks for admitting this.


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.


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.

I'm disregarding the intentionally dumb parts of your post. I'm not engaging with that.

The measuring effectiveness is true. But it doesn't answer the question of why they were more effective- 3 big data sets indicate they should not have been if you are right about conditions. You have yet to address why the data shows this.

Maybe batting does? Did tourists struggle to get to grips with conditions or with reverse in particular?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

@subshakerz How many points do you remove from averages of Pak batsmen like Miandad and Younis?

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz How many points do you remove from averages of Pak batsmen like Miandad and Younis?

I would dock maybe 1-2 points from Miandad for binging at home but not from Younis since he didn't play at home as much, even if we include UAE.

The issue with Younis and players from his era is we already keep a degree of average inflation in mind already give the flatness of that era across the board.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm disregarding the intentionally dumb parts of your post. I'm not engaging with that.

The measuring effectiveness is true. But it doesn't answer the question of why they were more effective- 3 big data sets indicate they should not have been if you are right about conditions. You have yet to address why the data shows this.

Maybe batting does? Did tourists struggle to get to grips with conditions or with reverse in particular?

This is your assumption that you are basing your entire argument on, and we fundamentally disagree.

 

[Bolo.]

This is your assumption that you are basing your entire argument on, and we fundamentally disagree.

Disagree with data if you like. But ask yourself if you are disagreeing with it just due to the players involved.

 

[subshakerz]

Disagree with data if you like. But ask yourself if you are disagreeing with it just due to the players involved.

Dude, I grew up watching tests in these conditions, it is not some foregone conclusion that a Pak pacer simply needs to turn up at the ground and will be granted wickets despite the heat, less swing, low bounce, etc.

Anybody taking wickets on these pitches deserves special credit, the same way we do so without hesitation when Steyn took a tenfer in Nagpur in 2010 with his reverse. We didn't attempt to downplay by saying 'well, it just suited his reverse so all same-same with him performing on home greentops'.

 

[Bolo.]

Dude, I grew up watching tests in these conditions, it is not some foregone conclusion that a Pak pacer simply needs to turn up at the ground and will be granted wickets despite the heat, less swing, low bounce, etc.

Anybody taking wickets on these pitches deserves special credit, the same way we do so without hesitation when Steyn took a tenfer in Nagpur in 2010 with his reverse. We didn't attempt to downplay by saying 'well, it just suited his reverse so all same-same with him performing on home greentops'.

Growing up watching them should put you in a position to justify why the data is misrepresentative. We often see stats that we think are at odds with reality. We are seldom short of theories why.

The neat thing about away records is that they even out. Some conditions suit style, and some don't.

 

[subshakerz]

Growing up watching them should put you in a position to justify why the data is misrepresentative. We often see stats that we think are at odds with reality. We are seldom short of theories why.

The neat thing about away records is that they even out. Some conditions suit style, and some don't.

Yes. Dress it up any way you like, you are just looking at an average to assume ease of conditions. I gave you my explanation and unless you have something different to say, I suggest we agree to disagree.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes. Dress it up any way you like, you are just looking at an average to assume ease of conditions. I gave you my explanation and unless you have something different to say, I suggest we agree to disagree.

you are just looking at an average to assume ease of conditions

Kinda, yaah. Not just average, but rather stats. And you are the only one focusing exclusively on conditions.

I've got 3 statistical problems. Home. Home/away. Record relative to other comparable bowlers.

You have engaged with home (in terms of conditions). You have done a piss-poor job of engaging with this issue IMO. I really don't have a problem with saying conditions are tough. Since my very first post in this thread, I've been looking for alternative explanations like batting. You have been entirely focused on conditions though, and if only conditions matter, data disagrees with you.

Home/away: your only engagement with this has been to say we are looking at only home. But away is a way of assessing the quality of a player. How do you feel about assessing Ashwin without his away record?

Record in relation to other ATGs: you have ignored this.

 

[subshakerz]

You have engaged with home (in terms of conditions). You have done a piss-poor job of engaging with this issue IMO. I really don't have a problem with saying conditions are tough. Since my very first post in this thread, I've been looking for alternative explanations like batting. You have been entirely focused on conditions though, and if only conditions matter, data disagrees with you.

You clearly do have a problem saying conditions are tough. If you don't find my arguments convincing and consider Pak to be pace friendly, ok then I don't know what more I can say.

Home/away: your only engagement with this has been to say we are looking at only home. But away is a way of assessing the quality of a player. How do you feel about assessing Ashwin without his away record?

Quite simple, any player is evaluated based on collective away and home records. We already agree away record should be evaluated based on pluses and minuses. But that with SC home pacers who succeed at home, the plus in this equation is not fully accounted for.

Record in relation to other ATGs: you have ignored this.

Already addressed, ATGs who succeed in SC are already given this extra credit in their away record on this board.

 

[Coronis]

You clearly do have a problem saying conditions are tough. If you don't find my arguments convincing and consider Pak to be pace friendly, ok then I don't know what more I can say.


Quite simple, any player is evaluated based on collective away and home records. We already agree away record should be evaluated based on pluses and minuses. But that with SC home pacers who succeed at home, the plus in this equation is not fully accounted for.


Already addressed, ATGs who succeed in SC are already given this extra credit in their away record on this board.

Yes it is, and this is the point you are missing. We all already rate players based on their home conditions and away conditions. We already do give extra credit to players (including SC players) for succeeding in tough home conditions.

Apparently though, according to you we need to give much more credit and define it as an actual average point thing, which is stupid.

We’re also not giving enough credit unless Imran is clearly ahead of Ambrose based on this, or Kapil is clearly ahead of Botham based on this.

We all already give credit where its due as we do with all bowlers - you just want an unreasonable amount of extra credit for these specific players you like and for it to be quantified as a number so you can call out other posters for not doing it.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes it is, and this is the point you are missing. We all already rate players based on their home conditions and away conditions. We already do give extra credit to players (including SC players) for succeeding in tough home conditions.

Apparently though, according to you we need to give much more credit and define it as an actual average point thing, which is stupid.

We’re also not giving enough credit unless Imran is clearly ahead of Ambrose based on this, or Kapil is clearly ahead of Botham based on this.

We all already give credit where its due as we do with all bowlers - you just want an unreasonable amount of extra credit for these specific players you like and for it to be quantified as a number so you can call out other posters for not doing it.

Except I am not the only one here who notices that this 'extra credit' doesn't actually exist for SC home pacers, it's just occasional rhetoric and even that is often missing.

Rather than a throwaway point, SC home pacer records should be seen in the same compelling way as Kallis' record at home. Whether this clinches in a close comparison is another matter but yeah it should give at least extra ammo to these pacers.

But they are not, let us be honest about that, and this isn't just my own perception. This whole thread is sufficient evidence that when this 'credit' is brought up it is instantly discredited. Precisely because if they did so suddenly Imran, Kapil and others have stronger cases and you don't want to reevaluate existing rankings.

 

[Coronis]

Except I am not the only one here who notices that this 'extra credit' doesn't actually exist for SC home pacers, it's just occasional rhetoric and even that is often missing.

Rather than a throwaway point, SC home pacer records should be seen in the same compelling way as Kallis' record at home. Whether this clinches in a close comparison is another matter but yeah it should give at least extra ammo to these pacers.

But they are not, let us be honest about that, and this isn't just my own perception. This whole thread is sufficient evidence that when this 'credit' is brought up it is instantly discredited. Precisely because if they did so suddenly Imran, Kapil and others have stronger cases and you don't want to reevaluate existing rankings.

No, because I already take into account their home conditions and despite that still rate them below those other bowlers, which is somehow inexcusable to you.

 

[subshakerz]

No, because I already take into account their home conditions and despite that still rate them below those other bowlers, which is somehow inexcusable to you.

You do, maybe, perhaps without expressly articulating it often. Not so others in these arguments. I don't mind you rating them lower as as you explain what factors led you to overrule this one.

 

[ma1978]

I would dock maybe 1-2 points from Miandad for binging at home but not from Younis since he didn't play at home as much, even if we include UAE.

The issue with Younis and players from his era is we already keep a degree of average inflation in mind already give the flatness of that era across the board.

you love pointless arbitrary adjustments without any analytical basis don’t you

I really hope you don’t work in a field where analysis may impact human lives

 

[Slifer]

Ftfy. Isn't this your position without irony?

 

[Slifer]

Another issue I have with wantonly adjusting Asian pacemen relative to their counterparts is that, imo Subz doesn't account for era and differing conditions across non Asian countries etc.

I'm going to speak from a west Indian perspective because that's what i'm most well versed in. Up til the 70s/80s WI attacks were heavily spin influenced and wickets in the WI while not spin friendly, for most of the 50s and 60s were some of the flattest worldwide. If I'm not mistaken they used matting in Pakistan (could be wrong). Not surprises then that a world class paceman like Fazal, emerged a bit before Hall. Things obviously changed in the late 70s and through the late 90s.

Then you compare an England to the WI and I don't think anyone would argue that English conditions are more conducive to pace than in the WI, yet despite debuting in 1928, and producing flat wickets until the 70s or so, WI have produced more world class pacemen than England. So it's not just the wickets and conditions.

Currently, for like maybe the last 10 years or so, while India has experienced a glut of class pacemen, WI have gone the opposite direction. WI is experiencing what India used to. Except at home, and that's mostly down to the use of Duke ball, because afaic, pitches in the WI are as slow as anywhere else. Why is that? Just food for thought....

 

[Bolo.]

You clearly do have a problem saying conditions are tough. If you don't find my arguments convincing and consider Pak to be pace friendly, ok then I don't know what more I can say.


Quite simple, any player is evaluated based on collective away and home records. We already agree away record should be evaluated based on pluses and minuses. But that with SC home pacers who succeed at home, the plus in this equation is not fully accounted for.


Already addressed, ATGs who succeed in SC are already given this extra credit in their away record on this board.

As you said, I'm just running off stats. I have no skin in this game personally in relation to the Pak players.

Reality aside, big fan of Imran and Waqar. Wasim can eat a bag of dicks. My bias on them as a group is somewhat (weakly) positive as a whole.

I'm a south african. I've seen guys like Ntini play.

I have my bias. I'd be lying if i said i didn't have a massive soft spot for Ntini as a result of carrying Rsa in the dark days of our quality. So much love for the dude (on field only). But i have seen his home/away split, and (this post aside), I don't think I've ever said anything positive about the dude on CW.

 

[subshakerz]

As you said, I'm just running off stats. I have no skin in this game personally in relation to the Pak players.

Reality aside, big fan of Imran and Waqar. Wasim can eat a bag of dicks. My bias on them as a group is somewhat (weakly) positive as a whole.

I'm a south african. I've seen guys like Ntini play.

I have my bias. I'd be lying if i said i didn't have a massive soft spot for Ntini as a result of carrying Rsa in the dark days of our quality. So much love for the dude (on field only). But i have seen his home/away split, and (this post aside), I don't think I've ever said anything positive about the dude on CW.

All fine then. We just disagree on whether a spotty away record 'exposes' a successful home record in tough conditions. I don't think so. But thanks for engaging with me.

 

[Bolo.]

All fine then. We just disagree on whether a spotty away record 'exposes' a successful home record in tough conditions. I don't think so. But thanks for engaging with me.

Groovy.

Happy to agree to disagree at this point.

I really liked the engagement with you at the beginning, cos it made me think of things that had not previously occurred to me. But we are both over it, and it's time to call time.