Inzamam Ul haq vs Javid Maindad

[SJS]

This may take a while but Im interested in the results. Have no real dog in this race and I will list the results here no matter what they show.

Difference in LBW dismissals home and away for the major bowlers during Miandads career (ie 70s-80s)

Should show if there are patterns and trends in certain places towards certain players or get rid of the theory all together.

EDIT- Didnt take too long

% of Wickets LBW at Home

38% Wasim
32% Kapil
29% Imran
26% Qadir
22% Botham
20% Hadlee
19% Garner
17% Lillee
17% Marshall
17% Walsh
16% Holding
12% Roberts
12% Willis
8% Thomson

% of Wickets LBW Away

25% Garner
23% Marshall
23% Wasim
20% Botham
19% Kapil
19% Lillee
18% Hadlee
17% Imran
16% Roberts
13% Qadir
13% Holding
13% Walsh
11% Thomson
7% Willis

Difference in % of Wickets LBW at Home and Away

15 Wasim
13 Qadir
13 Kapil
12 Imran
5 Willis
4 Walsh
3 Holding
2 Hadlee
2 Botham
-2 Roberts
-2 Lillee
-3 Thomson
-6 Marshall
-6 Garner

This is not surprising at all. The higher bounce of Australia and the West Indies wickets in the past would account for lower lbw in the carribean and down under, not just by Australians and West Indians but by all bowlers. This can easily be checked.

Similarly the lower bounce of the sub continent should result in more lbw's as I had already mentioned.

No surprise whatsoever there.

 

[Goughy]

This is not surprising at all. The higher bounce of Australia and the West Indies wickets in the past would account for lower lbw in the carribean and down under, not just by Australians and West Indians but by all bowlers. This can easily be checked.

Similarly the lower bounce of the sub continent should result in more lbw's as I had already mentioned.

No surprise whatsoever there.

Which then bring us full circle to, if that is the case then how come Miandad was seldom given out at home compared to away when supposedly conditions favoured the mode of dismissal?

 

[Goughy]

This is not surprising at all. The higher bounce of Australia and the West Indies wickets in the past would account for lower lbw in the carribean and down under, not just by Australians and West Indians but by all bowlers. This can easily be checked.

Similarly the lower bounce of the sub continent should result in more lbw's as I had already mentioned.

No surprise whatsoever there.

Well what may suprise you is that despite the above theory, none of the non-Asian bowlers mentioned above saw a significant increase in LBWs in Asia like the Asian players did.

The favourable conditions for LBW just didnt exist in reality as you claim and the higher rates cannot be easily justified as part of the physical environment.

% of Dismissals LBW for all away games (in Asia)

25% Garner (30%)
23% Marshall (15%)
20% Botham (23%)
19% Lillee (0%)
18% Hadlee (10%)
16% Roberts (18%)
13% Holding (13%)
13% Walsh (16%)
11% Thomson (0%)
7% Willis (9%)

Lillee, Thomson and Garner didnt play enough in Asia for their stats to be relevant here though for the record they are 0%, 0% and 30%.

The spike in LBWs on the sub-continent due to different pitches doesnt exist.

 

[Pratters]

This may take a while but Im interested in the results. Have no real dog in this race and I will list the results here no matter what they show.

Difference in LBW dismissals home and away for the major bowlers during Miandads career (ie 70s-80s)

Should show if there are patterns and trends in certain places towards certain players or get rid of the theory all together.

EDIT- Didnt take too long

% of Wickets LBW at Home

38% Wasim
32% Kapil
29% Imran
26% Qadir
22% Botham
20% Hadlee
19% Garner
17% Lillee
17% Marshall
17% Walsh
16% Holding
12% Roberts
12% Willis
8% Thomson

% of Wickets LBW Away

25% Garner
23% Marshall
23% Wasim
20% Botham
19% Kapil
19% Lillee
18% Hadlee
17% Imran
16% Roberts
13% Qadir
13% Holding
13% Walsh
11% Thomson
7% Willis

Difference in % of Wickets LBW at Home and Away

15 Wasim
13 Qadir
13 Kapil
12 Imran
5 Willis
4 Walsh
3 Holding
2 Hadlee
2 Botham
-2 Roberts
-2 Lillee
-3 Thomson
-6 Marshall
-6 Garner

I appreciate you taking time out to calculate this. However, it is not indicative of any thing.

What the stat you have found shows:

% in home country - % in all other countries combined.

Now we are taking that for each bowler of a particular country. So we can say Qadir got a higher percentage of LBWs in Pakistan compared to rest of the world. However, we are concerned with finding biases in a particular country for which similar comparison has to be made.

For instance, it has to be seen:

% of LBWs Lillee got of his total wickets in Australia.
% of LBWS each other significant player got in Australia.

The same goes for batsmen for a top order batsman may have bias in favour of him.

If individual players are taken in, at least all players who comprised 80% of runs, wickets during the period in consideration have to be taken into account (a significant player in this case).

The best way to compare is to see team wise break ups in the following manner:

% of LBWs Australians got in Australia compared to % of LBWs each other country got in Australia (for a particular period (1970-1989 or so). (Hakon?)

This might give us a general view of the two decades more than any thing. We might get a hint of an idea but cannot be sure still as to be completely sure, we would have to watch full test matches.

 

[Goughy]

I appreciate you taking time out to calculate this. However, it is not indicative of any thing.

It shows clearly that Asian players get a far higher proportion of wickets LBW in their home counrty than away, whilst players from other nations see little to no variation between the proportion of LBW decisions given at home or away.

Now could there be reasons for that? Sure, but it does show a clear pattern.

 

[Goughy]

I appreciate you taking time out to calculate this. However, it is not indicative of any thing.

The best way to compare is to see team wise break ups in the following manner:

% of LBWs Australians got in Australia compared to % of LBWs each other country got in Australia (for a particular period (1970-1989 or so). (Hakon?)

This might give us a general view of the two decades more than any thing. We might get a hint of an idea but cannot be sure still as to be completely sure, we would have to watch full test matches.

Thats the completely wrong way to view it. Different teams have different players that bowl differently and get different proportions of LBWs based purely on different styles.

Aus may get 10 in a series and the opposition get 1 but that can be simply down to different bowlers.

If you wanted to look at teams you would have to take the unit and view their figures in a country and them compare to a different environment.

You have to take a constant, like the bowler and then place them in different environments to see if their numbers change.

 

[Pratters]

It shows clearly that Asian players get a far higher proportion of wickets LBW in their home counrty than away, whilst players from other nations see little to no variation between the proportion of LBW decisions given at home or away.

Now could there be reasons for that? Sure, but it does show a clear pattern.

Erm can you concentrate on what we are trying to discuss here? The bias in specific home countries? It is not indicative of that for the reasons I pointed out. For that, a study on different lines has to be done as I stated.

 

[Goughy]

Erm can you concentrate on what we are trying to discuss here? The bias in specific home countries? It is not indicative of that for the reasons I pointed out. For that, a study on different lines has to be done as I stated.

I was addressing SJS mentioning sub-continental conditions and I disagree with the methodology you mentioned

 

[Pratters]

You have to take a constant, like the bowler and then place them in different environments to see if their numbers change.

I was addressing SJS mentioning sub-continental conditions and I disagree with the methodology you mentioned

Who is to say particular bowlers may not be better suited at getting LBWs in x compared to y. The way you have done it is not indicative as I said. I repeat:

Now we are taking that for each bowler of a particular country. So we can say Qadir got a higher percentage of LBWs in Pakistan compared to rest of the world. However, we are concerned with finding biases in a particular country for which similar comparison has to be made.

For instance, it has to be seen:

% of LBWs Lillee got of his total wickets in Australia.
% of LBWS each other significant player got in Australia.

Regarding team analysis which you seem to be having a problem with.. I don't have a problem with it as you have 10 countries and all countries can't have biases. You are seeing stats individually of each country in each place. If a country is getting a far higher percentage of lbws in it's home compared to what other countries get in that particular country, there might be a problem. Again I say might because there isn't a conclusive way to do it. For that, as I said, you will have to watch all test matches.

 

[Goughy]

I dont disagree that for any conclusive proof that the Test matches need to be watched.

All we can do is look for patterns.

Now in this thread it has been said that all home umpires are all biased to roughly the same level.

Now if that was the case then judgement calls (like LBWs) would favour the home team and disadvantage the visitors.

If that was the case, we would expect to see a higher %age of LBWs at home and a much lower %age away, as umpires would be favouring the home team.

Its as simple as that.

What we find is that there is little difference between the numbers for home and away games (apart from Kapil and the 3 Pakistani players). This indicates little obvious bias in judgment calls apart from in Pakistan (Kapil is a sample size of 1 and I never like drawing conclusions from such a small sample).

Now, there can be reasons why this difference exists part from umpire bias. SJS suggested different pitches that are more condusive to LBWs. However, no bowler from other countries saw an increase in the proportion of LBWs so that can be ruled out.

Im happy for other reasons to be suggested, but Im also happy to draw the conclusion that some Pakistani umpires were more favourable to certain Pakistani players on close decisions. Moreso than would happen elsewhere around the world for the period in question.

 

[Pratters]

Now in this thread it has been said that all home umpires are all biased to roughly the same level.

What we find is that there is little difference between the numbers for home and away games (apart from Kapil and the 3 Pakistani players). This indicates little obvious bias in judgment calls apart from in Pakistan (Kapil is a sample size of 1 and I never like drawing conclusions from such a small sample).

Now, there can be reasons why this difference exists part from umpire bias. SJS suggested different pitches that are more condusive to LBWs. However, no bowler from other countries saw an increase in the proportion of LBWs so that can be ruled out.

Im happy for other reasons to be suggested, but Im also happy to draw the conclusion that some Pakistani umpires were more favourable to certain Pakistani players on close decisions. Moreso than would happen elsewhere around the world for the period in question.

How to prove which countries had more home bias?

Certainly not the way you have done it. You aren't getting me.

What you have done is compare away versus home figures of a particular player. To see which country had more bias (possibly) comparisons have to made in a particular country. What you are doing is comparing chalk and cheese. Player x for instance may play a higher proportion of games in country y compared to z. Player a might be player a higher proportion of games in country b compared to c. How can we compare such different figures and draw conclusions from it.

 

[Goughy]

How to prove which countries had more home bias?

Certainly not the way you have done it. You aren't getting me.

What you have done is compare away versus home figures of a particular player. To see which country had more bias (possibly) comparisons have to made in a particular country.

Well we obviously are not getting each other.

The away figure is pretty much the standard. It encompasses many different umpires and nations and should give a broadly even view of a play.

Now if a home record is similar to an away record (the standard) then we can conclude that the home umpires have been making decisions on the same basis as the standard.

If there is a substantial difference in a home and away record in terms of judgment calls then it indicates the home umpires have been officiating in a different manner to the rest of the 'world'.

I dont see what is so complicated. The further a home number differs from the away record (ie a cross section of countries and nations) then the more it indicates a home bias. The closer the numbers are then the less biased a home umpire is and more likely to be umpiring the same as an impartial official.

Anyway, we obviously disagree. Guess Ill leave it at that

 

[SJS]

Which then bring us full circle to, if that is the case then how come Miandad was seldom given out at home compared to away when supposedly conditions favoured the mode of dismissal?

Because of 'dicey' umpiring of course

 

[Pratters]

Well we obviously are not getting each other.

I am getting you perfectly well. As I said though, it is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Cheers.

 

[SJS]

I don't think Saleem Malik is the best Pakistani batsman ever or anything, but I reckon that 'away' average is a bit misleading in that it's brought down a lot by him being so poor in India. He was fair to good in most other places.

There is always more at stake with the bookies in the Indo-Pak games

 

[anoop4real]

Inzhi is my fav

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Im happy for other reasons to be suggested, but Im also happy to draw the conclusion that some Pakistani umpires were more favourable to certain Pakistani players on close decisions. Moreso than would happen elsewhere around the world for the period in question.

To draw such a conclusion is not fair IMO.Those Pakistanis had reverse swing & such slingy bowling actions which could trouble any batsman of the world ,especially at home where where was less bounce.Thats what enabled them to get more LBW decisions at home.Other bowlers could not do it as much as Pakistanis in subcontinent because their actions and bowling styles didn't permit.Subcontinent bowlers would also concentrate on bowling close to the wickets(because you can't expect to get many slip catches or keeper catches because of unfriendly conditions) as compared to the bowelrs from any other country who would look more for slip catches and other stuff because conditions being more friendly for swing bowling in those places.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

What we find is that there is little difference between the numbers for home and away games (apart from Kapil and the 3 Pakistani players). This indicates little obvious bias in judgment calls apart from in Pakistan (Kapil is a sample size of 1 and I never like drawing conclusions from such a small sample).

Its again not fair to do such a thing.India hasn't produced any good fast bowlers apart from Kapil & Srinath,hence you also consider Kapil & bias of Indian umpires also or stop throughing the allegations of bias on Pakistani umpires also.In the past every country had umpires biased towards home team but the most biased umpires were Australians,followed by West Indians,Pakistanis,Indians,English & Kiwis.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Because of 'dicey' umpiring of course

Sir,how are you so sure about that?

 

[SJS]

Sir,how are you so sure about that?

I was just kidding BS