Jump to content

Tibarn

Members L2
  • Content count

    2,676
  • Runs

    102,950 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    63d 4h 47m 15s

Everything posted by Tibarn

  1. We made it to the finals of the last tournament in England with a worse team. We can of course win. WC is a single elimination tournament at the knockout stages, so we could also be out early as well. It's all about being the best team on the day.
  2. Tibarn

    Time is running out for KL Rahul

    This guy is pretty polarizing for fans On his good days, some will say he should replace Rohit as ODI opener, he should replace Dhawan as ODI opener, other days he is the technically best batsman for India across formats. When he does bad, he either needs more more experience, should be backed because he is so talented, or his time is running out now. Really, he is a player who doesn't have a consistent position in the batting order and hasn't had a consistent run. This is the problem with a horses for courses policy that some people on here were advocating for the batsmen. Batsmen need a defined role and a steady run to reveal their quality. The top 3 of India in Tests is a game of musical chairs between 4 players. All look mediocre now.
  3. Read carefully: that is exactly what I said. The players just reacted in the middle, based on the call. Anyone who played cricket at any competitive level knows that one trusts their partners call. When the partner makes a bad call, one gets screwed, like Kohli doomed Pujara. Everyone already knows that Kohli made a bad call and Pujara got screwed. That's where it ends. It is Ganguly and you who are inserting some sinister angle based on no evidence that Pujara went "against his instincts" and that "Pujara couldn't have refused the single even if he wanted to", or "Kohli was expecting Pujara to suddenly become athletic." These are Ganguly's own words, according to the OP Pray tell me how exactly one can conclude that Pujara had time to process whether the run was good or not, but he also had time to override his better judgement for fear of Kohli being on the other end? That is just Ganguly pulling stuff out of thin air. If Kohli was really forcing unrealistic standards of fitness on the Indian team, then Ashwin, Shami, and Pujara himself wouldn't have even played the match, as they are all liabilities on the field. Kohli made a bad call, Pujara got run out because Kohli made a bad call, end of story, there was nothing sinister as Ganguly implied.
  4. The team is just doing what it always does, dominate at home and get a pounding overseas. The main bowlers and batsmen are showing to be over-hyped(or at least under-prepared) thus far.
  5. Tibarn

    Does India need a foreign coach?

    No, India need a competent coach who has experience. Tom Moody was an option during the selection process, but we got Shastri. Even someone like Dravid would've been good, but he wasn't ready to take on the time commitment for the national team duties. The same was true for Zak and the bowling coach role. Too bad Ganguly, who suddenly is bearing his fangs, didn't do his "Dadagiri" when he was part of the selection committee for the new coach and could have prevented Shastri from getting the job.
  6. Based on what the OP posted, he didn't point out Kohli's mistakes, This is what he said according to the OP Ganguly feels (not knows) that 1) Pujara couldn't have said no to Kohli during the run out. Based off of what? Kohli was at fault in the runout, but what does Kohli expecting other players to live up to an elite level of fitness have to do with it? These are professional athletes, they should be fit. Just because Ganguly didn't take fitness seriously to the extent that MS and Kohli did/do as captains, doesn't mean he is correct here. Pujara has run himself out numerous times, in situations that didn't involve Kohli as his batting partner. Runnouts happen. Does Ganguly really think that Pujara had the time to process and think something along the lines of "If I don't accept this run with Virat bhai on the other side, he will be disappointed and then he will drop me from playing in any further tests. I better run this anyway, so I can maintain my place in the side." Nonsense. When players run between the wicket, they trust the call of the player who has the angle on the ball. There is a split second reaction time; there isn't time for Pujara to have an internal monologue. 2) Other players can't say no to the captain. Again, what is Ganguly basing this off of? Unless he reveals that one of players confided in him that Kohli is a tyrant and doesn't allow input, Ganguly is pulling things out of thin air. The team has had zero reports of locker room issues. Unless Ganguly can confirm some player told him so(he doesn't even have to reveal the player's name), he is just making up nonsense and causing trouble. 3) Kohli doesn't allow other players freedom to take charge in their own way. Again, this is nonsense. In the ODI team itself, Kohli allows Dhoni to set fields on occasion. From memory, Umesh Yadav stated that Kohli is far more approachable for him than Dhoni when he was captain. I want to see which player has come out openly to state Kohli is over-controlling and not letting them play as themselves. If Kohli was really so domineering, why aren't more of the Indian batsmen following his example? Kohli is playing outside of his crease to counter the swing the English bowlers are getting and has clearly been working on playing with a more compact technique and soft hands required to counter swing in English conditions. Kohli is a tyrant and not letting players be themselves, yet most of the other batsmen are not following his example and playing out of the crease, with soft hands, or practiced playing closer to the body. Nasser is completely justified in criticizing Kohli for letting the English back into the game after 87/7, but Nasser criticized Kohli on actual cricketing decisions(ie he didn't bowl Umesh Yadav until Curran was set and the English tail was wagging). Umesh proceeded to trouble Curran from essentially his first over bowling and picked up 2 quick wickets. That is a cricketing criticism, is constructive, and is based on actual facts. Ganguly is pulling stuff out of thin air and weaving conspiratorial theories. Nothing he said is productive unless he actually reveals that some of the team members have complained to him about the same. Until he does, it is just baseless and at best ferments trouble for the team.
  7. What a character, he had allegations of causing trouble in his own team's locker room, among other allegations against him, and he is now fermenting trouble in another captain's locker room with his lame attempts at psychoanalysis.
  8. Kohli is doing a great job, hopefully he remains captain until he retires or becomes a scrub.
  9. OP is correct, although this pitch isn't a minefield, it was when it was cloudy, but it wasn't during the bulk of the English innings. Ishant and Shami are the so-called spearheads, therefore they must bear the brunt of the blame if the bowling attack fails to silence the English bats. Ultimately, any new bowler(s) like Siraj, will have to replace one/both of these two if they fail. They aren't going to be replacing backups after all...
  10. Tibarn

    If not Kohli , who should be test captain?

    Only Ashwin can be an option. The rest of them are proving to be Jabronis
  11. Tibarn

    India currently has best bowling line up in world

    The Indian attack is comfortably top 4, likely top 3, but I would hold off on saying the best until we prove it in Australia. Australia is the truest test for fast bowlers in my opinion: pace, bounce, accuracy, consistency, stamina all are required to have a great performance in their conditions. Some of the pitches in places like Eng/SA/NZ are too helpful in my eyes, where one can simply bowl in a correct area and then the pitch takes the wicket. That is honestly what happens when we make raging turners in India. Australia is where the class of the Indian pacers will truly be seen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The best part of the Indian attack is the depth, there isn't much of a drop-off between 5 man unit of pacers. The spin duo is by far the best in the world. The weakness is that all the pacer bowlers seem flawed. There isn't one that has shown consistent greatness every inning, let alone every match. Bumrah is the exception because he has only played 1 series so far.
  12. Tibarn

    ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

    Off topic but I don't think Zim was really a minnow, not in the way AFG/IRE are now. They are more like a better version of modern Bangladesh. This is the case until at least 2000. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/9.html?class=1;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax2=31+Dec+2003;spanmin2=01+Jan+1998;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team;view=results Notable Zimbabwe series results: In 1998 they won vs India in Zimbabwe In 1998/9 they Won vs Pakistan in Pakistan They even drew vs India as late as 2001 in Zimbabwe. Bangladesh to this day can't get results like above. To me the definition of minnow is murky, or, at least, there are tiers of minnows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By removing (Zim and Bang), it makes the comparison more interesting. Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1995 5 9 146.0 31 482 10 3/15 3/41 48.20 3.30 87.6 0 0 year 1996 4 7 155.0 34 505 21 4/48 8/154 24.04 3.25 44.2 0 0 year 1997 4 7 98.0 17 319 11 3/99 5/143 29.00 3.25 53.4 0 0 year 1998 3 6 105.3 19 354 16 6/78 10/133 22.12 3.35 39.5 1 1 year 1999 3 6 72.0 18 233 4 2/26 2/74 58.25 3.23 108.0 0 0 year 2000 10 18 282.0 48 881 34 4/40 7/79 25.91 3.12 49.7 0 0 year 2001 5 8 177.1 30 554 13 3/85 5/172 42.61 3.12 81.7 0 0 year 2002 8 12 177.0 33 658 20 4/44 4/55 32.90 3.71 53.1 0 0 year 2003 1 1 28.0 4 121 1 1/121 1/121 121.00 4.32 168.0 0 0 Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1995 7 12 260.3 66 633 32 5/53 7/79 19.78 2.42 48.8 2 0 year 1996 3 5 128.0 29 350 11 3/67 6/150 31.81 2.73 69.8 0 0 year 1997 5 9 147.1 39 408 23 4/42 7/118 17.73 2.77 38.3 0 0 year 1998 3 5 121.0 21 329 8 3/70 3/107 41.12 2.71 90.7 0 0 year 1999 8 15 257.3 42 757 29 4/30 5/69 26.10 2.93 53.2 0 0 year 2000 9 15 273.0 78 629 26 6/61 11/110 24.19 2.30 63.0 3 1 year 2001 2 3 87.0 20 247 5 2/59 3/148 49.40 2.83 104.4 0 0 Wasim only played until 2001 based on this sample, by year who is better 1995: Wasim 1996: Waqar 1997: Wasim 1998: Waqar 1999: Wasim 2000: Waqar 2001: Wasim(Although in this case neither has good numbers for the year and Waqar only played 1 test match) 4-3 in favor of Wasim, but considering both their performances in 2001, I would consider it 3-3. However, Waqar continued playing in 2002-03 against top teams, while Wasim last played vs a non-minnow in 2001. Waqar posted another good season in 2002. (This is in my opinion a good season, as his SR is 53.1, so I don't mind a 32 avg as I personally judge a bowlers ability by their SR. Anyone else is free to have the opposite view and judge it as a poor season) I think we have different definitions of phase in this case. 8 years from 1995 to 2003 isn't a phase to me, it is greater than half of Waqar's career and it is a bit of chicanery to use 2005 as an arbitrary mark just to exclude Waqar's best seasons and make Wasim look better in comparison(I am not accusing you or trying to say you are trying to mislead @Jimmy Cliff, I am actually talking about fans in general, whenever there is a Wasim-Waqar debate always use the arbitrary 1995 cutoff to downplay Waqar). This is even more troublesome when one takes the 8 years as a whole, rather than the individual years/seasons, imo. I find it misleading as it implies that the 8 years were all the same: 31.5 avg, 57 SR every year, when in reality only his seasons 1995, 1999, and 2001 are bad(however bad they are). The rest are even better than some of Akram's in the same period(as seen above). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to show what I mean about the chicanery If one looks at Akram's to the same standard, and uses a cutoff of his 5 worst consecutive seasons and choosing to judge him adversely based on his worst stretch (again excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh): 1985-1989 Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1985-2002 104 181 3771.1 871 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.6 25 5 Profile filtered 1985-1989 29 49 1033.5 240 2649 94 6/91 10/128 28.18 2.56 65.9 5 1 Until 1990, Wasim had a 28.2 average and a innocuous 66 SR, taking a whole 11 overs of bowling before he takes a wicket. That doesn't befit anyone who can be considered an all-time great. I can also apply a justification for why this arbitrary cut-off isn't so arbitrary: 1989 was the year Waqar debuted for Pakistan. Thus, when Waqar finally arrived on the picture, Wasim could take a backseat, while the superior bowler did the heavy lifting(taking wickets). Both the arbitrary 5 years sample and the justification are manipulations to show Waqar in a good light and Akram poorly; it's as wrong as purposefully excluding Waqar's best seasons from any debate on who the best bowler is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @Moochad tagging you because I know you will find it interesting The reality is this: Overall career summary(if we exclude Zim and Bang) Waqar Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1989-2003 87 154 2704.0 516 8788 373 7/76 13/135 23.56 3.25 43.4 22 5 Profile filtered 1989-2003 73 128 2252.5 422 7374 293 7/76 12/130 25.16 3.27 46.1 16 4 Wasim Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1985-2002 104 181 3771.1 871 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.6 25 5 Profile filtered 1985-2001 92 160 3349.2 770 8728 367 7/119 11/110 23.78 2.60 54.7 21 4 Wasim has a better bowling average; Waqar has a far superior SR(which actually measures wicket taking ability). Both have the same 2.29 wickets/innings( combining it with the SR, it implies that Wasim bowled more deliveries to get the same number of wickets in an innings). Consistency(Excluding Zim and Bang) Using ATG standards, a great season being one in which a bowler has a below 30 avg and below 60 SR(great seasons in red), here are how many great years each bowler had: Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1989 2 4 58.0 4 237 6 4/80 4/91 39.50 4.08 58.0 0 0 year 1990 9 17 316.4 77 835 49 7/76 12/130 17.04 2.63 38.7 5 2 year 1991 2 2 45.3 6 127 7 5/84 7/127 18.14 2.79 39.0 1 0 year 1992 6 10 204.0 33 709 31 5/52 9/152 22.87 3.47 39.4 4 0 year 1993 4 7 140.2 28 465 28 5/22 9/81 16.60 3.31 30.0 2 0 year 1994 7 14 247.4 40 894 42 6/34 11/119 21.28 3.60 35.3 3 1 year 1995 5 9 146.0 31 482 10 3/15 3/41 48.20 3.30 87.6 0 0 year 1996 4 7 155.0 34 505 21 4/48 8/154 24.04 3.25 44.2 0 0 year 1997 4 7 98.0 17 319 11 3/99 5/143 29.00 3.25 53.4 0 0 year 1998 3 6 105.3 19 354 16 6/78 10/133 22.12 3.35 39.5 1 1 year 1999 3 6 72.0 18 233 4 2/26 2/74 58.25 3.23 108.0 0 0 year 2000 10 18 282.0 48 881 34 4/40 7/79 25.91 3.12 49.7 0 0 year 2001 5 8 177.1 30 554 13 3/85 5/172 42.61 3.12 81.7 0 0 year 2002 8 12 177.0 33 658 20 4/44 4/55 32.90 3.71 53.1 0 0 year 2003 1 1 28.0 4 121 1 1/121 1/121 121.00 4.32 168.0 0 0 9 great years out of 15 counted: 60% Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1985 5 8 197.3 52 484 20 5/56 10/128 24.20 2.45 59.2 2 1 year 1986 5 9 134.3 40 316 14 6/91 6/96 22.57 2.34 57.6 1 0 year 1987 12 19 380.1 76 979 31 5/96 5/91 31.58 2.57 73.5 1 0 year 1988 3 6 117.0 22 319 11 4/73 7/161 29.00 2.72 63.8 0 0 year 1989 4 7 204.4 50 551 18 5/101 7/142 30.61 2.69 68.2 1 0 year 1990 8 15 320.3 73 778 48 6/62 11/160 16.20 2.42 40.0 4 1 year 1991 2 2 45.0 11 78 1 1/31 1/78 78.00 1.73 270.0 0 0 year 1992 5 9 208.5 46 595 26 6/67 9/103 22.88 2.84 48.1 2 0 year 1993 4 8 161.1 30 469 17 5/45 8/111 27.58 2.91 56.8 1 0 year 1994 7 13 305.5 75 806 47 7/119 11/179 17.14 2.63 39.0 4 1 year 1995 7 12 260.3 66 633 32 5/53 7/79 19.78 2.42 48.8 2 0 year 1996 3 5 128.0 29 350 11 3/67 6/150 31.81 2.73 69.8 0 0 year 1997 5 9 147.1 39 408 23 4/42 7/118 17.73 2.77 38.3 0 0 year 1998 3 5 121.0 21 329 8 3/70 3/107 41.12 2.71 90.7 0 0 year 1999 8 15 257.3 42 757 29 4/30 5/69 26.10 2.93 53.2 0 0 year 2000 9 15 273.0 78 629 26 6/61 11/110 24.19 2.30 63.0 3 1 year 2001 2 3 87.0 20 247 5 2/59 3/148 49.40 2.83 104.4 0 0 9 great years out of 17 counted: 53% Based on my definition of consistency over every phase of their careers. Waqar's 60% > Wasim's 53% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, I am spamming this thread too much, so I will stop posting with this post, as this Waqar-Wasim stuff is somewhat off-topic relative to the subject of the OP's thread. To me the 3 ATG pacers are: Steyn/Waqar/Marshall
  13. Tibarn

    ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

    I agree the 2nd one is better, but those are cartoonish examples: they are so far in the extreme, that they have 0 tangible value in my eyes. The reality is that most of who are considered good bowlers are between 22-28 in average and usually 50-60 in SR. In that case, players like Steyn and Waqar, whose SRs are so far and away better than other great bowlers, while at the same time having comparable averages to other greats, must be elevated above the rest. Otherwise one would be devaluing the ability to take wickets imo. Regarding the idea that Waqar performed worse as he got later in his career: again Waqar has far better stats at every phase of his career than Wasim. Beginning, middle, or end, it doesn't matter. Wasim's best seasons are equal to middle of the pack seasons by Waqar's standards. Wasim just played longer and accumulated a greater volume of wickets, even though he was worse at actually picking them.
  14. Tibarn

    India have invested too much power in Virat Kohli

    A typical hit piece that follows a cookie-cutter template. This could just as well have been a regurgitated piece from when MS was captain and Flethcer was coach. The truth is: 1) For the most part, the players who deserve spots in the squad and playing XI are already there. If the batsmen don't perform, are technically inept, or are mental midgets, those are ultimately their demons they have to overcome. This isn't grade-school cricket where noobs need to have their hands held while playing. These are professional cricketers who are ultimately responsible for their own success and failure. The same goes for the bowlers. Cheerleader and his staff may be useless, but ultimately the players play the game. 2) New players like Siraj and whoever else is the flavor of the month, rarely, if ever get drafted into the squad of a #1 ranked test side in the midst of a marquee overseas Test series, especially when there are multiple more experienced players waiting for their opportunities/extended runs. Kohli has already shown tremendous flexibility in playing XIs and trying new players, ie Bumrah debuting overseas in SA. If Pant, Siraj, Shaw, Gill, whoever else deserves an opportunity, they will get it soon enough. 3) Neither was there anything special about the team under Kumble, who is only being put on a pedestal because of the bum who followed him. The hands-on, "superior strategist" Kumble's accomplishments as coach were the same as Fletcher's: bashing non-Asian teams on our home pitches.
  15. Tibarn

    ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

    I see what you are saying, but I don't think that the number of balls in a test match are as important as wickets themselves, as we hardly ever count the balls/overs remaining unless it is near a break in play/close of play/ or if a team is trying to draw a match from a losing position. If one considers that one goes into a Test match with the goal to win, then the best measurement is wicket taking efficiency, as the most consistent way to win a test match is through 20 wickets taken. Balls are only important in the scenarios that I mentioned earlier. Runs vs wickets is the question, as some matches can be won without taking 20 wickets, if 10 wickets are taken once and a chaseable total is there to get... Shami at the time was the most key bowler for the Indian team, particularly in CT which was around, so if Kumble mismanaged him, that is a big red mark on his resume. Honestly, during the whole CT time period Shami looked off. Anyway I will carry on with this back and forth with you tomorrow, only the owls are still up this time of night here (0v0)
  16. Tibarn

    ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

    Yeah, you have to find and bump my fielding stats thread, it shows who dropped who and the general mediocrity of our catching that series. The problem with average in these discussions is that all the great bowlers have generally the same averages, except modern bowlers who often have to play on less helpful conditions. A difference in average of 1 run between Steyn and McGrath seems minuscule when you consider that Steyn takes around 9-10 fewer balls to get the wicket. I would rather get the wicket 9-10 balls faster, rather than worry about 1 run extra being scored by the opposition. I am the PM of Kohlistan I am still 100% on Kohli's side. Kumble shouldn't have tried to injure players by over-training them and acting like a headmaster. It was also Ganguly, Sachin, etc's fault for hiring the bevada, they had other options like Moody. Kohli hardly forced their hand into bringing this guy as coach.
  17. Tibarn

    Who Should be Standing at Slips.

    Ashwin and Rahane seem like two who must be there. If Jadeja plays, he can be there are well
  18. Tibarn

    ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

    Kohli would slay Waqar, just like he does everyone else. What's funny is Umesh used to have a SR around 45-46 early in his career in India, when MS was still captain, but since Kohli became captain it has ballooned to 57, which is still good, but it's not earth shattering. I think since Kohli became captain, our great slip fielders like VVS and Dravid are not there, so we have butter fingers like Dhawan and Kohli himself. Other than him Shami also has a below 50 SR in India, I think it is 48. and I see that you changed your pic from Dhawan since I last trawled onto this forum, whats the matter, mustached man dropped to many catches? Also you're not supposed to mention my blog... With regards to using average, to each their own I guess, but just using average makes players like Sangakarra look better than Sachin and makes players who are green track bullies/specialists look better than they are, when they only bowl on green tops. Also Anderson is going to pass McGrath soon on the wicket totals list. I was happy when Kumble mentioned how he looked at bowlers SR when judging their performance.
  19. Hmmm, it seems some are being unfair to Pandya on his bowling: Innings by innings list Overs Mdns Runs Wkts Econ Pos Inns Opposition Ground Start Date 3.0 0 13 1 4.33 5 2 v Sri Lanka Galle 26 Jul 2017 Test # 2265 7.0 0 21 0 3.00 5 4 v Sri Lanka Galle 26 Jul 2017 Test # 2265 DNB - - - - - 2 v Sri Lanka Colombo (SSC) 3 Aug 2017 Test # 2267 15.0 2 31 2 2.06 5 3 v Sri Lanka Colombo (SSC) 3 Aug 2017 Test # 2267 6.0 1 28 1 4.66 3 2 v Sri Lanka Pallekele 12 Aug 2017 Test # 2269 1.0 0 2 0 2.00 5 3 v Sri Lanka Pallekele 12 Aug 2017 Test # 2269 12.0 1 53 1 4.41 4 1 v South Africa Cape Town 5 Jan 2018 Test # 2292 6.0 0 27 2 4.50 4 3 v South Africa Cape Town 5 Jan 2018 Test # 2292 16.0 4 50 0 3.12 4 1 v South Africa Centurion 13 Jan 2018 Test # 2293 9.0 1 14 0 1.55 5 3 v South Africa Centurion 13 Jan 2018 Test # 2293 2.0 0 3 0 1.50 5 2 v South Africa Johannesburg 24 Jan 2018 Test # 2294 6.0 1 15 0 2.50 5 4 v South Africa Johannesburg 24 Jan 2018 Test # 2294 5.0 0 18 0 3.60 3 2 v Afghanistan Bengaluru 14 Jun 2018 Test # 2307 4.0 2 6 0 1.50 3 3 v Afghanistan Bengaluru 14 Jun 2018 Test # 2307 10.0 1 46 0 4.60 5 1 v England Birmingham 1 Aug 2018 Test # 2314 DNB - - - - - 3 v England Birmingham 1 Aug 2018 The guy hasn't even bowled enough overs in the majority of the innings he has bowled to even expect a wicket, and then he get's criticized for not taking wickets. Frontline bowlers take between 8 and 10 overs of bowling before they take a single wicket. In only 5 of 14 innings in which Pandya has bowled has he reached above the 8 overs mark. Not that he sets the world on fire when he does get an extended run, but his average and SR are misleading if he doesn't even get to bowl a sufficient quota of overs
  20. Tibarn

    ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

    @kira Disagree on both The stats are crazier than at first glance when you deep dive into them Waqar vs Wasim Overall Career Stats Waqar Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 overall 1989-2003 87 154 2704.0 516 8788 373 7/76 13/135 23.56 3.25 43.4 22 5 Wasim Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 overall 1985-2002 104 181 3771.1 871 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.6 25 5 Waqar has a better average and a far better SR, takes a wicket every 44 balls vs Wasim every 55. Wasim has 40 more wickets from playing 27 more innings. Wasim 2.29 wickets an innings, Waqar is again better at 2.42. Ability wise, Waqar overall was better. Wasim just accumulated stats from playing longer. Performance by country Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 in Australia 1990-1999 7 12 190.0 42 567 14 3/15 3/41 40.50 2.98 81.4 0 0 in Bangladesh 2002-2002 2 4 41.1 7 137 12 6/55 7/82 11.41 3.32 20.5 1 0 in England 1992-2001 10 16 362.1 65 1237 45 5/52 8/154 27.48 3.41 48.2 3 0 in India 1999-1999 2 4 49.0 15 153 2 2/26 2/74 76.50 3.12 147.0 0 0 in New Zealand 1993-2001 8 15 307.5 63 924 34 6/78 9/81 27.17 3.00 54.3 2 0 in Pakistan 1989-2002 33 60 1046.4 201 3288 162 7/76 13/135 20.29 3.14 38.7 11 3 in South Africa 1998-2003 5 8 158.3 26 566 20 6/78 10/133 28.30 3.57 47.5 1 1 in Sri Lanka 1994-2002 6 11 154.1 21 584 27 6/34 11/119 21.62 3.78 34.2 2 1 in U.A.E. 2002-2002 4 6 79.0 16 276 12 4/44 4/55 23.00 3.49 39.5 0 0 in West Indies 1993-2000 6 10 166.5 26 596 24 5/104 9/127 24.83 3.57 41.7 1 0 in Zimbabwe 1998-2002 4 8 148.4 34 460 21 5/106 7/124 21.90 3.09 42.4 1 0 Waqar is better in most countries than Wasim and has absurd strike rates in most places, most notably the West Indies. Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 in Australia 1990-1999 9 15 348.3 82 866 36 6/62 11/160 24.05 2.48 58.0 3 1 in Bangladesh 1999-2002 2 3 23.4 3 83 5 3/33 5/78 16.60 3.50 28.4 0 0 in England 1987-2001 14 23 564.3 123 1523 53 6/67 9/103 28.73 2.69 63.9 2 0 in India 1987-1999 8 14 283.2 54 748 27 5/96 5/129 27.70 2.64 62.9 1 0 in New Zealand 1985-1995 7 13 342.1 82 859 50 7/119 11/179 17.18 2.51 41.0 6 2 in Pakistan 1985-2001 41 70 1312.0 300 3423 154 6/48 10/106 22.22 2.60 51.1 8 1 in South Africa 1995-1998 2 4 101.0 26 273 7 3/70 4/166 39.00 2.70 86.5 0 0 in Sri Lanka 1986-2000 8 15 268.2 82 613 30 5/43 8/73 20.43 2.28 53.6 2 0 in West Indies 1988-2000 9 17 341.3 74 941 35 6/61 11/110 26.88 2.75 58.5 2 1 in Zimbabwe 1995-1998 4 7 186.1 45 450 17 5/43 8/83 26.47 2.41 65.7 1 0 Wasim is only better in Aus, India, and NZ. NZ is the only place besides Bangladesh where Wasim even looks unplayable. I guess Waqar being trash vs us in India is why we don't view him as great as Wasim, even though Wasim is hardly a world beater in India. Playing 2 test matches in India robbed him of some serious fame. Career performance by year Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1989 2 4 58.0 4 237 6 4/80 4/91 39.50 4.08 58.0 0 0 year 1990 9 17 316.4 77 835 49 7/76 12/130 17.04 2.63 38.7 5 2 year 1991 2 2 45.3 6 127 7 5/84 7/127 18.14 2.79 39.0 1 0 year 1992 6 10 204.0 33 709 31 5/52 9/152 22.87 3.47 39.4 4 0 year 1993 7 12 271.0 59 838 55 7/91 13/135 15.23 3.09 29.5 6 1 year 1994 7 14 247.4 40 894 42 6/34 11/119 21.28 3.60 35.3 3 1 year 1995 5 9 146.0 31 482 10 3/15 3/41 48.20 3.30 87.6 0 0 year 1996 6 11 223.0 49 722 27 4/48 8/154 26.74 3.23 49.5 0 0 year 1997 4 7 98.0 17 319 11 3/99 5/143 29.00 3.25 53.4 0 0 year 1998 7 13 239.2 45 768 37 6/78 10/133 20.75 3.20 38.8 2 1 year 1999 3 6 72.0 18 233 4 2/26 2/74 58.25 3.23 108.0 0 0 year 2000 10 18 282.0 48 881 34 4/40 7/79 25.91 3.12 49.7 0 0 year 2001 6 10 190.2 31 598 19 4/19 6/44 31.47 3.14 60.1 0 0 year 2002 12 20 282.3 54 1024 40 6/55 7/82 25.60 3.62 42.3 1 0 year 2003 1 1 28.0 4 121 1 1/121 1/121 121.00 4.32 168.0 0 0 So depending on how you count it, between 20-33% of Waqar's 15 seasons can be considered bad by either a too high SR or too high average, 20 percent if you remove his first and last seasons. Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1985 5 8 197.3 52 484 20 5/56 10/128 24.20 2.45 59.2 2 1 year 1986 5 9 134.3 40 316 14 6/91 6/96 22.57 2.34 57.6 1 0 year 1987 12 19 380.1 76 979 31 5/96 5/91 31.58 2.57 73.5 1 0 year 1988 3 6 117.0 22 319 11 4/73 7/161 29.00 2.72 63.8 0 0 year 1989 4 7 204.4 50 551 18 5/101 7/142 30.61 2.69 68.2 1 0 year 1990 8 15 320.3 73 778 48 6/62 11/160 16.20 2.42 40.0 4 1 year 1991 2 2 45.0 11 78 1 1/31 1/78 78.00 1.73 270.0 0 0 year 1992 5 9 208.5 46 595 26 6/67 9/103 22.88 2.84 48.1 2 0 year 1993 6 11 237.3 44 672 28 5/45 8/111 24.00 2.82 50.8 2 0 year 1994 7 13 305.5 75 806 47 7/119 11/179 17.14 2.63 39.0 4 1 year 1995 10 17 392.5 97 946 45 5/43 8/83 21.02 2.40 52.3 3 0 year 1996 5 9 199.4 50 530 22 6/48 10/106 24.09 2.65 54.4 1 1 year 1997 5 9 147.1 39 408 23 4/42 7/118 17.73 2.77 38.3 0 0 year 1998 6 11 240.5 52 630 20 5/52 8/99 31.50 2.61 72.2 1 0 year 1999 8 15 257.3 42 757 29 4/30 5/69 26.10 2.93 53.2 0 0 year 2000 9 15 273.0 78 629 26 6/61 11/110 24.19 2.30 63.0 3 1 year 2001 3 5 106.0 23 296 5 2/59 3/148 59.20 2.79 127.2 0 0 year 2002 1 1 2.4 1 5 0 - - - 1.87 - 0 0 Around 38-40% of Wasim's seasons were bad by the same metric of either a higher average or SR, depending on if you remove his last season. @Moochad As you said, Waqar's performances were absurd. He so thoroughly outclasses Wasim, it's not even funny. What really takes the cake is if you check his performances between 1990-1994 ! He goes 5 seasons straight of having a SR of less than 40, including a below 30 SR in 1993 where over 7 tests he took a wicket per every 4.5 overs. The only other bowler with a run comparable to that is Steyn between 2013-2016. It's sad he gets overshadowed by such an inferior player just because one of them played longer and accumulated extra wickets. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The same thing happens with McGrath, he plays for a long time and plays for Australia, so he gets many 4-5 test series, so he tops the total wickets column, while Marshall and Steyn, who have superior statistics only play shorter series and can't pile on stats. However, McGrath is also much better than Wasim, so his isn't as egregious. Wickets per Innings Marshall: 2.49 Steyn : 2.61 McGrath: 2.32 Overall Stats Marshall Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 overall 1978-1991 81 151 2930.4 614 7876 376 7/22 11/89 20.94 2.68 46.7 22 4 Steyn Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 overall 2004-2018 88 161 2951.1 634 9533 421 7/51 11/60 22.64 3.23 42.0 26 5 McGrath Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 overall 1993-2007 124 243 4874.4 1470 12186 563 8/24 10/27 21.64 2.49 51.9 29 3 Strike Rates and Wickets per innings show Marshall and Steyn were superior wicket takers than McGrath. Records by Country Marshall Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 in Australia 1984-1989 10 19 407.2 87 1042 45 5/29 10/107 23.15 2.55 54.3 5 1 in England 1980-1991 18 35 715.3 177 1758 94 7/22 10/92 18.70 2.45 45.6 6 1 in India 1978-1983 9 15 299.0 70 886 36 6/37 9/102 24.61 2.96 49.8 2 0 in New Zealand 1987-1987 3 5 119.0 21 289 9 4/43 6/114 32.11 2.42 79.3 0 0 in Pakistan 1980-1990 10 19 277.5 53 751 35 5/33 6/47 21.45 2.70 47.6 1 0 in West Indies 1981-1991 31 58 1112.0 206 3150 157 7/80 11/89 20.06 2.83 42.4 8 2 Steyn Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 in Australia 2008-2016 7 12 253.3 47 892 31 5/67 10/154 28.77 3.51 49.0 2 1 in Bangladesh 2008-2015 4 6 101.0 22 284 20 4/48 7/75 14.20 2.81 30.3 0 0 in England 2008-2012 5 9 212.3 47 728 23 5/56 7/155 31.65 3.42 55.4 1 0 in India 2008-2015 6 9 160.5 22 556 26 7/51 10/108 21.38 3.45 37.1 2 1 in New Zealand 2012-2012 3 6 100.2 33 239 9 3/49 5/80 26.55 2.38 66.8 0 0 in Pakistan 2007-2007 2 4 55.3 10 222 9 5/56 7/106 24.66 4.00 37.0 1 0 in South Africa 2004-2018 47 89 1599.1 350 5099 243 6/8 11/60 20.98 3.18 39.4 16 3 in Sri Lanka 2006-2018 6 11 189.3 28 698 23 5/54 9/99 30.34 3.68 49.4 2 0 in U.A.E. 2010-2013 4 8 152.2 38 459 14 4/98 4/86 32.78 3.01 65.2 0 0 in West Indies 2010-2010 3 5 82.3 17 272 15 5/29 8/94 18.13 3.29 33.0 1 0 in Zimbabwe 2014-2014 1 2 44.0 20 84 8 5/46 8/84 10.50 1.90 33.0 1 0 McGrath Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 in Australia 1993-2007 66 131 2638.1 788 6483 289 8/24 10/27 22.43 2.45 54.7 11 2 in England 1997-2005 14 28 578.1 145 1683 87 8/38 9/82 19.34 2.91 39.8 8 0 in India 1996-2004 8 16 313.2 123 703 33 4/18 7/121 21.30 2.24 56.9 0 0 in New Zealand 2000-2005 6 12 241.4 87 552 30 6/115 7/89 18.40 2.28 48.3 1 0 in Pakistan 1994-1998 5 9 201.0 49 589 19 5/66 5/106 31.00 2.93 63.4 1 0 in South Africa 1994-2002 8 14 305.2 95 685 29 6/86 8/49 23.62 2.24 63.1 2 0 in Sri Lanka 1999-2002 4 7 108.1 34 292 10 3/38 4/78 29.20 2.69 64.9 0 0 in U.A.E. 2002-2002 2 4 36.0 12 74 10 4/41 7/59 7.40 2.05 21.6 0 0 in West Indies 1995-2003 10 20 398.5 118 1035 50 6/47 10/78 20.70 2.59 47.8 6 1 in Zimbabwe 1999-1999 1 2 54.0 19 90 6 3/44 6/90 15.00 1.66 54.0 0 0 I think here is where McGrath makes up some of the ground on Marshall, as McGrath is pretty consistent across countries, and absolutely wrecks England at their home. He always has a good average, but his SR is rarely setting the world on fire. His SR is still a bit too high vs SA, SL, and Pak. Marshall dominates everywhere except for some reason he couldn't buy a wicket in NZ. I guess playing only 3 matches there may have something to do with it but still... Steyn continues to be unparalleled. Look at his SR in Ind and Pak: he's better than both Waqar and Wasim in Pak and better than any pacer we've ever had in India (he's even better than Ashwin in terms of SR in India). Too bad he hasn't bowled in NZ since 2012 or in UAE since 2013, he no doubt would've corrected those eyesores on his resume.
  21. Tibarn

    Indian Basketball Team

    Haven't seen the national team play before, but how is the overall 3 point shooting? That shot is the basis of basketball nowadays. We need all our players, from the PG to the C to know how to shoot. That will win us games I think.
  22. All one needs to know is that Kohli is opening the batting and he is going to farm the strike and shield the other 10 Jabronis for the entire innings. You heard it here first folks: Kohli is going to make the first 500* score in Test cricket history
  23. Not saying Pandya is some undroppable player or that he should play every match, but some are overestimating what passes off as an allrounder currently: Test Allrounders ICC Player Rankings Rank Name Country Rating 1 Shakib Al Hasan BAN 420 2 R.A. Jadeja IND 386 3 V.D. Philander SA 371 4 R. Ashwin IND 360 5 J.O. Holder WI 355 6 B.A. Stokes ENG 341 7 Moeen Ali ENG 259 8 P.J. Cummins AUS 249 9 M.A. Starc AUS 248 10 M.D.K. Perera SL 224 ^Those are the only 10 players ranked as allrounders according to the ICC Player Rankings, therefore that can be the basis of what one can consider an allrounder. It seems to be batsmen who can bowl or bowlers who can bat. Allrounders, except for Shakib, seem to be players good at one skill, ie Starc/Philander with bowling, and handy with the other. Ash can wield a bat and is a great bowler, therefore he is an allrounder. Pandya is primarily a batsman who can bowl, so he falls under that category, but, by the rankings, he hasn't played enough Test matches to be ranked, it seems.
  24. Tibarn

    ATG Test 11 Pace Bowlers

    Me too, but I don't agree with the results either. To me, it's Steyn, Marshall, and Waqar. These 3 were the most dangerous bowlers among those who are considered ATGs, as evidenced by their SRs and their relative consistency across countries. Steyn is by miles the best fast bowler of all time in my eyes. He SR is decisively better than McGraths, (10 balls better! ), who seems to be leading the poll. McGrath only has total wickets and a 1 point average over Steyn. Basically he played almost 40 more tests than Steyn, so he has the wicket total. Of course, Anderson seems to be on pace to overtake him there... Waqar is far better than Wasim, and is criminally underrated. I guess Indians are wowed by his ODI exploits but don't realize that Waqar consistently outperforms him in Tests. I guess the padoisis love Wasim more and thus promote him as an ATG far more than Waqar.
  25. Tibarn

    Dhawan is almost confirmed starter for first test

    Plot twist: Dhawan will come in at number 6

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×