Wisden: Why are Pakistan this bad at test cricket?

[Nikhil_cric]

3 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

From what I have seen this bowlers don't clock these speeds even in T20 or ODIs when they represent Pakistan.

Akif Javed never bowled above 145+ when he played for Pak.

 

CPL also used to have speed guns which were jacked up.  Hasnain nearly used to bowl 157-158ks as per CPL I think 

Akif hasn't played a T20I, yet .  He clocked 148 kph last PSL and hit 144 odd in the only ODI series he played.  But his pace dropped after his first spell. 

 

Hasnain clocked 155.7 in CPL as his fastest and did clock 150+ even in Asia Cup 2022 iirc.  But he had a problematic action and the pace went down after that. 

[jf1gp_1]

For decades Pakistani counter to India not producing fast bowlers was 'they are all vegetarians'. Why today pak cant produce fast bowler? Incest. 

[deathmonger]

9 hours ago, mani sha said:

GDP is proportional to success in sports . Pak poor economy is now catching up in sports last 15 years . If I were their board , I would bring in a ceo from outside to run their cricket - a- create a 10 year framework starting at under 12 . B- develop injury and workload mgt for all age groups starting with under 12 c - have 5 grounds with excellent facilities d - support 6 good domestic teams with good salary , infra and coaches . 
 

Pak system of plucking talent like Akram , past history of age fudging , ball tampering , illegal actions is no longer working . Add the army interference and lack of continuity with ex players almost creating rifts in team is not helping their cause.  

None of this will help.

 

You need $$$ for this which they don't have.

 

Until their economy improves, this is their fate.

[deathmonger]

6 hours ago, zen said:

That is not necessarily accurate (Are you referring to GDP per capita.? Note that in terms of GDP per capita - Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bhutan have the highest GDP per capita in Asia. India is tied with Bangladesh). Otherwise India would be winning many more medals in Olympics, qualify for FIFA World Cup, and so on. 
 

Pakistan itself has won Olympic medals and World Cup in hockey. It used to do well in Squash too. 
 

Kenyan runners used to do well in long distance running. 
 

Better GDP can help with sporting infrastructure, open more avenues to take sports as a profession, create a larger pool of athletes and sports person, relatively more money spent on each individual, and so on, but it is not as direct as you imply.
 

Better GDP equals success in sports appears like a story that many in India tell themselves to console for a lack of success in sports in general despite a population of a billion plus.
 

Cricket is an outlier with only a handful nations in play. Dominance in cricket is hardly noted globally relatively speaking. 

Not a story. Indian sporting achievements have had an uptick in the 21st century with rising $$$. It will continue as India is finally going to be "not poor" by 2040.

 

Cricket has become very "professional" now with analytics, coaching etc and "talunt" is not enough. Hence the good teams are all the richer countries and India with its mass effect.

 

Same happened in football with the likes of Uruguay and Hungary being very good in the early days of cricket.

[deathmonger]

6 hours ago, zen said:

That is not necessarily accurate (Are you referring to GDP per capita.? Note that in terms of GDP per capita - Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bhutan have the highest GDP per capita in Asia. India is tied with Bangladesh). Otherwise India would be winning many more medals in Olympics, qualify for FIFA World Cup, and so on. 
 

Pakistan itself has won Olympic medals and World Cup in hockey. It used to do well in Squash too. 
 

Kenyan runners used to do well in long distance running. 
 

Better GDP can help with sporting infrastructure, open more avenues to take sports as a profession, create a larger pool of athletes and sports person, relatively more money spent on each individual, and so on, but it is not as direct as you imply.
 

Better GDP equals success in sports appears like a story that many in India tell themselves to console for a lack of success in sports in general despite a population of a billion plus.
 

Cricket is an outlier with only a handful nations in play. Dominance in cricket is hardly noted globally relatively speaking. 

Not a story. Indian sporting achievements have had an uptick in the 21st century with rising $$$. It will continue as India is finally going to be "not poor" by 2040.

 

Cricket has become very "professional" now with analytics, coaching etc and "talunt" is not enough. Hence the good teams are all the richer countries and India with its mass effect.

 

Same happened in football with the likes of Uruguay and Hungary being very good in the early days of cricket.

[deathmonger]

6 hours ago, zen said:

That is not necessarily accurate (Are you referring to GDP per capita.? Note that in terms of GDP per capita - Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bhutan have the highest GDP per capita in Asia. India is tied with Bangladesh). Otherwise India would be winning many more medals in Olympics, qualify for FIFA World Cup, and so on. 
 

Pakistan itself has won Olympic medals and World Cup in hockey. It used to do well in Squash too. 
 

Kenyan runners used to do well in long distance running. 
 

Better GDP can help with sporting infrastructure, open more avenues to take sports as a profession, create a larger pool of athletes and sports person, relatively more money spent on each individual, and so on, but it is not as direct as you imply.
 

Better GDP equals success in sports appears like a story that many in India tell themselves to console for a lack of success in sports in general despite a population of a billion plus.
 

Cricket is an outlier with only a handful nations in play. Dominance in cricket is hardly noted globally relatively speaking. 

Not a story. Indian sporting achievements have had an uptick in the 21st century with rising $$$. It will continue as India is finally going to be "not poor" by 2040.

 

Cricket has become very "professional" now with analytics, coaching etc and "talunt" is not enough. Hence the good teams are all the richer countries and India with its mass effect.

 

Same happened in football with the likes of Uruguay and Hungary being very good in the early days of cricket.

[singhvivek141]

1 hour ago, jf1gp_1 said:

For decades Pakistani counter to India not producing fast bowlers was 'they are all vegetarians'. Why today pak cant produce fast bowler? Incest. 

 

Pakistani generation have grown up looking for excuses instead of hard work. 

When Arshad Pappu cant throw the Javelin...Indians ne saazish kardi, when they can't move the bowl..Indians ne chip laga di.

[zen]

5 hours ago, deathmonger said:

Not a story. Indian sporting achievements have had an uptick in the 21st century with rising $$$. It will continue as India is finally going to be "not poor" by 2040.

 

Cricket has become very "professional" now with analytics, coaching etc and "talunt" is not enough. Hence the good teams are all the richer countries and India with its mass effect.

 

Same happened in football with the likes of Uruguay and Hungary being very good in the early days of cricket.

India’s GDP per capita is the same as BD’s. SL’s higher. 
 

In Hockey, a newly independent India was one of the best teams early on. 
 

Countries like Kenya have dominated long distance running in the past. 

In Football while Uruguay may not be doing as well, relatively low GDP per capita counties like Brazil and Argentina have traditionally done well. In Copa America, other South American countries have won the title too. Now even African countries are performing relatively better to offer a tough competition to rich European countries.
 

Even in cricket, despite its financial muscle, India is not as dominant as it should be. Relatively poorer boards still compete well. India’s recent success can also be attributed to having unearthed bowlers like Bumrah. If money produced more such bowlers, India would have had more Bumrahs.

 

In India, its richest states do not necessarily produce the most successful sports people. Manipur, a relatively low GDP state, has produced many medal winners (Boxing).

 

Btw, in Paris Olympics, Pakistan (60 odd) finished higher than India (70 odd) on the table, iirc. 
 

In 2080, with X at Y. Y at Z. India will dominate in A, B, and C (How many are going to around in 2080. We can type whatever we want). In short, a feel good story where people may have looked at the situation from the model they understand rather than understanding the story as it should be.

Edited August 23 by zen

[sage]

15 hours ago, sage said:

 

 

[bsriharsha]

3 hours ago, zen said:

India’s GDP per capita is the same as BD’s. SL’s higher. 
 

In Hockey, a newly independent India was one of the best teams early on. 
 

Countries like Kenya have dominated long distance running in the past. 

In Football while Uruguay may not be doing as well, relatively low GDP per capita counties like Brazil and Argentina have traditionally done well. In Copa America, other South American countries have won the title too. Now even African countries are performing relatively better to offer a tough competition to rich European countries.
 

Even in cricket, despite its financial muscle, India is not as dominant as it should be. Relatively poorer boards still compete well. India’s recent success can also be attributed to having unearthed bowlers like Bumrah. If money produced more such bowlers, India would have had more Bumrahs.

 

In India, its richest states do not necessarily produce the most successful sports people. Manipur, a relatively low GDP state, has produced many medal winners (Boxing).

 

Btw, in Paris Olympics, Pakistan (60 odd) finished higher than India (70 odd) on the table, iirc. 
 

In 2080, with X at Y. Y at Z. India will dominate in A, B, and C (How many are going to around in 2080. We can type whatever we want). In short, a feel good story where people may have looked at the situation from the model they understand rather than understanding the story as it should be.

I'll comment bit by bit. 

 

W.r.t football in south america , it has increasingly become a global game. Clubs like Real Madrid buy players like Vinicius jr for 70m even before the player barely hit 16 or 17. The club's therein have the revenue to drive up their youth projects without the involvement of the government's. 

 

Football has grown there without the need of the local economy growing there because it's one of the outlets for talented people to make it. The government has little to do with it. 

 

Cricket is different in that regard , both are team sports but all that some kid in SA needs is to have a football

 

When it comes to cricket , there needs to be a dedicated system behind it. And that's not quite the case as it is in Football. 

 

[bsriharsha]

And the best footballer in the world right now. Lionel Messi was more a product of Barcelona and their La Masia academy than he was a product of Argentina. 

[bsriharsha]

They are so many outlets for talented footballers to play. So many global leagues. 

 

But where cricket is concerned , it remains a highly indian money dominated place. Which isn't wrong per se. Cricket isn't a global sport like football is. 

[bsriharsha]

I'll come to other sports later. Hockey , running , cricket 

[zen]

3 hours ago, bsriharsha said:

I'll comment bit by bit. 

 

W.r.t football in south america , it has increasingly become a global game. Clubs like Real Madrid buy players like Vinicius jr for 70m even before the player barely hit 16 or 17. The club's therein have the revenue to drive up their youth projects without the involvement of the government's. 

 

Football has grown there without the need of the local economy growing there because it's one of the outlets for talented people to make it. The government has little to do with it. 

 

Cricket is different in that regard , both are team sports but all that some kid in SA needs is to have a football

 

When it comes to cricket , there needs to be a dedicated system behind it. And that's not quite the case as it is in Football. 

 

It does not matter as the overall what someone said is that more GDP = better sports performances. England has a high GDP as well but is not doing as expected in WTC.  
 

It is like painting things with a single brush, understanding events based on just the models you know. 

Note that football being a global game does not mean that clubs do charity, they pick up talented players from various regions. 

 

X is not Y. Y here is not like Z. And so on, changes little to the overall point. 
 

 

Edited August 23 by zen

[Vancouver]

I see it as part of a much broader societal decay, and if you want to identify one person who accelerated it, Zia-ul-Haq, born in Jalandhar, Punjab would be very high on the list. 

 

I think in the past, Pakistani players were much more tightly integrated with the UK, through education, county cricket and social circles. That showed on the field. They regularly rubbed shoulders with the best players in the world, so they weren't in awe of someone like Kohli in the way some players seem to be today.

 

A lot of those older Pakistani teams had an aura about them. They were nonchalant, cocky and sometimes downright boisterous. They genuinely believed they belonged among the best.

 

I also think Inzamam was a turning point. Under him, Saeed Anwar's increasingly religious outlook gained much more influence within the team, and the culture around the squad changed considerably. Whatever one's views on religion, I think that shift had consequences for the team's mentality and identity.

 

It's sad what happened to Anwar's family, and I have sympathy for him as a father, but as a public figure his transformation was pretty extraordinary.

 

 

 

 

[bowl_out]

They have generally poor technique. A horrible ecosystem that doesn't build talent. 

Why they win occasionally in limited overs is because of one freak innings on a patta wicket like CT 2017 for example.  

 

The longer the format, the more clearly the technical flaws come out. That too in foreign conditions.

So playing Tests in foreign conditions brings out the worst in them

[Vancouver]

14 hours ago, deathmonger said:

Cricket has become very "professional" now with analytics, coaching etc and "talunt" is not enough. Hence the good teams are all the richer countries and India with its mass effect.

 

You have a coach who compares cricketeres to soldiers, Gambhir has explicitly said that he trusts instinct over data, including saying, “I don't look at data, I don't look at anything else” when explaining how he makes decisions.

 

There is no professionalism in Indian coach. 

[deathmonger]

19 hours ago, zen said:

India’s GDP per capita is the same as BD’s. SL’s higher. 
 

In Hockey, a newly independent India was one of the best teams early on. 
 

Countries like Kenya have dominated long distance running in the past. 

In Football while Uruguay may not be doing as well, relatively low GDP per capita counties like Brazil and Argentina have traditionally done well. In Copa America, other South American countries have won the title too. Now even African countries are performing relatively better to offer a tough competition to rich European countries.
 

Even in cricket, despite its financial muscle, India is not as dominant as it should be. Relatively poorer boards still compete well. India’s recent success can also be attributed to having unearthed bowlers like Bumrah. If money produced more such bowlers, India would have had more Bumrahs.

 

In India, its richest states do not necessarily produce the most successful sports people. Manipur, a relatively low GDP state, has produced many medal winners (Boxing).

 

Btw, in Paris Olympics, Pakistan (60 odd) finished higher than India (70 odd) on the table, iirc. 
 

In 2080, with X at Y. Y at Z. India will dominate in A, B, and C (How many are going to around in 2080. We can type whatever we want). In short, a feel good story where people may have looked at the situation from the model they understand rather than understanding the story as it should be.

 

India’s GDP per capita is the same as BD’s. SL’s higher. 

 

Huge population difference. They don't win anything.

 

In Hockey, a newly independent India was one of the best teams early on. 

 

It became more professional

 

In Football while Uruguay may not be doing as well, relatively low GDP per capita counties like Brazil and Argentina have traditionally done well. In Copa America, other South American countries have won the title too. Now even African countries are performing relatively better to offer a tough competition to rich European countries.

 

Argentina is a first world country. Brazil is almost first world and they have a huge popualtion.

 

Even in cricket, despite its financial muscle, India is not as dominant as it should be. Relatively poorer boards still compete well. India’s recent success can also be attributed to having unearthed bowlers like Bumrah. If money produced more such bowlers, India would have had more Bumrahs.

 

India is a lot more dominant than it used to be. And more Bumrahs will come.

 

Btw, in Paris Olympics, Pakistan (60 odd) finished higher than India (70 odd) on the table, iirc. 

 

This was due to Nadeem's gold, one medal they won in last 30 years. An aberattion.

 

In short, a feel good story where people may have looked at the situation from the model they understand rather than understanding the story as it should be.

 

Naah, I remember the days of one medal in the 90s and early 00s. This is reality, not a story.

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, deathmonger said:

 

India’s GDP per capita is the same as BD’s. SL’s higher. 

 

Huge population difference. They don't win anything.

 

In Hockey, a newly independent India was one of the best teams early on. 

 

It became more professional

 

In Football while Uruguay may not be doing as well, relatively low GDP per capita counties like Brazil and Argentina have traditionally done well. In Copa America, other South American countries have won the title too. Now even African countries are performing relatively better to offer a tough competition to rich European countries.

 

Argentina is a first world country. Brazil is almost first world and they have a huge popualtion.

 

Even in cricket, despite its financial muscle, India is not as dominant as it should be. Relatively poorer boards still compete well. India’s recent success can also be attributed to having unearthed bowlers like Bumrah. If money produced more such bowlers, India would have had more Bumrahs.

 

India is a lot more dominant than it used to be. And more Bumrahs will come.

 

Btw, in Paris Olympics, Pakistan (60 odd) finished higher than India (70 odd) on the table, iirc. 

 

This was due to Nadeem's gold, one medal they won in last 30 years. An aberattion.

 

In short, a feel good story where people may have looked at the situation from the model they understand rather than understanding the story as it should be.

 

Naah, I remember the days of one medal in the 90s and early 00s. This is reality, not a story.

 

Yes, let’s keep adding factors to justify fitting things into basic models to paint everything with the same brush. 

 

While some countries may benefit from higher GDP (depending on what % they spend on sports, it’s sporting culture, etc) or GDP per capita,  it is NOT a necessary condition. There are tons of examples of relatively low GDP (or GDP per capita if you mean that) countries, including with low population (Cabo Verde in recent FIFA World Cup for example, many others provided previously) that do well in sports. 
 

PS Note that players like Bumrah (Tendulkar, etc) are not produced in a factory. If so, Australia, which dominated for a long time and still dominates, would have produced many Shane Warne, Bradmans, for example, by now. 

 

 

Edited August 24 by zen

[singhvivek141]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Yes, let’s keep adding factors to justify fitting things into basic models to paint everything with the same brush. 

 

While some countries may benefit from higher GDP (depending on what % they spend on sports, it’s sporting culture, etc) or GDP per capita,  it is NOT a necessary condition. There are tons of examples of relatively low GDP (or GDP per capita if you mean that) countries, including with low population (Cabo Verde in recent FIFA World Cup for example, many others provided previously) that do well in sports. 
 

PS Note that players like Bumrah (Tendulkar, etc) are not produced in a factory. If so, Australia, which dominated for a long time and still dominates, would have produced many Shane Warne, Bradmans, for example, by now. 

 

 

 

What I will say might seem an excuse, but it is what it is. 

 

1. Sports is a luxury, if a society is struggling, sports will be the last thing which will come to their mind. Cricket is popular because it has money, other sports are yet to catchup, why someone will pickup certain sport when their future is uncertain ?

 

2. As Indian GDP per capita and economy grows in, India will excel, coz more and more folks will have the "buffer" that even if they fail in the sports they love...its not a loss for their entire live..they can still earn decent money and survive.

 

3. South & West India, its traditionally been the richer end of country..hence they are the first to adapt to a sport which needed dedicated infra, make it popular and later North & east catches up to it. and propagate it globally. Ex. Lawn Tennis. .be it Leander Paes (primarily a Goan) or Mahesh Bhupathi or Sania Mirza or Rohan Bopanna...they all are from South or West part of the country.

 

4. India also has massive security risks which many countries don't, hence the focus is to secure itself first and then think about sports, coz Sports is still considered a luxury.