In a perfect world, shouldn't numbers favour us?

[Pakistan]

You say as if Pakistan had all time great fast bowlers at all times in their history. Well, not really. Only Wasim Akram can be regarded as a true all time great, and to some good degree Waqar as well. Apart from them, who? Shoiab sizzled for a small time then became a parody of himself. Since the retirement of the two Ws, which Pakistani fast bowler has gone onto being regarded as a truly great? So please don't talk to us about your great "history".

Fazal Mahmood

[Vilander]

Feel sorry for India. You guys should be bossing cricket to be honest. 1.2 billion population yet not a single fast bowler. Lets hope Varun and Shami can continue to be good. I hope so. I like Asian teams doing well.

Feel sorry for you, living in pakistan.

[Vilander]

Populations are fractal in nature in my opinion. You drill down and take smaller and smaller samples and you'd still find some brilliant, most average, and some pathetic sets in each subset. As long as the base size is still above a certain threshold, ideally, all cricketing nations will continue to throw up 11-15 players who are good enough to challenge anyone in the world. To put it very simply with an analogy. Whether you cultivate over hectares or on the backside of your house, an orange will remain an orange. And you can find 11 oranges of good taste in your small backyard orange tree, just as good as any 11 plucked from hectares of cultivated farmland. Actually, sometimes the 11 plucked from the hectares of farmland could end up being inferior if plucked from the wrong sample. Given the small size of your backyard, you are also in additional position to care for these and nurture them more effectively as well.

Dont even try answering this, with all the biases that we have to contend with in troll posters from the ghetto. Thinking that population addition equals improvement of cricketing skills is like saying, since the apple tree in my backyard gives me more apples than the one in my cousins, i should be drinking more apple juice. Only very dim witted trolls can claim there is a correlation here. But quality of academies, diet and discipline of the wards in it will have an impact, in these things Aus must be better than us and Pak for instance is much worser which results in the returns for each.

[Vilander]

I think it is pretty embarrassing. With a population of more than 1.2 Billion and all cricket crazy, you would think no one would be able to beat India. If I'm to be fully honest here, and it is my personal experience, that Indian males (generally) aren't as athletic as the Pakistanis and the Pakistanis aren't as athletic as other races. The average Indian I see here (in the UK) is more worried about their next maths exam than anything else... India produces good batsmen because it doesn't require much athleticism in my opinion. P.S: I'm not being biased here because I believe even Pakistan with it's population should produce a lot more batsmen than it recently has.

1, pakistanis are not as atheletic as other nationalities - true - including Indians..

[Yamaha]

Overpopulation is the biggest burden we have not the asset. We have 90% of our problems due to it. If we were 1/4 th of it I think we would have been better in Cricket and couple of other sports as well as economically.

Excellent point.

[zen]

Like I've said before us Asians are very unfit. Our diet is as bad as it can get plus if you look at the system it is very hard to play cricket and be educated at the same time. One main reasons why families don't let their children get into cricket. But India should beat us left right and center considering we have a similar culture. Why doesn't India? Lack of talent.

In that case, Pak should be beating SL (subcontinent team) too left right and center. Why doesn't it? To understand the demerits of your argument, let's expand the Lahori Logic to other fields as well: Ind is known for IT. Pak has similar culture so why isn't it known for IT? Now take Bollywood for example and compare that with Lollywood. Considering Pak has 1/6th of Ind's population, Pak should be able to do 1/6th of everything Ind does so in this case one big global hit for every 6 Bollywood hits. It may not be too obvious to you but the answer is that there is no relation to population or culture but it is the clusters that make the difference. Some parts of Ind have IT culture so the industry thrives there. Bollywood is clustered around Mumbai. Giving more examples on clusters - take Hollywood for e.g., would you say NYC has more population than LA so why NYC does not make that many films as Hollywood. Similar thing can be said about HK for Chinese films. Now take watches for example, Switzerland is known for watches and other precision instruments. Germany and France have similar culture but more population than French speaking Swiss and German speaking Swiss, would you say why Germany and France combined are not known for high-quality watches as Switzerland is. So instead of looking at population, look at clusters. Taking about cricket, in subcon, Pak is a big cluster, Colombo is a key cluster as well, while in Ind it is mainly Mumbai (you can look at the historical record of Ranji winners. Mumbai has won 50% of Ranji Trophies iirc) If you understand what's written in this post, it should answer your question and expose demerits of the Lahori Logic. On why such logic is termed as Lahori? Because Lahore is the cluster which produces such logic :icflove:

[Vilander]

In that case, Pak should be beating SL (subcontinent team) too left right and center. Why doesn't it? To understand the demerits of your argument, let's expand the Lahori Logic to other fields as well: Ind is known for IT. Pak has similar culture so why isn't it known for IT? Now take Bollywood for example and compare that with Lollywood. Considering Pak has 1/6th of Ind's population, Pak should be able to do 1/6th of everything Ind does so in this case one big global hit for every 6 Bollywood hits. It may not be too obvious to you but the answer is that there is no relation to population or culture but it is the clusters that make the difference. Some parts of Ind have IT culture so the industry thrives there. Bollywood is clustered around Mumbai. Giving more examples on clusters - take Hollywood for e.g., would you say NYC has more population than LA so why NYC does not make that many films as Hollywood. Similar thing can be said about HK for Chinese films. Now take watches for example, Switzerland is known for watches and other precision instruments. Germany and France have similar culture but more population than French speaking Swiss and German speaking Swiss, would you say why Germany and France combined are not known for high-quality watches as Switzerland is. So instead of looking at population, look at clusters. Taking about cricket, in subcon, Pak is a big cluster, Colombo is a key cluster as well, while in Ind it is mainly Mumbai (you can look at the historical record of Ranji winners. Mumbai has won 50% of Ranji Trophies iirc) If you understand what's written in this post, it should answer your question and expose demerits of the Lahori Logic. On why such logic is termed as Lahori? Because Lahore is the cluster which produces such logic :icflove:

:hatsoff: illusory correlation in layman terms...such a detailed explanation. There is too-much hate in there to reason in that one...so wont help much.

[jonas10]

The 1.25 billion arguement is a complete misnomer. The day India actually utilizes that 1.25 billion in sport well rule cricket for the next 100 generations. Its really 40million 20 million Delhi boys and 20 million Mumbai boys with a few odds ends here and there. Please remind me how many cricketers in history have come from: Jammu Kashmir Arunachal Pradesh Assam Chhattisgarh Mizoram Nagaland etc etc ... There is a huge lack of development and grass roots involvement in sports in India. A true Indian team would reflect indian society. IE 75% of the team would be village boys not city boys.

[fuub]

It may not be too obvious to you but the answer is that there is no relation to population or culture but it is the clusters that make the difference. Some parts of Ind have IT culture so the industry thrives there. Bollywood is clustered around Mumbai. Giving more examples on clusters - take Hollywood for e.g., would you say NYC has more population than LA so why NYC does not make that many films as Hollywood. Similar thing can be said about HK for Chinese films. :icflove:

I don't think it is as black and white as you explain. Hollywood and Mumbai are centres for the entertainment industry, true, but that isn't independent of the country's entire population. Are all famous holly/bollywood actors born in LA/Mumbai? no. They draw people who aspire to be great actors from across the country. For me, I agree with those on the thread who believe it is about the national system that uncovers then is able to nurture talent. A greater population is an advantage, a greater population that mainly loves the sport of cricket is an even bigger advantage, but a better system to find/enhance the talent is the biggest advantage.

[Vilander]

I don't think it is as black and white as you explain. Hollywood and Mumbai are centres for the entertainment industry' date=' true, but that isn't independent of the country's entire population. Are all famous holly/bollywood actors born in LA/Mumbai? no. [b']They draw people who aspire to be great actors from across the country. For me, I agree with those on the thread who believe it is about the national system that uncovers then is able to nurture talent. A greater population is an advantage, a greater population that mainly loves the sport of cricket is an even bigger advantage, but a better system to find/enhance the talent is the biggest advantage.

you and him are saying the same. Thats what clusters do, beyond a critical limit population is not an advantage.

[BeautifulGame]

Our cricket set up in the past was completely unprofession and selections in domestic cricket (Like Ranji) are still mostly influenced by favoritism Also ODIs and T20s are hugely popular and test cricket isnt much.Also there is lot of money in T20 and is now a professional option due to IPL whereas Ranji trophy isnt. In the last few years in shorter format we have Won 2011 world cup Won 2013 CT Reached 2014 T20 WC Reached 2015 WC semi Comfortably better than other countries . These performances will continue to strengthen as every year pass by becoz now we have professional set up to benefit shorter formats But unless we have a quality structure similar to IPL for Ranji trophy its hard to see as produce a dominant test team.We r a developing country and the corruption symbolism any similar countrywill continue to pull the sporting systems.Developed countries are far better at utilizing their resources as well all know

[vijay50]

Our cricket set up in the past was completely unprofession and selections in domestic cricket (Like Ranji) are still mostly influenced by favoritism Also ODIs and T20s are hugely popular and test cricket isnt much.Also there is lot of money in T20 and is now a professional option due to IPL whereas Ranji trophy isnt. In the last few years in shorter format we have Won 2011 world cup Won 2013 CT Reached 2014 T20 WC Reached 2015 WC semi Comfortably better than other countries . These performances will continue to strengthen as every year pass by becoz now we have professional set up to benefit shorter formats But unless we have a quality structure similar to IPL for Ranji trophy its hard to see as produce a dominant test team.We r a developing country and the corruption symbolism any similar countrywill continue to pull the sporting systems.Developed countries are far better at utilizing their resources as well all know

England says HI.

[BeautifulGame]

England says HI.

They are the exception to the rule even in football :cantstop:

[BlueBee]

Like I've said before us Asians are very unfit. Our diet is as bad as it can get plus if you look at the system it is very hard to play cricket and be educated at the same time. One main reasons why families don't let their children get into cricket. But India should beat us left right and center considering we have a similar culture. Why doesn't India? Lack of talent.

:WTF:

[Bumper]

I think it is pretty embarrassing. With a population of more than 1.2 Billion and all cricket crazy, you would think no one would be able to beat India. If I'm to be fully honest here, and it is my personal experience, that Indian males (generally) aren't as athletic as the Pakistanis and the Pakistanis aren't as athletic as other races. The average Indian I see here (in the UK) is more worried about their next maths exam than anything else... India produces good batsmen because it doesn't require much athleticism in my opinion. P.S: I'm not being biased here because I believe even Pakistan with it's population should produce a lot more batsmen than it recently has.

LOLsheet! Pakistani bowlers are athletic ? Yeah, Mohd "runs like a giraffe" Irfan, Sohail "walks like a duck" Khan, Rahat "catches like a bunny" Ali are all superman athletes. Pakistan hasn't produced even a single worth the mention in the last decade i have watched cricket. The reason Pakistan produces good fast bowlers and India better batsmen has nothing to do with meat, athleticism etc. This is more fundamental than that. It is more to do with how they grow up playing the game & cricketing economics. Pakistani cricketers prolly grow up playing tape ball cricket and in general place more value on aggro and machoism than brains & finesse. In general Pakistani cricketers are more instinctive in nature. Indian cricketers are quite the opposite. The result is one country produces better bowlers, other better batsmen. Like PreCambrian noted brilliantly in the other thread, look at your fast bowlers and see long they last. You have a healthy pipeline, so you can afford 4 bowlers getting injured & still field a competent bowling unit, but India does not have that luxury. That's the main difference. The pipeline has more to do with plain cricketing economics. Young Indian fast bowlers quickly learn that cutting down pace is the best way to prolong their careers & maximize revenue in the lucrative Indian market. So most of them become useless after the initial few years.

[Scarves]

I think that too. England should really be dominating football but England has a population of 70 million whereas India has a population of 1200 million. That's 17x more and therefore statistically India should be able to produce 17 teams as good as England's in cricket...and the fact that very few people in England play cricket in comparison to India should make that number even bigger.

England never had the sheer talent that Brazil and other countries have or the amazing coaching system that a Germany has. England just has the most popular league. But England have other sports. They have Rugby, Cricket, Hockey, Netball and so on while making sure that athletes in individuals sports have the backing. India, you don't see that. You don't see any top tennis player unless it is double for some reason, you don't see any basketballer from India like England (Deng, Gordon, Freeland, Mullens). It just more than just population and BCCI.

[Scarves]

Also in a lot of countries, children are brought up to play sport to get fit, work in a team, learn about life and make new friends. So then you have good facilities in place for that and that's where it's starts. I know so many Indian kids that wouldn't play basketball, football or cricket in the latter stages of high school because of University entrance exam while I played and managed my education fine.

[MCGGG]

1.2 billion eh? Damn, you guys must have suburbs with a higher population than Australia.

[amiret]

2) BCCI is the richest cricketing board 3) India cricketers are richest 4) There is a lot of money in cricket in India so why can't we produce an unbeatable team? Odds really favour us.

In 2, 3, and 4 u have answered your own question. Excellence and an unbeatable team has Never been BCCI's primary objective. $$$$ is all that matters .

[Marut]

Population argument is a highly flawed argument. Barbados, a single island in the WI was capable of putting out a team that could seriously challenge a World XI at one point of time. An ATG Barbados XI will give every World XI a run for its money. And Barbados did not have any of the riches BCCI or CA had. So excellence in sports is all about gathering right people at the right place at the right point of time. If all these combinations aren't met at the same time, you will end up with mediocrity. Barbados is no where on the cricket map today because some of the conditions mentioned earlier do not hold good for this island any more. The reason India does not produce exceptional sporting talent is because 1. We are a poor nation - Every day life is a matter of matter of struggle for survival for most Indians, and in per capita income we are in the bottom fourth among world nations. Sports is a form of entertainment and luxury - and hence is not in the priority list of most Indians. Though India may have 1.2B population, not even 1% of this population is in a position to even consider sports over struggle for survival. 2. Most Indians do not play sports after their school days. Our culture promotes the idea of "job safety" and most of us do not want to risk a professional sports career over a safe government job or a relatively safe professional career. The 1.2B talent pool is a joke. In reality I doubt whether our available pool for cricket crosses 0.1M. 3. High corruption in India (among the highest in the world) means that the sporting industry is not going to be free from its influence. We were banned from participating in Winter Olympics recently for appointing corrupt officials in the Olympic committee. While China goes to the Olympics solely for collecting medals (even at the cost of abusing their own players during training) for our officials such sporting events are a good opportunity to fill their own coffers. Who cares whether India wins a medal or not, as long I become richer? Such is the attitude of sports officials of India. Same yardsticks apply to BCCI. The money allocated by the government for sports development rarely reaches the sportsmen. 4. Merit is not always rewarded in India. There is nepotism at every level of cricket in India. Top talent is sidelined on various grounds - like regional basis, religion/caste/language etc. Occasionally, real talent breaks through all the barriers, but I believe most of the talent in India gets nipped in the bud even before it gets a chance to bloom.