congr. pakistan to beat india 25% in Rate.

[HippoSucks]

Asad Shafiq and YK have a ton against Morkel' date='Steyn and Philander in South Africa in 2013 when the trio were at peak.[/quote'] We're talking about Shafiq, Shehzad etc here, not Younis Khan or even Misbah. For Rahane to be compared to them, the sample size does need to be larger. Making a century against those bowlers is very different from doing it consistently. Including that century, in the three tests that Asad Shafiq has played in South Africa, he averages 33. http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/players/PlayerCountries.asp On the other hand Rahane has performed very consistently in difficult conditions, rather than just occasionally performing well.

[Autonomous]

We're talking about Shafiq, Shehzad etc here, not Younis Khan or even Misbah. For Rahane to be compared to them, the sample size does need to be larger. Making a century against those bowlers is very different from doing it consistently. Including that century, in the three tests that Asad Shafiq has played in South Africa, he averages 33. http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/players/PlayerCountries.asp On the other hand Rahane has performed very consistently in difficult conditions, rather than just occasionally performing well.

Shafiq has also done well in New Zealand and played important knocks. However he is yet to play a test in England.

[Autonomous]

Shafiq has already played 36 Tests, Rahane is only 16 Tests old so let him play more cricket first. Shafiq in 6 Tests Averages 45 against SA with 2 Tons, Not only once thus putting up your consistency argument up at you, Against Australia he has a batting average of 55, Average of 57 against NZ, Also a healthy record against SL and BD, Hence he has played alot more than Rahane and performed consistently, Let Rahane play 36 Tests and then we will see his performances. Talking about consistency in limited number of matches, Sarfraz alone has pilled 1000 Runs in 16 Tests @49.95.

[HippoSucks]

Shafiq has already played 36 Tests' date=' Rahane is only 16 Tests old so let him play more cricket first. Shafiq in 6 Tests Averages 45 against SA with 2 Tons, Not only once thus putting up your consistency argument up at you, Against Australia he has a batting average of 55, Average of 57 against NZ, Also a healthy record against SL and BD, Hence he has played alot more than Rahane and performed consistently, Let Rahane play 36 Tests and then we will see his performances. Talking about consistency in limited number of matches, Sarfraz alone has pilled 1000 Runs in 16 Tests @49.95.[/quote'] Shafiq averages 33 in South Africa but his overall average against South Africa is 45 (including matches being played in UAE). That just shows that Shafiq is not consistently capable of performing in South Africa where the South African pacers get more assistance. Instead he performs in home matches. The whole point is that Rahane has done much better than Shafiq and most of Pakistan's batsman (with the exception of Younis Khan and Misbah because the sample size isn't large enough yet) in testing conditions overseas. Performing consistently at home is good, but that alone can not make you a better batsman that someone who has performed much better overseas. In the upcoming home test series, it is a very reasonable assumption that Rahane will do very well.

[zep1706]

Bowlers win you test matches, Pakistan have had much better bowlers, so it is not that surprising really.

[bones]

Some great assessments that have come from the Padosis in the past: * Salman Butt is more "talunted" than Sachin * Razzaq is a better all-rounder than Kapil * Miandad is better than Gavaskar * Afridi is better than Sehwag and so on .... Now in the last couple of days, Pak is a super test side .... so what's new here :dontknow:

What relevance does that have to the thread? So the 4 comparisons you've listed, 3 of them are easy wins for India. One of them is not so much an easy win. But having great individuals means **** if the team doesn't perform? and so on? Do people think before they type online?

[Autonomous]

Shafiq averages 33 in South Africa but his overall average against South Africa is 45 (including matches being played in UAE). That just shows that Shafiq is not consistently capable of performing in South Africa where the South African pacers get more assistance. Instead he performs in home matches. The whole point is that Rahane has done much better than Shafiq and most of Pakistan's batsman (with the exception of Younis Khan and Misbah because the sample size isn't large enough yet) in testing conditions overseas. Performing consistently at home is good, but that alone can not make you a better batsman that someone who has performed much better overseas. In the upcoming home test series, it is a very reasonable assumption that Rahane will do very well.

We are yet to see Shafiq in Aus and England. He is likely to do well overseas, And as a batsman has been more consistent

[zen]

What relevance does that have to the thread? So the 4 comparisons you've listed, 3 of them are easy wins for India. One of them is not so much an easy win. But having great individuals means **** if the team doesn't perform? and so on? Do people think before they type online?

Let me do some spoon feeding - Like some of those examples, this thread too is along the lines of cooking something up to show Pak beat (or is better than) Ind at something - "congr. pakistan to beat india 25% in Rate" :haha: On Pak relatively better stats - I have written on it including factors such as good bowling attack, many of the Pakistani ATGs playing roughly at the same time, the use of bottle caps to impact outcome, infamous umpiring, minnow bashing, etc. .... Despite having those resources esp. in late 80s to late 90s period, Pak was still overshadowed by teams such WI, Aus and SA Talking about team achievements, Ind even went on to take the number #1 test ranking .... and let's not forget the number of titles it has in ODI WCs, T20s, CT, etc. I do accept that Ind has never had a strong team like Pak's in the late 80s to late 90s (after that even Pak has not had such a strong team). And during that period, Pak was also able to improve its record vs. Ind. However, in the last 2 decades, Ind has done better overall including getting the #1 ranking in tests Link Smell the coffee :om:

[zen]

PS In the last two decades, if we take BD and Zim out, Pak has in fact lost more tests than it has won: Link Going back to the 90s, the last 25 years, Pak still has lost more tests than it won (without BD and Zim) ----> Link

[zen]

If some Pakistani fans want to claim that their test team of 80s and probably 90s was better than Ind's, I agree .... May be one of their teams was even better than any test side put out by Ind in any period If these fans want to claim that because of how Pak test team performed relative to Ind in 80s and 90s, it is historically a better side, I disagree Pre 70s = nothing much to write about except some heroic performances here and there 70s = Ind (had some historic victories too in Eng, WI, etc. if I am not wrong) Link 80s = Pak (ahead by a margin) :nice: Link .... And WI was playing at a different level :hatsoff: 90s = Pak (Ind was catching up with Ten, Srinath, etc, Ind at home was a different team than Ind abroad) Link 20s = Ind (ahead by a margin, did well overseas as well, also crowned #1 in tests) :yay: Link 10s = still open (however Ind probably played more vs. SA, Eng, Aus away from home)