What HTH would you rather have? Pakistan's 85-66 advantage over India in all formats or India's 11-2 HTH advantage in ICC tournaments?

[Dil Dil India]

Please vote. HTH = head to head. Please keep only the HTH in mind. It is well established that India have accomplished much more by winning 3 ICC tournaments more including a WC and also by having test series wins in more test playing countries, so no point discussing that.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Dil Dil India

[zen]

Ind-Pak have been playing each other since 1950s. From 50s to mid 80s, Ind was a stronger side. Mid 80s to 90s, Pak was a stronger side. In 00s, they were more equal. In 10s, Ind is the stronger side. 

When a team is playing for so long, H2H could get pointless after some time. Also when Pakistan was strong, there were a lot of Ind-Pak games. When Ind was strong, there were not many Ind-Pak games. Also in the 80s, Pakistani umpiring was infamous and led to the concept of neutral umpires. In 90s, Pak side also had many of its ATG players playing at or around the same time. 

ICC are marque tournaments. More than team X vs team Y H2H, what is important is how a team has performed in those tournaments. India simply has won more marque tournaments and has been #1 in Tests as well. In ICC ranking, it is constantly rated among the top 3 sides in all formats. 

So the tournaments wins and #1 test ranking decides for me. Over a period of 75 years, if Ind won 19 less games, what is the big deal?

[Dil Dil India]

Ind-Pak have been playing each other since 1950s. From 50s to mid 80s, Ind was a stronger side. Mid 80s to 90s, Pak was a stronger side. In 00s, they were more equal. In 10s, Ind is the stronger side. 

When a team is playing for so long, H2H could get pointless after some time. Also when Pakistan was strong, there were a lot of Ind-Pak games. When Ind was strong, there were not many Ind-Pak games. Also in the 80s, Pakistani umpiring was infamous and led to the concept of neutral umpires. In 90s, Pak side also had many of its ATG players playing at or around the same time. 

ICC are marque tournaments. More than team X vs team Y H2H, what is important is how a team has performed in those tournaments. India simply has won more marque tournaments and has been #1 in Tests as well. In ICC ranking, it is constantly rated among the top 3 sides in all formats. 

So the tournaments wins and #1 test ranking decides for me. Over a period of 75 years, if Ind won 19 less games, what is the big deal?

agree. Achievements wise, India wipe the floor with Pakistan no questions there. That's why I just wanted to ask about the HTH. I'd still take the 11-2 in the big tournaments over having the edge in kitply and channa masala series.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Dil Dil India

[moniker]

It's not that black and white. I personally don't care much about head to head bilateral LOIs but I do care about the head to head test record. It is 9-12 to pak now which isn't that one sided so that's fine. If it was something embarrassing like 3-18 I'd surely want to rectify that over maintaining the ICC tourneys record. Currently I'm happy with what we got.

[adi B]

Well in odis the 70-52 or whatever it is and 6-1 in t20 is pretty much meaningless ,what counts is the icc tournament matches and the big tournament matches where india I believe lead 11-2.its like a tennis player having a head to had 15-10 against his rival (courtesy more wins in trivial atp 1000,500,250 matches) but his rival has a 6-1 h2h in grand slams best of five matches,surely anyone will take the latter in a heart beat.

India hurt Pakistan where it hurts the most I.e a world cup match  ,especially the mohali sf and wt20 final because those wins were decorated with a trophy win at the end.

Pakistan has a worthy 12-9 lead in tests fair enough but that can change anytime,tests have been close between the two sides

[adi B]

Achievements wise india easily beats Pakistan ,5-2 in icc trophy counts (6-2 if you count B&H) ,in tests #1 ,4-5 different times for an aggregate of 45+ months in our history I.e close to 4 years ,compare it to Pakistan's 2 month stay at #1 in 1987 i think.test series victory away from home in 1 extra country I.e the windies 

 

[fineleg]

After intro of neutral umpires by ICC -

What is the Test record HTH ?

[sandeep]

Ind-Pak have been playing each other since 1950s. From 50s to mid 80s, Ind was a stronger side. Mid 80s to 90s, Pak was a stronger side. In 00s, they were more equal. In 10s, Ind is the stronger side. 

When a team is playing for so long, H2H could get pointless after some time. Also when Pakistan was strong, there were a lot of Ind-Pak games. When Ind was strong, there were not many Ind-Pak games. Also in the 80s, Pakistani umpiring was infamous and led to the concept of neutral umpires. In 90s, Pak side also had many of its ATG players playing at or around the same time. 

ICC are marque tournaments. More than team X vs team Y H2H, what is important is how a team has performed in those tournaments. India simply has won more marque tournaments and has been #1 in Tests as well. In ICC ranking, it is constantly rated among the top 3 sides in all formats. 

So the tournaments wins and #1 test ranking decides for me. Over a period of 75 years, if Ind won 19 less games, what is the big deal?

Banter aside, you have to acknowledge that Pakistan punched above their weight for quite a while there in the 80s and 90s.  Against India and others as well.  Yes, their umpiring at home was exceptionally horrible - I can't forget that incident that Gavaskar relayed where the umpire, instead of calling no-ball, is letting the bowler know that he's overstepping, only to be cursed and told to STFU.  

Teams will have cyclical good and bad runs, but our World Cup streak against them is supernaturally good - it really has taken on another dimension.  Fans on either side will admit that its enviable.

[kruiser]

When have we lost to pakistan in ICC tournaments? What are those 2 losses? Champions trophy?

[express bowling]

The H2H has been affected a lot by tremendously biased umpiring in the '70s and '80s.

If we consider the era of neutral umpires and  greatly improved  camera coverage leading to almost no use of bottle-caps etc......the H2H is  very different.

Imran Khan actually started the concept of playing with neutral umpires because he was sick of the criticism from touring teams about his home umpires.  

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/511175.html

If we consider test series from 1989-90, when neutral umpires were introduced in tests... India have won 2 bilateral series and Pakistan have won one. Pakistan have won an Asian Test Championship and the H2H in tests is 5-5.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/pakvind/engine/records/team/series_results.html?class=1;id=6;id=7;type=headtohead

In ODIs, we have won most of matches in big tournaments against Pakistan and that is what matters to me in LOIs. bilateral series are not that important...but even there the H2H has been almost the same in he last 20 years. 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by express bowling

[jonas10]

BCCI clearly doesn't care about head to head or they would be scheduling 7 match odis every year over the last decade.

These guys haven't even had a test match in an eternity so it doesn't seem like India is keen to "level" the h2h.

Sent from my HUAWEI GRA-UL00 using Tapatalk

[Dil Dil India]

When have we lost to pakistan in ICC tournaments? What are those 2 losses? Champions trophy?

yes. 2004 Ct and 2009 ct

[Dil Dil India]

BCCI clearly doesn't care about head to head or they would be scheduling 7 match odis every year over the last decade.

 

These guys haven't even had a test match in an eternity so it doesn't seem like India is keen to "level" the h2h.

 

 

 

Sent from my HUAWEI GRA-UL00 using Tapatalk

 

 

Which I think is a mistake. Should inflict as much damage as possible when we are on top.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Dil Dil India

[Sean Bradley]

That 85 -66 surely would have been Even Stevens by now had we played more cricket with them in past decade. Let's say that even with a mediocre team full of lullos in the 90s we still had the better of them in crunch matches. Also let's not forget all the fishy sharjah games.

[Singh bling]

West Indies past record is also very good but look at their current state .

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[HippoSucks]

India's home umpires were fairly biased as well. Looking at the head to head record in tests after the introduction of neutral umpires is pointless as the period coincided with India's strongest ever test team. Ball tampering hasn't changed too much either with the increased camera supervision. Every team right not still engages in ball tampering, although they are better at hiding it and do it to a lesser extent. 

Overall, the test head to head record matters much more for me as long as India still has 2 World Cups. 

[HippoSucks]

Ind-Pak have been playing each other since 1950s. From 50s to mid 80s, Ind was a stronger side. Mid 80s to 90s, Pak was a stronger side. In 00s, they were more equal. In 10s, Ind is the stronger side. 

When a team is playing for so long, H2H could get pointless after some time. Also when Pakistan was strong, there were a lot of Ind-Pak games. When Ind was strong, there were not many Ind-Pak games. Also in the 80s, Pakistani umpiring was infamous and led to the concept of neutral umpires. In 90s, Pak side also had many of its ATG players playing at or around the same time. 

ICC are marque tournaments. More than team X vs team Y H2H, what is important is how a team has performed in those tournaments. India simply has won more marque tournaments and has been #1 in Tests as well. In ICC ranking, it is constantly rated among the top 3 sides in all formats. 

So the tournaments wins and #1 test ranking decides for me. Over a period of 75 years, if Ind won 19 less games, what is the big deal?

India was better than Pakistan in tests from the 1950s to 1980s? 

[zen]

India was better than Pakistan in tests from the 1950s to 1980s? 

That's what I wrote. More accurately till mid-1980s. 

"The teams that have successively held the highest rating since January 1952 till May 2003, by whole month periods, are:

Team	Start	End	Total months
Australia	January 1952	May 1955	41
England	June 1955	February 1958	33
Australia	March 1958	July 1958	5
England	August 1958	December 1958	5
Australia	January 1959	December 1963	60
West Indies	January 1964	December 1968	60
South Africa	January 1969	December 1969	12
England	January 1970	January 1973	37
Australia	February 1973	March 1973	2
India	April 1973	June 1974	15
Australia	July 1974	January 1978	43
West Indies	February 1978	January 1979	12
England	February 1979	August 1980	19
India	September 1980	February 1981	6
West Indies	March 1981	July 1988	89
Pakistan	August 1988	September 1988	2
West Indies	October 1988	January 1991	28

 

The summary of teams that have held the highest rating from 1952 to the present by whole month periods, are:

Team	Total months	Highest rating
Australia	321	143
West Indies	235	135
England	106	125
South Africa	48	135
India	46	130
Pakistan	2	110

"

ODIs - '83 World Cup, '85 World Series Champions 

Edited March 2, 2016 by rett

[HippoSucks]

That's what I wrote. More accurately till mid-1980s. 

"The teams that have successively held the highest rating since January 1952 till May 2003, by whole month periods, are:

Team	Start	End	Total months
Australia	January 1952	May 1955	41
England	June 1955	February 1958	33
Australia	March 1958	July 1958	5
England	August 1958	December 1958	5
Australia	January 1959	December 1963	60
West Indies	January 1964	December 1968	60
South Africa	January 1969	December 1969	12
England	January 1970	January 1973	37
Australia	February 1973	March 1973	2
India	April 1973	June 1974	15
Australia	July 1974	January 1978	43
West Indies	February 1978	January 1979	12
England	February 1979	August 1980	19
India	September 1980	February 1981	6
West Indies	March 1981	July 1988	89
Pakistan	August 1988	September 1988	2

"

 ODIs - '83 World Cup, '85 World Series Champions 

[zen]

So?  

It tells - Ind played a lot more tests than Pakistan. It may have lost series by huge margins and won series by smaller margins translating in to a relatively unfavorable W/L.  To illustrate:

Team X

Series A: 1-4, Series B: 2-1, Series 3: 1-0 = W/L = 4/5 = 0.8 .... But Won 2 series and lost one

Team Y

Series A: 1-2, Series B: 3-1, Series 3: 0-1= W/L = 4/4 = 1  .... But Won 1 series and lost two 

 

More importantly: Ind was number 1 for 15 months in the 70s and 6 months in the '80-'81 period. Additionally, Ind won two marque ODI tournaments in that period. So overall, it is India! 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by rett