Guess who gets dropped

[Texan]

This argument that Bhuv should not play on pattas despite not even giving him a chance to do so is like executing an accused without a trial. That is the problem I have. Drawing a premature conclusion based on a false notion of wicket taking ability not backed by any statistical evidence. A bowler in form should be played in the team ahead of another bowler of similar type who is not producing desired results. Plain and simple. If he fails, drop him. But don't draw premature conclusions.

[express bowling]

6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

This leads to the question that needs to be answered: why does Bhuvi deserve to play matches in India? I hardly think that a 5-wicket haul on a green pitch in overcast conditions implies his ability to bowl in India. That innings was clearly an outlier. His true ability in Indian conditions is closer to his 2013 stats. In fact, when we see the 2013 stats, we can see:

 

His average 37.88 strike rate 69.3 from 2013 are actually better than what he has produced since his comeback, excluding the 1st innings in Kolkata, which has actually raised his average in India to 39 and strike rate to 72.4.

 

Let's let Bhuvi be what he is, a specialist bowler in swing friendly/green conditions. That would be best for him and our team. 

 

Good analysis.

 

The thing is, averages swing very sharply when a player has played very few innings.   Rahul was averaging 33 before this test and is averaging  almost 42 after one big innings.

 

Bhuvi was averaging 35, with 29 wickets from 12 tests, till mid 2016.

 

After that, he has been usually picked when there is extra help for swing bowlers....the team management had  pointed this out specifically when he replaced Umesh in Gros Islet and was picked for the Eden Gardens test.  

 

To his credit, Bhuvi is better than most seamers, when the ball is swinging.   But,  we won't get the stats that truly reflect his ability if he is selected mostly in favourable conditions and left out on flat tracks.

 

Similarly, Umesh has improved his accuracy primarily from the WI tour of 2016....but had to sit out on 2 helpful tracks / conditions since then...the only time he played on a greenish track in Antigua in these 5 months, he took 5 wickets.

 

When we are considering a short period of 5 months, with very few matches under consideration, we have to look for how the bowlers being discussed have actually bowled.  I would say that all our seamers have bowled well and that includes both Umesh and Bhuvi.

 

It is true that Umesh had ordinary stats before the WI series, but so had  Bhuvi.  Umesh was not a good test bowler till mid-2016....I agree, but it has to be seen how he is doing after he has improved his accuracy.  Picking him only on flat tracks won't  give us the true picture statistically.   (  Shami has good stats even on these flat tracks because he is clearly better than  Umesh, Bhuvi or Ishant as an all-condition bowler ).

 

In a nutshell....to compare statistically,  Umesh has to play on favourable tracks and Bhuvi has to play on flat tracks  after they have improved as bowlers from mid-2016.   I think Bhuvi will still have better stats overall because of his ability to run through sides in helpful conditions, but not on flat tracks.

 

 

[express bowling]

51 minutes ago, Texan said:

There are two pacers picked and Bhuv is not one of them. Who replaced whom is irrelevant and does not alter the argument in any manner. 

 

It is relevant because it proves that it is not a case of the team management wanting  Umesh.....

 

but it is a case of NOT wanting Bhuvi on flat tracks as long as there is a reasonably experienced option available.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by express bowling

[Texan]

10 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

It is relevant because it proves that it is not a case of the team management wanting  Umesh.....

 

but it is a case of NOT wanting Bhuvi on flat tracks as long as there is a reasonably experienced option available.

 

Of course we know team management does not want to play him on what are thought of as flat tracks. What is irrelevant is who replaces whom. Two out of the three pacers were picked. Bhuv is not one of them. It is completely irrelevant whether Ishant is the first choice pick or Umesh is.

[Texan]

15 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

In a nutshell....to compare statistically,  Umesh has to play on favourable tracks and Bhuvi has to play on flat tracks  after they have improved as bowlers from mid-2016.   I think Bhuvi will still have better stats overall because of his ability to run through sides in helpful conditions, but not on flat tracks.

 

 

Umesh and Bhuv played together on a flat track in Mumbai. Neither was exceptional, but Bhuv still got an important wicket - that of the first innings centurion in the second innings for a golden duck. Umesh went wicketless.

[Tibarn]

52 minutes ago, Texan said:

You don't post an attempt at an analytical post when you have already drawn a conclusion. When you do such, you have to be objective. Question is not whether he is a World beater in India or not. Question is whether he is better than the two other pacers picked. That is what you should be analyzing and that is what is completely missing in your post. How does he compare with Umesh and Ishant? Would like to see that analysis. And yes, excluding a player's best performance implies that you are penalizing him for doing well. That is pretty ridiculous. Cherry picking at its best.

 

When you don't have an argument, claim the other person is bias ? 

 

You are free to quote the post and show me where I was bias. I only showed that Bhuvi is not good in Indian conditions, using literally all of his innings he ever bowled in India for India. If you call that cherry-picking, then we are living in two different worlds where the word means two different things.

52 minutes ago, Texan said:

objective

You literally start a thread trashing a bowler right off the bat, and then repeat it multiple times throughout it without providing anything remotely analytical beyond bowling average in the OP. Once again, different worlds. The person who analyzes a single player dispassionately is bias and the person who came to the conclusion beforehand is unbiased . Unlike you, I am actually a fan of team India first, not a Bhuvi fanboy.   

 

If you want to criticize Umesh, Ishant, or anyone else, feel free to do so. I did not, in the post you quoted, claim anything that is for or against Umesh/Ishant. If you feel so offended by my criticism of Bhuvi, counter it instead of using the standard ad hominem of: "anyone that doesn't agree with me is bias."

 

By the way, I analyzed what I was interested in. I was legitimately interested in how Bhuvi has such great numbers in India. I analyzed it. If you want an analysis of Umesh or Ishant, do it yourself; don't shift the burden of proof to me. If you show that Umesh, Ishant, or anyone is statistically poor, it doesn't bother me.   

 

52 minutes ago, Texan said:

Would like to see that analysis.

Do it yourself 

 

52 minutes ago, Texan said:

And yes, excluding a player's best performance implies that you are penalizing him for doing well.

Look up what a statistical outlier is. Just because it doesn't help you prop up your favorite player doesn't make it "bias" 

 

Also, since your thread relates to bowling in India, please, with your unbiased mind, explain how a green track under overcast conditions is representative of Indian conditions.

 

Also explain how the conditions during the match in Chennai, the match that is being played right now, is anything similar to the Kolkata pitch where Bhuvi had his one great inning in India, when the vast majority of his other innings involve 0s and 1s in the wicket column.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Tibarn

[express bowling]

16 minutes ago, Texan said:

Umesh and Bhuv played together on a flat track in Mumbai. Neither was exceptional, but Bhuv still got an important wicket - that of the first innings centurion in the second innings for a golden duck. Umesh went wicketless.

Umesh created chances too.  One wicket more in a match hardly proves anything.

 

But, I think you are missing what the team management wants here.

 

On these flat tracks, neither Umesh nor Bhuvi nor Ishant are expected to pick many wickets.   The spinners are expected to be the main wicket-takers.

 

The role of the fast bowlers on these flat tracks in Asia is to soften the batsmen....hit them on the body....push them on the backfoot....make them uncomfortable physically.  Cricket is played with a hard ball and it is very painful for batsmen when they get physically hit by quick bowlers....they feel uneasy and  some psychological advantage goes to the side inflicting these injuries.  ( We have seen so many physical hits and fending off deliveries in fear of physical hits in this series  by us....Hameed, Woakes, Moeen, Ansari, Dawson, Jennings, Root, Cook, Broad, Anderson  etc. )

 

India has been on the receiving side of this psychological game for years with only Srinath and Zaheer giving it back.....but now, we have multiple such quicks and want to dish it out too.

 

If we have 3 bowler, neither of whom are expected to pick many wickets ( like Umesh, Bhuvi or Ishant on flat tracks )  then the one who can soften the batsmen physically will be picked.

Edited December 19, 2016 by express bowling

[Texan]

5 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

When you don't have an argument, claim the other person is bias ? 

 

You are free to quote the post and show me where I was bias. I only showed that Bhuvi is not good in Indian conditions, using literally all of his innings he ever bowled in India for India. If you call that cherry-picking, then we are living in two different worlds where the word means two different things.

You literally start a thread trashing a bowler right off the bat, and then repeat it multiple times throughout it without providing anything remotely analytical beyond bowling average in the OP. Once again, different worlds. The person who analyzes a single player dispassionately is bias and the person who came to the conclusion beforehand is unbiased . Unlike you, I am actually a fan of team India first, not a Bhuvi fanboy.   

 

If you want to criticize Umesh, Ishant, or anyone else, feel free to do so. I did not, in the post you quoted, claim anything that is for or against Umesh/Ishant. If you feel so offended by my criticism of Bhuvi, counter it instead of using the standard ad hominem of: "anyone that doesn't agree with me is bias."

 

By the way, I analyzed what I was interested in. I was legitimately interested in how Bhuvi has such great numbers in India. I analyzed it. If you want an analysis of Umesh or Ishant, do it yourself; don't shift the burden of proof to me. If you show that Umesh, Ishant, or anyone is statistically poor, it doesn't bother me.   

 

Do it yourself 

 

Look up what a statistical outlier is. Just because it doesn't help you prop up your favorite player doesn't make it "bias" 

 

Also, since your thread relates to bowling in India, please, with your unbiased mind, explain how a green track under overcast conditions is representative of Indian conditions.

 

Also explain how the conditions during the match in Chennai, the match that is being played right now, is anything similar to the Kolkata pitch where Bhuvi had his one great inning in India, when the vast majority of his other innings involve 0s and 1s in the wicket column.

 

LOL! Yet another cr@ppy post that does not even address the question being asked here.

 

You drew a conclusion that he does not deserve to play in India without even answering the question - on what basis? Is he competing with Glen McGrath, Wasim Akram or Dale Steyn for a spot in the team? If so, then surely he does not deserve a spot in the team. So, your conclusion is premature until you compare his competitors' statistics. 

 

And since you love making personal comments rather than stay objective to the topic at hand using some poor quality graphics, I thought that considering you had so much time to do such a detailed analysis on Bhuv meant that your attempts at doing masters in ecology / biology are either not keeping you sufficiently occupied or not leading to any meaningful result, hence you may have plenty of time to do some more detailed analysis to actually prove your argument that his competitors are actually better.

 

[Texan]

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

India has been on the receiving side of this psychological game for years with only Srinath and Zaheer giving it back.....but now, we have multiple such quicks and want to dish it out too.

 

Exactly. This is exactly what you guys want. A fast bowler that registers well on the speed gun and can "show off" India's capability in a department, where historically we have been poor. To be honest, I was one of these too and loved the fact that we brought Aaron and Yadav into the team. But match after match, I noticed that a fast bowler without skill is worse than a medium pacer with good skills and that is why I am insisting that speed gun analysis should not be the only factor influencing team selection.

 

[Texan]

19 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

The role of the fast bowlers on these flat tracks in Asia is to soften the batsmen....hit them on the body....push them on the backfoot....make them uncomfortable physically.  Cricket is played with a hard ball and it is very painful for batsmen when they get physically hit by quick bowlers....they feel uneasy and  some psychological advantage goes to the side inflicting these injuries.  ( We have seen so many physical hits and fending off deliveries in fear of physical hits in this series  by us....Hameed, Woakes, Moeen, Ansari, Dawson, Jennings, Root, Cook, Broad, Anderson  etc. )

 

India has been on the receiving side of this psychological game for years with only Srinath and Zaheer giving it back.....but now, we have multiple such quicks and want to dish it out too.

 

If we have 3 bowler, neither of whom are expected to pick many wickets ( like Umesh, Bhuvi or Ishant on flat tracks )  then the one who can soften the batsmen physically will be picked.

 

So, you are saying that Umesh and Ishant are expected to employ more short-pitched stuff to soften the batsmen? To be honest, I hardly saw any short-pitched bowling expect for that one spell to Moeen Ali, who is known for his weakness against short stuff and that too came after he had already made a 100. I would like to see more short-pitched aggressive spells dished out too, but other than Shami in some spells, I have hardly seen Umesh or Ishant employ this in India. So, what exactly have they been doing?

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Texan said:

 

Exactly. This is exactly what you guys want. A fast bowler that registers well on the speed gun and can "show off" India's capability in a department, where historically we have been poor. To be honest, I was one of these too and loved the fact that we brought Aaron and Yadav into the team. But match after match, I noticed that a fast bowler without skill is worse than a medium pacer with good skills and that is why I am insisting that speed gun analysis should not be the only factor influencing team selection.

 

Not speed guns readings, nobody knows about speed gun readings while batting ......but softening batsmen up,  physical blows to the opposition batsmen, having them pushed back on the back-foot, having them fend-off quick deliveries in fear of getting hit....basically  wresting psychological advantage from the opposition.  I repeat..., NOT speed gun readings.

 

It is immaterial what I want....this is what every international captain and every international coach wants...

 

Remember Asia Cup 2015....Dhoni picked  old man Nehra ( because he is tall and gets bounce off length )  and the quicker Pandya and Bumrah on green tops over Bhuvi in almost every match....why did that happen  ?   All international captains tend to drop short medium pacers at the drop of a hat the moment other viable options are available.

 

In conditions where a medium paced swing bowler is expected to be better than a fast bowler....like in Kolkata test 2016 or in England....he will definitely be picked.

Edited December 19, 2016 by express bowling

[express bowling]

5 hours ago, Texan said:

 

So, you are saying that Umesh and Ishant are expected to employ more short-pitched stuff to soften the batsmen? To be honest, I hardly saw any short-pitched bowling expect for that one spell to Moeen Ali, who is known for his weakness against short stuff and that too came after he had already made a 100. I would like to see more short-pitched aggressive spells dished out too, but other than Shami in some spells, I have hardly seen Umesh or Ishant employ this in India. So, what exactly have they been doing?

 

Shami has used a lot of hostile short-pitched stuff.....Ishant  does it too generally and hit Dawson on the head in this test only.

 

Umesh needs to improve this aspect but we have seen him do it  much more often in the last 2 tests.

 

Another aspect is...when a skiddy quick bowler is bowling then even a just short of good length delivery hits batsmen on the hands, thighs, stomach etc.   and they don't like it.....example...Hameed's case.

Edited December 19, 2016 by express bowling

[coffee_rules]

Bhuvi needs conditions to get wickets. Umesh's wkts have been on his own effort , huffing and puffing and bowling 140+ in any of his spells. Without conditions, Bhuvi at 125 kph seems like lollipops. Bhuvi doesn't enthuse the selector even with a better record. We need one pure fast bowler or even two. If only UY has IS's height or IS had UY's work ethic. 

[Tibarn]

4 minutes ago, Texan said:

LOL! Yet another cr@ppy post that does not even address the question being asked here.

Different worlds, different dictionaries 

5 minutes ago, Texan said:

You drew a conclusion that he does not deserve to play in India without even answering the question - on what basis? Is he competing with Glen McGrath, Wasim Akram or Dale Steyn for a spot in the team? If so, then surely he does not deserve a spot in the team. So, your conclusion is premature until you compare his competitors' statistics. 

You drew a conclusion based off of nothing and want me to do all the analysis.

 

You're the OP, why don't you do it, or is it easier to whine when everyone isn't a fanboy of your precious Bhuvi. I don't see anything analytical in your OP. Do it yourself before asking me to reaffirm your sycophancy.

 

What's the matter, can't do it? 

8 minutes ago, Texan said:

And since you love making personal comments rather than stay objective to the topic at hand using some poor quality graphics, 

You start with a post that claims that I am unobjective, cherry-picking, implying that I am against Bhuvi, etc. Thereafter, you provide nothing either to counter what I wrote or prove any of your allegations.

 

Now you are mad that I call you a fanboy. Pot meet kettle.

11 minutes ago, Texan said:

using some poor quality graphics

 Don't worry, you're worth only poor quality graphics, if that.  

9 minutes ago, Texan said:

hence you may have plenty of time to do some more detailed analysis to actually prove your argument that his competitors are actually better

Where did I claim any of his competitors were better. Serious question, are you purposefully being obtuse or do you have a victim complex? 

 

14 minutes ago, Texan said:

rather than stay objective to the topic at hand

Once again, you started the ad hominem attacks instead of answering my data. 

 

If this makes you feel better:

There is no Bowler but Bhuvi and Texan is his Prophet.

 Jai Shree Bhuveneshwar, 

 In the name of Bhuvi, Bhuvi's Baap, and the holy Texan 

I hereby declare:

Umesh is a spray gun, brainless, sh*t bowler who should be thrown into the Indian Ocean and nuked before he plays another game for India. 

 

There, happy?

 

Now answer my post with your objective analysis. You can do it, I believe in you 

19 minutes ago, Texan said:

I thought that considering you had so much time to do such a detailed analysis on Bhuv meant that your attempts at doing masters in ecology / biology are either not keeping you sufficiently occupied or not leading to any meaningful result,

Thanks bro for calling my analysis detailed, that's the first coherent thing you have said in this entire thread. 

 

Quote

your attempts at doing masters in ecology / biology are either not keeping you sufficiently occupied or not leading to any meaningful result,

Considering your name is "Texan" and it's past 12:30 in the morning in Texas right now, it seems you don't have anything better to do at this time. What's the matter nightmares that Bhuvi isn't playing this match  

 

Also 

 

You're right bro, I'm lying. I'm actually a jobless 8 year old Syrian refugee who misuses the German welfare system to stay up past my bedtime on a school night to argue with blind Bhuvi fanboys. You should be honored (or does that mean something else on your planet?). 

 

 

Now, if you're done avoiding  the questions I raised, please answer, otherwise, you're boring me. 

 

Dhanyavad  

[Texan]

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Different worlds, different dictionaries 

You drew a conclusion based off of nothing and want me to do all the analysis.

 

You're the OP, why don't you do it, or is it easier to whine when everyone isn't a fanboy of your precious Bhuvi. I don't see anything analytical in your OP. Do it yourself before asking me to reaffirm your sycophancy.

 

What's the matter, can't do it? 

You start with a post that claims that I am unobjective, cherry-picking, implying that I am against Bhuvi, etc. Thereafter, you provide nothing either to counter what I wrote or prove any of your allegations.

 

Now you are mad that I call you a fanboy. Pot meet kettle.

 Don't worry, you're worth only poor quality graphics, if that.  

Where did I claim any of his competitors were better. Serious question, are you purposefully being obtuse or do you have a victim complex? 

 

Once again, you started the ad hominem attacks instead of answering my data. 

 

If this makes you feel better:

There is no Bowler but Bhuvi and Texan is his Prophet.

 Jai Shree Bhuveneshwar, 

 In the name of Bhuvi, Bhuvi's Baap, and the holy Texan 

I hereby declare:

Umesh is a spray gun, brainless, sh*t bowler who should be thrown into the Indian Ocean and nuked before he plays another game for India. 

 

There, happy?

 

Now answer my post with your objective analysis. You can do it, I believe in you 

Thanks bro for calling my analysis detailed, that's the first coherent thing you have said in this entire thread. 

 

Considering your name is "Texan" and it's past 12:30 in the morning in Texas right now, it seems you don't have anything better to do at this time. What's the matter nightmares that Bhuvi isn't playing this match  

 

Also 

 

You're right bro, I'm lying. I'm actually a jobless 8 year old Syrian refugee who misuses the German welfare system to stay up past my bedtime on a school night to argue with blind Bhuvi fanboys. You should be honored (or does that mean something else on your planet?). 

 

 

Now, if you're done avoiding  the questions I raised, please answer, otherwise, you're boring me. 

 

Dhanyavad  

LOL! Such a long post and still no substance. On what basis are you saying that he does not deserve his spot? You have completely missed the point that whether one deserves a spot or not is a comparative analysis depending on how others who "deserve" that spot are better. Anyway, good luck with your premature ejaculations. They may help you someday land something meaningful to do.

[Tibarn]

4 minutes ago, Texan said:

LOL! Such a long post and still no substance. On what basis are you saying that he does not deserve his spot? You have completely missed the point that whether one deserves a spot or not is a comparative analysis depending on how others who "deserve" that spot are better. Anyway, good luck with your premature ejaculations. They may help you someday land something meaningful to do.

 

What's the matter, ignorant or stupid? Please perform the analysis yourself and get your hand out of your pants dreaming of Bhuvi, it's past 1 AM Texas time.

 

The thread and original claim was by you, that Bhuvi should play ahead of Umesh. Please show me your great cricketing knowledge, greater than Kumble and Kohli. Don't shift the burden of proof. 

 

Also answer these from or are you too incompetent?

 

Quote

Also, since your thread relates to bowling in India, please, with your unbiased mind, explain how a green track under overcast conditions is representative of Indian conditions.

 

Also explain how the conditions during the match in Chennai, the match that is being played right now, is anything similar to the Kolkata pitch where Bhuvi had his one great inning in India, when the vast majority of his other innings involve 0s and 1s in the wicket column.

 

 

[Texan]

2 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

What's the matter, ignorant or stupid? Please perform the analysis yourself and get your hand out of your pants dreaming of Bhuvi, it's past 1 AM Texas time.

 

The thread and original claim was by you, that Bhuvi should play ahead of Umesh. Please show me your great cricketing knowledge, greater than Kumble and Kohli. Don't shift the burden of proof. 

 

Also answer these from or are you too incompetent?

 

 

 

I already showed you that on current form, Umesh does not warrant a place in the team and on current form, Bhuv has done pretty well on current form and there is no evidence to suggest that Umesh is a World beater on flat tracks. But it seems like you may have lost your head sitting among your ISIS mates after having failed to make any reasonable impression on any aspect of accomplishments in your life, so name-calling in forums is your sole gateway to derive some sadistic pleasure out of your pathetic life. I am glad that I helped you get through one of those days.

[Tibarn]

16 minutes ago, Texan said:

I already showed you that on current form, Umesh does not warrant a place in the team and on current form, Bhuv has done pretty well on current form and there is no evidence to suggest that Umesh is a World beater on flat tracks. But it seems like you may have lost your head sitting among your ISIS mates after having failed to make any reasonable impression on any aspect of accomplishments in your life, so name-calling in forums is your sole gateway to derive some sadistic pleasure out of your pathetic life. I am glad that I helped you get through one of those days.

Saar please answer these questions: 

 

Please show me where I said Umesh should play in his place or is a world beater? 

 

You realize there are players outside of the squad that can get an opportunity (such as Nathu Singh or Shardul Thakur)? 

 

Please explain what an outlier is and why they are important in statistical analysis?

 

Please tell me how a green pitch represents ability to bowl in India?

 

Also please tell me how using every innings a player has bowled in a country as part of an analysis of if he is fit to play in that country is cherrypicking

 

Also  please tell me why you started personal attacks to me and then wet yourself when I responded? 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Tibarn

[Texan]

5 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Saar please answer these questions: 

 

Please show me where I said Umesh should play in his place or is a world beater? 

 

You realize there are players outside of the squad that can get an opportunity (such as Nathu Singh or Shardul Thakur)? 

 

Please explain what an outlier is and why they are important in statistical analysis?

 

Please tell me how a green pitch represents ability to bowl in India?

 

Also  please tell me why you started personal attacks to me and then wet yourself when I responded? 

Do you even realize that this thread was created because of the perceived injustice meted out to a player because another player who was picked despite of an inferior overall record and inferior current form? Look at my first response to your post. It is a critique of your analysis because it is missing one of the most important aspects of why you drew the said conclusion. Even Muloghonto pointed that out to you, but you were so full of yourself that you started attacking the individual instead of understanding the critique.

 

Why don't you truly prove your point by providing the same statistical analysis of why Umesh or for that matter Ishant "deserve" the spot more?You do realize that "deserving" a spot is a relative term and depends on being better than the ones you are competing for for that spot only.

[Tibarn]

3 hours ago, Texan said:

Do you even realize that this thread was created because of the perceived injustice meted out to a player because another player who was picked despite of an inferior overall record and inferior current form?

This relies on the assumption that the choice was between Bhuvi and Umesh. It is clear that this was never the decision. Shami and Umesh both played all 3 of the earlier test matches, despite Ishant and Bhuvi both being healthy. Bhuvi replaced Shami in Mumbai only after injury and Ishant leaving for his wedding. Ishant replaced Bhuvi in Chennai. The constant is Umesh. The think tank clearly wants to play him for his reverse swing. Whether someone thinks that's right or wrong.

 

You are thus committing a false choice fallacy where a non-existing situation is happening. There is nothing to suggest that Bhuvi and Umesh were in competition for a spot, that only Bhuvi and Umesh are in competition for the spot (we could have only played 1 pacer, ie Ishant and 3 spinners).

 

The basis of saying it is an injustice to Bhuvi, based on what you said earlier in the thread would be the Mumbai test where he got 1 wicket and Umesh got zero. However, overall for the series, after the Mumbai Test: they both average over 60 and have to bowl over 100 balls a piece to pick up a wicket. 

 

UT Yadav (INDIA)

5*

9

129.5

22

428

7

2/58

2/73

61.14

3.29

111.2

0

0

B Kumar (INDIA)

1

2

17.0

1

60

1

1/11

1/60

60.00

3.52

102.0

0

0

 There is no injustice if both play like garbage. If there is injustice, it is to Ishant: Who has a 21 average and gets a wicket every 63 balls. 

I Sharma (INDIA)

1*

1

21.0

6

42

2

2/42

2/42

21.00

2.00

63.0

0

0

What about Bhuvi's Mumbai effort would shoot him up the pecking order if he returned similarly useless numbers as Umesh? 

 

3 hours ago, Texan said:

Even Muloghonto pointed that out to you, but you were so full of yourself that you started attacking the individual instead of understanding the critique

You made multiple claims in your 1st response to me, for which you provided no evidence:

 

1) You called me unobjective. You provided no proof to support this claim or counter evidence to disprove mine. This is at best a lazy argument and at worst a personal comment; the later is what I took it as. If you did not intend it as a personal comment, then you should choose your words more carefully.  You are free to take issue with any and everything I said in response, such as the fanboy comment, but don't play high and mighty. You started the interaction with me, and passed what I considered an insult. I did not engage you.

 

2) Secondly, you claimed I cherry-picked data. You did not show why what I did was cherry-picking. I included every innings that Bhuvi has ever played in India. The stats are based off including all but 1 innings he bowled in India, an innings that happened in decisively non-Indian conditions. If you want to show that it is cherry-picking, please explain why you think so, or describe why you think including the Kolkata innings is representative of his ability to play in India. An analogy is Anderson, if he performs well in conditions similar to the last time we were at Lord's, does that mean he would perform well in India? 

 

3) You implied I am biased against Bhuvi. This is the equivalent of me calling you a fanboy, although the latter is more crude. You don't know me. I like watching Bhuvi bowl. My argument that Bhuvi shouldn't play in India doesn't mean I am against him. If someone thinks Dhawan shouldn't play test matches in overseas, does that mean that they are bias against Dhawan? If anything, some of you show far more disturbing, visceral hatred for Umesh in this thread and forum.  

 

4) You, like Muloghonto, have invented a strawman fallacy argument. You both have taken what I have written in my post and tried to apply it to statements that I didn't make. Both of you brought up Umesh vs Bhuvi comparison, I have stated earlier in the same thread I am not interested in the Bhuvi vs Umesh stuff. You and Muloghonto both invent references to Umesh, not me. This is fallacious. You and all the anti-Umesh posters: New Guy, Muloghonto, SScomp2,etc are free to criticize him, it's a discussion forum, just leave me out of it.  The post you quote starts and ends with this

Quote

In regards to Bhuvi, I guess the question is whether he is as good in India as his numbers indicate. Here is a list of all his innings bowled in India:

...

His average 37.88 strike rate 69.3 from 2013 are actually better than what he has produced since his comeback, excluding the 1st innings in Kolkata, which has actually raised his average in India to 39 and strike rate to 72.4.

Let's let Bhuvi be what he is, a specialist bowler in swing friendly/green conditions. That would be best for him and our team.

 

If you want to criticize my post, criticize what I actually wrote, argue the content with your own, otherwise: 

1)  It was you who created the thread and argument, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that Bhuvi deserved to play this game over Umesh

2)  It was you who engaged me in discussion. I have asked multiple times for you to counter whatever you don't agree with, yet you          continually refuse to do so. You are arguing in bad faith. Furthermore, you shift the burden of proof, another fallacy, to me to make your argument by analyzing Umesh. 

3) You made the first comment that was seen as a personal remark by me. You thereafter take issue with my own remarks. As I said earlier, watch what you post, or don't act high and mighty when someone responds to you in whatever manner they see fit.        

 

I make it clear that I am only talking about Bhuvi, I make it clear that I am analyzing his numbers in India, and I make a clear that I view him as incapable of bowling in India at the end of the post.

 

You lot imagining a competition for whatever spot with Umesh, Ishant, etc, etc is not my concern and not my responsibility. 

Quote

You do realize that "deserving" a spot is a relative term and depends on being better than the ones you are competing for for that spot only.

Sure it's relative. So please prove that he deserves spot, if that is your goal. I make no reference to whatever spot you keep mentioning.

 

On your end, you do realize that you are assuming that Bhuvi was in contention for that spot, correct? Where does that come from? 

 

If Kumble/Kohli decided that Umesh was a first choice bowler in this series, which he clearly was, what makes you think that his place in the side was ever in jeopardy by Bhuvi?

 

If Kumble/Kohli both know the stats you posted in the OP, and they still don't select Bhuvi over Umesh, are they the wrong or are you wrong?

 

If they both know the stats and still don't select/trust Bhuvi, what does it say about him?

 

If Bhuvi wasn't first choice before the series started, what has he done during the series that he should have played the 5th test?

 

You do realize that if Umesh plays like garbage, they aren't required to play a bowler in his place, correct? Kohli can play 4 bowlers, with 3 spinners and 1 pacer in Ishant, as Chennai is usually spin friendly. Why do you assume that the spot was up for grabs for Bhuvi?

 

If you can't prove that the spot was up for grabs, how do you know he was "competing"  for it?

 

Along with those questions, if you have an issue with my original post, you can disprove it by arguing/answering these questions, some of which I posed to you earlier

Quote

Please show me where I said Umesh should play in place of Bhuvi, or is a world beater? If you can't, why do you rely on strawmen arguments and misrepresenting other posters's statements?

 

Please explain what an outlier is and why they are important in statistical analysis, what is statistical noise, and why you think that the outlier I selected was cherry-picking and not an outlier.

Please explain why it isn't cherry-picking, when you ignore all the dropped catches off a bowler's bowling in a series in your haste to prove they stink( ie guess how many catches were dropped off Umesh's bowling this series so far, I know the number, do you)?

 

Please tell me how bowling on a green pitch represents ability to bowl in India, a country whose standard pitches are completely different? Please extrapolate your logic for the first part as to why said performance would translate to bowling on a traditional turner in Chennai?

 

Also please tell me how using every innings a player has bowled in a country as part of an analysis of if he is fit to play in said country is cherrypicking, but using stats that aren't country specific in the OP, the one you created, is a better predictor of bowling ability?

 

Please provide evidence/examples that I am biased against Bhuvi and unobjective, otherwise will you acknowledge that you were the one that started the personal comments?

 

3 hours ago, Texan said:

Even Muloghonto pointed that out to you, but you were so full of yourself that you started attacking the individual instead of understanding the critique.

The only people full of themselves are people who invent strawmen, misrepresent other people's arguments, shift the burden of proof, initiate personal attacks, avoiding answering questions regarding their own statements, jump to conclusions, and avoid proving what they post. None of that applies to me.  

 

3 hours ago, Texan said:

Why don't you truly prove your point 

I analyzed what was in my hypothesis, , if you don't like it, counter it, ignore it, use personal comments, run away, whatever floats your boat. 

 

Preempting your snide remark related to length of post/time to compose it, it doesn't take more than 5-7 minutes to write a post of this length, something easily done when watching a cricket match. 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Tibarn