Guess who gets dropped

[New guy]

I am surprised the speed demon is not running through the England side here with his pace and bounce. Is he waiting for the last session? Might be. Can someone bring me his stats from 2 years ago about his strike rate and his current speed gun readings so that I can feel better?

[Tibarn]

Lol at Bhuvi fanboys, most of them disappear and one of them is shadow boxing  

 

 

[Laaloo]

It's good we persisted with Yadav. He got us an important breakthrough. Without him, Rashid would have drawn the game. Also, yadav rattled Jennings and Cook before lunch and set  doubts in their minds. This led to them being tentative and eventually their wickets. Speed demon wins again. As I have said before, bhuvi is better served as a gol gappe seller. He would do good there.

[New guy]

On 12/20/2016 at 8:36 PM, Tibarn said:

Lol at Bhuvi fanboys, most of them disappear and one of them is shadow boxing  

 

 

Some cold hard facts which you willl run away from

 

Umesh took 8 wickets in 10 innings, not even a wicket per innings.  He went wicketless in 5 out of 10 innings. He took 1 wicket in 2 out of 10 innings. This means in 7 innings out of 10, he took 2 wickets in total. Maximum wickets he took in an innings was 2 and maximum in a match was 3

 

At least itna cirlcejerk karne se pahle facts dekh lo. Yeah he is an amazing wicket taking bowler and better than all English bowlers combined and Bhuvi would not have done better than 2 wickets in 7 innings

[New guy]

22 hours ago, laaloo said:

It's good we persisted with Yadav. He got us an important breakthrough. Without him, Rashid would have drawn the game. Also, yadav rattled Jennings and Cook before lunch and set  doubts in their minds. This led to them being tentative and eventually their wickets. Speed demon wins again. As I have said before, bhuvi is better served as a gol gappe seller. He would do good there.

With a one over new ball. I thought BK was criticized for taking wicket with new ball only? At least arguments to consistent rakhe gujju bhai, gol gappo ka bhav baad mai pata kar lena

[maniac]

1 minute ago, New guy said:

Some cold hard facts which you willl run away from

 

Umesh took 8 wickets in 10 innings, not even a wicket per innings.  He went wicketless in 5 out of 10 innings. He took 1 wicket in 2 out of 10 innings. This means in 7 innings out of 10, he took 2 wickets in total. Maximum wickets he took in an innings was 2 and maximum in a match was 3

 

At least itna cirlcejerk karne se pahle facts dekh lo. Yeah he is an amazing wicket taking bowler and better than all English bowlers combined and Bhuvi would not have done better than 2 wickets in 7 innings

This series was supposed to have our spinners run through their line up anyways...bowlers were supposed to enforce things when things got stuck and  Umesh did his job very well throughout.

 

Why does it have to be calling Umesh brainless or Bhuvi a trundler...why can't we accept that.Umesh was more suited to these pitches than Bhuvi?

 

 

 

[Tibarn]

36 minutes ago, New guy said:

Some cold hard facts which you willl run away from

 

Umesh took 8 wickets in 10 innings, not even a wicket per innings.  He went wicketless in 5 out of 10 innings. He took 1 wicket in 2 out of 10 innings. This means in 7 innings out of 10, he took 2 wickets in total. Maximum wickets he took in an innings was 2 and maximum in a match was 3

 

At least itna cirlcejerk karne se pahle facts dekh lo. Yeah he is an amazing wicket taking bowler and better than all English bowlers combined and Bhuvi would not have done better than 2 wickets in 7 innings

What's with the continued Umesh obsession by you lot.

 

The circle jerk was by the Bhuvi fan club, all of whom seemed to run away when someone pointed out that his one good innings in India was a statistical outlier. Maybe you are willing to answer some of the questions I posed to your comrade Texan.  Let's start with this one:

 

Quote

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

 

Just for fun, since you mentioned 0 wicket innings, here are fun charts for you: 

 

Umesh

Frequency Table

 

Bhuvi

Frequency Table

 

Bhuvi minus outlier at Kolkata

 

Frequency Table

 

It looks like Bhuvi is more likely to get 0 wickets than Umesh in India 

 

Bhuvi should play in conditions that suit his bowling, green tops, overcast conditions, etc. He has done nothing to deserve playing Test matches in Indian conditions.

 

If Umesh is a bad bowler like you lot claim, he will be replaced by Virat when a bowler that is better is found. In Indian conditions, that isn't Bhuvi. You guys do no favors to Bhuvi by blindly trashing other players who play for India and turning people who like him against him, just because you like one better than the other. However, I won't stop you, cheers    

Edited December 21, 2016 by Tibarn
Tables messed up

[New guy]

10 hours ago, Tibarn said:

What's with the continued Umesh obsession by you lot.

 

The circle jerk was by the Bhuvi fan club, all of whom seemed to run away when someone pointed out that his one good innings in India was a statistical outlier. Maybe you are willing to answer some of the questions I posed to your comrade Texan.  Let's start with this one:

 

 

Just for fun, since you mentioned 0 wicket innings, here are fun charts for you: 

 

Umesh

Frequency Table

 

Bhuvi

Frequency Table

 

Bhuvi minus outlier at Kolkata

 

Frequency Table

 

It looks like Bhuvi is more likely to get 0 wickets than Umesh in India 

 

Bhuvi should play in conditions that suit his bowling, green tops, overcast conditions, etc. He has done nothing to deserve playing Test matches in Indian conditions.

 

If Umesh is a bad bowler like you lot claim, he will be replaced by Virat when a bowler that is better is found. In Indian conditions, that isn't Bhuvi. You guys do no favors to Bhuvi by blindly trashing other players who play for India and turning people who like him against him, just because you like one better than the other. However, I won't stop you, cheers    

LMAO you freaking hypocrites talk about thrashing other bowlers when from ball 1 that Bhuvi played in the one match this series, he was being thrashed by every single paced obsessed guy here, just check the match thread. Please, please stop your hypocritical double standard sanctimonious speak when you had no problems when a player back from injury was thrashed from ball 1 he played for India and now you are acting all pious. You only see the pain when your favorite pace demon is rightly questioned for his CURRENT form after playing every single game. 

 

Even ATGs get questioned when they fail but somehow questioning the speed demon is a crime and turns people against a more deserving bowler? There are threads trying to prove that Umesh did very well when the truth is the opposite yet you are targeting me for pointing that out?  Freaking speed gun cult fanatics. If I remove outliers from Umesh, he will be averaging close to 50. This series, remove only couple of outliers and he averages close to 100

 

Did you see Bhuvi's stats this year? Or are you still hung up on stats from 2 years ago. If thats is the case Virat should be replaced by Rahane right? On current form BK can be an asset on any pitch, he has developed reverse, short ball and other skills but of course pace blind people cannot see this

 

Bhuvi has done nothing then what has Umesh done? Double nothing. Double standard hypocrites . You are again claiming out of your ass that Bhuvi will fail in India when Umesh HAS failed and you have no problems with that at all. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by New guy

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Tibarn said:

What's with the continued Umesh obsession by you lot.

 

The circle jerk was by the Bhuvi fan club, all of whom seemed to run away when someone pointed out that his one good innings in India was a statistical outlier. Maybe you are willing to answer some of the questions I posed to your comrade Texan.  Let's start with this one:

 

 

Just for fun, since you mentioned 0 wicket innings, here are fun charts for you: 

 

Umesh

Frequency Table

 

Bhuvi

Frequency Table

 

Bhuvi minus outlier at Kolkata

 

Frequency Table

 

It looks like Bhuvi is more likely to get 0 wickets than Umesh in India 

 

Bhuvi should play in conditions that suit his bowling, green tops, overcast conditions, etc. He has done nothing to deserve playing Test matches in Indian conditions.

 

If Umesh is a bad bowler like you lot claim, he will be replaced by Virat when a bowler that is better is found. In Indian conditions, that isn't Bhuvi. You guys do no favors to Bhuvi by blindly trashing other players who play for India and turning people who like him against him, just because you like one better than the other. However, I won't stop you, cheers    

The same can be said about every single pacer currently except Shami. 

Umesh has worse stats in India than Bhuvi and only with cherry-picking stats do you end up proving whatever you want to prove.

As Bhuvi has proved, he is already better than Umesh. 

As for 'statistical outlier', the same match Bhuvi had his 'statistical outlier', he has outperformed the best Indian pacer of the last 5 years (Shami).

 

Also, if you are going to take out 'statistical outliers' for Bhuvi, standard procedure demands you do the same for Umesh and take out his 7 wicket match in India too. Otherwise your data is not normalized, its just biassed & cherry-picked.

 

[New guy]

Here's one more sobering fact. Umesh was preferred ahead of BK as supposedly the later cannot take much wickets with old ball. Of the 8 wickets Umesh took in the series, 5 were with a less than 15 over old ball. 2 of those old ball wickets were after the opposition scored 350+ and 400+

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, New guy said:

LMAO you freaking hypocrites talk about thrashing other bowlers when from ball 1 that Bhuvi played in the one match this series, he was being thrashed by every single paced obsessed guy here, just check the match thread. Please, please stop your hypocritical double standard sanctimonious speak when you had no problems when a player back from injury was thrashed from ball 1 he played for India and now you are acting all pious. You only see the pain when your favorite pace demon is rightly questioned for his CURRENT form after playing every single game. 

Show me where I trashed Bhuvi on the very first ball, otherwise calm down. I don't speak for other people. If you have a problem with what other people say, address them. If you have a problem with what I say, address me.  

 

Strawman, please show me where I stated Umesh was my favorite pace demon. Saying Bhuvi sucks in Indian conditions isn't an endorsement of Umesh. I already stated that he will rightfully be replaced when someone the captain thinks measures up is available. 

 

Everyone else can also down vote you as well and that creepy Aunty with the Bhuvi obsession. Either make an argument or not. If you think everyone is being harsh or unfair toward Bhuvi, just ignore them. You don't have to engage people who are so obviously wrong in your eyes. No one has the power to do what you want except the captain, so save your negativity for him or write him a strongly worded letter.

 

Answer at least some of my questions or don't mention/quote me. I am not interested in arguing with you. 

  

 

 

[Tibarn]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The same can be said about every single pacer currently except Shami. 

Strawman once more.  No one said otherwise. Everyone pretty much agrees that Shami is the only good pacer.  It is you all that seem to think Bhuvi should play in Indian conditions, you are all free to prove that he capable.  

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Umesh has worse stats in India than Bhuvi and only with cherry-picking stats do you end up proving whatever you want to prove.

Prove it is cherry-picking. Here is another term you are ignorant of, adding to your misuse of the term strawman earlier.  

 

The definition of cherry-picking is:

Quote

 When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.  The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

Cherry-picking would involve me selecting only data that confirms what I claim and suppressing evidence. If you notice there is nothing suppressed in my post. Both stats are there: the stat with all of Bhuvi's innings included compared to one with the 1st innings in the Kolkata test excluded. I will include the table again.

	Total Ind	Kolkata 1st Innings	Rest of Ind
Runs	477	48	429
Wickets	16	5	11
Balls Bowled	888	90	796
Overs	148	15	133
Average	29.81	12.67	39
Strike Rate	55.5	27	72.4
Economy	3.22	3.2	3.22

 

If you notice, all the innings that Bhuvi has played in India are there. The entirety of the post simply points out that his great performance in may be  misleading, by a green pitch and overcast conditions, markedly un-Indian conditions. You or anyone else is free to disagree, with data. His other two good innings were also included

 

Furthermore, you could have checked the data to see if I was suppressing anything, even though I included what I used in my post. You failed to even do that much. You reveal yourself to be at best ignorant of the definition of cherry picking or at worst disingenuous, if you already knew what the definition of cherry-picking was and didn't use it properly. 

 

If you or anyone else thinks that including the Kolkata innings is representative of his ability to bowl in India, you are free to prove it. 

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

As Bhuvi has proved, he is already better than Umesh.

Another strawman. I didn't argue that Bhuvi is or isn't a better bowler than Umesh. I argued that Bhuvi's ability to bowl in India is misleading due to an outlier. Definition of an outlier.  

Quote

An outlier is an observation that lies outside the overall pattern of a distribution

 

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

As for 'statistical outlier', the same match Bhuvi had his 'statistical outlier', he has outperformed the best Indian pacer of the last 5 years (Shami).

This statement betrays ignorance of what an outlier is and attempts to use the same outlier to make an incoherent point. 

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Also, if you are going to take out 'statistical outliers' for Bhuvi, standard procedure demands you do the same for Umesh and take out his 7 wicket match in India too. Otherwise your data is not normalized, its just biassed & cherry-picked.

Multiple failures in this statement.

 

1) You repeat the Yadav strawman

2) You repeat a false choice fallacy between Bhuvi and Yadav

3) You are asking me to misrepresent data: Remove 2 innings of Yadav, where he totaled 7 wickets in response to removing a single innings of Bhuvi where he took 5 wickets.

4) You misuse the term cherry-picking again. One should know the meaning of words before they use them.

5) You misuse the word normalize, you incorrectly apply it to extraneous variable, ie Yadav's bowling. The dataset presented was under normalized conditions, the two variables tested:  "bowling in India" and "performance of Bhuvi" a confounding variable was identified, "an unusual pitch not of standard Indian conditions" and eliminated to see the results of the experiment. Both sets of data, with and without the confounding variable were presented for anyone to repeat of see. 

6) You use a double standard fallacy, you falsely allege another of not using normalized data, yet the entire basis of your argument is bowling average, a statistic that has never been normalized by the standards you yourself set ie bowling conditions, opposition, drops, the multitude of effects that affect the results of a bowling performance. 

7) You invent standard procedure based on your own whims. A hypothesis doesn't test for unrelated variables. Yadav's bowling has nothing to do with either Bhuvi's bowling or the experimental question. 

8) You make an unsubstantiated claim, that the data is biased, yet you don't show any data suppression.

9) You misinterpret the nature of the outlier: you want data to be removed based on high wicket total when that was not the basis of the outlier in the experiment. 

 

 

  

Edited December 22, 2016 by Tibarn

[express bowling]

Actually, Bhuvi should play 5 or 7  continuous tests on flat tracks....then people will understand how seamers can look like on flat tracks unless they can combine ( pace+ skills + bouncers )  like Shami, Srinath  or Broad.  Bhuvi averages 60 in the only test he played in .....I don't blame him, it is normal.......but  this is what an Indian flat/ spinning track can yield for seamers.

 

This series has been played on  4 flat tracks and a spinning pitch in Mumbai, but all unfavourable to seamers.  Woakes, Umesh, Stokes, Bhuvi, Anderson and Ball...all have poor averages in this series with Jake Ball averaging a "wonderful "  140

 

Overall figures

Player	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
I Sharma (INDIA)	1	2	31.0	8	59	3	2/42	3/59	19.66	1.90	62.0	0	0
Mohammed Shami (INDIA)	3	6	103.0	22	252	10	3/63	5/100	25.20	2.44	61.8	0	0
SCJ Broad (ENG)	3	5	89.0	24	248	8	4/33	5/82	31.00	2.78	66.7	0	0
BA Stokes (ENG)	5	8	106.2	16	357	8	5/73	5/89	44.62	3.35	79.7	1	0
JM Anderson (ENG)	3	5	79.0	17	214	4	3/62	4/95	53.50	2.70	118.5	0	0
UT Yadav (INDIA)	5	10	143.5	23	464	8	2/58	3/109	58.00	3.22	107.8	0	0
B Kumar (INDIA)	1	2	17.0	1	60	1	1/11	1/60	60.00	3.52	102.0	0	0
CR Woakes (ENG)	3	5	77.0	16	244	3	1/6	1/63	81.33	3.16	154.0	0	0
JT Ball (ENG)	2	2	41.0	7	140	1	1/47	1/47	140.00	3.41	246.0	0	0

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=1;class=1;filter=advanced;host=6;orderby=bowling_average;spanmin1=01+Nov+2016;spanval1=span;team=1;team=6;template=results;type=bowling

 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Strawman once more.  No one said otherwise. Everyone pretty much agrees that Shami is the only good pacer.  It is you all that seem to think Bhuvi should play in Indian conditions, you are all free to prove that he capable.  

Since we are not playing one pacer but two minimum, all Bhuvi has to prove that relative to other candidates, he is qualified to represent India. 

That is what the stats show us.

 

Quote

Prove it is cherry-picking. Here is another term you are ignorant of, adding to your misuse of the term strawman earlier.  

Cherry-picking would involve me selecting only data that confirms what I claim and suppressing evidence. If you notice there is nothing suppressed in my post. Both stats are there: the stat with all of Bhuvi's innings included compared to one with the 1st innings in the Kolkata test excluded. I will include the table again.

Quote

Cherry Picking: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.  The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

You just proved my point, kiddo. You making statements like 'except the outlier, this is Bhuvi's stats' is by definition, cherry picking.

 

Quote

Another strawman. I didn't argue that Bhuvi is or isn't a better bowler than Umesh. I argued that Bhuvi's ability to bowl in India is misleading due to an outlier. Definition of an outlier.  

Your argument is misleading, because there is no set 'minimum criteria' to represent India as a player- you just have to be in the top 11 to legitimately claim being picked on merit. So, Bhuvi could average 22 with the ball and have 300 wickets and still be not good enough for India (be the 6th best bowler for e.g.) or he could have stats like 50 wickets from 30 matches @ 55.00 average and still be the best bowler. 

Therefore, if your argument is Player XYZ is good enough/not good enough to represent India or any team, it by DEFAULT is a comparison of all the options available.

Therefore, your argument that it is a false comparison with Umesh is wrong. (It is a comparison with everyone. Thats how we derive the best XI).

You picking and choosing your data to make an argument, is also meeting the definition of cherry picking.

Your argument about statistical outlier is irrelevant in cricketing terms, since anyone can then argue that if you took away all the 5 wicket hauls Kumble has in India- which are 25 innings in 115 innings, thus meeting the criteria for an 'outlier', then he too is a crappy bowler in India.

 

[Tibarn]

On 12/22/2016 at 2:45 AM, Muloghonto said:

Since we are not playing one pacer but two minimum, all Bhuvi has to prove that relative to other candidates, he is qualified to represent India.

Assumption that based on the first 4 tests, the 5th test would also have the same selection. Captain Kohli has already changed how many bowlers he has played in a single match. Your assumption is unsubstantiated. 

 

Freedom Trophy vs SA 2016: 4 Tests

1st: 5 bowlers: 3 spinners, 2 pacers

2nd: 5 bowlers: 2 spinners, 2 pacers, 1 pace allrounder 

3rd: 4 bowlers: 3 spinners, 1 pacers

4th: 4 bowlers: 2 spinners, 2 pacers

 

7 different bowlers/allrounders played in the SA series: Ishant, Umesh, Aaron, Binny, Mishra, Ashwin, and Jadeja.

 

Kohli doesn't necessarily maintain the same combinations even from test to test. If the back up is incapable of bowling in such conditions.  

 

Kohli clearly views Bhuvi as more capable of bowling on green tracks and Umesh on traditional Indian tracks. Proof? Read on:

 

NZ in India series 2016: 3 Tests

1st:  2 pacers(Shami + Umesh) 2 spinners:  standard Indian pitch

2nd: 2 pacers(Shami + Bhuvi) 2 spinners:  the green pitch at Kolkata 

3rd:  2 pacers(Shami + Umesh) 2 spinners:  another standard Indian pitch

Kohli explains the selection

Quote

Bhuvi comes in for Umesh, we feel he can give us more in this kind of pitch with new ball

Kohli mentions the pitch mediated by the new ball, to aide justify his selection, both things I pointed out. 

 

As  Alagappan Muthu from cricinfo notes on Bhuvi:

Quote

Like some of his team-mates, who play in only one format, he seems to be needed only when the pitch and overhead conditions are in favour of fast bowlers. Came in for the Mumbai Test and didn't make quite the impact he would have liked.

Cue the chorus of Bhuvi Bachao Brigade comrades to write unsubstantiated cricinfo comments that Muthu is bias against Bhuvi. 

On 12/22/2016 at 2:45 AM, Muloghonto said:

That is what the stats show us.

Only an uncritical eye thinks that the stats show us Bhuvi bowls better in Indian conditions. Once again, if it is your contention that green pitch + overcast conditions are Indian conditions, let's see something to back that up. 

 

If you want to use stats at face value,  answer the following question: who is a better Test batsman Sachin or Sanga?

 

Sachin

Batting and fielding averages

	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	4s	6s	Ct	St
Tests	200	329	33	15921	248*	53.78			51	68		69	115	0

 

Sanga

Batting and fielding averages

	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	4s	6s	Ct	St
Tests	134	233	17	12400	319	57.40	22882	54.19	38	52	1491	51	182	20

 

If you answer Sanga: I think it says all one needs to know 

If you answer Sachin: Why? I thought we can just use average blindly to declare 1 player is better than another, or is it your contention that bowling is less conditions dependent than batting. 

 

On 12/22/2016 at 2:45 AM, Muloghonto said:

You just proved my point, kiddo. You making statements like 'except the outlier, this is Bhuvi's stats' is by definition, cherry picking.

Don't degenerate to your old habits Gappu, read carefully. 

Requirements for cherry-picking: colored coded for emphasis

Quote

Cherry-picking would involve me selecting only data that confirms what I claim and suppressing evidence. 

Also visit this site to understand cherry-picking fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry_Picking

 

The only people who are even approaching suppressing evidence are Bhuvi fanboys who seem to have an issue that I don't blindly follow bowling average and showed that his best innings in India was on markedly non-Indian conditions. If the Bhuvi Bachao Brigade comrades want to, they can live with their delusions.   

 

	Total Ind	Kolkata 1st Innings	Rest of Ind
Runs	477	48	429
Wickets	16	5	11
Balls Bowled	888	90	796
Overs	148	15	133
Average	29.81	12.67	39
Strike Rate	55.5	27	72.4
Economy	3.22	3.2	3.22

 

Bhuvi's stats with and without the outlier, (the outlier being a green pitch ie not a standard Indian wicket) is shown. There is neither only selecting confirming data or suppression of data as everything he has done in India is available for all to see from my table.

 

In simple terms both red and blue have to be true for something to be cherry-picking. 

 

Once again, if it is your contention that bowling on a green pitch, under overcast conditions is representative of bowling ability in India, then do back it up.   

 

On 12/22/2016 at 2:45 AM, Muloghonto said:

Your argument is misleading, because there is no set 'minimum criteria' to represent India as a player- you just have to be in the top 11 to legitimately claim being picked on merit. So, Bhuvi could average 22 with the ball and have 300 wickets and still be not good enough for India (be the 6th best bowler for e.g.) or he could have stats like 50 wickets from 30 matches @ 55.00 average and still be the best bowler.

The set minimum criteria for representing India, is having the confidence of the coach and captain.

 

Your argument assumes that average matters to anyone in the think tank. 

 

You once again strawman the argument in the sentence you quoted:  

Quote

I argued that Bhuvi's ability to bowl in India is misleading due to an outlier.

To be in the top XI of one's team, is entirely condition dependent. Only 1 spinner plays in an XI when we go to Australia, but 2-3 play at home. The conditions played in the match the OP was whining about was Chennai, ie a traditionally turning pitch. The pitch ended up being a flat one. 

 

The data presented shows Bhuvi's average/SR on all pitches he has played on in India vs average/strike rate on what are considered traditionally Indian pitches, those that either turn or are flat(and in-between those two extremes).  

 

 Don't continue strawmanning. 

On 12/22/2016 at 2:45 AM, Muloghonto said:

Therefore, if your argument is Player XYZ is good enough/not good enough to represent India or any team, it by DEFAULT is a comparison of all the options available.

Therefore, your argument that it is a false comparison with Umesh is wrong. (It is a comparison with everyone. Thats how we derive the best XI).

It is indeed a false comparison, as it relies on a number of false assumptions:

1) Assumption that Bhuvi is competing with Umesh rather than Ishant, who is the one that actually replaced Bhuvi in the XI after returning from his wedding.

2) Assuming the team composition maintains a static bowler ratio of 2 pacers to 3 spinners. Kohli's captaincy is famous already for how little he plays the same XI from game to game. There is no reason to assume he would again play 2 pacers instead of 3 spinners, if Ishant wasn't available. 

3) Stemming from the earlier assumption of a static ratio of pacer to spinner, you ignore that Bhuvi could be competing against another another spinner. If Chennai turned as it usually does, India could just have easily called up another spinner and played 3 spinners + 1 pacer.    

4) The final assumption is that you assume that the team balance is static, as Kohli could have shifted down to 4 bowlers and used the aforementioned 1 pacer and 3 spinners. 

 

Prove those assumptions correct, otherwise the comparison is indeed false.

 

For this discussion to go anywhere, you will have to show why: bowling on a green pitch, under overcast conditions is representative of a player's ability to bowl in India and not an outlier.  Otherwise you are simply saying it's not an outlier because you say so while inventing strawmen to attack. If that's what you wish to say, then no need to continue the discussion. 

[Soorma_Bhopali]

Karun Nair's twin single digit scores on a greentop Ranji pitch at Vizag against Tamilnadu would have hopefully silenced the lot who were advocating dropping our most successful overseas test batsman Ajinkya Rahane to make a place for him in the middle order.

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, Soorma_Bhopali said:

Karun Nair's twin single digit scores on a greentop Ranji pitch at Vizag against Tamilnadu would have hopefully silenced the lot who were advocating dropping our most successful overseas test batsman Ajinkya Rahane to make a place for him in the middle order.

The suggestion of dropping Rahane was ridiculous but  Nair was having acute lower-abdominal pains, especially in the 2nd innings, and these failed knocks are perhaps not the ideal opportunities to gauge his ability to play on seaming tracks.

[BeautifulGame]

Karun Nair's twin single digit scores on a greentop Ranji pitch at Vizag against Tamilnadu would have hopefully silenced the lot who were advocating dropping our most successful overseas test batsman Ajinkya Rahane to make a place for him in the middle order.

Karun Nair was injured and batted with abdominal pain,hobbling through out the second innings .

This tendency of some of our fans to brand our players as flat track bully at any given chance is ridiculous

[jusarrived]

52 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

Karun Nair was injured and batted with abdominal pain,hobbling through out the second innings .

This tendency of some of our fans to brand our players as flat track bully at any given chance is ridiculous

Not based on these two innings , but having watched Karun closely he does tend to struggle in swinging conditions  , its always Rahul and Manish who scored for Karnataka on such pitches . His technique is no the most orthodox , infact the only batsmen he reminds me is of Flintoff , gives you a feeling he will keep the slips busy when there some movement .

Hes far from a FTB , he has his strenghts against spin and bounce , but I would definately not pick him ahead of Rahane . Two areas hes ahead of Rahane  is his ability to score big and his game against spin bowling , so on SC conditions hes better .Rahane though is a rare all conditions batsmen , I dont even think hes weak against spin . 

[Cricketics]

One thing for sure is that the 300 scored by Karun was very timely for him but he still has a lot to prove to Indian cricket fans about his ability to score in different conditions and in different times of the game, especially when team is struggling and are looking for p'ships. I am happy for the dude that he is able to secure his place and got another chance instead of getting dropped like some wanted him to after the first two games he played, but Karun's stats against Australia will have a huge impact on his career. He needs to add plenty of runs to his current total. He has secured his place for one full series for me by scoringn that 300 but he isn't a permanent answer yet.  I would like to see how he is doing at the end of BG series.