India Or Pakistan

[Swervy]

Richard- Pathan is anything but ordinary....he isnt a performer yet but he is a great talent.
He has the right equipment to become an alltime great bowler IMO....and when it comes to newbies,stats are irrelevant really. Lots of players have had a superb start and then petered down to mediocre levels while a lot of players have a very slow start and blossom into great players.
Whether Irfan would be a great or not is yet to be seen but he has everything that makes him a potential great. Not only is he new, he is also very very young.
Incidentally, after 8 matches( since you dont consider BD proper opposition-and neither do i), Irfan compares thus far against some of the alltime great bowlers:

vs McGrath (better ave, more wickets)
vs Imran Khan(better ave, more wickets)
vs Marshall( aveage-39, 1 more wicket)
vs Hadlee( better ave, exactly same # of wickets)


And whats more, he debuted at a FAR younger age than any of these bar Imran Khan.
He has brisk pace ( consistently bowls at 86-87mph, top speed just a few metres short of 90mph), has a lethal delivery that comes into the righthanded batsmen, a stunning yorker and an excellent bouncer........ordinary is not a word i would chose for Pathan....unproven is more like it.

and yet when I said something similar about a player who HAS done some really wonderful stuff at test level (ie. Flintoff) I get ridiculed!!!!!

 

[C_C]

and yet when I said something similar about a player who HAS done some really wonderful stuff at test level (ie. Flintoff) I get ridiculed!!!!!

Thing is, I am not saying Pathan is CURRENTLY a great...he is just a great prospect....currently his bowling is above average. Flintoff is in his prime and currently his bowling is good...not great.....and flintoff is considerably more experienced with poor figures...
flintoff is at a stage where proper statistical comparisons can be made and is found wanting by a longshot.
My previous post shows that there isnt enough sample points for Pathan to be statistically compared with anyone- that goes for any newbie...pathan, clarke, butt, bravo, etc etc.
Only thing you can rate a newbie on is potential...and Pathan is top-shelf potential.

 

[twctopcat]

Thing is, I am not saying Pathan is CURRENTLY a great...he is just a great prospect....currently his bowling is above average. Flintoff is in his prime and currently his bowling is good...not great.....and flintoff is considerably more experienced with poor figures...
flintoff is at a stage where proper statistical comparisons can be made and is found wanting by a longshot.
My previous post shows that there isnt enough sample points for Pathan to be statistically compared with anyone- that goes for any newbie...pathan, clarke, butt, bravo, etc etc.
Only thing you can rate a newbie on is potential...and Pathan is top-shelf potential.

Not great??? He averages about 20 in ODI's for the past 18 years and 24 in tests with a SR of 50 in the same period. If that's not great then i don't know what is.

 

[C_C]

Not great??? He averages about 20 in ODI's for the past 18 years and 24 in tests with a SR of 50 in the same period. If that's not great then i don't know what is

18 years ?!?!
you meant 18 months......

Its not great for a peak period.......i am not sure about ODIs but you'd find that as far as tests go, the peaks of 'great' players are usually a 2-5 year period where they average in the teens....and for those greats who dont have a stunning peak, their career is charecterised by a stunning consistency.
either way Flintoff doesnt qualify....if he keeps up his current level of production for another 5-6 years, then i would classify him in the good/'very good category...so far he's been mediocre overall with a mediocre peak and career consistency.

 

[twctopcat]

18 years ?!?!
you meant 18 months......

Its not great for a peak period.......i am not sure about ODIs but you'd find that as far as tests go, the peaks of 'great' players are usually a 2-5 year period where they average in the teens....and for those greats who dont have a stunning peak, their career is charecterised by a stunning consistency.
either way Flintoff doesnt qualify....if he keeps up his current level of production for another 5-6 years, then i would classify him in the good/'very good category...so far he's been mediocre overall with a mediocre peak and career consistency.

Lol, not all bowlers are sid barnes. Bowling with an average in the teens is all time best standard, great is a term that i think a lot of people would befit flintoff on current form.

 

[SJS]

Boy ! I have been wasting my time trying to follow the game and read about it.

How could I have misssed all these great bowlers who went upto five years at their peak with test bowling averages in the 'teens' (sic). For the 44 years that I have actually watched test cricket, how come I cant find one bowler who went five years with average in the 'teens'(sic) !!

SJS, you are a disgrace

 

[twctopcat]

Boy ! I have been wasting my time trying to follow the game and read about it.

How could I have misssed all these great bowlers who went upto five years at their peak with test bowling averages in the 'teens' (sic). For the 44 years that I have actually watched test cricket, how come I cant find one bowler who went five years with average in the 'teens'(sic) !!

SJS, you are a disgrace

Phew, thought i was missing something then.

 

[C_C]

Lol, not all bowlers are sid barnes. Bowling with an average in the teens is all time best standard, great is a term that i think a lot of people would befit flintoff on current form.

Yes, CAREER average in the teens is an anomaly standard....well maybe not for Sid Barnes' time, seeing that a lotta bowlers during the turn of the century aveaged in the teens.
Anyways...my point is, if you investigate the careers of alltime great players, you will either see a buildup period, followed by a peak period and a wind-down period or you will see remarkable consistency.

McGrath for example, had a peak period of 99-2002 where his 4-year average was 19+change.
Akram for example, didnt have a clear-cut peak performance period but had very consistent figures from late 80s till mid/late 90s.
Ambrose had a peak from 90-94 when he averaged just over 18.
Imran for example, had a peak from 81-86 when he averaged a shade under 15.
Kapil for example, was a bit like Akram where he didnt have a clear-cut peak period but ha remarkably consistent performances from late 70s to mid 80s....

Compared to the peaks of great players, Flintoff's 24+ average peak is ordinary....and his consistency is clearly not established,as he has been performing decently for the past 18 months only....unless he has a monster peak period or displays consistency for atleast half a dozen years, he cannot be qualified as a great or even a good bowler.
So far Flintoff is ORDINARY......a very poor start coupled with decent performances....if Pathan has similar stats after similar tests, he would be ordinary too.

 

[twctopcat]

Yes, CAREER average in the teens is an anomaly standard....well maybe not for Sid Barnes' time, seeing that a lotta bowlers during the turn of the century aveaged in the teens.
Anyways...my point is, if you investigate the careers of alltime great players, you will either see a buildup period, followed by a peak period and a wind-down period or you will see remarkable consistency.

McGrath for example, had a peak period of 99-2002 where his 4-year average was 19+change.
Akram for example, didnt have a clear-cut peak performance period but had very consistent figures from late 80s till mid/late 90s.
Ambrose had a peak from 90-94 when he averaged just over 18.
Imran for example, had a peak from 81-86 when he averaged a shade under 15.
Kapil for example, was a bit like Akram where he didnt have a clear-cut peak period but ha remarkably consistent performances from late 70s to mid 80s....

Compared to the peaks of great players, Flintoff's 24+ average peak is ordinary....and his consistency is clearly not established,as he has been performing decently for the past 18 months only....unless he has a monster peak period or displays consistency for atleast half a dozen years, he cannot be qualified as a great or even a good bowler.
So far Flintoff is ORDINARY......a very poor start coupled with decent performances....if Pathan has similar stats after similar tests, he would be ordinary too.

Well we obviously disagree on definition of "great" and "ordinary" then. All the players you listed are in the all time best pantheon, flintoff is great in my book on current form, certainly not ordinary.

 

[C_C]

Boy ! I have been wasting my time trying to follow the game and read about it.

How could I have misssed all these great bowlers who went upto five years at their peak with test bowling averages in the 'teens' (sic). For the 44 years that I have actually watched test cricket, how come I cant find one bowler who went five years with average in the 'teens'(sic) !!

SJS, you are a disgrace

Clearly you've missed it, for one of the players with a most pronounced peak was Imran Khan....averaged a shade under 15 runs with the ball for a good 5 years between 81 and 86(he missed a season due to injury in midst of that)......also read my previous posts and then verify with a statistical database.
You will find almost ALL great players invariably either have a peak period or years of very consistent performances
And notice i said 2-5 year period...and considering that you've watched cricket for apparently 40+ years, i would've thought that you would've paid more attention to the details....kindly refer to the stats-banks and extricate your foot from your mouth.
gracias.

 

[C_C]

Well we obviously disagree on definition of "great" and "ordinary" then. All the players you listed are in the all time best pantheon, flintoff is great in my book on current form, certainly not ordinary.

Perhaps...i use the word 'great' in reference to alltime bests....players like Viv,Tendulkar,Lara,Greg Chappell, Ambrose,Imran,Sobers,Bradman,McGrath,Murali,etc etc.
ie, if an alltime world XI-A and alltime world XI-B were to be named, 'greats' would be players who can all legitimately stake a claim. below that i have the very good category...where players like Walsh,Gillespie, Martyn, Kallicharan, etc.. category....then its the 'good' category....followed by the average and below average.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, CAREER average in the teens is an anomaly standard....well maybe not for Sid Barnes' time, seeing that a lotta bowlers during the turn of the century aveaged in the teens.
Anyways...my point is, if you investigate the careers of alltime great players, you will either see a buildup period, followed by a peak period and a wind-down period or you will see remarkable consistency.

McGrath for example, had a peak period of 99-2002 where his 4-year average was 19+change.
Akram for example, didnt have a clear-cut peak performance period but had very consistent figures from late 80s till mid/late 90s.
Ambrose had a peak from 90-94 when he averaged just over 18.
Imran for example, had a peak from 81-86 when he averaged a shade under 15.
Kapil for example, was a bit like Akram where he didnt have a clear-cut peak period but ha remarkably consistent performances from late 70s to mid 80s....

Compared to the peaks of great players, Flintoff's 24+ average peak is ordinary....and his consistency is clearly not established,as he has been performing decently for the past 18 months only....unless he has a monster peak period or displays consistency for atleast half a dozen years, he cannot be qualified as a great or even a good bowler.
So far Flintoff is ORDINARY......a very poor start coupled with decent performances....if Pathan has similar stats after similar tests, he would be ordinary too.

Thats all well and good but performance years ago has very little to do with the present. We can all see that the bat dominates things a hell of a lot more(for what ever reason),so much so that really these days a bowler is considered to be pretty dangerous when averaging mid 20's as opposed to say in the mid 80's.

We can only really compare players within similar time periods if only using stats (actually watching is a far better way of telling how good someone is IMO)..and if Flintoff averages 24 ish over the last year and a bit, well I guess there arent that many bowlers in the same period (I may be wrong) with that amount of success.

By the way..I dont think Flintoff is a great bowler (when compared to your Marshalls, Imrans, Lillees etc), but he is certainly one of the better ones in the world today,and if he continues like this I think in two or three years time he may well be considered on of Englands best bowlers since WW2.

But I do think Flintoff has the potential to be considered one of the very best allrounders of all time...and if he performs really well vs Australia,that accolade may come quicker than many around here seem to think.

back to Pathan,I agree with what you say CC, I think he has the potential to be the best pacer India have had for a while,although he is far from the finished product...but as you say, he is still very young

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, it is 27.66

Yet against Test quality teams, it's 41podd.

 

[SJS]

If one knows one's cricket and cricketers over time, one normally doesnt need to refer to statistics to make a point. As is well said, the score board is an ass, the statistician is an ass**** if I may add so.

Of course, if one doesnt know the game well enough, it helps to throw around a liberal dose of stats on the unsuspecting public and try to cow them down.
Again as I read somewhere, 79.467348 % of all stats are made on the spot !!

Its no body's case that Flintoff is one of the all time great fast bowlers, so to compare him with legends like Imran, McGrath, Ambrose and Akram is to stretch an argument well beyond the breaking point.

So Sachin is not a great batsman because he averages half of Don Bradman !! Ha ha.

Now coming to the figures presented. McGrath averages 21.4, REPEAT 21.4, in his ENTIRE career stretching over 13 years !!!!!

What do you expect his PEAK period average to be ? Surely not 24 like Flintoff's. In fact 19.7 as the peak average of a bowler averaging just over 21 in 13 years is a bit of a surprise , on the higher side !!

Similarly Ambrose, he averaged 20.9 in his entire career. For him to have a peak of 18.77 (2.2 points lower than his career average) is also not surprising.

In fact, by these standards, it is Flintoffs peak(so called ) of 24 or so is too imressive for a bowler who has averaged 34.8 in his career !!

So what's the point being made here ??

That Flintoff is not comparable to the likes of McGrath and Imran on the basis of his peak relative to theirs ?? But who said Flintoff is a bowler comparable with these all time greats. Rhetoric is not a substitute for logic and misplaced statistics are not a substitute for a clearly stated argument !

PS: The fact that inspite of the effort, that clearly must have been made, a peak for Akram and Kapil could not be found to be thrown at the unsuspecting is much more relevant than those found. If stats can settle an argument, one can find great bowlers who did NOT have a five year average in the 'teens'(sic). But that would not prove that they were not great bowlers.

These home made statistical criteria to determine greatness need to be dumped in the garbage bin where they belong.

 

[Swervy]

If one knows one's cricket and cricketers over time, one normally doesnt need to refer to statistics to make a point. As is well said, the score board is an ass, the statistician is an ass**** if I may add so.

Of course, if one doesnt know the game well enough, it helps to throw around a liberal dose of stats on the unsuspecting public and try to cow them down.
Again as I read somewhere, 79.467348 % of all stats are made on the spot !!

Its no body's case that Flintoff is one of the all time great fast bowlers, so to compare him with legends like Imran, McGrath, Ambrose and Akram is to stretch an argument well beyond the breaking point.

So Sachin is not a great batsman because he averages half of Don Bradman !! Ha ha.

Now coming to the figures presented. McGrath averages 21.4, REPEAT 21.4, in his ENTIRE career stretching over 13 years !!!!!

What do you expect his PEAK period average to be ? Surely not 24 like Flintoff's. In fact 19.7 as the peak average of a bowler averaging just over 21 in 13 years is a bit of a surprise , on the higher side !!

Similarly Ambrose, he averaged 20.9 in his entire career. For him to have a peak of 18.77 (2.2 points lower than his career average) is also not surprising.

In fact, by these standards, it is Flintoffs peak(so called ) of 24 or so is too imressive for a bowler who has averaged 34.8 in his career !!

So what's the point being made here ??

That Flintoff is not comparable to the likes of McGrath and Imran on the basis of his peak relative to theirs ?? But who said Flintoff is a bowler comparable with these all time greats. Rhetoric is not a substitute for logic and misplaced statistics are not a substitute for a clearly stated argument !

PS: The fact that inspite of the effort, that clearly must have been made, a peak for Akram and Kapil could not be found to be thrown at the unsuspecting is much more relevant than those found. If stats can settle an argument, one can find great bowlers who did NOT have a five year average in the 'teens'(sic). But that would not prove that they were not great bowlers.

These home made statistical criteria to determine greatness need to be dumped in the garbage bin where they belong.

sometimes I think Statsguru on Cricinfo has a lot to answer for....

 

[C_C]

If one knows one's cricket and cricketers over time, one normally doesnt need to refer to statistics to make a point. As is well said, the score board is an ass, the statistician is an ass**** if I may add so.
Of course, if one doesnt know the game well enough, it helps to throw around a liberal dose of stats on the unsuspecting public and try to cow them down.

you may add whatever you like, but that is a lame attempt to backpedal when i've proved your statement to be categorically false ( How could I have misssed all these great bowlers who went upto five years at their peak with test bowling averages in the 'teens' (sic).
Next time, watch more carefully or be more aware...if its still possible for you.
Regardless of what you may think, statistical analysis has played a FUNDAMENTAL part in the industrial age and breakthroughs in statistical science has played an integral part in the technological advances of our species. So next time, before you call statisticians as Ass****, i would ask you to CHECK out how many huge corporations depend fundamentally on statistics for their production and sales departments.

So Sachin is not a great batsman because he averages half of Don Bradman !! Ha ha.

the one who's trying to mislead the public with this example is *YOU* and not me. It is fundamentally accepted in any sort of analysis that outermarkers and anomalies are NOT the benchmark. I've not used an anomaly but the standard of greatness- players like McGrath,Ambrose,Akram, etc etc.

ts no body's case that Flintoff is one of the all time great fast bowlers

You might wanna READ what twctopcat said :

]Not great???......... If that's not great then i don't know what is.

Subsequently, i think me and twctopcat agreed that we have a different definition of 'great', however, your absolute statement that "its no body's case..." is flat out incorrect.

In fact, by these standards, it is Flintoffs peak(so called ) of 24 or so is too imressive for a bowler who has averaged 34.8 in his career !

irrelevant.
Empirical comparisons are in order and not relative to oneself....that is circular reasoning lacking any benchmark standard.

The fact that inspite of the effort, that clearly must have been made, a peak for Akram and Kapil could not be found to be thrown at the unsuspecting is much more relevant than those found. If stats can settle an argument, one can find great bowlers who did NOT have a five year average in the 'teens'(sic). But that would not prove that they were not great bowlers.

Again, if anyone is trying to hoodwink the unsuspecting, its you. Some greats not having a clear-cut peak doesnt negate the fact that many do. For any modelling criteria, you will not find ONE SINGLE governing criteria but a few. I've looked at the career of many great players analytically and the overwhelming majority of them either have a distinct career peak AND/OR years after years of consistent success.

 

[SJS]

Just one point. Yes I misunderstood when it was said
QUOTE
the peaks of 'great' players are usually a 2-5 year period where they average in the teens.
UNQUOTE
I thought what was being said was that for a two to five year period a bowler averaged in the 'teens'(sic) every year, year after year. Clearly what was meant was the average through the period and not for each year separately.

Thats why I say, its not surprising to find an average of 18.7 or 19.7 for bowlers averaging 21 and 22 in entire careers. Of course if a bowler averages just 21 in a 13 year career or 22 in a 20 year career like Imran does, he will have stretches where he averages below 20

Rest is absolute bunk !

The point being made of Flintoff being not as great as them is what the bunk is and the stats are being handed out to support the argument. The argument is fallacious so the stats are futile.

But then this is not the first time that this has been attempted. The last time I exposed this, the 'gentleman' concerned was absconding for a few days till the subject was relegated a few pages in the background

No surprise there.

 

[C_C]

The point being made of Flintoff being not as great as them is what the bunk is and the stats are being handed out to support the argument. The argument is fallacious so the stats are futile.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.
That flintoff isnt a great player ? well i AGREE with that and that is what i pointed out to twctopcat...
Or are you saying that Flintoff is great but to hell with the stats(which state otherwise) ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Personally I think neither are close, they're both ordinary.

Rana is a decent but not great bowler. I don't think he's as bad as you do, and I think he's probably the second best Pakistani pacer at the moment, but he's not world class.

Pathan however I think is a quite fantastic talent. Yes, calling him one of the best quicks in the world today (as people on this forum have) is ridiculous as he has only played 10 tests, but I don't understand for the life of me how you could have watched him bowl and still think he's "ordinary". Unproven yes, but ordinary? What exactly don't you like about him? He's got decent pace, he's very accurate, he can swing the ball and move it off the seam (although he's more of a swing bowler) and he has a devastating yorker. He looks very much like a young Wasim Akram, albeit slightly slower, and has all the tools to be a world class bowler. And as C_C rightly pointed out, his average after 8 tests is really completely irrelevant as the vast majority of bowlers start their career slow. Warne started by being belted around, as did McGrath and many of the other great bowlers of recent times.

 

[Richard]

Rana is a decent but not great bowler. I don't think he's as bad as you do, and I think he's probably the second best Pakistani pacer at the moment, but he's not world class.

To compare him to Shabbir is a gross insult.

Pathan however I think is a quite fantastic talent. Yes, calling him one of the best quicks in the world today (as people on this forum have) is ridiculous as he has only played 10 tests, but I don't understand for the life of me how you could have watched him bowl and still think he's "ordinary". Unproven yes, but ordinary? What exactly don't you like about him? He's got decent pace, he's very accurate, he can swing the ball and move it off the seam (although he's more of a swing bowler) and he has a devastating yorker. He looks very much like a young Wasim Akram, albeit slightly slower, and has all the tools to be a world class bowler. And as C_C rightly pointed out, his average after 8 tests is really completely irrelevant as the vast majority of bowlers start their career slow. Warne started by being belted around, as did McGrath and many of the other great bowlers of recent times.

Look, we'll see.
Pathan is only medium-fast; he looks much quicker than he actually is because he's got such a fast, whippy action.
His accuracy comes and goes; it's either outstanding or very poor.
He's played plenty of ODIs and his record is still poor.
He may have plenty of potential; I certainly think that IF he can start bowling in the exceptional-accuracy mould more often he could become rather good. But there is just no two ways about the fact that he's ordinary at present.