India Or Pakistan

[Richard]

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

Why, because it enables us to find a statistical solution for almost everything and disbands the "cricket is more than just stats?"

 

[Richard]

currently his bowling is above average.

41.19 is most certainly below average.

 

[Richard]

And heres me thinkin that he did really well in australia

But he didn't.
He had 1 good game and 1 reasonable one.

 

[Richard]

No, it is 27.66

No, you've used a dud source - CricInfo - it counts Bangladesh matches as authentic Tests.
The source I used was the reliable one.

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

Glad to see another respected presence acknowledges the meainglessness of Bangladesh as far as Test-cricket is concerned.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But there is just no two ways about the fact that he's ordinary at present.

He's no more "ordinary" at the moment than Glenn McGrath was when he had 19 wickets @ 43.68 after 8 tests, or when Richard Hadlee had 21 wickets @ 41.62 after his first 8. Likewise, Fidel Edwards was no better after he had a great start to his career. Average along is a poor measurement of a player at the best of times, and at the start of a career it is absolutely worthless. Irfan Pathan is an unproven player with buckloads of potential.

The way he handled bowling to Australia on pitches with nothing in them for seamers alone shows that he has the right temprament for test cricket, and the ball he got Justin Langer with in Bangalore and the spell he bowled with Zaheer Khan in the second innings of the second test will stick in my mind for a long time. Yes he's hyped and no he hasn't actually got results yet, but I don't see why any knowledgable cricket fan would bet on him being anything other than a success in the future.

 

[Richard]

Because there are many, many more bowlers who start and continue poorly than those who start poorly and improve.
And a poor average is a good measurement of a poor bowler, at any stage of their career - McGrath and Hadlee weren't anything special at the start of theirs, either.
What matters is what bowlers become, and what averages become. There are plenty of bowlers who start their careers well, too, you know.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

McGrath and Hadlee weren't anything special at the start of theirs, either.

Of course they were, they were tremendously talented bowlers who would go on to be among the greatest in the history of the game. They simply took some time to get the results that they were capable of. Evidence suggests that Pathan is similar, while nobody ever really thought Fidel Edwards was.

 

[biased indian]

No, you've used a dud source - CricInfo - it counts Bangladesh matches as authentic Tests.
The source I used was the reliable one.

Glad to see another respected presence acknowledges the meainglessness of Bangladesh as far as Test-cricket is concerned.

i would like to add that there is a lot of players whos Avg will look ordinary if u take out their performance aganist BAN and the recent Zim side

 

[Richard]

Yousuf Youhana being the BIGGEST single beneficiary of Bangladesh.
Makes 42 look like 49.

 

[Richard]

Of course they were, they were tremendously talented bowlers who would go on to be among the greatest in the history of the game. They simply took some time to get the results that they were capable of. Evidence suggests that Pathan is similar, while nobody ever really thought Fidel Edwards was.

I did and still do think Fidel Edwards could be quite good. It'll take some improvement, though, and whether he's got it in him is 30\70 against for me.
I never said either weren't talented bowlers at the start of their careers, but there's simply no two ways about the fact that their poor average did say something about them, namely that they weren't anywhere near as good as they ended-up becoming.
There have, I repeat, been PLENTY and plenty of bowlers who've looked as good as Pathan early on and come to nothing. Until he actually starts to make the improvements he may or may not have in him, we won't know.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So, you rate Fidel Edwards but think Irfan Pathan is ordinary? Not to mention rating Craig White but thinking McGrath and Lee are just successful because they are lucky...

 

[Neil Pickup]

 

[vandemataram]

There have, I repeat, been PLENTY and plenty of bowlers who've looked as good as Pathan early on and come to nothing. Until he actually starts to make the improvements he may or may not have in him, we won't know.

I don't remember many as talented as Pathan at such a young age of 20-21, you do u have in mind?


I think Pathan is here to stay, to excell and to domitae the cricket world as a pacer and as an allrounder.

 

[SJS]

This really is a futile argument.

Facts
1. Irfan is a very promising bowler. Denying that does little credit.
2. It is not possible to say with CERTAINITY (that seems to be an epidemic here) that he will turn out to be great (or a disaster)

Conjecture/Fallacy
1. The career stats of someone who has played just two years are a CLEAR indicator of how he will turn out over his entire career.....and all similar arguments.
2. A similarity of stats at the beginning of the career means similarity of career long performances..and all similar arguments.

 

[marc71178]

No, you've used a dud source - CricInfo - it counts Bangladesh matches as authentic Tests.
The source I used was the reliable one.

Yet ironically you also used Cricinfo.

It counts official Tests as Tests, and therefore the Test average is what happens in Test Matches.

 

[Richard]

Yet ironically you also used Cricinfo.

Oh, no, I used StatsGuru, to dig-up his proper average.

It counts official Tests as Tests, and therefore the Test average is what happens in Test Matches.

No, no, all that counts for Test-cricket is what is worthy of being called Test-cricket.

 

[Richard]

I don't remember many as talented as Pathan at such a young age of 20-21, you do u have in mind?

Define "talented". There are all sorts of bowlers who're clearly talented at any age you care to name.
Pathan has some talents, but he lacks others. So, so far, he's been unsuccessful.

 

[Richard]

So, you rate Fidel Edwards but think Irfan Pathan is ordinary?

No, I think both are currently ordinary and both have potential to be pretty darn good.
But just because someone looks like he could be pretty darn good doesn't mean at all that he will be.

Not to mention rating Craig White but thinking McGrath and Lee are just successful because they are lucky...

And it's absolutely nowhere near as clear-cut as that.

 

[Richard]

This really is a futile argument.

And to clear it up...

Irfan is a very promising bowler. Denying that does little credit.

I've not denied that.

The career stats of someone who has played just two years are a CLEAR indicator of how he will turn out over his entire career.....and all similar arguments.

And I've certainly not said that, just that poor stats ARE an indicator that a career thus far has been ordinary.

A similarity of stats at the beginning of the career means similarity of career long performances..and all similar arguments.

And that's the crux of the thing.

 

[SJS]

And to clear it up...

I've not denied that.

And I've certainly not said that, just that poor stats ARE an indicator that a career thus far has been ordinary.

And that's the crux of the thing.

Hey Richard,
What made you think I was addressing you or any of your posts man ??