Should runs against India be discounted in statistical discussions?

[Pup Clarke]

Which 'stats' should be counted in your eyes?

Watching the player in question.

Example - Ashwin, i think, was the fastest bowler/spinner to 50 test wickets. This doesn't neccesarily mean that he's overall a good bowler obviously. Therefore, only really by watching him closely can you tell this.

[AndyZaltzHair]

The word "discount" will be harsh at this stage, I would say lesser value by judgement. But tbh I'm not a fan of disregarding runs that much only because it's made to inferior bowling. To make 100+/150+(batsman) or 450+/500+(team total) against weak bowling still requires some determination and concentration.

[Spark]

I don't think Swann or Panesar were anything special. Panesar has been more effective than the other spinners due to the pace that he bowls, yes. He's been superior. But I don't think this makes the Indian spinners ****. Ashwin admittedly has been very disappointing after the first test. I think Ojha has actually bowled quite well though.

Truth is, England have batted very well. Cook has been phenomenal, and KP played a brilliant innings in the last test. They've drastically improved with experience against spin in the SC. Their Pakistan series was the best thing to ever happen to their batting line up.

Main difference between England and India is that India appear quite arrogant and refuse to adjust their games or learn from mistakes. Case in point this whole pitch controversy, and blaming the losses in Australia and England on 'green tops'.

Futhermore, I can't stand stats analysis and cherrypicking BS. I dont really care about averages or whatever anyway, I watch a lot of cricket and judge with my eyes. However, if you are going to cherrypick stats then you have to do it properly. Just saying 'batsman X scored loads of runs against Team X, who are **** so those runs should be discounted' is bad analysis. You need to analyse when those runs were scored, where the batsman batted, how other players performed, who exactly bowled and what the conditions were like. Its a lot of bloody work, and probably a waste of time, but if you want to cherry pick and be taken seriously thats how you've got to do it.

Personally though I can't be bothered. Would rather just watch some ****ing cricket

/Rant

I love this post

[benchmark00]

Yeah, pretty much summed up my thoughts on stats, which have been well documented in the past.

[smalishah84]

I don't think Swann or Panesar were anything special. Panesar has been more effective than the other spinners due to the pace that he bowls, yes. He's been superior. But I don't think this makes the Indian spinners ****. Ashwin admittedly has been very disappointing after the first test. I think Ojha has actually bowled quite well though.

Truth is, England have batted very well. Cook has been phenomenal, and KP played a brilliant innings in the last test. They've drastically improved with experience against spin in the SC. Their Pakistan series was the best thing to ever happen to their batting line up.

Main difference between England and India is that India appear quite arrogant and refuse to adjust their games or learn from mistakes. Case in point this whole pitch controversy, and blaming the losses in Australia and England on 'green tops'.

Futhermore, I can't stand stats analysis and cherrypicking BS. I dont really care about averages or whatever anyway, I watch a lot of cricket and judge with my eyes. However, if you are going to cherrypick stats then you have to do it properly. Just saying 'batsman X scored loads of runs against Team X, who are **** so those runs should be discounted' is bad analysis. You need to analyse when those runs were scored, where the batsman batted, how other players performed, who exactly bowled and what the conditions were like. Its a lot of bloody work, and probably a waste of time, but if you want to cherry pick and be taken seriously thats how you've got to do it.

Personally though I can't be bothered. Would rather just watch some ****ing cricket

/Rant

[tooextracool]

I don't think Swann or Panesar were anything special. Panesar has been more effective than the other spinners due to the pace that he bowls, yes. He's been superior. But I don't think this makes the Indian spinners ****. Ashwin admittedly has been very disappointing after the first test. I think Ojha has actually bowled quite well though.

Truth is, England have batted very well. Cook has been phenomenal, and KP played a brilliant innings in the last test. They've drastically improved with experience against spin in the SC. Their Pakistan series was the best thing to ever happen to their batting line up.

Main difference between England and India is that India appear quite arrogant and refuse to adjust their games or learn from mistakes. Case in point this whole pitch controversy, and blaming the losses in Australia and England on 'green tops'.

Futhermore, I can't stand stats analysis and cherrypicking BS. I dont really care about averages or whatever anyway, I watch a lot of cricket and judge with my eyes. However, if you are going to cherrypick stats then you have to do it properly. Just saying 'batsman X scored loads of runs against Team X, who are **** so those runs should be discounted' is bad analysis. You need to analyse when those runs were scored, where the batsman batted, how other players performed, who exactly bowled and what the conditions were like. Its a lot of bloody work, and probably a waste of time, but if you want to cherry pick and be taken seriously thats how you've got to do it.

Personally though I can't be bothered. Would rather just watch some ****ing cricket

/Rant

Agree to some extent, though I think Panesar this test has bowled better than last test (where quite frankly he got the kind of wicket that was custom made for him) and I dont think that is down to bowling quicker. He's bowled with more variety, been willing to toss the ball up occasionally and done all that you can expect off him in this test, certainly a remarkable improvement over his previous 42.

I also think you give the England batsman far too much credit for being utterly hopeless for most of this series (bar Pietersen, Cook and Prior). Quite frankly at least 2 of them have strong prior records against spin so honestly no one is surprised about them. Compton has obviously put in hard work on his technique during the series and done well to learn, however his 50 odd on the flattest deck of the series proved mostly nothing about his prowess against spin. Trott has looked most at sea, Bell has gotten worse with every passing series in the subcontinent and I don't think we've seen enough of Patel and Bairstow to judge.

[bagapath]

India is going to be the next west indies after sachin, sehwag and zaheer retire soon.

Pujara will be like chanders playing in a team of indian sherwin campbells and pedro collinses.

Virat kohli = Ricardo Powell
MS Dhoni = Ridley Jacobs

In fact, india will be worse off coz there is no cubby and amby.

****! I am depressed!!!

[GIMH]

Yeah gun post NasserFan

[NasserFan207]

Cheers lads

India is going to be the next west indies after sachin, sehwag and zaheer retire soon.

Pujara will be like chanders playing in a team of indian sherwin campbells and pedro collinses.

Virat kohli = Ricardo Powell
MS Dhoni = Ridley Jacobs

In fact, india will be worse off coz there is no cubby and amby.

****! I am depressed!!!

Pedro Collins was gun.

Also don't be silly mate, India will be fine

[Jono]

Surely this is a trolling thread and hence should be shut down? Its irrelevant whether the person who started it is Indian or an Indian fan.

[Burgey]

Surely this is a trolling thread and hence should be shut down? Its irrelevant whether the person who started it is Indian or an Indian fan.

Always remember Roy and HG saying in the 90s that subcontinental cricket records really shouldn't count. Back then I thought it was a bit harsh, but well...

[zorax]

Yeah gun post NasserFan

The thread title clearly states that this is a thread regarding statistical discussion.

So instead of just ignoring the thread becuase he isnt into stats, he instead comes here to get on his soapbox and preach how he hates discussing stats, and then everyone applauds him for that post?

Some people like discussing stats...but it seems extremely frowned upon by the people here, to the point where it is okay to go into a stat discussing thread in question to just rant about how you hate stats.

ITSTL.

@Jono, it isn't an entirely serious thread, i'll give you that, but it's far from trolling. What makes you think such a suggestion is so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit discussion?

[Jono]

Surprised you remember anything at all you old ****. @Burgey

[Jono]

@Jono, it isn't an entirely serious thread, i'll give you that, but it's far from trolling. What makes you think such a suggestion is so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit discussion?

If an English fan made this thread there'd be hell to pay and around 3 bans by now.

Regarding India, our batting is far far far more worrisome than our bowling. This pitch is seriously flat and India were dismissed for just over 300. That's where the blame lies. India have only bowled very poorly in one innings so far imo, and that was England's 1st innings in Mumbai.

[Burgey]

If an English fan made this thread there'd be hell to pay and around 3 bans by now.

Regarding India, our batting is far far far more worrisome than our bowling. This pitch is seriously flat and India were dismissed for just over 300. That's where the blame lies. India have only bowled very poorly in one innings so far imo, and that was England's 1st innings in Mumbai.

I haven't seen much of the game tbh. But it seems, as always, the batsmen can fail in comparative terms and when the side is well down, the bowlers cop it. Like our last test vs SA - the bowling day two was piss but it only hid that we got rolled for 160 odd. Nearly always the way