Should runs against India be discounted in statistical discussions?

[centurymaker]

all stats count, rightly so

However, what you can do to judge top players is look at their record against top 2 or 3 sides, in particular, to see how they performed against the best of the best as it gives you a better reflection of how good they exactly were, at least statistically. Having said that though, best way to evaluate someone is through watching them imo
The reason im saying this is that every innings is dissimilar to all other innings in the history of the game as a batsman faces different set of deliveries and challenges every time. Hence, just forget about stats or at least don't put so much importance on them.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

Are you sure?

with batting yes some of your greats are retired or on the verge of it but atleast you have seen guys like Pujara,Kohli and Rohit who have shown that if they realize their potential they can all average 45+ in test cricket but what about the bowling? Zaheer is on his last legs, Ishant never shows improvement the spinners are struggling to bowl good opposition out in India apart from Yadav there is not one bright spot.

The thing is, even during India's glory run from 2008-11, their bowling was still average at best. They went undefeated in series for 3 years but they didn't win loads of Tests.

What was winning them games and series was their batsmen all collectively being in insane form, so games where the bowling was terrible their batsmen covered up for it by scoring big themselves, and when the bowling did fire, India inevitably won. The India of 2-3 years ago would have scored 600 minimum first up in Kolkata and had England under pressure from the moment they started their first innings, so India would still have been well ahead of the game even if their bowlers had conceded 500, and a half decent effort of restricting England to 400-450 would have meant that India's biggest enemy would have been time.

Now that the batting is failing, India find themselves behind in the series because their bowling isn't good enough to compensate for their batsmen failing to put the runs on the board.

[Jono]

Yep, hit the nail on the head.

[Top_Cat]

Me personally, I would never advocate cutting data when talking about a player's record. A better method would be to weight the data properly, it's not experimental noise after all. We mentally do it anyway but at least it'd be systematic whereas cutting is arbitrary and will introduce bias.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Me personally, I would never advocate cutting data when talking about a player's record. A better method would be to weight the data properly, it's not experimental noise after all. We mentally do it anyway but at least it'd be systematic whereas cutting is arbitrary and will introduce bias.

[GingerFurball]

India's 3 year unbeaten run:

Batting ave: 44.17
Bowling: 35.76

Since the start of the series in England:

Batting ave: 30.60
Bowling: 40.56

[Jono]

That is stark. I bet there would be something like a 25-40 run average difference between Sehwag, Gambhir and Tendulkar in those periods too.

[Top_Cat]

Would cut Jono, though.

[Jono]

That is conduct unbecoming sir.

[Contra]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

The thing is, even during India's glory run from 2008-11, their bowling was still average at best. They went undefeated in series for 3 years but they didn't win loads of Tests.

What was winning them games and series was their batsmen all collectively being in insane form, so games where the bowling was terrible their batsmen covered up for it by scoring big themselves, and when the bowling did fire, India inevitably won. The India of 2-3 years ago would have scored 600 minimum first up in Kolkata and had England under pressure from the moment they started their first innings, so India would still have been well ahead of the game even if their bowlers had conceded 500, and a half decent effort of restricting England to 400-450 would have meant that India's biggest enemy would have been time.

Now that the batting is failing, India find themselves behind in the series because their bowling isn't good enough to compensate for their batsmen failing to put the runs on the board.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS SO SO MUCH.

I still cannot understand why Indian fans keep on blaming defeats on our bowlers even though it's our batsmen who have collectively failed ever since the England series last year.

India's #1 ranking was built on not losing too many test matches rather than winning a load of test matches. And we didn't lose too many because our batting drew games which we would have normally lost, Napier against NZ, Ahemdabad against NZ and SL, SSC against SL. All games we normally would have lost were saved thanks to our batting.

[Cruxdude]

Originally Posted by Contra

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS SO SO MUCH.

I still cannot understand why Indian fans keep on blaming defeats on our bowlers even though it's our batsmen who have collectively failed ever since the England series last year.

India's #1 ranking was built on not losing too many test matches rather than winning a load of test matches. And we didn't lose too many because our batting drew games which we would have normally lost, Napier against NZ, Ahemdabad against NZ and SL, SSC against SL. All games we normally would have lost were saved thanks to our batting.

I agree that our batting misfiring has been one of the biggest reasons for our poor performance. But not often do overseas spinners outbowl Indian spinners so comprehensively.

This was most obvious at the Mumbai test. Ashwin was innocuous and that played a very big part in negating Ojha's effectiveness in that test. Ojha bowled much better than his figures suggest in that test. 327 on that track was not a bad first innings total but the healthy dosage of hit-me balls from Ashwin and Harbhajan made it bad.

In Kolkatta though it is the batsmen who have to take the major blame. You just cannot win on such a track after scoring just 300 in the first innings.

[8ankitj]

Yeah, agree with GF. The batting has been a big disappointment. Even Kohli isn't firing. Do something Jono.

[uvelocity]

sometimes you win, sometimes you lose

[zorax]

The question I have now is why are we okay with out bowling being ****? Simply saying 'well, it always used to be ****, and we still used to win' isn't sufficient. Top sides need to excel in both departments, not just be brilliant in one and passable in the other.

India's bowling has been poor for decades now, if not longer. I can't remember the last time an India attack struck fear in the hearts of opposing lineups, unless it was Kumble and Bhajji at home (with a bit of Kartik). Surely something must change?

Some (Siddarth Monga was it?) gave a good analogy with Pakistan recently - they've got an extremely flimsy batting lineup, but due to their amazing bowling attack they have managed to win a lot more games than people though they would. India, on the flip side, managed to draw a lot more games due to the amazing batting.

Bowling wins matches, shouldn't excellence in that department be what India strives for?

[Satyanash89]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

The thing is, even during India's glory run from 2008-11, their bowling was still average at best. They went undefeated in series for 3 years but they didn't win loads of Tests.

What was winning them games and series was their batsmen all collectively being in insane form, so games where the bowling was terrible their batsmen covered up for it by scoring big themselves, and when the bowling did fire, India inevitably won. The India of 2-3 years ago would have scored 600 minimum first up in Kolkata and had England under pressure from the moment they started their first innings, so India would still have been well ahead of the game even if their bowlers had conceded 500, and a half decent effort of restricting England to 400-450 would have meant that India's biggest enemy would have been time.

Now that the batting is failing, India find themselves behind in the series because their bowling isn't good enough to compensate for their batsmen failing to put the runs on the board.

Agreed with this. Gambhir, Sehwag, Tendulkar, Laxman were all phenomenal in,those 4-5 years. But i think youre not giving enough credit to how magnificent Zaheer was in that period... singlehandedly carried the attack on his shoulders and was absolutely vital to many of our victories, especially overseas. Its kinda shocking how EVERYONE from the golden generation has declined so horribly so fast