Thala_0710
International Captain
Nah you didn't. You need to look deeper into the pitch conditions and quality of wkts being takenPeople can be dumb. We both agree. I won this debate here fair and square.
Nah you didn't. You need to look deeper into the pitch conditions and quality of wkts being takenPeople can be dumb. We both agree. I won this debate here fair and square.
How spicy were Indian home wickets in the 70s?People can be dumb. We both agree. I won this debate here fair and square.
Dude Chandra has a higher % of tail wickets because he also takes almost a wicket a game more. You need to look more into Underwood's Home split between pre and post cover and the quality of NZ/SL he faced.Nah you didn't. You need to look deeper into the pitch conditions and quality of wkts being taken
Not much. None of the quartet has much of a Home/Away split in their record, except Bedi. Think it's pretty cover ENG>>India>Post cover ENG in terms of spin friendliness of that era.How spicy were Indian home wickets in the 70s?
Yeah so the WPM point is neutralized by the tail wkt point then.Dude Chandra has a higher % of tail wickets because he also takes almost a wicket a game more. You need to look more into Underwood's Home split between pre and post cover and the quality of NZ/SL he faced.
Did you?You need to look deeper into the pitch conditions and quality of wkts being taken
YeahDid you?
No it isn't unless you think tail wickets are useless and Akram isn't an ATG.Yeah so the WPM point is neutralized by the tail wkt point then.
Upon removing weak teams I'm still taking Underwood because I don't believe Underwood got much friendlier pitches on avg than Chandra did. Indian pitches were spin friendly too btw, especially in the 3rd and 4th inns, where Chandra and Bedi's records are much better than the first 2 inns
Provide the results you got. Provide his stats on wet wickets vs flat pitches.Yeah
It's not so much so what he got on average, it's the split between the Extremely helpful ones and the defensive ones. Chandra has the same no of home wickets in 10 less games (32 vs 42). That's a huge deal.Yeah so the WPM point is neutralized by the tail wkt point then.
Upon removing weak teams I'm still taking Underwood because I don't believe Underwood got much friendlier pitches on avg than Chandra did. Indian pitches were spin friendly too btw, especially in the 3rd and 4th inns, where Chandra and Bedi's records are much better than the first 2 inns
They aren't useless, but much they're much less valuable, which is also why I rate Akram lower than I used to. Ignoring them is anyday better than ignoring Nz and Sl anywayNo it isn't unless you think tail wickets are useless and Akram isn't an ATG.
Bedi is the 4th innings GoAT, and you can't be shocked that spinners did better in the 3rd and 4th Innings, especially given they were the sole bowlers almost without any pacers bowling the bulk in the 1st and 2nd innings as well.
I can give you match factors and discount factors as a substitute for the same, wet vs flat I don't have. But that helps.Provide the results you got. Provide his stats on wet wickets vs flat pitches.
Huge L take. It's like when someone said McGrath has a bigger % of top order wickets than Hadlee and someone had to point out you need the tail as well and Hadlee just had a much better WPM. Same here.They aren't useless, but much they're much less valuable, which is also why I rate Akram lower than I used to. Ignoring them is anyday better than ignoring Nz and Sl anyway
That means you didn't do anything you claimed.I can give you match factors and discount factors as a substitute for the same, wet vs flat I don't have. But that helps.
Nah you didn't. You need to look deeper into the pitch conditions and quality of wkts being taken
It's not though. Saying you need the tail is similar to saying that you need to get weaker batsman out anyway. I don't see how getting batsman out avg 5-15 in the tail deserves more credit than getting nz batsman out who avged in the 30sHuge L take. It's like when someone said McGrath has a bigger % of top order wickets than Hadlee and someone had to point out you need the tail as well and Hadlee just had a much better WPM. Same here.
Discount factors and match factors take that into account though. That's the whole point of those metricsThat means you didn't do anything you claimed.
Underwood's WPM while only counting top and middle order wickets: 2.64They aren't useless, but much they're much less valuable, which is also why I rate Akram lower than I used to. Ignoring them is anyday better than ignoring Nz and Sl anyway
Which is not that big of a differenceUnderwood's WPM while only counting top and middle order wickets: 2.64
Chandra's WPM while counting only top and middle order wickets: 2.94
No they do not. They're just relative performances and are heavily influenced by bowlers in his own team. Pitch conditions are just totally unrelated, and needs quite a bit more work to be judged.Discount factors and match factors take that into account though. That's the whole point of those metrics
That is match factor. Discount factor is irrelevant of the strength of your own team. Looking at both combined gives you a very good pictureNo they do not. They're just relative performances and are heavily influenced by bowlers in his own team. Pitch conditions are just totally unrelated, and needs quite a bit more work to be judged.