Do SC Pacers Deserve More Credit For Home Performances?

[Burgey]

I think SC pacers do get credit for it on here though, as they should. It's always in the discussion when it comes to those guys. It probably should be balanced a little bit by them growing up in those conditions and being used to them, otherwise you'd just expect them to turn up in non-SC conditions, roll their arms over and dominate. Which they didn't always do. Players being a product of their environments applies to bolwers as much as batsmen I suppose - Pakistan blokes developed into great reverse bowlers as there's nothing in the deck. They grow up in SA/ England they'd still be guns but probably at orthodox swing or seam movement instead.

 

[Burgey]

I think your memory might be a bit foggy since Pakistan managed to draw test series in 76 and 79.

I was in that instance primarily referring to the Indian side. The same applied to the 79 Pakistan side though re the players missing. FMD that was a wild series that one.

 

[subshakerz]

I was in that instance primarily referring to the Indian side. The same applied to the 79 Pakistan side though re the players missing. FMD that was a wild series that one.

Ah got ya.

 

[Socerer 01]

it does apply to Shami, ****ing gun bowling stump to stump in India but looks terrible in England yet gets picked because he “threatens” the batsmen with his shape

 

[Slifer]

I have noticed in our conversations a subtle bias against giving SC pacers full due for their home records.

McGrath and Steyn are given points for succeeding in flat bat eras, yet Imran and Wasim not as much for excelling on pancake wickets which have a bigger portion of their career.

Kapil comes off at a disadvantage against Botham on bowling stakes yet averages less than him on less supportive home wickets.

Someone like Shami has been able to excel at home while foreign pacers like Rabada struggle.

How can SC pacers be given proper due?

To your opening question, no and here's why. That's their home conditions and great bowlers learn to adapt and make the best of their conditions regardless. And if you go around giving SC bowlers credit for I assume doing well in less favorable home conditions, my logical deduction is that SENA +W are more conducive to pace relatively speaking. So then, do we give spinners from those SENAW more credit for doing well in less favorable conditions at home?? Do we give pacemen from SENAW more credit when they perform in Asia. What about Asian pacemen who underperform in presumably more favorable conditions outside Asia. Should we downgrade them even more??

And wickets in countries outside Asia have never been uniform regardless of era and don't all favor pace. Australian wickets have been flat as you've attested to in your rants about Steve Smith, yet Australian pace bowlers have excelled. Other times they've been prepared to be spicy. In the 90s 2 of the wickets in the WI were generally spicy, one uneven bounce and the others flat. In the 2000s they were all generally flat and slow (except for a few occasions). Now with the emergence of some talent they're generally spicy again.

And we haven't even touched on the batsmen. Maybe give South Africans bonus points and downgrade Asian batsmen? Opening an unnecessary can of worms imo.

 

[kyear2]

Of greater relevance, was it a coincidence that this thread was started just as Imran is up for the 7th of 8th spot in the poll?

Dudeeee....

 

[Socerer 01]

. So then, do we give spinners from those SENAW more credit for doing well in less favorable conditions at home??

this is his argument for rating Lyon over Ashwin so he does do that

 

[kyear2]

To your opening question, no and here's why. That's their home conditions and great bowlers learn to adapt and make the best of their conditions regardless. And if you go around giving SC bowlers credit for I assume doing well in less favorable home conditions, my logical deduction is that SENA +W are more conducive to pace relatively speaking. So then, do we give spinners from those SENAW more credit for doing well in less favorable conditions at home?? Do we give pacemen from SENAW more credit when they perform in Asia. What about Asian pacemen who underperform in presumably more favorable conditions outside Asia. Should we downgrade them even more??

And wickets in countries outside Asia have never been uniform regardless of era and don't all favor pace. Australian wickets have been flat as you've attested to in your rants about Steve Smith, yet Australian pace bowlers have excelled. Other times they've been prepared to be spicy. In the 90s 2 of the wickets in the WI were generally spicy, one uneven bounce and the others flat. In the 2000s they were all generally flat and slow (except for a few occasions). Now with the emergence of some talent they're generally spicy again.

And we haven't even touched on the batsmen. Maybe give South Africans bonus points and downgrade Asian batsmen? Opening an unnecessary can of worms imo.

Brilliant

 

[subshakerz]

Of greater relevance, was it a coincidence that this thread was started just as Imran is up for the 7th of 8th spot in the poll?

Dudeeee....

Um, yes, it was. I started this as an idea based on the Kapil vs Botham thread.

 

[Bolo.]

Look at their away records. If they are better away, then yes. If they are better at home, then there is some specific skill that works in their home*. You would expect them to have it, having learned cricket there. Not necessarily present for visitors.

I'm not going to fully equivocate a SC home record with something like RSA, where just about any differing type of pace skill at all works, and even iffy bowlers can be tough to bat against, but you get the picture.

*or visitors just have no idea how to bat there.

 

[kyear2]

To your opening question, no and here's why. That's their home conditions and great bowlers learn to adapt and make the best of their conditions regardless. And if you go around giving SC bowlers credit for I assume doing well in less favorable home conditions, my logical deduction is that SENA +W are more conducive to pace relatively speaking. So then, do we give spinners from those SENAW more credit for doing well in less favorable conditions at home?? Do we give pacemen from SENAW more credit when they perform in Asia. What about Asian pacemen who underperform in presumably more favorable conditions outside Asia. Should we downgrade them even more??

And wickets in countries outside Asia have never been uniform regardless of era and don't all favor pace. Australian wickets have been flat as you've attested to in your rants about Steve Smith, yet Australian pace bowlers have excelled. Other times they've been prepared to be spicy. In the 90s 2 of the wickets in the WI were generally spicy, one uneven bounce and the others flat. In the 2000s they were all generally flat and slow (except for a few occasions). Now with the emergence of some talent they're generally spicy again.

And we haven't even touched on the batsmen. Maybe give South Africans bonus points and downgrade Asian batsmen? Opening an unnecessary can of worms imo.

Just highlighting a few points here.

Can't have it both ways

 

[subshakerz]

To your opening question, no and here's why. That's their home conditions and great bowlers learn to adapt and make the best of their conditions regardless. And if you go around giving SC bowlers credit for I assume doing well in less favorable home conditions, my logical deduction is that SENA +W are more conducive to pace relatively speaking. So then, do we give spinners from those SENAW more credit for doing well in less favorable conditions at home?? Do we give pacemen from SENAW more credit when they perform in Asia. What about Asian pacemen who underperform in presumably more favorable conditions outside Asia. Should we downgrade them even more??

Yes we give those SENAW spinners extra credit, at least I do. And SENAW pacers credit for performing in SC. And downgrade SC pacers failing in SENA. All of that happens.

And wickets in countries outside Asia have never been uniform regardless of era and don't all favor pace. Australian wickets have been flat as you've attested to in your rants about Steve Smith, yet Australian pace bowlers have excelled. Other times they've been prepared to be spicy. In the 90s 2 of the wickets in the WI were generally spicy, one uneven bounce and the others flat. In the 2000s they were all generally flat and slow (except for a few occasions). Now with the emergence of some talent they're generally spicy again.

So pitches aren't uniform doesn't mean that pitches in SC are generally better for pacers.

And we haven't even touched on the batsmen. Maybe give South Africans bonus points and downgrade Asian batsmen? Opening an unnecessary can of worms imo.

Lol yes that happens, thats the entire argument for upgrading Kallis.

 

[OverratedSanity]

To your opening question, no and here's why. That's their home conditions and great bowlers learn to adapt and make the best of their conditions regardless. And if you go around giving SC bowlers credit for I assume doing well in less favorable home conditions, my logical deduction is that SENA +W are more conducive to pace relatively speaking. So then, do we give spinners from those SENAW more credit for doing well in less favorable conditions at home?? Do we give pacemen from SENAW more credit when they perform in Asia. What about Asian pacemen who underperform in presumably more favorable conditions outside Asia. Should we downgrade them even more??

And wickets in countries outside Asia have never been uniform regardless of era and don't all favor pace. Australian wickets have been flat as you've attested to in your rants about Steve Smith, yet Australian pace bowlers have excelled. Other times they've been prepared to be spicy. In the 90s 2 of the wickets in the WI were generally spicy, one uneven bounce and the others flat. In the 2000s they were all generally flat and slow (except for a few occasions). Now with the emergence of some talent they're generally spicy again.

And we haven't even touched on the batsmen. Maybe give South Africans bonus points and downgrade Asian batsmen? Opening an unnecessary can of worms imo.

SA batsmen do bonus points though. @kyear2 rates kallis highly and selects Graeme Smith over Gavaskar and Hutton (I think) sometimes because of his difficult home pitches. I dont think anyone says they should just "learn to adapt" and dont take into account that its tough going.

 

[subshakerz]

Look at their away records. If they are better away, then yes. If they are better at home, then there is some specific skill that works in their home*. You would expect them to have it, having learned cricket there. Not necessarily present for visitors.

I'm not going to fully equivocate a SC home record with something like RSA, where just about any differing type of pace skill at all works, and even iffy bowlers can be tough to bat against, but you get the picture.

*or visitors just have no idea how to bat there.

I don't see how their away performance makes any difference. If conditions are tougher at home, then them adapting or suffering for it is independent of that fact and they deserve extra credit regardless.

 

[subshakerz]

A SA or Eng seamer averaging 27 at home is par for the course. A SC seamer averaging 27 at home is immediately one of the more valuable pacers in the country's history. I don't see how it is comparable yet we effectively treat it roughly as the same.

 

[Coronis]

Um, yes, it was. I started this as an idea based on the Kapil vs Botham thread.

Well Kapil was outbowled by Botham in India, so give him credit for that. And its not like Kapil was dominating Pakistan or SL either.

 

[ankitj]

So then, do we give spinners from those SENAW more credit for doing well in less favorable conditions at home?? Do we give pacemen from SENAW more credit when they perform in Asia. What about Asian pacemen who underperform in presumably more favorable conditions outside Asia. Should we downgrade them even more??

We do all of this routinely.

 

[subshakerz]

Well Kapil was outbowled by Botham in India, so give him credit for that. And its not like Kapil was dominating Pakistan or SL either.

Doesn't change the fact that Kapil had it harder over an entire career in India.

 

[OverratedSanity]

We do all of this routinely.

Indeed. And this is the funniest part:

And we haven't even touched on the batsmen. Maybe give South Africans bonus points and downgrade Asian batsmen?

Literally every Asian batsman's record is considered close to worthless here unless they make runs outside Asia.

 

[subshakerz]

Indeed. And this is the funniest part:



Literally every Asian batsman's record is considered close to worthless here unless they make runs outside Asia.

I think his comments shows how deep this anti-SC pacer bias is ingrained as they are literally the only category of cricketers not benefitting from contextualising.