Shubhash Gupte and Abdul Qadir vs Shane Warne

[Johan]

can the combined efforts of Gupte and Qadir outmatch the impact of the one and only Shane Warne?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Love me a good handicap match

 

[Gob]

Yes and No

 

[capt_Luffy]

can the combined efforts of Gupte and Qadir outmatch the impact of the one and only Shane Warne?

Would do for equivalent batsmen imo

 

[Johan]

Would do for equivalent batsmen imo

so........like, what? Qadir average 26 at home (batting equivalent would be 47 I guess) and 50 away (batting equivalent would be 10 away), who is like that?

 

[capt_Luffy]

so........like, what? Qadir average 26 at home (batting equivalent would be 47 I guess) and 50 away (batting equivalent would be 10 away), who is like that?

Has a decent WPM away, I would say 20ish there...... Sarfaraz Khan with a long career

 

[Coronis]

Has a decent WPM away, I would say 20ish there...... Sarfaraz Khan with a long career

That’s really harsh on Sarfaraz. He hasn’t even played a test away.

Think along the lines of Mominul Haque, but worse

 

[sayon basak]

so........like, what? Qadir average 26 at home (batting equivalent would be 47 I guess) and 50 away (batting equivalent would be 10 away), who is like that?

And how did you come up with the genius estimate?

 

[vidiq]

Just a plot on the progressive averages of Muttiah Muralitharan, Shane Warne and Anil Kumble against top teams.
Have excluded their numbers against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
Murali vs Warne is an interesting curve. Warne obviously had a larger sample size. Kumble started better than both.
The criticism that's often levied against Murali, of his performances vs Ban and Zim, but despite removing numbers against them, his numbers are fabulous.

 

[honestbharani]

Just a plot on the progressive averages of Muttiah Muralitharan, Shane Warne and Anil Kumble against top teams.
Have excluded their numbers against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
Murali vs Warne is an interesting curve. Warne obviously had a larger sample size. Kumble started better than both.
The criticism that's often levied against Murali, of his performances vs Ban and Zim, but despite removing numbers against them, his numbers are fabulous.View attachment 46847

Also, Zim in the 90s and early 00s, and BD in the early to late 00s were better players of spin than most of the other recognized sides anyways. So it never made proper sense to remove them for these comparisons.

England in the 90s were far worse than BD in the 00s against spin, for example.

 

[Thala_0710]

I've looked into the Murali vs Warne debate quite a lot as well, and I've finally changed my opinion on the same. Murali > Warne for me now.

 

[Johan]

Also, Zim in the 90s and early 00s, and BD in the early to late 00s were better players of spin than most of the other recognized sides anyways. So it never made proper sense to remove them for these comparisons.

England in the 90s were far worse than BD in the 00s against spin, for example.

Is there any statistical basis for this?

 

[govinda indian fan]

Also, Zim in the 90s and early 00s, and BD in the early to late 00s were better players of spin than most of the other recognized sides anyways. So it never made proper sense to remove them for these comparisons.

England in the 90s were far worse than BD in the 00s against spin, for example.

Come on man. bangla in nouthies were literal **** vs bowling of any kind

 

[sayon basak]

Come on man. bangla in nouthies were literal **** vs bowling of any kind

Yeah, doesn't prove that English weren't worse.

 

[Johan]

How do you disprove something that wasn't proven at the first place? it's like saying India sucks against fast bowlimg, we all know Indians are terrible to fast bowling, but sub test standard? really?

 

[sayon basak]

How do you disprove something that wasn't proven at the first place?

Pretty sure you can dismiss a hypothesis by disproving it.

And proof by contradiction is based on the very idea of disproving an assumption.

 

[Johan]

Pretty sure you can dismiss a hypothesis by disproving it.

And proof by contradiction is based on the very idea.

a hypothesis can, but a hypothesis can have a discernible basis, I can't find any reason one would think 90s England were any poorer to playing spin bowling than 2000s Bangaldesh, or frankly, any reason they were poorer to spin than the Indians were to pace at the same time and we don't disregard them as sub Zimbabwe in playing pace.

 

[govinda indian fan]

How do you disprove something that wasn't proven at the first place? it's like saying India sucks against fast bowlimg, we all know Indians are terrible to fast bowling, but sub test standard? really?

After 70s indians played fast bowlers decently

 

[Johan]

After 70s indians played fast bowlers decently

No they didn't, even their great bats like Dravid and Sehwag were often non factors to good HTD pace, Azharrudin/Sidhu type were awful to pace, even VVS and Virat had a huge problem with vertical movement, it's only Gavaskar/Amarnath/Sachin who stand out against fast bowling.

 

[sayon basak]

a hypothesis can, but a hypothesis can have a discernible basis, I can't find any reason one would think 90s England were any poorer to playing spin bowling than 2000s Bangaldesh, or frankly, any reason they were poorer to spin than the Indians were to pace at the same time and we don't disregard them as sub Zimbabwe in playing pace.

Proof by contradiction doesn't need any basis tho. There is no basis in assuming that square root of 2 is rational, but we still do it, and then disprove our assumption by coming up with a contradiction.