Why does Pakistan traditionally produce better fast bowlers than India?

[trundler]

How many holes can a man dig himself in before giving up

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sehwag was the greatest batsman of all time.

I approve of any philosophy/methodology that leads us to this conclusion.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Haha are you even on your own side?

Thats what I wanted to ask when you brought Sehwag here.
Imran just avg, Sehwag just SR
I am like check everything

 

[trundler]

I approve of any philosophy/methodology that leads us to this conclusion.

What about horrible footwork = GOAT

 

[Migara]

Yes.... . . . .Kapil's career where he was
not at all the culprit.

So Kapil bowled with a different ball? He bowled with a tampered ball (by Prabhakar) and took advantage of it,

 

[Migara]

Sehwag was the greatest batsman of all time. Dammit don't give em' ideas!

Nah, Afridi it is.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

How many holes can a man dig himself in before giving up

Well there are a couple of them trying that one, probably the same multi person though anyway.

 

[Borges]

I am like check everything

That is not the way discourses are conducted on CricketWeb.
The essence of successful posting is not to check everything; instead, blithely ignore things that are detrimental to the cause, and place all the focus on what is beneficial.
Check everything indeed! The Miyagis here will eat you alive if you do that.

 

[rtramdas]

Using the logic in this thread, If Kapil was a better batsman than Imran then Gilchrist was a much better batsman than Sachin

there is no doubt regarding the fact that Gilchrist deserves extra credit for his huge str:rate in one-one comparison with Sachin.Though the str:
rate difference is not that wider as in Kapil-Imran case, it is still a huge one of almost 81-54 = 27 in favour of Gilly.And I readily gives Gilly
extra marks in proportion to the str: rate difference in Kapil-Imran case in a Sachin-Gilly comparison.But the fact is that, other than this factor
there are several factors in which Sachin towers over Gilly that tilts the pendulum concincingly in Sachin's favour.Firstly , though there is not
that much avg: inflation as in Imran's case, Gilly too has around 14.6% of not outs when compared to Sachin's mere 10.03%. Secondly Sachin has scored
15921/5570 = 2.86 times the runs Gilchrist could score. What not, there is a major phase where Sachin has 13500 runs @ 59.35 avg: .So you can be rest
assured that there would be sub phases of mere 5570 runs with much higher avg:s than 59.35 itself. For instance, starting from 1997 onwards there is
a streak of 5605 runs(>5570) where he avg:ed 65.17 .Now compare that with Gilchrist's 'not out inflated avg:' of 47.6.

Again Gilchrist did not have a criteria of performance against 'best team of their times abroad' because he belonged to the best team of their times,
Australia where as in Imran-Kapil & Sachin's case that was a major criteria to judge batsman ship.And Sachin always had to cope with the added
pressure of burden of huge expectations from various quarters when compared to any other batsman.And, if Gilly could play some clutch knocks, there
is the luxury of a vast array of knocks for Sachin that can easily rival Gilly's collection of such knocks.And in one dayers Sachin was convincingly
better as a batsman.

All these adds up for Sachin to tower over Gilchrist, despite Gilchrist thoroughly deserving extra points for his huge str: rate in one-one comparison
with Sachin.

 

[the big bambino]

Gilchrist penalised for being too good.

 

[Bijed]

I'm not going to comment specifically on the examples/comparisons that have come up in this thread, but with all else being equal (or very close to equal), a higher strike-rate is great. But the vast majority of the time I'll go for someone who's likely to score more runs than someone who's likely to score fewer runs, but more quickly.

 

[smash84]

Strike rate in the context of a test match comes much further behind than SR. Heck, in a test match using up time at the crease is an important asset.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm not going to comment specifically on the examples/comparisons that have come up in this thread, but with all else being equal (or very close to equal), a higher strike-rate is great. But the vast majority of the time I'll go for someone who's likely to score more runs than someone who's likely to score fewer runs, but more quickly.

mmm I would disagree. Sometimes it's great - flat pitch and pushing for a result? Sure. But sometimes you'd want the slower guy - like trying to bat out for a draw in the 4th innings.

Same for bowlers really - usually you want to take wickets quick, but sometimes the guy with the better economy rate makes the attack as a whole more potent. It's why all these numbers are useless without context. At the end of the day, the only thing we can universally agree on is scoring more runs = good, which is why a higher batting average (or lower bowling average) is absolutely better. The rest depends on context.

 

[Bijed]

mmm I would disagree. Sometimes it's great - flat pitch and pushing for a result? Sure. But sometimes you'd want the slower guy - like trying to bat out for a draw in the 4th innings.

Oh, absolutely. But I would argue that the higher SR guy is probably more useful under 'normal' conditions, in that a guy scoring runs quickly can really get inside the opposition's heads and demoralise them - some people's captaincy seems to go to **** a bit under the pressure of a guy hitting a succession of boundaries and some bowlers find it hard to come back from too.

Of course, a guy hanging around for ages can acheive similar (though generally lesser, I feel) psychological effects by frustrating the hell out of the opposition and keeping the opposition in the field can have benefits later in the game/series.

I suppose there's also the question of how often you need to push for a result vs how often you need to bat for a draw.

 

[cnerd123]

Oh, absolutely. But I would argue that the higher SR guy is probably more useful under 'normal' conditions, in that a guy scoring runs quickly can really get inside the opposition's heads and demoralise them - some people's captaincy seems to go to **** a bit under the pressure of a guy hitting a succession of boundaries and some bowlers find it hard to come back from too.

Of course, a guy hanging around for ages can acheive similar (though generally lesser, I feel) psychological effects by frustrating the hell out of the opposition and keeping the opposition in the field can have benefits later in the game/series.

I suppose there's also the question of how often you need to push for a result vs how often you need to bat for a draw.

so what you're saying is we need context?

 

[TheJediBrah]

mmm I would disagree. Sometimes it's great - flat pitch and pushing for a result? Sure. But sometimes you'd want the slower guy - like trying to bat out for a draw in the 4th innings.

Same for bowlers really - usually you want to take wickets quick, but sometimes the guy with the better economy rate makes the attack as a whole more potent. It's why all these numbers are useless without context. At the end of the day, the only thing we can universally agree on is scoring more runs = good, which is why a higher batting average (or lower bowling average) is absolutely better. The rest depends on context.

Depends on too many factors. For someone like Gilchrist in his position, in the team he was in, higher strike rate 100000000x better. Other situations/players, not so much.

 

[cnerd123]

Depends on too many factors. For someone like Gilchrist in his position, in the team he was in, higher strike rate 100000000x better. Other situations/players, not so much.

so what you're saying is we need context?

 

[the big bambino]

To put this all in context SR is king in tests when someone like Gilly would come in with the match in balance and put Australia in charge and on the way to victory inside a session.

 

[Engle]

Context, which includes Contribution to the team's Cause of the moment.

Gilly had the luxury of having a go, what with the top bats having laid a platform.
Tendulkar was the person laying the platform.
Imran had to fill the cracks in the platform which was always prone to collapse.
Kapil couldn't care less about the platform.

 

[the big bambino]

Think I made it clear the game was often in the balance when Gilly made it Australia's inside a session. Hence no platform (if by that you mean a clear advantage) provided for him.