Have India failed to capitalize on BUMRAH?

[RossTaylorsBox]

"Capitalisation" using wins and losses is pretty stupid here anyway. The implication of not being able to capitalise on Bumrah is that India haven't used him properly to extract more success, but I don't really think that's happened. Pretty much been the best bowler in the world for the ages now.

 

[Coronis]

"Capitalisation" using wins and losses is pretty stupid here anyway. The implication of not being able to capitalise on Bumrah is that India haven't used him properly to extract more success, but I don't really think that's happened. Pretty much been the best bowler in the world for the ages now.

I wasn’t really using it as a serious metric. I would argue it can also be looked at as a team in sport being unable to capitalise on someone who is the best (or one of the best) players in the sport at the time due to other reasons, e.g poor selection, poor captaincy.

That’s probably more applicable/noticeable in franchise sports or motorsport than cricket.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I don't think it's really a thing except maybe in sports like basketball where one player is the talisman of the team but they get used completely wrong or something. If great players are playing great then they're being used properly.

 

[subshakerz]

fun stat I just saw.

Hadlee - 86 matches 22 wins, 28 losses
Bumrah - 52 matches 22 wins, 25 losses

Bumrah has almost lost his team the same amount of matches as Hadlee in 34 less matches. They’re the only two ATG pacers with fewer wins than losses.

So yes I think they have failed to capitalise on him, since they’re losing 48% of matches involving him.

And there are many games where Bumrah is missing and they win too.

 

[Window]

That’s not really a meaningful stat when you consider the change in proportion of drawn vs win/loss games between the eras. Bumrah will end up with a greater number of wins and losses in a lesser of number of played matches than Hadlee. I think there is too much incorrect inference between individual player and overall team performance stats in cricket, as already mentioned.

 

[TheJediBrah]

fun stat I just saw.

Hadlee - 86 matches 22 wins, 28 losses
Bumrah - 52 matches 22 wins, 25 losses

Bumrah has almost lost his team the same amount of matches as Hadlee in 34 less matches. They’re the only two ATG pacers with fewer wins than losses.

So yes I think they have failed to capitalise on him, since they’re losing 48% of matches involving him.

Nothing to do with Bumrah, but India seem to have started losing all the time since he's been playing regularly last couple years. Definitely haven't got the results to show for it

 

[centurymaker]

Yeah if you think about it

No need to think, you are simply a dic*

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Correct, I'm also right.

 

[subshakerz]

India have won 19 out of 27 games since Bumrah has debuted without Bumrah playing.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

fun stat I just saw.

Hadlee - 86 matches 22 wins, 28 losses
Bumrah - 52 matches 22 wins, 25 losses

Bumrah has almost lost his team the same amount of matches as Hadlee in 34 less matches. They’re the only two ATG pacers with fewer wins than losses.

So yes I think they have failed to capitalise on him, since they’re losing 48% of matches involving him.

I believe this proves that if India had capitalised on Bumrah's career more, they'd have had more draws.

 

[Coronis]

I believe this proves that if India had capitalised on Bumrah's career more, they'd have had more draws.

A draw is better than a loss, just ask England

 

[Johan]

India only lost because Shubman Gill was not available in either innings. And ofcourse the toss always plays a vital role. In the end, losing margin was just 30 runs despite both of these factors.

South Africans were missing the third best fast bowler in the world who absolutely thrives on wickets that have awkward bounce, under the idea both teams were at full power, there's no guarantee India would've won. Tragic to lose Gill like that but India had come to Kolkata with a big advantage over South Africa as they were missing a Bumrah of their own.

 

[centurymaker]

South Africans were missing the third best fast bowler in the world who absolutely thrives on wickets that have awkward bounce, under the idea both teams were at full power, there's no guarantee India would've won. Tragic to lose Gill like that but India had come to Kolkata with a big advantage over South Africa as they were missing a Bumrah of their own.

They would have lost Bosch then, who scored crucial lower order runs. India may have scored less in the first inns with Rabada playing.