PDA

View Full Version : Do stats matter all the time?



TalentSpotterPk
17th July 2015, 17:00
A young Man having average of 20 & 25 in his List A & Fc cricket with total 1 hundred is selected for Bangladesh senior team . Had he been pakistani would the selectors dared to select him with such numbers ? Whereas he is an opening batsman and rarely bowls his medium pace . The fans & followers in pakistan would have asked for head of chief selector or called for his immediate sacking and calling the player a huge ****** .
His name is soumya sarkar . Just look at what he has been able to do with the bat for the Bangladesh senior team . You have got to have an eye to spot talent as a selector . It's not just stats which matter .

Ahson8
17th July 2015, 17:13
A young Man having average of 20 & 25 in his List A & Fc cricket with total 1 hundred is selected for Bangladesh senior team . Had he been pakistani would the selectors dared to select him with such numbers ? Whereas he is an opening batsman and rarely bowls his medium pace . The fans & followers in pakistan would have asked for head of chief selector or called for his immediate sacking and calling the player a huge ****** .
His name is soumya sarkar . Just look at what he has been able to do with the bat for the Bangladesh senior team . You have got to have an eye to spot talent as a selector . It's not just stats which matter .

Sarkar had good success in his U19 days which is why he was selected. More often than not, stats do paint a picture of how good a player is, but there are certain exceptions at times.

TalentSpotterPk
17th July 2015, 17:16
Sarkar had good success in his U19 days which is why he was selected. More often than not, stats do paint a picture of how good a player is, but there are certain exceptions at times.

He played 3,4 years at domestic level after under-19 cricket averaging 20 & 25.
Will you select a player on basis of what he did 4 years ago ?

Statsman
17th July 2015, 17:22
Although domestic stats are important while evaluating a player for an International debut, they do not represent the player's caliber at all times.

E.g. Joginder Sharma has close to 300 wickets at 21.1 and averages ~25 with the bat with 5 centuries in First Class, but has never been selected for the Indian Test Team. Rightly so.

Pete Rose
17th July 2015, 18:43
Of course they don't matter all the time. That's why we don't rightly select fawad alam

IndianWillow
17th July 2015, 20:02
Stats matter only if you did not have the chance to watch a player live. Whether someone is talented or not can be judged based on how they play. Stats provide only an extra cushion especially for a newcomer. However when you become an experienced player, then stats will matter a lot - what is the use of a guy with enormous talent averaging only 25 with bat.

Dios
17th July 2015, 20:08
Soumya is the only player to have a double century in U19 ODIs.

In Bangladesh pitches are often underprepared with uneven and unpredictable bounce that's why batsmen often have low averages and spinners have extraordinary averages. But Soumya is a special case. Very average domestic stats but just by watching him bat you can tell that he has the potential to be a world-class batsman.

Mainul
17th July 2015, 20:56
A young Man having average of 20 & 25 in his List A & Fc cricket with total 1 hundred is selected for Bangladesh senior team . Had he been pakistani would the selectors dared to select him with such numbers ? Whereas he is an opening batsman and rarely bowls his medium pace . The fans & followers in pakistan would have asked for head of chief selector or called for his immediate sacking and calling the player a huge ****** .
His name is soumya sarkar . Just look at what he has been able to do with the bat for the Bangladesh senior team . You have got to have an eye to spot talent as a selector . It's not just stats which matter .

Yes, you must have a potent sharp eye to figure out real talents as a selector.

I have strong suspicion over whether Pakistani selectors have that eyes or not and whether they spend time or not watching live the domestic cricketers in action. Otherwise, it is so tough to believe that there is scarcity of talents in a country of Imran, Miandad, Zahir, Fazal Mahmood, Sarfraz, Abdul Qadir, Saleem Malik, Saeed Anwar, Wasim, Waqar,Injamam, Shoib Akhter, Md Yusuf.....so many.

Fahdi
17th July 2015, 21:11
Well nothing is 100%.

There will always be exceptions.

#GreenRoars
17th July 2015, 21:37
Yes, you must have a potent sharp eye to figure out real talents as a selector.

I have strong suspicion over whether Pakistani selectors have that eyes or not and whether they spend time or not watching live the domestic cricketers in action. Otherwise, it is so tough to believe that there is scarcity of talents in a country of Imran, Miandad, Zahir, Fazal Mahmood, Sarfraz, Abdul Qadir, Saleem Malik, Saeed Anwar, Wasim, Waqar,Injamam, Shoib Akhter, Md Yusuf.....so many.

They have glasses :)

Kakar
17th July 2015, 22:39
Stats in the long run tell you the accurate story 9 out of 10 times. One or two cases can't be used to disregard the statistics completely.

Kakar
17th July 2015, 22:44
P.S: Soumya Sarkar's list A average, excluding ODIs, is close to 32 and I doubt he has played any non-ODI list A since then, so I don't know how you are making out his list A average to be 20 at debut.

sensible-indian-fan
17th July 2015, 23:14
Stats in the long run tell you the accurate story 9 out of 10 times. One or two cases can't be used to disregard the statistics completely.

You are right for international cricket. Stats in international cricket with decent sample set should tell you where someone stands. 9 out of 10 times.

But in domestic cricket, it doesn't necessarily apply.

In domestic cricket, selectors have to choose players whom they think can make a quantum leap into the next level (international cricket). Some players can. Some players just can't.

For example - My friend says put a batsman like Ashwin on a slow and low track and watch him get out performed by many first class (or division players). Now take everyone and put them on a track with proper bounce or track with international bowlers and you will see him outperform others (due to certain aspects of his game).

Here's where selectors role comes into play. It goes beyond stats to identify talent and put them in squad to test out. If domestic stats were everything, we just need computers (with pre set data) to make the best selection decisions.

Of course, all this doesn't mean domestic stats count for nothing. It counts too. But we can't solely judge based on that.

zarar
17th July 2015, 23:48
Not all the time. Sometimes a players match winning ability gets them into their respective sides. Andrew Flintoff and Shahid Afridi for example.

I believe Wasim Akram's List A stats weren't that good at the time he was picked he didn't even play a first class game but was picked in the test squad against New Zealand on Imran Khan's recommendation and the rest is history.

pacesensation
18th July 2015, 00:47
they dont matter when you have scored lots of your centuries in india and against minnows and you scored them in a situation which did not help your team in winning.

Sadly They do not matter at all, though some people on this forum despite all the knowledge and intellect they have got, find it extremely challenging to accept it. When they display such stubbornness, they become a laughing stock, however, the irony is that they are so much in number that the sane lovers of this game just do not waste their time in arguing with them.

Regards

Mainul
18th July 2015, 00:48
You are right for international cricket. Stats in international cricket with decent sample set should tell you where someone stands. 9 out of 10 times.

But in domestic cricket, it doesn't necessarily apply.

In domestic cricket, selectors have to choose players whom they think can make a quantum leap into the next level (international cricket). Some players can. Some players just can't.

For example - My friend says put a batsman like Ashwin on a slow and low track and watch him get out performed by many first class (or division players). Now take everyone and put them on a track with proper bounce or track with international bowlers and you will see him outperform others (due to certain aspects of his game).

Here's where selectors role comes into play. It goes beyond stats to identify talent and put them in squad to test out. If domestic stats were everything, we just need computers (with pre set data) to make the best selection decisions.

Of course, all this doesn't mean domestic stats count for nothing. It counts too. But we can't solely judge based on that.

This explanation has sensible logic behind it

Mainul
18th July 2015, 00:54
Stats matter only if you did not have the chance to watch a player live. Whether someone is talented or not can be judged based on how they play. Stats provide only an extra cushion especially for a newcomer. However when you become an experienced player, then stats will matter a lot - what is the use of a guy with enormous talent averaging[[B]/B] only 25 with bat.

That was the case with Md Ashraful. He was so inconsistent with the bat with so called enormous talent that his absence in the team was never felt by me and i think by most Bangladeshi fans

Mainul
18th July 2015, 00:59
:)
They have glasses :)

Our selectors Habibul Basher, Minhazul Abedin and Faruq Ahmed-none of them have glasses.

Probably that's why they were able to identify talent in Soumya:yk

Kakar
18th July 2015, 01:08
You are right for international cricket. Stats in international cricket with decent sample set should tell you where someone stands. 9 out of 10 times.

But in domestic cricket, it doesn't necessarily apply.

In domestic cricket, selectors have to choose players whom they think can make a quantum leap into the next level (international cricket). Some players can. Some players just can't.

For example - My friend says put a batsman like Ashwin on a slow and low track and watch him get out performed by many first class (or division players). Now take everyone and put them on a track with proper bounce or track with international bowlers and you will see him outperform others (due to certain aspects of his game).

Here's where selectors role comes into play. It goes beyond stats to identify talent and put them in squad to test out. If domestic stats were everything, we just need computers (with pre set data) to make the best selection decisions.

Of course, all this doesn't mean domestic stats count for nothing. It counts too. But we can't solely judge based on that.

Yes that's true, but even in domestic, stats give you a good idea. Say, there are three players averaging 45, you will need to choose which player has the most potential to make it on international stage. But there's a player who averages 35 in first class. There's a great probability that he will not be as good as those averaging 45. Exceptions can of course be there but there's a reason that he's struggling on first class level. Also, you can't disregard a player on the assumption that he can't make it on international level. You can't keep a performing player out for long without testing him. Also, a good domestic structure is very important for a stronger correlation between domestic and international stats. In Australia, you can expect a player with good performance in Shield to be a good performer at international level too. They make the jump seamlessly because their structure is strong.

#GreenRoars
18th July 2015, 01:09
:)

Our selectors Habibul Basher, Minhazul Abedin and Faruq Ahmed-none of them have glasses.

Probably that's why they were able to identify talent in Soumya:yk

Haha, now you got my point :mj

sensible-indian-fan
18th July 2015, 01:15
Yes that's true, but even in domestic, stats give you a good idea. Say, there are three players averaging 45, you will need to choose which player has the most potential to make it on international stage. But there's a player who averages 35 in first class. There's a great probability that he will not be as good as those averaging 45. Exceptions can of course be there but there's a reason that he's struggling on first class level. Also, you can't disregard a player on the assumption that he can't make it on international level. You can't keep a performing player out for long without testing him. Also, a good domestic structure is very important for a stronger correlation between domestic and international stats. In Australia, you can expect a player with good performance in Shield to be a good performer at international level too. They make the jump seamlessly because their structure is strong.

Yes...odds are a guy averaging 45 in domestic is better than 35.

But the things you mainly see is:

1. Their style of play
2. Their ability to play quality bowlers
3. Their ability to play bounce in proper tracks
4. Domestic stats

Then if a 35 averaging player has great potential otherwise and does well for 2-3 years (averages 45-50), you will pick him over a 45 averaging guy who is consistent but doesn't exhibit any such potential.

I will give you an example.

Varun Aaron around 30 in first class while Joginder Sharma averages 20 with the ball. There is not even debate about who could be international class. When Varun averaged 20 for a season (or did well in a season), he was picked for national squad while Joginder was never selected. Its not just Varun. Ashwin has inferior first class stats compared to many other spinners.

Kakar
18th July 2015, 01:32
Yes...odds are a guy averaging 45 in domestic is better than 35.

But the things you mainly see is:

1. Their style of play
2. Their ability to play quality bowlers
3. Their ability to play bounce in proper tracks
4. Domestic stats

Then if a 35 averaging player has great potential otherwise and does well for 2-3 years (averages 45-50), you will pick him over a 45 averaging guy who is consistent but doesn't exhibit any such potential.

I will give you an example.

Varun Aaron around 30 in first class while Joginder Sharma averages 20 with the ball. There is not even debate about who could be international class. When Varun averaged 20 for a season (or did well in a season), he was picked for national squad while Joginder was never selected. Its not just Varun. Ashwin has inferior first class stats compared to many other spinners.

Yes but as you said performing is necessary. Also Aaron's poor stats are showing at international level too. He has potential but is too inconsistent. When he becomes consistent his first class stats will get better too. Plus as I said, there maybe a few cases, but in most cases, a player averaging 20 with the ball will be better than one averaging 30. Having good domestic stats is not the ultimate requirement but is a good indicator. I am not in favour of selecting a non-performing first class player for national team no matter how much potential he has. If he has the potential, he has to first make it count at first class level. Babar Azam for example, currently has one first class century to his name. His list A numbers are pretty good. So, his selection in ODIs is fine but I don't want him selected for tests unless he has a great season and he raises his average, scores a few hundreds.

sensible-indian-fan
18th July 2015, 01:46
Yes but as you said performing is necessary. Also Aaron's poor stats are showing at international level too. He has potential but is too inconsistent. When he becomes consistent his first class stats will get better too. Plus as I said, there maybe a few cases, but in most cases, a player averaging 20 with the ball will be better than one averaging 30. Having good domestic stats is not the ultimate requirement but is a good indicator. I am not in favour of selecting a non-performing first class player for national team no matter how much potential he has. If he has the potential, he has to first make it count at first class level. Babar Azam for example, currently has one first class century to his name. His list A numbers are pretty good. So, his selection in ODIs is fine but I don't want him selected for tests unless he has a great season and he raises his average, scores a few hundreds.

1. In Varun's case, I was speaking about who is more likely to be international class. He stands a chance while Jogi hasn't. What happens next is upto Varun.

2. Some performance is needed for sure but most important components are what kind of batting shots/bowling skills they have, what kind of ability they have against quality bowlers. Many batsmen in India have 50 average in first class but are utter useless. Same for bowlers averaging 20s. Guys like Vinay Kumar is literally the McGrath in domestics. He even cleaned up Vijay twice with ease (which international bowlers aren't able to do so easily) when he recently played against him. But can't take him too seriously.

That's why the whole concept of talent scouting, asking selectors to watch the matches is important. Once you identify the quality ones, you can track them and when they do well for a season or two, you can give them a chance if there are slots.

IndianWillow
18th July 2015, 02:36
That was the case with Md Ashraful. He was so inconsistent with the bat with so called enormous talent that his absence in the team was never felt by me and i think by most Bangladeshi fans

Usually happens to batsmen with some flaw in defense. Some batsmen have a lot of stroke making ability but can't handle certain types of deliveries. So while their game looks pleasing to the eye, they may get out without warning. From India, Rohit Sharma comes to mind.

Bullet Drive
18th July 2015, 02:38
No because Misbah averages 43 in ODI cricket.

Malik averages 33.

But Misbah couldn't play such a knock like Malik did a few days ago. Misbah could not score a single ODI ton. Could only dream of playing a knock like Maliks ton vs India in South Africa.

Bullet Drive
18th July 2015, 02:39
Take a look at Shan Masood, averaged 30 odd in domestic cricket yet no other opener from the whole of Pakistan could play the type of knock he played in Sri Lanka. Its all about mental strength.

Abdullah719
18th July 2015, 02:52
Take a look at Shan Masood, averaged 30 odd in domestic cricket yet no other opener from the whole of Pakistan could play the type of knock he played in Sri Lanka. Its all about mental strength.

Let's just weigh up this statement, and put it in the context of your previous post, and compare the mental strength of Misbah and Malik. It is a foregone conclusion that Malik probably has better ability and that Misbah has several limitations in his ODI game, but what exactly did Malik do of note in major tournaments i.e. CT/WC?

Bullet Drive
18th July 2015, 02:54
Let's just weigh up this statement, and put it in the context of your previous post, and compare the mental strength of Misbah and Malik. It is a foregone conclusion that Malik probably has better ability and that Misbah has several limitations in his ODI game, but what exactly did Malik do of note in major tournaments i.e. CT/WC?

One of the best innings ever by a Pakistani.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2009/engine/current/match/415278.html

128 in South African conditions against arch rivals India in Champions Trophy match.

Abdullah719
18th July 2015, 02:58
One of the best innings ever by a Pakistani.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2009/engine/current/match/415278.html

128 in South African conditions against arch rivals India in Champions Trophy match.

Indeed. Against an almighty attack of RP Singh, Ishant Sharma, Ashish Nehra, Virat Kohli, Yusuf Pathan and Harbhajan Singh.

An exceptional innings, sure. One of the best ever? Hyperbole.

ahanank
18th July 2015, 03:06
One of the best innings ever by a Pakistani.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2009/engine/current/match/415278.html

128 in South African conditions against arch rivals India in Champions Trophy match.

Misbah has an unbelievable amount of mental strength. Something Malik can never achieve. So...pros and cons are there for both.

miandadrules
18th July 2015, 03:23
One of the best innings ever by a Pakistani.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2009/engine/current/match/415278.html

128 in South African conditions against arch rivals India in Champions Trophy match.

Totally agree. It was a minefield. Nobody could score runs on that surface.

I think that year there were the least amount of centuries registered at Super Sport Park in ODIs.

Thivagar
18th July 2015, 03:40
Batsmen A
Averages 45, Sr.80
Doesn't throw away his wickets

Batsmen B
Averages 42, Sr. 80
Always throws his wickets away

Who is a better batsmen? think hard.

asfandyar
18th July 2015, 03:56
Stats always have a margin of error, and exceptions like soumya don't negate their importance as the most objective measure a selector can use to select and defend his selection. In any case, Soumya's average is likely to come down once he tours other countries

Sent from my Iphone using Tapatalk

Slog
18th July 2015, 04:16
Azhar Ali averaged 30s when he was selected

Bullet Drive
18th July 2015, 04:22
batsmen a
averages 45, sr.80
doesn't throw away his wickets

batsmen b
averages 42, sr. 80
always throws his wickets away

who is a better batsmen? Think hard.

a

MMHS
18th July 2015, 04:38
Stats does matter, if the system is more or less balanced & unanimous. But often for younger players, the sample is too small to justify that. For example someone averaging 25 in FC after 5 matches is basically 1 innings away from greatness - his 10th innings can be 250*, which 'll take the average to 50. Similarly, after 10/11 ODI, Waquar had an average of probably 60, then he went to Sharja & after 4/5 more matches (& 18~19 more wickets), it came down to 25 ...... rest is history.

I think, Somya was picked mostly for his U19 performance & his shot making capability. I am not sure, but he probably has a List A 200 before selection; which means the day he gets things correct, almost unstoppable. Besides, anyone with batting knowledge can see his balance, footwork, timing, placement & technique.

Bangladesh domestic structure is very good - 8 regional teams play on home & away basis; which actually ensures best 100 cricketers take each other on 14 different surfaces over a season & it's more or less unanimous for all players. Now, the wickets differ in places - in short, it's a belter in Dhaka, Fatullah, it spins in CTG, seems in Sylhet & swings in North Bengal..... someone playing his fist few matches might show anomaly in stats, which 'll be normalized over 2/3 years.

Compared to that, PAK has Fawad Alam & Ali Asad - 7K runs at 60 or 300 wickets at <20 ..... & we have seen them later.

Mainul
18th July 2015, 07:31
a

Soumya Sarkar is gone after a very brief innings on bullet drive

Buffet
18th July 2015, 07:42
If basis of stats is good then it matters. If basis of stats are faulty then it doesn't matter.

Even in internationals, aggregate stats can be misleading due to some one playing 90% of games against minnows or only in familiar conditions. So basis for stats is very important. So it depends if you are looking at right kind of stats.

Stats with context with a large sample size are normally accurate within range.

Thivagar
18th July 2015, 08:05
a

Batsmen B, why ? Because he doesn't let bowlers take his wicket, he gives his wicket away. If he had some patient then he would have lasted for longer time. This is why some times guys with 35 FC average is preferred over guys with 45 FC average. The selectors hope that batsmen B matures and doesn't throw away his wicket. Then there is also net session, some cricketers are king in nets while choke outside. Selector's job is is much more difficult than it appears.

Stallion__
18th July 2015, 08:09
Its a complex question actually.

First of all, while talking about domestic uncapped players, we need to separate fast bowlers with batsman and spinners because of following reasons

-) Fast bowlers career is short-lived as compared to batsman/spinners

-) Pacer's peak period is around when he is about 25/26 years of age while that of batsman/spinner is around 30 years of age

-) Fast bowlers are much more susceptible to injuries than spinners/batsman

-) Development of fast bowlers require them to have both necessary skill and strength while for that of spinners and batsman, strength factor don't count much


Because of all these factors, fast bowlers are needed to fast-track in international circuit as soon as possible.

In their case, selectors need to spot the talent at U-19 level, and then let him play few seasons of domestic cricket. His stats don't need to be mind-boggling. Even if he shows some improvement, let him make a transition to international cricket. No need to wait for him to have mind-boggling numbers in domestic. It is even more important in country like Pakistan, where our domestic structure don't have desired quality so the early he make that transition, the better it is.

By doing so we can have following possibilities

-) He could be a success in international cricket. This is a bread n butter situation. We have got a fast bowler of international caliber at a very young age. Examples Wasim, Waqar and Amir even Mustafiz.

-) He could be a failure in international cricket. It is also quite a likely scenario that he may not live up to the expectations. Even in this case, the bowler can get an idea of demands of international cricket, can assess the reasons of his failure, work hard in domestic circuit and came back with stronger performances. Asif is a prime example.


Now for batsman and spinners, its a separate case.

Again, it starts from U-19 level. Spot a talent there and keep an eye on him as he plays domestic cricket. Its important for batsman and spinners to perform at domestic level first. Specially for the batsman because that would help them build some confidence before playing at international level. A failure at international level at early age could have huge impact on their psyche (Hasan Raza). Its a different case than bowlers because

.) A bowler has many deliveries to prove his worth in a match. Even if he make some mistakes, he have a chance to make a comeback in the same match

.) For a batsman, he is just one mistake away from getting out. 2-3 such failures could make him think that he don't have ability to ever perform at this level.

Another aspect is that the need to building temperament in batsman is very important. One could see that a batsman is talented at junior level and has performed well for a season in domestic. But he must have enough temperament and patience in him along with talent. By making him play international cricket at very young age, we may well deprive him an opportunity to build these traits in his personality which hardships of international cricket may never allow him to do so, hence he may never develop to his full potential :uakmal

So for spinners and batsman, ideally they should have couple of very good domestic seasons behind them (if not a superior overall record) before being called at international level.

Of course, exceptions like Somya are there, and even he is yet to prove himself outside Asia and even in Test format.

MMHS
18th July 2015, 08:24
My mistake - Soumya averages under 30 after 36 FC matches & 37 in 50 List A, excluding ODI, it 'll be around 33, I guess with inferior SR. His List A average is understandable, talented young player, may be started too early & had a poor start, but his FC average is indeed explainable, but that's relatively at per with his Test average of 21. May be the issue is temperamental - only 1 hundred in 67 innings; may be like MSD, he doesn't like the longer format much (MS averages 53 in List A, 36 in FC).

WC-Passion
19th July 2015, 04:08
Batsmen B, why ? Because he doesn't let bowlers take his wicket, he gives his wicket away. If he had some patient then he would have lasted for longer time. This is why some times guys with 35 FC average is preferred over guys with 45 FC average. The selectors hope that batsmen B matures and doesn't throw away his wicket. Then there is also net session, some cricketers are king in nets while choke outside. Selector's job is is much more difficult than it appears.

Best explanation of why Umar Akmal has been given so many chances and has only won matches for pakistan about 10-15 times in his whole career. I think it's something like 100+ matches. Even so, he is still one of our best firepower batsmen who we need to have in the team but of-course discipline bad form and our new "excellent selector" Haroon Rasheed has led to it not happening.

leatherface58
19th July 2015, 04:15
Stats can enhance your perspective of the game. They cannot be your perspective of the game.

If you like a player and on coming to PP, you find that he averages under 40 on some ground in Southern Chile and that leads to you not liking him, then I'm afraid you don't matter. Forget stats.

PCP_1
19th July 2015, 04:21
Good to see all three of Statsman, MMHS and Stallion have reported. #StatsBorefest

Stallion__
19th July 2015, 04:29
Good to see all three of Statsman, MMHS and Stallion have reported. #StatsBorefest

You under-estimated me mate.

I can post long boring posts even without using stats ;-)

miandadrules
19th July 2015, 04:49
As long as stats are open to scrutiny with a large enough sample size then they will give you a fair impression.

jeetu
19th July 2015, 05:02
As long as stats are open to scrutiny with a large enough sample size then they will give you a fair impression.

Pretty much. Short Term stats can be quite misleading.

miandadrules
19th July 2015, 05:07
Pretty much. Short Term stats can be quite misleading.

If you take the basic stats literally it's obvious your not going to get the whole picture. But if stats can be scrutinised by seasons and opposition they will indicate a players worth.

That's why it's not sufficient to say a player performed in Australia/South Africa without looking at the surfaces on each of the grounds and the composition of the opposition, relative to how other players have performed.

gazza619
19th July 2015, 05:13
What a player


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TalentSpotterPk
25th October 2015, 22:52
There are two players in pakistan domestic cricket who have average Fc batting average but they have good technique , good temperament , good shot range , good timing , good skill set. Both are right handers. One bats at number 3 or number 4 and other opens the innings. Both have got only 1 Fc hundred and their debut Fc ton was a double century. Both play departmental cricket . Can we consider such players to come good at international level ? Mamoon miandadrules MMHS or stats are more important ?
Soumya Sarkar has defied his average domestic stats in international cricket uptil now.

JibranAnsari
25th October 2015, 22:56
TalentSpotterPk , one probably is babar azam and i dont know about the other. The players who are just starting and have just played 1 -2 seasons can not be purely judged on their stats but for the players who have played seasons of domestic cricket ,stats do reflect their caliber in most cases.

TalentSpotterPk
25th October 2015, 23:01
TalentSpotterPk , one probably is babar azam and i dont know about the other. The players who are just starting and have just played 1 -2 seasons can not be purely judged on their stats but for the players who have played seasons of domestic cricket ,stats do reflect their caliber in most cases.

Will u back a 22 years old opener who has played departmental cricket and has played total 7 Fc games with only one ton that too a double hundred to be selected for England tour ?
Will he become an Umar Amin number 2 ?

zabalestmsm
25th October 2015, 23:07
Well in most cases stats do matter! In most cases it tells us about the category of a player! A reliable indicator in most cases!

For example; MS Dhoni at the start of his career averaged under 40 in FC and ended up under 40 in Tests, if I remember correctly! While he had an average of above 50 in List A at the start of his career and look where he is in ODIs! So at the start of his career his stats revealed that he may be much better in ODIs compared to Tests as a batsman!

JibranAnsari
25th October 2015, 23:09
Will u back a 22 years old opener who has played departmental cricket and has played total 7 Fc games with only one ton that too a double hundred to be selected for England tour ?
Will he become an Umar Amin number 2 ?

to back a player this new you have to watch him play and see if he has his bases covered.

zabalestmsm
25th October 2015, 23:09
TalentSpotterPk , one probably is babar azam and i dont know about the other. The players who are just starting and have just played 1 -2 seasons can not be purely judged on their stats but for the players who have played seasons of domestic cricket ,stats do reflect their caliber in most cases.

Good point as well!

JibranAnsari
25th October 2015, 23:11
I think pakistan need talented and mentally stable (cricketwise) players , they can be young because in some cases age don't matter at all :afridi :uakmal

zabalestmsm
25th October 2015, 23:14
Soumya Sarkar has defied his average domestic stats in international cricket uptil now.

Well he hasn't completely defied his List A batting stats yet! As he has only played 16 ODIs till now! So lets see if he can carry this average of above 40 at least till 50 matches then it can be said whether he has defied or not! Interesting case!

Mamoon
25th October 2015, 23:15
Statistics are just a guide; with stats, you can prove that Amla is a high class ODI batsman and that de Villiers is better than Viv Richards.

Of course reality is different.

zabalestmsm
25th October 2015, 23:17
Another interesting case is that of George Bailey's! He has an average of 36 in List A! While currently he average 42 in ODIs! There was a time when he was averaging in 50s in ODIs! With time it fell down to 42! As of late he has been in good form in ODIs! Lets see if he can maintain above 40 average and defy his List A stats!

JibranAnsari
25th October 2015, 23:19
Another interesting case is that of George Bailey's! He has an average of 36 in List A! While currently he average 42 in ODIs! There was a time when he was averaging in 50s in ODIs! With time it fell down to 42! As of late he has been in good form in ODIs! Lets see if he can maintain above 40 average and defy his List A stats!

There was a reason that bailey wasnt selected for most part of his fc career , he was mediocre. But he performed for 2 3 seasons and was selected. He improved his batting dramatically.

Thivagar
25th October 2015, 23:47
I think pakistan need talented and mentally stable (cricketwise) players , they can be young because in some cases age don't matter at all :afridi :uakmal

It is a very hard combo to find. If you find them, they are simply legends.

JibranAnsari
25th October 2015, 23:55
It is a very hard combo to find. If you find them, they are simply legends.

i am not saying superman talented , just reasonably talented like asad shafiq for instance. Talent and level headed. We can assume though that a level headed umar akmal could be superior to asad shafiq.

TalentSpotterPk
26th October 2015, 00:28
Well the players of interest are Babar Azam SSGC and Ahsan Ali of UBL.

Anybody who has seen Ahsan Ali bat in ll the T20 matches and has got an eye can say he is class above others along with Babar Azam .
It was T20 and he wasn't slogging playing on merit of ball with pure timing and class. He is good on cut and pullover as well as drives.

He and Babar Azam have this distinct stay of having just got 1 Fc hundred but a double century as debut ton.

He has played just 7 Fc games reason being inept kcca and it's selectors, who wasted his 2 , 3 years after under 19 by not selecting him. He played for Pakistan under 19 and now plays for UBL.

Please ppers kindly don't compare him with Sami Aslam kindly.

TalentSpotterPk
26th October 2015, 00:30
His batting has got a little resembleness with how rohit sharma plays.

Paceman_
26th October 2015, 01:23
The pitches in Pakistan FC are also a reason for poor stats of some of the players. Babar Azam was prolific at U19 level and has scored a century vs the Australians in a practice game, so it shows he is capable enough.

TalentSpotterPk
26th October 2015, 01:34
The pitches in Pakistan FC are also a reason for poor stats of some of the players. Babar Azam was prolific at U19 level and has scored a century vs the Australians in a practice game, so it shows he is capable enough.

Ahsan Ali? Did u watch him bat ?

ChachaCricket
26th October 2015, 01:35
The pitches in Pakistan FC are also a reason for poor stats of some of the players. Babar Azam was prolific at U19 level and has scored a century vs the Australians in a practice game, so it shows he is capable enough.

Bas kar dey.

Kakar
26th October 2015, 01:44
Statistics are just a guide; with stats, you can prove that Amla is a high class ODI batsman and that de Villiers is better than Viv Richards.

Of course reality is different.
If you use stats as a noob that is. Stats are much more than the overall average and SR of a batsman.
Amla is a top tier batsman though. Not in the class of ATGs but certainly a level below them.

Paceman_
26th October 2015, 01:48
Ahsan Ali? Did u watch him bat ?

A little bit, not much. But he did look good from whatever I watched of him.

Paceman_
26th October 2015, 01:49
Bas kar dey.

I didn't bring it up; TalentSpotterPk did :)

Mamoon
26th October 2015, 15:39
If you use stats as a noob that is. Stats are much more than the overall average and SR of a batsman.
Amla is a top tier batsman though. Not in the class of ATGs but certainly a level below them.

Only a noob will consider Amla a top-tier ODI batsman. He is just a better version of Trott in this format.

Kakar
26th October 2015, 15:42
Only a noob will consider Amla a top-tier ODI batsman. He is just a better version of Trott in this format.
Your personal bias doesn't mean a thing. Not everyone has a problem with beards.

Mamoon
26th October 2015, 15:45
Your personal bias doesn't mean a thing. Not everyone has a problem with beards.

That is not personal bias. I don't rate him as an ODI batsman.

If I had personal bias, I wouldn't consider him a top class Test batsman. I'm sure he doesn't hang his beard in the dressing room when he plays Test cricket, so it isn't just the beard I'm afraid.

Kakar
26th October 2015, 15:47
That is not personal bias. I don't rate him as an ODI batsman.

If I had personal bias, I wouldn't consider him a top class Test batsman. I'm sure he doesn't hang his beard in the dressing room when he plays Test cricket, so it isn't just the beard I'm afraid.
Yeah because in tests, you don't even have a chance.
Anyways, you not rating him doesn't make him a bad batsman. People don't rate Sachin, Bradman, Viv, AB etc. Doesn't take anything away from them.

Mamoon
26th October 2015, 15:55
Yeah because in tests, you don't even have a chance.
Anyways, you not rating him doesn't make him a bad batsman. People don't rate Sachin, Bradman, Viv, AB etc. Doesn't take anything away from them.

No because in Tests, he is genuinely great. In ODIs, he is the biggest bottler of the modern era.

I didn't say it takes anything away from them; everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but the purpose of a forum is to debate these opinions.

You were criticizing Junaid 'haters' in the last few months for assuming that he is finished. In your opinion, he might not be, but for others, he is.

That doesn't make mean that he is not finished because you said so, it only means that in your view, he still has a lot to offer.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The irony is that I'm attacked for my opinions and I end up having to justify my position even though I need not to, and then this blanket statement is presented that it doesn't matter what you think. Funny.

Adijazz1706
26th October 2015, 15:58
Lol Mamoon with his Amla is a bottler and Kohli is clutch. Stop being contrary and grow a beard man! (if you can, that is).

Convict
26th October 2015, 15:58
No

Mamoon
26th October 2015, 16:02
Lol Mamoon with his Amla is a bottler and Kohli is clutch. Stop being contrary and grow a beard man! (if you can, that is).

Kohli has bottled many times but he is nowhere near Amla's level of bottling yet.

As far as the latter part of your comment: 'oh look, let my try to mock him by telling him to grow a beard if he can, lulz'

I must thank you for exhibiting in 22 posts how seriously you ought to be taken in the future.

Rana
26th October 2015, 16:07
Hell no, what matters is the right performance at the time it is most needed.

Kakar
26th October 2015, 16:12
No because in Tests, he is genuinely great. In ODIs, he is the biggest bottler of the modern era.

I didn't say it takes anything away from them; everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but the purpose of a forum is to debate these opinions.

You were criticizing Junaid 'haters' in the last few months for assuming that he is finished. In your opinion, he might not be, but for others, he is.

That doesn't make mean that he is not finished because you said so, it only means that in your view, he still has a lot to offer.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The irony is that I'm attacked for my opinions and I end up having to justify my position even though I need not to, and then this blanket statement is presented that it doesn't matter what you think. Funny.

To say that he is a bottler is one thing. To belittle his other performances is another. You insist on saying that his SR is misleading. Only misleading SRs are those where the final SR doesn't tell you the whole story. Like in the case of Shehzad, who takes up 80 balls for his 50 and then accelerates later to end up with a decent SR. Amla bats at a decent SR right from the start and maintains it or even increases it later. That is not misleading no matter what argument you bring up. There's only one ATG batsman at the moment and that is AB. The others are a level below him. The likes of Kohli, Smith, Amla, Williamson, Root etc. One can differ in how these people are ranked compared to each other but these are pretty much the next best batsman after AB.
Anyways, the thread is being derailed. My point was when one talk about stats, people think only average and SR come under stats when in reality, stats is much more than that and without stats, everything is subjective. You can say batsman A is a poor player in swinging conditions, but unless you back it with stats, it pretty much has no value. You can say bowler B bowls well in friendly conditions only but unless stats show so, it has no value. Without stats, it's your judgement and opinion. And again, stats is a very diverse heading, which includes much more than overall average and SR of a player.

Adijazz1706
26th October 2015, 18:34
Mamoon I don't want to start the same Amla vs Kohli argument here but saying Kohli(who has failed in 5 WC knockouts with a high score of 30-odd) is less of a bottler than Amla(who has failed in 3 WC knockouts with a high score of 30-odd) doesn't hold much water. Kakar has said all that can be said on this topic. AB has his weaknesses, but he is still the best ODI bat currently. Whether he is the GOAT is another topic entirely.

Mamoon
26th October 2015, 21:46
Mamoon I don't want to start the same Amla vs Kohli argument here but saying Kohli(who has failed in 5 WC knockouts with a high score of 30-odd) is less of a bottler than Amla(who has failed in 3 WC knockouts with a high score of 30-odd) doesn't hold much water. Kakar has said all that can be said on this topic. AB has his weaknesses, but he is still the best ODI bat currently. Whether he is the GOAT is another topic entirely.

The discussion isn't limited to ODIs only but LOIs in general. If we talk about ODIs only, at least Kohli has a hundred vs a Test nation. Amla's two World Cup hundreds have come again Netherlands and Ireland.

Kohli has done very well in CT and WT20s, while Amla has failed in those as well. You need to consider the context.

Adijazz1706
26th October 2015, 21:52
Dhawan was better than Kohli in the CT and even Afridi has good performances in the t20 WC. Should have been MVP for both 2007 & 2009. Doesn't make him clutch. Hell, the Saffers and NZ have won the CT.

Mamoon
26th October 2015, 21:54
Dhawan was better than Kohli in the CT and even Afridi has good performances in the t20 WC. Should have been MVP for both 2007 & 2009. Doesn't make him clutch. Hell, the Saffers and NZ have won the CT.

Nobody has said he is clutch, but he is less of a bottler than Amla.

In isolation, Kohli hasn't proved himself to be a clutch player either.

Adijazz1706
27th October 2015, 17:44
That makes much more sense than your insistence on ODIs for Shafiq. Even YK would be better!

MMHS
31st October 2015, 09:59
There are two players in pakistan domestic cricket who have average Fc batting average but they have good technique , good temperament , good shot range , good timing , good skill set. Both are right handers. One bats at number 3 or number 4 and other opens the innings. Both have got only 1 Fc hundred and their debut Fc ton was a double century. Both play departmental cricket . Can we consider such players to come good at international level ? Mamoon miandadrules MMHS or stats are more important ?
Soumya Sarkar has defied his average domestic stats in international cricket uptil now.



I think, Stats does matter, IF the system is balanced & even. If you play the domestic tournaments extensive enough that all top players are playing significant numbers of games against each others in different conditions, obviously the top players' stats 'll reflect that. But, there 'll always be few anomalies.

In North America, the culture/format is play off - 30~32 teams in NBA, MLB or NHL plays each other on multiple rounds of home & away games in regular season, and they play extensively. In NBA & NHL - teams play 82 matches in 5 months before play-off; while in MLB teams play a staggering 162 matches each in 6 months. After that it's 7 matches play-off elimination 16>8>4>2>1. IN MLB, it's 8>4>2>1. Now, almost every year, for the MLB, NBA or NHL Final - it's contested between the top 2 (or at best 3 sides) of regular season. They award MVP (Most Valuable Player) based on the regular season stats - in most cases, the season MVP finishes with at least a runner's-up trophy & often the player of play-offs as well - this indicates that if you play lots of matches at highest level on different conditions - probably you can trust the stats.

I for someone don't rely only on the stats. May be, this is because, I was groomed in no-internet (& no CrifInfo) era. Life is a bit different now - "click button & switch to expert". When I started following cricket, I was a bit fortunate with the access of long transmission antenna, cricket magazines, VIP lounge in stadiums, but yet, hardly could get the updated career stats for players, may be once in a couple of months. I actually was surprised to see that Viv's or Imran's stats were so ordinary first time. For me, Imran was someone among top 2/3 fast bowlers in the world & the top 2 batsmen of his side, besides he is the Captain.

I used to watch the game more - now days, I think first thing people do is to check the players profile in CricInfo. If I were a selector, I would have definitely had a glance at the stats, but definitely there are more things behind colorful tables & charts.