asfandyar
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Runs
- 1,886
There is a tradition in Pakistani cricket (and in Pakistani population in general): If a player looks good, can play elegant strokes, can hit 150kph, can slog out of the ground, get him in the team despite awful/non-existent statistics.
The arguments given by the looks-good brigade are the following:
1) If a batsman is technically sound and/or elegant, it is only a matter of time that he starts scoring runs. Just give him time and confidence.
There is absolutely no doubt that the ultimate outcome for any batsman is to score runs when playing for the senior team. By opting for elegant non-scoring batsmen over ugly scoring ones, we are preferring future results over current ones, and considering technical correctness as the ultimate outcome. As they say, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
2) If a bowler can bowl 150k, it is only a matter of time that he starts getting wickets. He already has the raw ingredients, just needs time in the senior team to develop accuracy and wicket-taking capability.
There are many 150k bowlers who have succeeded and many who have failed. Again we are focusing on pace as the ultimate outcome, when it should be taking wickets.
3) Domestic cricket is in pathetic state and talented players will only deteriorate there.
By giving excuses, you are doing the same as you do for Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan. If a player is really talented, he will thrive in whatever the playing conditions. Do you expect Virat Kohli to average 20 in Pakistan's domestic setup with Asad Ali et al. swinging it miles on green wickets?
4) Stats don't give the full picture. Case in focus: Hashim Amla, Asad Shafiq being domestic bully (I would have included Asif Ali if this thread were posted before Worldcup).
Stats don't give a full picture, but presenting them as some sort of satanic evil and dichotomizing this as a battle between stats and looks is outrageous.
The question here should be: Which measure should be used to screen talented players, and which measure should be used for final short-listing.
The looks-good brigade believes that technical correctness should be used for screening, and stats as a secondary, dispensible measure. Let us consider job selection here. For most organizations, you send your resume and are screened based on it for an interview, after which if you fulfill a company's criteria, you are selected. Resume is analogous to stats (both don't require personal interaction with the subject) whereas interview is a measure of technical correctness. A setup where you interview first and then ask for resumes also has a chance to succeed, but the whole process is hit-and-miss.
In medicine we have two measures, sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those who can achieve final outcomes (scoring runs and getting wickets). Specificity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those who cannot achieve final outcomes (scoring runs and getting wickets). Questions:
a) Do players who are technically good have a high chance of scoring runs? Not necessarily, and there are countless examples to prove this.
b) Do players who have scored in the domestics have a high chance of scoring runs? Look at the domestic records of legends.
c) Do players who are technically incorrect have a high chance of not scoring runs? Yes possibly.
d) Do players who have not scored in the domestics have a high chance of not scoring runs? True definition of Sri lankan Cricket
I leave it up to you to decide which of stats and technical correctness has a high sensitivity and specificity. Those with high sensitivity are used as screening tests, and those with high specificity are used as confirmatory tests.
5) Technically deficient players such as Fawad Alam are eventually found out.
The number of matches required to be "found out" differs significantly for technically correct and incorrect batsmen. Why is an ugly high avg batsmen given 5-10 games to prove himself, and an elegant low averaging one give 50 (Fawad vs Asad)?
The equation is simple: neither technical correctness, nor stats can detect that a player will be found out later down the road. But you have to give them equal number of games to pass a judgement.
6) Domestic cricket is in pathetic state and mediocre players inflate their stats on unprepared grounds
This may be true. However, consider this. If domestic setup is pathetic, mediocre players may inflate their stats. However, that does not explain why talented players have such poor stats. If you can't perform in a lower quality setup, how can you expect to thrive in international cricket.
7) People who only watch cricket are better judges compared to those who watch cricket and follow it on Cricinfo
From my experience as an avid reader of PP, I have come to the conclusion (may be biased) that the looks-good brigade almost never looks at stats (out of arrogance), whereas the stats brigades looks at both stats and technical correctness (with more emphasis on stats). This is probably because stats are a more hidden characteristic (most ppl don't even look at them), whereas almost everyone knows how ugly Fawad Alam plays. This has some profound effects on the psych of both populations. The looks-good brigade is loud and in majority. Every mishit by Fawad is criticized, whereas Rahat Ali is termed unlucky despite his good looks. The stats-brigade is often timid and take the back seat when high averaging players such as Fawad Alam fail. They also criticize players like Umar Amin, but are again pushed to the back seat when Umar Amin plays a match-winning innings once every 30 matches. The looks-good brigade almost never praises ugly players for their match-winning innings, as according to them, that is a loss in the long run.
8) Wasim Akram and Warner played little to no FC when selected, and look how they fared out.
We Pakistanis have a habit of citing exceptions to justify our desires. For every 1 Wasim Akram, there are countless Michael Hussey's who have surfaced after toiling in the domestics.
9) Batsman averages 25 after 50 matches? No problem. He is one big knock away from breaking the shackles. His performances in the future will compensate for the losses and will justify his persistence.
I don't get this. This is like saying confidence has a more important role than a player's ability. There is a prevalent thought process in the average Pakistani fan, that somehow confidence, coaching and captain are more important than the individual player's ability. And all losses are due to poor coaching, poor captaincy and lack of confidence. While underconfidence does play a role, it often cloaks the real problem: lack of ability.
Also "a big knock away" for a player who has largely been mediocre is saying that somehow, the player will start scoring more runs after a hundred. That is absurd and only rarely heard of.
10) Bring Umar Amin and Asad Shafiq back into the ODI setup (drooling)
OK
The arguments given by the looks-good brigade are the following:
1) If a batsman is technically sound and/or elegant, it is only a matter of time that he starts scoring runs. Just give him time and confidence.
There is absolutely no doubt that the ultimate outcome for any batsman is to score runs when playing for the senior team. By opting for elegant non-scoring batsmen over ugly scoring ones, we are preferring future results over current ones, and considering technical correctness as the ultimate outcome. As they say, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
2) If a bowler can bowl 150k, it is only a matter of time that he starts getting wickets. He already has the raw ingredients, just needs time in the senior team to develop accuracy and wicket-taking capability.
There are many 150k bowlers who have succeeded and many who have failed. Again we are focusing on pace as the ultimate outcome, when it should be taking wickets.
3) Domestic cricket is in pathetic state and talented players will only deteriorate there.
By giving excuses, you are doing the same as you do for Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan. If a player is really talented, he will thrive in whatever the playing conditions. Do you expect Virat Kohli to average 20 in Pakistan's domestic setup with Asad Ali et al. swinging it miles on green wickets?
4) Stats don't give the full picture. Case in focus: Hashim Amla, Asad Shafiq being domestic bully (I would have included Asif Ali if this thread were posted before Worldcup).
Stats don't give a full picture, but presenting them as some sort of satanic evil and dichotomizing this as a battle between stats and looks is outrageous.
The question here should be: Which measure should be used to screen talented players, and which measure should be used for final short-listing.
The looks-good brigade believes that technical correctness should be used for screening, and stats as a secondary, dispensible measure. Let us consider job selection here. For most organizations, you send your resume and are screened based on it for an interview, after which if you fulfill a company's criteria, you are selected. Resume is analogous to stats (both don't require personal interaction with the subject) whereas interview is a measure of technical correctness. A setup where you interview first and then ask for resumes also has a chance to succeed, but the whole process is hit-and-miss.
In medicine we have two measures, sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those who can achieve final outcomes (scoring runs and getting wickets). Specificity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those who cannot achieve final outcomes (scoring runs and getting wickets). Questions:
a) Do players who are technically good have a high chance of scoring runs? Not necessarily, and there are countless examples to prove this.
b) Do players who have scored in the domestics have a high chance of scoring runs? Look at the domestic records of legends.
c) Do players who are technically incorrect have a high chance of not scoring runs? Yes possibly.
d) Do players who have not scored in the domestics have a high chance of not scoring runs? True definition of Sri lankan Cricket
I leave it up to you to decide which of stats and technical correctness has a high sensitivity and specificity. Those with high sensitivity are used as screening tests, and those with high specificity are used as confirmatory tests.
5) Technically deficient players such as Fawad Alam are eventually found out.
The number of matches required to be "found out" differs significantly for technically correct and incorrect batsmen. Why is an ugly high avg batsmen given 5-10 games to prove himself, and an elegant low averaging one give 50 (Fawad vs Asad)?
The equation is simple: neither technical correctness, nor stats can detect that a player will be found out later down the road. But you have to give them equal number of games to pass a judgement.
6) Domestic cricket is in pathetic state and mediocre players inflate their stats on unprepared grounds
This may be true. However, consider this. If domestic setup is pathetic, mediocre players may inflate their stats. However, that does not explain why talented players have such poor stats. If you can't perform in a lower quality setup, how can you expect to thrive in international cricket.
7) People who only watch cricket are better judges compared to those who watch cricket and follow it on Cricinfo
From my experience as an avid reader of PP, I have come to the conclusion (may be biased) that the looks-good brigade almost never looks at stats (out of arrogance), whereas the stats brigades looks at both stats and technical correctness (with more emphasis on stats). This is probably because stats are a more hidden characteristic (most ppl don't even look at them), whereas almost everyone knows how ugly Fawad Alam plays. This has some profound effects on the psych of both populations. The looks-good brigade is loud and in majority. Every mishit by Fawad is criticized, whereas Rahat Ali is termed unlucky despite his good looks. The stats-brigade is often timid and take the back seat when high averaging players such as Fawad Alam fail. They also criticize players like Umar Amin, but are again pushed to the back seat when Umar Amin plays a match-winning innings once every 30 matches. The looks-good brigade almost never praises ugly players for their match-winning innings, as according to them, that is a loss in the long run.
8) Wasim Akram and Warner played little to no FC when selected, and look how they fared out.
We Pakistanis have a habit of citing exceptions to justify our desires. For every 1 Wasim Akram, there are countless Michael Hussey's who have surfaced after toiling in the domestics.
9) Batsman averages 25 after 50 matches? No problem. He is one big knock away from breaking the shackles. His performances in the future will compensate for the losses and will justify his persistence.
I don't get this. This is like saying confidence has a more important role than a player's ability. There is a prevalent thought process in the average Pakistani fan, that somehow confidence, coaching and captain are more important than the individual player's ability. And all losses are due to poor coaching, poor captaincy and lack of confidence. While underconfidence does play a role, it often cloaks the real problem: lack of ability.
Also "a big knock away" for a player who has largely been mediocre is saying that somehow, the player will start scoring more runs after a hundred. That is absurd and only rarely heard of.
10) Bring Umar Amin and Asad Shafiq back into the ODI setup (drooling)
OK
