Javed Miandad's strange overseas LBW record

[Drreddymd]

Thanks for exposing his atg credentials. He must be the biggest home track bully the world has ever seen

 

[Drreddymd]

He must be pakistan version of thilan samaraweera by the look of it

 

[English August]

Imran against India in Pakistan:
- With Pakistani umpires -- played 9, won 5
- With neutral umpires - played 4, won 0

Imran against India in India
- With Indian umpires -- played 10, won 1, lost 2

Yep, did a very fine job of dispelling suspicions about Pakistan's home umpiring.

 

[AZulfi]

2 double centuries away are hardly exceptional.

What is exceptional is: Home 78.14; Away 37.96

And Home (pre-neutral) 78.14 and Home (post-neutral) 39.90!!!!

Neutral umpires were introduced in test cricket in 1989-90 (thanks to Imran Khan) and Miandad did not play many tests post 1990 plus those were not his peak years of batting

 

[Napa]

Neutral umpires were introduced in test cricket in 1989-90 (thanks to Imran Khan) and Miandad did not play many tests post 1990 plus those were not his peak years of batting

You need to check your dates:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/511175.html

Post Nov 1986, Miandad played 23 matches at home, and 26 matches abroad, that is 40% of the total matches he played over his career. Also his batting abroad actually improved after neutral umpires were introduced, while his batting at home declined precipitously.

Some people are born great, some become great, and some have greatness thrust upon them by home umpires
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

 

[Tusker]

You need to check your dates:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/511175.html

Post Nov 1986, Miandad played 23 matches at home, and 26 matches abroad, that is 40% of the total matches he played over his career. Also his batting abroad actually improved after neutral umpires were introduced, while his batting at home declined precipitously.

Some people are born great, some become great, and some have greatness thrust upon them by home umpires
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

Another fun fact is that VK Ramaswamy one of the Indian umpires chosen by Imran was the same umpire that gave the in-form Ganguly out wrongly (Caught one bounce) in the 99 Chennai Test without referring it to the 3r umpire. Given how close the match was it proved to be decisive.

Link : https://youtu.be/OLt6xK_LSrA?t=5m10s

 

[SL_Fan]

Fair to say pretty much everyone benefited from home umps back in the day. LBWs are not the only way of getting out/getting a wicket.

 

[Napa]

Fair to say pretty much everyone benefited from home umps back in the day. LBWs are not the only way of getting out/getting a wicket.

That's just a politically correct false equivalence weasel and also simply untrue:

Gavaskar: Home 49.09; Away 52.11

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/guru?...aynight=0;notopposition=0;.cgifields=viewtype

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/guru?...3-17;innings=0;caughtlow=;.cgifields=viewtype

Miandad: Home 78.14; Away 37.96

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/guru?...0;overslow=;homeaway=home;.cgifields=viewtype

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/guru?...advanced;scheduledovers=0;.cgifields=viewtype

 

[SL_Fan]

Is that somehow supposed to show the level of home umpire bias?

 

[Napa]

Is that somehow supposed to show the level of home umpire bias?

Besides showing the benefit Miandad received from Pakistani umpires, it is also supposed to show that "pretty much everyone benefited from home umps back in the day" is a weasely untruth.

The volume of complaints about Pakistani umpiring from Indian, Australian and English players from that era is staggering.

 

[SL_Fan]

But the point I'm trying to make is that Miandad is not the only one who might have benefited from home umpires. Not exactly fair to single just one batsman/bowler out is it when home umpire bias was an issue all around the world.

 

[Napa]

But the point I'm trying to make is that Miandad is not the only one who might have benefited from home umpires. Not exactly fair to single just one batsman/bowler out is it when home umpire bias was an issue all around the world.

You are given evidence but you just don't get it.

Find me another batsman like Miandad whose home average before neutral umpires was twice as much as foreign average and I will buy your "Not exactly fair to single just one batsman/bowler out is it when home umpire bias was an issue all around the world".

Alternatively find me another major batsman whose home average fell to half with the introduction of neutral umpires.

"issue all around the world", really? Besides the numbers above, the complaints about Pakistani umpiring from Indian, Australian and English players from that era are nothing like those for other countries.

 

[jusarrived]

I think both Miandad and Gavaskar are slightly over-rated just because they played in the 70s/80's.

The more i study their careers, the more i feel Inzamam was ahead of Miandad and Tendulkar was ahead of Gavaskar in tests.

Thats a case for most players from 70s and 80s .
I have seen videos of all these players , its a myth that they all had great technique .

 

[AZulfi]

It wasn't just Pakistani umpires that were biased. India had some of the most biased umpires (Saroop Kishen and Ramaswamy to name a few) in that era. So were Australian and English umpires apart from Dickie Bird. David Constant, Parmer Brothers and Merv Kitchen were as biased as they come.

I know some Indians in their desperate attempt to make Sachin look better than Viv etc. deliberately try to downplay standard of cricket in the 70s and 80s But the truth is most of the rules in cricket post late 80s heavily favour the batsmen (apart from the LBW rule. now batsmen can be given out LBW on the front foot if not playing a shot). Look at bat sizes, ground sizes (shorter boundaries), restriction on the number of bouncers, better protective gear. decline in the quality of pace bowling and bowling all-rounders, greater use of technology etc in this era. In the 70s and 80s there were about 10-12 great fast bowlers playing together

I would rather listen to Viv, Imran, Gavaskar, Boycott, Holding and Botham's (etc.) views on Miandad than armchair critics here with limited knowledge of the game. Viv once said about Miandad, "If I have to choose a batsman to bat for my life, it would be Miandad.” ...

With selective use of stats, with a bit of trickery and exaggeration one can make any batsman look better or worse.

I (born and raised in Isloo) would always rank Miandad ahead of Inzamam. Miandad had an aura and presence in the field which Inzamam never did. Miandad loved to get up the opposition's noses with both his batting and street smart cricketing skills (brilliant runner and fielder. able captain and shrewd deputy and tactican of the game). He was highly rated by all his peers (same cannot be said about Inzy). Inzamam was powerful but he was also lazy and a very poor runner between the wickets. He did not do justice to the talent he possessed.

 

[Ph_11]

Besides showing the benefit Miandad received from Pakistani umpires, it is also supposed to show that "pretty much everyone benefited from home umps back in the day" is a weasely untruth.

The volume of complaints about Pakistani umpiring from Indian, Australian and English players from that era is staggering.

So true! That is why Imran was left with no choice but to go for neutral umpires. This revisionist history that Imran out of the goodness of his heart asked for neutral umpires is nothing but revisionist.

Teams were fed up with Pakistan. They were sick and tired.

 

[Ph_11]

It wasn't just Pakistani umpires that were biased. India had some of the most biased umpires (Saroop Kishen and Ramaswamy to name a few) in that era. So were Australian and English umpires apart from Dickie Bird. David Constant, Parmer Brothers and Merv Kitchen were as biased as they come.

I know some Indians in their desperate attempt to make Sachin look better than Viv etc. deliberately try to downplay standard of cricket in the 70s and 80s But the truth is most of the rules in cricket post late 80s heavily favour the batsmen (apart from the LBW rule. now batsmen can be given out LBW on the front foot if not playing a shot). Look at bat sizes, ground sizes (shorter boundaries), restriction on the number of bouncers, better protective gear. decline in the quality of pace bowling and bowling all-rounders, greater use of technology etc in this era. In the 70s and 80s there were about 10-12 great fast bowlers playing together

I would rather listen to Viv, Imran, Gavaskar, Boycott, Holding and Botham's (etc.) views on Miandad than armchair critics here with limited knowledge of the game. Viv once said about Miandad, "If I have to choose a batsman to bat for my life, it would be Miandad.” ...

With selective use of stats, with a bit of trickery and exaggeration one can make any batsman look better or worse.

I (born and raised in Isloo) would always rank Miandad ahead of Inzamam. Miandad had an aura and presence in the field which Inzamam never did. Miandad loved to get up the opposition's noses with both his batting and street smart cricketing skills (brilliant runner and fielder. able captain and shrewd deputy and tactican of the game). He was highly rated by all his peers (same cannot be said about Inzy). Inzamam was powerful but he was also lazy and a very poor runner between the wickets. He did not do justice to the talent he possessed.

Dont go by what people say go by facts. Away he had nothing to show for. Biased umps made him look far better than what he was.

Umpiring was poor all around but in Pakistan they would not even call out no balls. Look at my post before about Sandhu interview.

 

[Tusker]

I think both Miandad and Gavaskar are slightly over-rated just because they played in the 70s/80's.

The more i study their careers, the more i feel Inzamam was ahead of Miandad and Tendulkar was ahead of Gavaskar in tests.

Thats a case for most players from 70s and 80s .
I have seen videos of all these players , its a myth that they all had great technique .

Exactly !! Speaking of Technique ... Boycott is another name that comes up when Technique is discussed ... if you look at video footage of him batting there is hardly anything extra ordinary that stands out.

 

[jusarrived]

It wasn't just Pakistani umpires that were biased. India had some of the most biased umpires (Saroop Kishen and Ramaswamy to name a few) in that era. So were Australian and English umpires apart from Dickie Bird. David Constant, Parmer Brothers and Merv Kitchen were as biased as they come.

I know some Indians in their desperate attempt to make Sachin look better than Viv etc. deliberately try to downplay standard of cricket in the 70s and 80s But the truth is most of the rules in cricket post late 80s heavily favour the batsmen (apart from the LBW rule. now batsmen can be given out LBW on the front foot if not playing a shot). Look at bat sizes, ground sizes (shorter boundaries), restriction on the number of bouncers, better protective gear. decline in the quality of pace bowling and bowling all-rounders, greater use of technology etc in this era. In the 70s and 80s there were about 10-12 great fast bowlers playing together

I would rather listen to Viv, Imran, Gavaskar, Boycott, Holding and Botham's (etc.) views on Miandad than armchair critics here with limited knowledge of the game. Viv once said about Miandad, "If I have to choose a batsman to bat for my life, it would be Miandad.” ...

With selective use of stats, with a bit of trickery and exaggeration one can make any batsman look better or worse.

I (born and raised in Isloo) would always rank Miandad ahead of Inzamam. Miandad had an aura and presence in the field which Inzamam never did. Miandad loved to get up the opposition's noses with both his batting and street smart cricketing skills (brilliant runner and fielder. able captain and shrewd deputy and tactican of the game). He was highly rated by all his peers (same cannot be said about Inzy). Inzamam was powerful but he was also lazy and a very poor runner between the wickets. He did not do justice to the talent he possessed.

This has nothing to do with Tendulkar .

you cannot say there where a dozent ATG bowler then , the bowling standards have gone down and also claim the pitches have become flatter and everything is in favour of batsmen these days . if everything is in favour of batsmen these days , that would make every bowler averaging under 35 today and ATG .

 

[SL_Fan]

You are given evidence but you just don't get it.

Find me another batsman like Miandad whose home average before neutral umpires was twice as much as foreign average and I will buy your "Not exactly fair to single just one batsman/bowler out is it when home umpire bias was an issue all around the world".

Alternatively find me another major batsman whose home average fell to half with the introduction of neutral umpires.

"issue all around the world", really? Besides the numbers above, the complaints about Pakistani umpiring from Indian, Australian and English players from that era are nothing like those for other countries.

As I said not exactly sure what that is supposed to prove. For one thing

One neutral umpire per Test was appointed on an experimental basis in 1992, and the system was adopted two years later. The natural progression to two neutrals was made in 2002, starting with India's tour of the West Indies.

And of course Miandad played his last Test at the end of 93 so well before two neutral umpires came into being.

Again I’m not saying that he didn’t benefit from home umpires. He may well have. But to single him out and compare averages from certain periods of his career to somehow gauage how much he may have benefited from it makes no sense. Also even in the 2000s with two neutral umpires I reckon certain teams and players got away with a lot more than others. Umpiring has always been just one of those things I guess. Thank the lord for DRS!

 

[Napa]

As I said not exactly sure what that is supposed to prove.

If you do not understand the meaning of numbers then I suggest you take a course of statistics. I have done all I could.

"One neutral umpire per Test was appointed on an experimental basis in 1992, and the system was adopted two years later. The natural progression to two neutrals was made in 2002, starting with India's tour of the West Indies."

Nice of you to drop the context. The sentence that precedes the above says "The ICC soon realised it was the way forward. . So 1992 was the year ICC adopted neutral umpires. The previous paragraphs refer to when Pakistan adopted neutral umpires due to Imran's efforts "on November 7, 1986, when Indian umpires VK Ramaswamy and Piloo Reporter stood in a Test against West Indies in Lahore" and "he furthered the idea by inviting John Hampshire and John Holder (both from England) for the home series against India in 1989-90".

And of course Miandad played his last Test at the end of 93 so well before two neutral umpires came into being.

Factually wrong.

But to single him out and compare averages from certain periods of his career to somehow gauage how much he may have benefited from it makes no sense.

Again you don't understand the meaning of numbers. I am wasting my time now, I have said all I need to on this.

 

[SL_Fan]

Oh my bad so all up you are now blabbering on about just 9 innings where neutral umps were involved? A big whoop-de-doo!

Here you go

WI in Pak 86/87 2nd and 3rd Test 2 neutral umps for the first time

Back to normal proceedings

Eng in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
Aus in Pak (3 Tests) home umps

India in Pak 89/90 (4 Tests) 2 neutral umps

Again back to normal proceedings

NZ in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
WI in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
SL in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
Zim in Pak 93/94 (3 Tests) home umps

Only from there on neutral ump/s became the norm.

Aus in Pak 94/95 (3 Tests) 1 neutral ump and so on ….

As I said Miandad played his last Test at the end of 93 so well before two neutral umpires came into being (ie commonplace since you didn’t get it the first time around).

Btw in those 9 innings against WI and India involving neutral umps Miandad scored 424 runs @ 47 not bad at all. So all your averages talk all this time was not only pointless but also a big hoo-ha over nothing.

As for the stats courses and what not I’m good but clearly you could do with a few of those. And a bit of plain common sense wouldn’t hurt either I would reckon.

 

[Napa]

Oh my bad so all up you are now blabbering on about just 9 innings where neutral umps were involved? A big whoop-de-doo!

Here you go

WI in Pak 86/87 2nd and 3rd Test 2 neutral umps for the first time

Back to normal proceedings

Eng in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
Aus in Pak (3 Tests) home umps

India in Pak 89/90 (4 Tests) 2 neutral umps

Again back to normal proceedings

NZ in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
WI in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
SL in Pak (3 Tests) home umps
Zim in Pak 93/94 (3 Tests) home umps

Only from there on neutral ump/s became the norm.

Aus in Pak 94/95 (3 Tests) 1 neutral ump and so on ….

As I said Miandad played his last Test at the end of 93 so well before two neutral umpires came into being (ie commonplace since you didn’t get it the first time around).

Btw in those 9 innings against WI and India involving neutral umps Miandad scored 424 runs @ 47 not bad at all. So all your averages talk all this time was not only pointless but also a big hoo-ha over nothing.

As for the stats courses and what not I’m good but clearly you could do with a few of those. And a bit of plain common sense wouldn’t hurt either I would reckon.

Try to think a bit. Do you understand that once home umps realize that neutral umps are coming they will stop their blatant cheating?

It is not just Miandad's awful cheating record, but also Lillee's tour, reports by other players, extant videos, etc. etc.

Just read this thread and stop bothering me.

 

[Tusker]

It wasn't just Pakistani umpires that were biased. India had some of the most biased umpires (Saroop Kishen and Ramaswamy to name a few) in that era. So were Australian and English umpires apart from Dickie Bird. David Constant, Parmer Brothers and Merv Kitchen were as biased as they come.

Doesn't reflect in the Indian player stats like it does for Miandad and Zaheer Abbas

I know some Indians in their desperate attempt to make Sachin look better than Viv etc. deliberately try to downplay standard of cricket in the 70s and 80s

What do you mean deliberately ? It is a simple fact of life that Viv Richards never had to face the best bowlers of his time as they were always playing in his side. When he did face them in Domestic FC matches he did very poorly against them. This is a fact. Whether or not you can come to terms with it is a different matter.

And as far as standards go ... yes the bowling quality in the 90s was far better than what it was in the 80s and 70s. This is again a fact that most people will agree with and is even reflected in the stats.

Heavy bats and rule changes did not come until much after the 90s. They have happened in the last 10 yrs or so.

 

[SL_Fan]

Try to think a bit. Do you understand that once home umps realize that neutral umps are coming they will stop their blatant cheating?

It is not just Miandad's awful cheating record, but also Lillee's tour, reports by other players, extant videos, etc. etc.

Just read this thread and stop bothering me.

So now you are jumping from neutral umps to home umps feeling the heat? Home umps were on their way out regardless. As I said home umpiring standards was an issue in a lot of places around the world at that time not just in Pakistan. So neutral umps replacing them was inevitable. Imran Khan got the ball rolling and it was only a matter of time before it was adopted all around the world. Leave you alone? lol c’mon now you were the one who started this whole thing I only finished it.

 

[Napa]

lol c’mon now you were the one who started this whole thing I only finished it.

In your mind you have finished it, in reality you had no reply to "Find me another batsman like Miandad whose home average before neutral umpires was twice as much as foreign average and I will buy your "Not exactly fair to single just one batsman/bowler out is it when home umpire bias was an issue all around the world". Alternatively find me another major batsman whose home average fell to half with the introduction of neutral umpires".

 

[SL_Fan]

Yeah only because it's absolutely pointless. Again what the heck is that supposed to prove? I suggest you let bygones be bygones and build a bridge and get over it. I'll leave you alone now.

 

[Napa]

Yeah only because it's absolutely pointless. <b>Again what the heck is that supposed to prove?</b> I suggest you let bygones be bygones and build a bridge and get over it. I'll leave you alone now.

Numbers obviously don't mean anything to you. I am wasting my time here, no more replies unless you say something sensible.