Modern-day batters are undervalued due to microanalysis

[Mamoon]

While modern batsmen are often considered to be lucky than their predecessors because scoring runs has become relatively easier in white ball cricket, the fact is that they are also subject to greater criticism due to the widespread availability of data. They are undervalued due to microanalysis and are exposed to greater criticism.

For example, Imam-ul-Haq is still not highly rated by many Pakistani fans in spite of possessing a fantastic ODI record: 50 average, 83 SR and 9 centuries in 58 innings. He is well on his way to scoring 25+ ODI hundreds by the time he retires.

The reason why he is not highly rated is because his numbers are not impressive against first-choice attacks.

Today, every cricket fan can access detailed statistics with just one click and jump to conclusions and pass verdicts regarding different players. This builds a perception and collective perception builds a narrative.

Once a narrative is established, it is usually very hard to change unless something dramatic happens. For example, Imam top scoring for Pakistan in a World Cup and leading Pakistan to glory etc.

On the other hand, Saeed Anwar is widely regarded as Pakistan's greatest opener. Any comparison between him and Fakhar and Imam would be deemed blasphemous.

However, Saeed Anwar averaged 22 in Australia after 26 ODIs, 23 in NZ after 11 ODIs and 25 in South Africa after 22 ODIs.

That is an emphatically embarrassing record for any ODI opener, let alone someone who is widely regarded as the greatest ODI opener produced by Pakistan to date.

When Saeed Anwar was playing, this data was not available or accessible to the fans. There was no Cricinfo, no PakPassion, no social media. The fans only consumed what was served to them, i.e. career record, highest score, number of centuries etc. which built the perception and the subsequent narrative around Saeed Anwar.

If Saeed Anwar played today and produced such numbers against the top sides in bilateral ODI series, he would be blasted left, right and center on social media. There would be numerous threads on PakPassion calling him a flat track bully, weak attack basher etc. This narrative did not exist back then because no one was aware of these numbers.

If you - like me - grew up in the 90's admiring Saeed Anwar's batting, these shocking numbers will not change your perception now. However, if you had knowledge of these numbers while growing up, you might have viewed him in a different light.

This thread is not about Imam or Saeed only and neither is it a pitch to consider them as equals (I myself don't - I will take Saeed over Imam any day). In addition, it also applies to bowlers but I emphasized on batsmen because they are subject to greater criticism because of the narrative that the rules and conditions are favorable for them especially in white ball cricket.

The gist of this discourse is to debate how the overflow of information and ease of access of data has hurt the image of players, especially batsman, and how they have absolutely no room for error.

Nothing is hidden from the public anymore - every single failure is highlighted and discussed. This is an overlooked aspect when it comes to modern players and they have to do a lot more than their predecessors to gain approval of the fans.

 

[Rana]

I would love to imagine how Imam would fare against a bowling attack of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Warne+ the Australian team’s ruthless presence around the bat

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I completely agree.

The level of analysis sometimes is absurd too. I have seen critics downplay a batters achievements because they are not good against extreme pace on tough wickets for example (as if anyone is).

However the level of analysis that you describe really only comes into play when it comes to cricket nerds like us that post on forums.

For the vast majority of the general cricket watching public a respectable average and notable performances are enough.

Selectors are also bound by what they have available and thus can't really disregard players for not achieving perfect stats all of the time against all opposition.

For example, when it comes to the perception of the awaam, Afridi is one of our greatest match winners and Babar lead us to two T20 finals. They don't really bother to go that extra level of analysis that you describe.

 

[pratiktc]

Excellent post.
Today internet cricket fans take concept of 'can he do it in on a cold night in Stoke' to the nth level to reinforce their existing biases

 

[pratiktc]

The most comical is when fans devalue modern white ball batters performance but simultaneously also say that current leading white ball bowlers are not a patch on yesteryear legends

 

[YousafTheBeast]

I would love to imagine how Imam would fare against a bowling attack of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Warne+ the Australian team’s ruthless presence around the bat

Plumb LBW in the PP and a smile as he watches the umpire raise his finger.

But, because he’s faced more scrutiny than any other player, he shouldn’t be called a minnow basher.

 

[Cric1234]

Interesting analysis but Mamoon also says Naseem Shah and Haris Rauf are no good at the same time when Naseem has bowled well on occasions when wickets are mostly flat.

If you look at today’s era Temba Bavuma averages over 50 at a strike of 91 on stats alone he looks better than Viv Richards that tell you everything not taking anything away from Bavumas record in ODIs.

Shai Hope averages 25 in test cricket but close to 50 in ODIs how does a player average double in another format in the past players always averaged higher in tests than ODIs.

There’s a reason for Saeed Anwar record vs the best teams as he was always facing the best bowlers on varied wickets facing Mcgrath Lee Gillespie Pollack Donald etc on wickets where under 250 is a par score is completely different to facing B team bowlers on pitches where 300 plus is mostly being scored with the 2 new ball rule.

A decade or 2 ago Imam would struggle to have a strike rate above 70. In today’s era he can accumulate runs on flat wickets against weaker bowling and be praised for it when batsmen like Johnny Bairstow have career strike rates of over 100 which are 20 points above a batsman like Imam.

 

[boomboomcheema]

Excellent thread. POTW worthy.

To be honest, I still believe runs were hard to come by in the 90s..the pitches were more balanced and all sides had their Top quality bowlers playing every series unlike now a days where premier bowlers are busy playing in various leagues and 2nd or 3rd tier bowling attacks are played by the opposition to gain experience. Most matches outside the WC are considered inconsequential these days which wasn't the case before.

 

[Rana]

Plumb LBW in the PP and a smile as he watches the umpire raise his finger.

But, because he’s faced more scrutiny than any other player, he shouldn’t be called a minnow basher.

The mouthful he will receive every time he plays and misses against McGrath on the 4th/5th stump channel

Some realities of cricket which stats from different era’s don’t consider

 

[IMMY69]

Is going professional and players being on contracts and so many games being televised live also affect the way people view and judge players?

 

[Cric1234]

The mouthful he will receive every time he plays and misses against McGrath on the 4th/5th stump channel

Some realities of cricket which stats from different era’s don’t consider

The seam and swing McGrath and Pollock would get of the pitch will have Imam and others hopping around the crease getting 10 of 22 balls before nicking one behind or getting trapped plumb lbw.

 

[Rana]

The seam and swing McGrath and Pollock would get of the pitch will have Imam and others hopping around the crease getting 10 of 22 balls before nicking one behind or getting trapped plumb lbw.

Yes bro

It’s Bounce Billo all night long in the 90s for South Asian batsmen in the Southern Hemisphere

 

[Major]

I agree with OP, best example is Younis Khan. The guy was soo over rated in ODIs that he walked into the team

 

[zarak]

While modern batsmen are often considered to be lucky than their predecessors because scoring runs has become relatively easier in white ball cricket, the fact is that they are also subject to greater criticism due to the widespread availability of data. They are undervalued due to microanalysis and are exposed to greater criticism.

For example, Imam-ul-Haq is still not highly rated by many Pakistani fans in spite of possessing a fantastic ODI record: 50 average, 83 SR and 9 centuries in 58 innings. He is well on his way to scoring 25+ ODI hundreds by the time he retires.

The reason why he is not highly rated is because his numbers are not impressive against first-choice attacks.

Today, every cricket fan can access detailed statistics with just one click and jump to conclusions and pass verdicts regarding different players. This builds a perception and collective perception builds a narrative.

Once a narrative is established, it is usually very hard to change unless something dramatic happens. For example, Imam top scoring for Pakistan in a World Cup and leading Pakistan to glory etc.

On the other hand, Saeed Anwar is widely regarded as Pakistan's greatest opener. Any comparison between him and Fakhar and Imam would be deemed blasphemous.

However, Saeed Anwar averaged 22 in Australia after 26 ODIs, 23 in NZ after 11 ODIs and 25 in South Africa after 22 ODIs.

That is an emphatically embarrassing record for any ODI opener, let alone someone who is widely regarded as the greatest ODI opener produced by Pakistan to date.

When Saeed Anwar was playing, this data was not available or accessible to the fans. There was no Cricinfo, no PakPassion, no social media. The fans only consumed what was served to them, i.e. career record, highest score, number of centuries etc. which built the perception and the subsequent narrative around Saeed Anwar.

If Saeed Anwar played today and produced such numbers against the top sides in bilateral ODI series, he would be blasted left, right and center on social media. There would be numerous threads on PakPassion calling him a flat track bully, weak attack basher etc. This narrative did not exist back then because no one was aware of these numbers.

If you - like me - grew up in the 90's admiring Saeed Anwar's batting, these shocking numbers will not change your perception now. However, if you had knowledge of these numbers while growing up, you might have viewed him in a different light.

This thread is not about Imam or Saeed only and neither is it a pitch to consider them as equals (I myself don't - I will take Saeed over Imam any day). In addition, it also applies to bowlers but I emphasized on batsmen because they are subject to greater criticism because of the narrative that the rules and conditions are favorable for them especially in white ball cricket.

The gist of this discourse is to debate how the overflow of information and ease of access of data has hurt the image of players, especially batsman, and how they have absolutely no room for error.

Nothing is hidden from the public anymore - every single failure is highlighted and discussed. This is an overlooked aspect when it comes to modern players and they have to do a lot more than their predecessors to gain approval of the fans.

Did you not in another thread quote Naseem Shahs bowling averages after 3 tests a piece against AUS and NZW as an indictment of him being a poor bowler.

 

[Savak]

Imam gets roasted because of his relationship with Inzamam ul Haq and the resentment he would not have been fast tracked into the team in comparison to others had he not been Inzi's nephew. Its the same kind of resentment people feel in Bollywood where it is felt that children of Bollywood superstars, actors have an unfair advantage vs outsiders. However after a good body of work a nepo child's and an outsiders performances stand on their own.

 

[Savak]

Pakistan plays too few ODI's and Test matches. A player like Imam should be playing frequent cricket to showcase his abilities.

 

[Mamoon]

Did you not in another thread quote Naseem Shahs bowling averages after 3 tests a piece against AUS and NZW as an indictment of him being a poor bowler.

This isn’t a critique of a particular section of fans. It is just an assessment of how the viewers today over-analyze and over-criticize every player because there is too much information and data available to everyone.

For example, in the 90s, no one cared about Waqar’s poor numbers in Australia because no one knew about it. This information was not displayed on tv during matches or in cricket literature.

 

[Mamoon]

Interesting analysis but Mamoon also says Naseem Shah and Haris Rauf are no good at the same time when Naseem has bowled well on occasions when wickets are mostly flat.

If you look at today’s era Temba Bavuma averages over 50 at a strike of 91 on stats alone he looks better than Viv Richards that tell you everything not taking anything away from Bavumas record in ODIs.

Shai Hope averages 25 in test cricket but close to 50 in ODIs how does a player average double in another format in the past players always averaged higher in tests than ODIs.

There’s a reason for Saeed Anwar record vs the best teams as he was always facing the best bowlers on varied wickets facing Mcgrath Lee Gillespie Pollack Donald etc on wickets where under 250 is a par score is completely different to facing B team bowlers on pitches where 300 plus is mostly being scored with the 2 new ball rule.

A decade or 2 ago Imam would struggle to have a strike rate above 70. In today’s era he can accumulate runs on flat wickets against weaker bowling and be praised for it when batsmen like Johnny Bairstow have career strike rates of over 100 which are 20 points above a batsman like Imam.

As I said in the above post, this isn’t an attempt or criticize certain individual fans. It is a general assessment of how today’s fans have been primed to over-analyze everything because they are too informed.

There is an asterisk attached to every performance today. “player A scored a hundred but he will fail on pitch Y against bowlers X so he is not a good player and his average is inflated”.

You can apply this to the bowlers as well, but happens mostly for batsmen.

These asterisks didn’t exist previously. You would watch a batsman score a hundred and you would applaud the performance without adding asterisks. I think it was the right approach to watching and enjoying the game.

Furthermore, this isn’t a comparison thread between Imam and Saeed. My point that if Saeed played today and failed so badly Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, he would not get away with it like he did in the 90’s simply because today’s fans know everything.

 

[Mamoon]

Is going professional and players being on contracts and so many games being televised live also affect the way people view and judge players?

I didn’t understand your point but it seems like an interesting one that could lead to an intelligent discussion. Can you kindly elaborate?

 

[Mamoon]

Excellent thread. POTW worthy.

To be honest, I still believe runs were hard to come by in the 90s..the pitches were more balanced and all sides had their Top quality bowlers playing every series unlike now a days where premier bowlers are busy playing in various leagues and 2nd or 3rd tier bowling attacks are played by the opposition to gain experience. Most matches outside the WC are considered inconsequential these days which wasn't the case before.

The point of this thread is that the modern fan is very unforgiving and players today have no margin for error. If you have a weak point it will be highlighted and used against you.

Players before the internet/social media/forums age got away with a lot more because a lot of their weak points were hidden from the general public.

 

[Mamoon]

I completely agree.

The level of analysis sometimes is absurd too. I have seen critics downplay a batters achievements because they are not good against extreme pace on tough wickets for example (as if anyone is).

However the level of analysis that you describe really only comes into play when it comes to cricket nerds like us that post on forums.

For the vast majority of the general cricket watching public a respectable average and notable performances are enough.

Selectors are also bound by what they have available and thus can't really disregard players for not achieving perfect stats all of the time against all opposition.

For example, when it comes to the perception of the awaam, Afridi is one of our greatest match winners and Babar lead us to two T20 finals. They don't really bother to go that extra level of analysis that you describe.

You make a fair point about the distinction between ardent cricket fans and the general public. For example, I have criticized Babar’s poor record against India because I have this information.

However, the common, regular fan who doesn’t love cricket as much as I do has no idea that Babar has a poor record against India. For the common fan, that innings in the T20 World Cup 2021 is the only memory of Babar vs India.

In the 90’s, 2000’s and before, we only knew “big” numbers. For example, I knew the average, the highest score and the total number of centuries of every mainstream batsman.

I had no idea and I couldn’t care less what the breakdown was against different teams and in different conditions and how they fared across the first, second, third and fourth innings etc.

There is so much analysis today that frankly it kills the joy of watching the game. You can’t appreciate or applaud any performance because there is an asterisk next to every performance.

 

[zarak]

This isn’t a critique of a particular section of fans. It is just an assessment of how the viewers today over-analyze and over-criticize every player because there is too much information and data available to everyone.

For example, in the 90s, no one cared about Waqar’s poor numbers in Australia because no one knew about it. This information was not displayed on tv during matches or in cricket literature.

But are you offering a judgment. Is this good or bad. Should waqar have been criticized or not. What's your take.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

I agree. Microanalysis is actually absurd and it's not just a subset of fans who use it to deride or shower praise on a certain player but it's also something that a lot of teams build their teams with. For example Islamabad United. Analyzing a player, his strengths and weakness is good and comes in handy, but shouldn't be the sole criterion on selecting or dropping a player. Cricket is not a robotic game where you can measure force generated by muscles to decide who will be a good finisher or power hitter. There are so many variables at play in every single match in cricket it's better to look and see a player himself and decide how well he does.

Flintoff's numbers aren't legendary, but those who saw him play know how what the body language of English team would be like with him in the team.

 

[Cric1234]

Saeed Anwar wouldn’t fail against Australia B South Africa B New Zealand B etc he would have a strike rate of 95 plus in today’s era of flat wickets and teams resting their main bowlers in bilaterals.

Imam would struggle more in previous eras there was no let up then as you would face McGrath and Lee in one series then straight onto Donald and Pollack next series etc on varied wickets.

Coming back to form after some low scores was tougher now it’s easy last series Imam had 2 low scores against New Zealand’s main bowlers but with them not playing he’s got an easy chance to score runs again.

It’s the right thing not to take bilaterals seriously and concentrate on World Cups Asia Cups Champions Trophy to analyse players as it’s the only time in ODIs and T20s where teams are playing at full intensity and not resting players.

 

[Technics 1210]

Microanalysis or statistical analyses, whatever you want to call it, has been around for donkeys years. Commentators, Newspapers, Radio, publications (Wisden), were analysing games and performances long before the data was made readily available

The reality is that when a team is winning consistently, there is very little need for analysis, but when a team is losing consistently, microanalysis comes at the forefront, and when players perform but a their team loses, all focus is shifted to why the performing players did not win the match when the other team players were not up to scratch. We see this happening with Rizwan and Babar these days.

No one really cared about Waqar Younis' stats in Australia during the 90s because he was one of the most lethal bowlers of the decade. He was a wicket taking machine. Wickets mattered in wins, nothing else.

The trouble with fans these days, even with all the data, is that they lack context. Jimmy Anderson is arguably one of the greatest Test bowlers, but is his name even mentioned when fans are asked to list their top Test bowlers? No, because fans have not see Jimmy perform in white ball cricket as he has in Tests. Format and Competitions also set a perception.

On top of this, when player performances do not translate to a win, then the stats come out, and conversely when a player is a match winner, the stats become irrelevant.

The fans of the game need to understand that stats are not everything, but context is. Jayasuriya has more ODI wickets than Shane Warne, but it will take a brave fan to claim Jayasuriya was a better ODI bowler than Warne.

There's also the lack of patience. If a debutant doesn't perform well in the first few matches/aeries, he is deemed a failure, and the opposite is also true, a player that performs well on debut, he is the next King/God.

If you want to read proper deep dive microanalysis, then I urge anyone to read the Wisden top 100 Test centuries of all time, not a single entry is based on statistics.

Fans just love to debate, this was happening long before the dawn of the internet in the private abode our down the pub, now ofcourse the debate is public and there's more scrutiny because everyone has an opinion, and they want it to be heard.

 

[IMMY69]

I didn’t understand your point but it seems like an interesting one that could lead to an intelligent discussion. Can you kindly elaborate?

My point was that in the 80's and most of the 90's there was far less money in cricket. Those that made a good living played country cricket for several months in the English Summer and that too only the really good overseas players.
Likewise, not that many overseas games were televised live.

Now with players earning great money from central contracts plus add ons from various leagues the fans expectations have changed.
Also with more televised games, fans can actually see how they perform rather than reading up about their performances in the newspapers.

There was also more emphasis on the teams performance rather than individual performances.

 

[Farabi]

While modern batsmen are often considered to be lucky than their predecessors because scoring runs has become relatively easier in white ball cricket, the fact is that they are also subject to greater criticism due to the widespread availability of data. They are undervalued due to microanalysis and are exposed to greater criticism.

For example, Imam-ul-Haq is still not highly rated by many Pakistani fans in spite of possessing a fantastic ODI record: 50 average, 83 SR and 9 centuries in 58 innings. He is well on his way to scoring 25+ ODI hundreds by the time he retires.

The reason why he is not highly rated is because his numbers are not impressive against first-choice attacks.

Today, every cricket fan can access detailed statistics with just one click and jump to conclusions and pass verdicts regarding different players. This builds a perception and collective perception builds a narrative.

Once a narrative is established, it is usually very hard to change unless something dramatic happens. For example, Imam top scoring for Pakistan in a World Cup and leading Pakistan to glory etc.

On the other hand, Saeed Anwar is widely regarded as Pakistan's greatest opener. Any comparison between him and Fakhar and Imam would be deemed blasphemous.

However, Saeed Anwar averaged 22 in Australia after 26 ODIs, 23 in NZ after 11 ODIs and 25 in South Africa after 22 ODIs.

That is an emphatically embarrassing record for any ODI opener, let alone someone who is widely regarded as the greatest ODI opener produced by Pakistan to date.

When Saeed Anwar was playing, this data was not available or accessible to the fans. There was no Cricinfo, no PakPassion, no social media. The fans only consumed what was served to them, i.e. career record, highest score, number of centuries etc. which built the perception and the subsequent narrative around Saeed Anwar.

If Saeed Anwar played today and produced such numbers against the top sides in bilateral ODI series, he would be blasted left, right and center on social media. There would be numerous threads on PakPassion calling him a flat track bully, weak attack basher etc. This narrative did not exist back then because no one was aware of these numbers.

If you - like me - grew up in the 90's admiring Saeed Anwar's batting, these shocking numbers will not change your perception now. However, if you had knowledge of these numbers while growing up, you might have viewed him in a different light.

This thread is not about Imam or Saeed only and neither is it a pitch to consider them as equals (I myself don't - I will take Saeed over Imam any day). In addition, it also applies to bowlers but I emphasized on batsmen because they are subject to greater criticism because of the narrative that the rules and conditions are favorable for them especially in white ball cricket.

The gist of this discourse is to debate how the overflow of information and ease of access of data has hurt the image of players, especially batsman, and how they have absolutely no room for error.

Nothing is hidden from the public anymore - every single failure is highlighted and discussed. This is an overlooked aspect when it comes to modern players and they have to do a lot more than their predecessors to gain approval of the fans.

Hold up, partner! Gotta interject here - I couldn't disagree more. Even if a reincarnated Saeed Anwar - let's call him Saeed Anwar 2.0 - had modest stats in New Zealand, England, and South Africa, he'd still be rated highly for his excitement, dominance, and style on the field. I mean, have you seen that man bat? He was straight-up box office and FUN to watch, and one would turn off TV after Anwar got out.

That being said, I gotta give props to Imam. He's a pretty talented batsman, but let's be real here, his low rating has got nothing to do with his strike rate. I mean, just because the data's available doesn't mean everyone's taking it into account when they form their opinions. That's a huge assumption, my friend. The opinions are formed more by the experience we have watching these and the emotions they make us feel.

The truth of the matter is that Imam's lack of performance in T20 cricket is what's holding him back. I mean, in a world where aggressive batting is the name of the game, his slow accumulation of runs just doesn't cut it. The top players in the league are looking to dominate and impose themselves from the very first ball, and Imam just isn't on that level yet. And let's not forget, he's still struggling against India, which is never a good look.

Now, Saeed Anwar, on the other hand, was an absolute superstar in his day. He dominated the premier format of his time, ODIs, and he was a real crowd-pleaser with his strike rate of 80, which was above average for his time. The man played some truly memorable match-winning innings in major tournaments, including against India, and had a style that few could match. Whether you talk about those cuts, those classy drives, the flicks, some of the shots Saeed used to play were things only he could do.

So here's the deal, my friend. If Imam wants to step up his game and improve his rating, he needs to up his strike rate against top-quality attacks, both at home and away. And, of course, he needs to start playing some truly memorable innings against top teams like India. He needs to make his fans FEEL excited to see him bat. Today, he can be a bit boring in the wider context in which he is operating.

 

[Energy]

Is there anyone here who has watched Anwar bat? Would be good to engage in dialogue.

Modern day cricket suits batsmen, yes, but modern-day cricket also demands the batters to be at full hitting throttle each time. Cricket in the 90s was slow paced, and a target of 250+ was considered exceptional. It was not necessarily due to superstar bowlers all the time, but also due to the slowness of the game overall.

Irrespective of everything, Anwar was a better batsman than Imam and Fakhar, skill-wise. Because his range of shots was vast. He played the loft flick shot to perfection. He played all around the wicket so it was difficult for bowlers to bowl to him. In comparison, Imam and Fakhar have their 'hitting zones' which they need to execute correctly 99% of the time to be successful.

 

[gazza619]

I beg to differ. All the pros and cons of being from the 80s, 90s or today’s era get neutralised.

For example I could think of many disadvantages Anwar had. He batted when reverse swing was a norm, doosra was legal, DRS wasn't available, boundaries were bigger etc etc.

 

[gibsyhesperis]

Very interesting — apologies for coming to it late.

The use of data analytics is fundamentally changing top level sport. Taking football as an analogy, most top level clubs have a data analytics group who analyse the key data for each player after a game (assisted by specific video on each player).
Big data analytics support the video footage.

These data are then used for post match analysis and performance improvement.
As an example (and apologies, it can rapidly get very nerdy) this is the type of data produced for goal kicks alone:
Frequency of short, medium or long goal kicks (map)
Areas of maximum influx of players or goal kicks (map)
Players who frequently receive the goal kick and what they do after receiving the ball (map-video)
Spatial structure (map)

Each segment of the game is analysed, each aspect of a player’s performance is dissected supported by data.


In cricket the advent of franchise cricket has turbo-charged this.
For those interested I would recommend a book entitled “Hitting Against the Spin — How Cricket Really Works” written by a lead analyst for the England white ball team and one of the chaps from CricViz. Fascinating insight how data analytics is changing the game and our perception of players.

To address the OP point — as a consequence, the level of scrutiny and data on top players, especially in white ball cricket, is phenomenal. We simply didn’t have that for players of the past and so the microscope the modern player is under is so much greater than the past (as are of course, their potential financial rewards).

 

[Mamoon]

Hold up, partner! Gotta interject here - I couldn't disagree more. Even if a reincarnated Saeed Anwar - let's call him Saeed Anwar 2.0 - had modest stats in New Zealand, England, and South Africa, he'd still be rated highly for his excitement, dominance, and style on the field. I mean, have you seen that man bat? He was straight-up box office and FUN to watch, and one would turn off TV after Anwar got out.

That being said, I gotta give props to Imam. He's a pretty talented batsman, but let's be real here, his low rating has got nothing to do with his strike rate. I mean, just because the data's available doesn't mean everyone's taking it into account when they form their opinions. That's a huge assumption, my friend. The opinions are formed more by the experience we have watching these and the emotions they make us feel.

The truth of the matter is that Imam's lack of performance in T20 cricket is what's holding him back. I mean, in a world where aggressive batting is the name of the game, his slow accumulation of runs just doesn't cut it. The top players in the league are looking to dominate and impose themselves from the very first ball, and Imam just isn't on that level yet. And let's not forget, he's still struggling against India, which is never a good look.

Now, Saeed Anwar, on the other hand, was an absolute superstar in his day. He dominated the premier format of his time, ODIs, and he was a real crowd-pleaser with his strike rate of 80, which was above average for his time. The man played some truly memorable match-winning innings in major tournaments, including against India, and had a style that few could match. Whether you talk about those cuts, those classy drives, the flicks, some of the shots Saeed used to play were things only he could do.

So here's the deal, my friend. If Imam wants to step up his game and improve his rating, he needs to up his strike rate against top-quality attacks, both at home and away. And, of course, he needs to start playing some truly memorable innings against top teams like India. He needs to make his fans FEEL excited to see him bat. Today, he can be a bit boring in the wider context in which he is operating.

Is there anyone here who has watched Anwar bat? Would be good to engage in dialogue.

Modern day cricket suits batsmen, yes, but modern-day cricket also demands the batters to be at full hitting throttle each time. Cricket in the 90s was slow paced, and a target of 250+ was considered exceptional. It was not necessarily due to superstar bowlers all the time, but also due to the slowness of the game overall.

Irrespective of everything, Anwar was a better batsman than Imam and Fakhar, skill-wise. Because his range of shots was vast. He played the loft flick shot to perfection. He played all around the wicket so it was difficult for bowlers to bowl to him. In comparison, Imam and Fakhar have their 'hitting zones' which they need to execute correctly 99% of the time to be successful.

I beg to differ. All the pros and cons of being from the 80s, 90s or today’s era get neutralised.

For example I could think of many disadvantages Anwar had. He batted when reverse swing was a norm, doosra was legal, DRS wasn't available, boundaries were bigger etc etc.

This is not a comparison thread between Saeed and Imam. The only reason I focused on them in this thread is because they were the two obvious examples I could think of the top of my head.

Saeed Anwar was never criticized for failing so badly in three major countries over a very large sample size because such detailed stats were not available for general public consumption.

Imam is almost never praised for averaging 50 and scoring hundreds with brilliant frequency because nothing is hidden from the public anymore.

There are of course many other examples too. It is purely a coincidence in the context of this thread that both Saeed and Imam are left-handed openers.

Had Saeed played today, he would get battered by fans for such a record.

For example, an average ODI opener like Amir Sohail escaped scrutiny almost all his career because he was viewed as part of a successful opening partnership. Both Imam and Fakhar are comfortably better than him but both are criticized more than Sohail were.

The only time Sohail faced genuine heat from the fans was when he lost his head against Prasad in the 1996 World Cup and when he captained Pakistan to a defeat against Zimbabwe in a home series.

If we are comparing Saeed and Imam as ODI openers, Saeed was significantly more skilled than Imam but Imam does share some of the same characteristics.

Imam, Fakhar and Butt are the three best ODI openers in the post Saeed era for Pakistan and they all had his ability to churn hundreds frequently. Butt was well on his way to surpassing Saeed’s tally of 20 ODI hundreds and Imam will surely go beyond that.

Might be a little difficult for Fakhar because age is not on his side and Pakistan have played 20-25 less ODIs than it should have in the last 4-5 years.

When I started watching cricket in the late 90’s, Saeed was my favorite player. His ability to time the ball was rivaled only by Mark Waugh. It was a joy to watch these two open for their respective teams in ODIs.

Later on when I got more exposure to stats, I was very disappointed to see how bad Saeed was in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. You certainly wouldn’t expect it from a player of his reputation and stature.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt he is still the best opener Pakistan has had and was among the top ODI openers/batsmen of mid to late 90’s. Him, Tendulkar, Lara, Mark Waugh, Jayasuriya and Bevan ruled the format.

Saeed vs Fakhar is a very close call in my opinion. Fakhar deserved to enter that discussion now - his ability to score massive hundreds at 120+ SR is something no Pakistani batsman before him has been able to achieve.

At this point, I might side with Saeed but Fakhar has 2-3 peak years left and he might displace Saeed from the top of the perch.

 

[Mamoon]

My point was that in the 80's and most of the 90's there was far less money in cricket. Those that made a good living played country cricket for several months in the English Summer and that too only the really good overseas players.
Likewise, not that many overseas games were televised live.

Now with players earning great money from central contracts plus add ons from various leagues the fans expectations have changed.
Also with more televised games, fans can actually see how they perform rather than reading up about their performances in the newspapers.

There was also more emphasis on the teams performance rather than individual performances.

Interesting points.

 

[Mamoon]

Microanalysis or statistical analyses, whatever you want to call it, has been around for donkeys years. Commentators, Newspapers, Radio, publications (Wisden), were analysing games and performances long before the data was made readily available

The reality is that when a team is winning consistently, there is very little need for analysis, but when a team is losing consistently, microanalysis comes at the forefront, and when players perform but a their team loses, all focus is shifted to why the performing players did not win the match when the other team players were not up to scratch. We see this happening with Rizwan and Babar these days.

No one really cared about Waqar Younis' stats in Australia during the 90s because he was one of the most lethal bowlers of the decade. He was a wicket taking machine. Wickets mattered in wins, nothing else.

The trouble with fans these days, even with all the data, is that they lack context. Jimmy Anderson is arguably one of the greatest Test bowlers, but is his name even mentioned when fans are asked to list their top Test bowlers? No, because fans have not see Jimmy perform in white ball cricket as he has in Tests. Format and Competitions also set a perception.

On top of this, when player performances do not translate to a win, then the stats come out, and conversely when a player is a match winner, the stats become irrelevant.

The fans of the game need to understand that stats are not everything, but context is. Jayasuriya has more ODI wickets than Shane Warne, but it will take a brave fan to claim Jayasuriya was a better ODI bowler than Warne.

There's also the lack of patience. If a debutant doesn't perform well in the first few matches/aeries, he is deemed a failure, and the opposite is also true, a player that performs well on debut, he is the next King/God.

If you want to read proper deep dive microanalysis, then I urge anyone to read the Wisden top 100 Test centuries of all time, not a single entry is based on statistics.

Fans just love to debate, this was happening long before the dawn of the internet in the private abode our down the pub, now ofcourse the debate is public and there's more scrutiny because everyone has an opinion, and they want it to be heard.

Agreed. You have made some very good points. Thanks.

 

[Mamoon]

But are you offering a judgment. Is this good or bad. Should waqar have been criticized or not. What's your take.

I’m glad he wasn’t because what he did with the ball is something that very few other Pakistani bowlers could. Today, we analyze more than we should which is killing the joy of watching the game.

If you have a good career average you are a good player. There is no need for deep diving. You will find holes in every career if you grab a microscope.

 

[IMMY69]

Is there anyone here who has watched Anwar bat? Would be good to engage in dialogue.

Modern day cricket suits batsmen, yes, but modern-day cricket also demands the batters to be at full hitting throttle each time. Cricket in the 90s was slow paced, and a target of 250+ was considered exceptional. It was not necessarily due to superstar bowlers all the time, but also due to the slowness of the game overall.

Irrespective of everything, Anwar was a better batsman than Imam and Fakhar, skill-wise. Because his range of shots was vast. He played the loft flick shot to perfection. He played all around the wicket so it was difficult for bowlers to bowl to him. In comparison, Imam and Fakhar have their 'hitting zones' which they need to execute correctly 99% of the time to be successful.

I've watched him live.

He was a superb batsmen and I have no doubt whatsoever that in this age of cricket (advanced bats. Smaller boundaries, modern practices, quality of pitches and bowlers) he would have averaged 60+ with an amazing strike rate.

 

[zarak]

I've watched him live.

He was a superb batsmen and I have no doubt whatsoever that in this age of cricket (advanced bats. Smaller boundaries, modern practices, quality of pitches and bowlers) he would have averaged 60+ with an amazing strike rate.

Ahead of his time and when in full flow he could rival Lara with his range and destructiveness. Also had a confident aura, would take on the best bowlers.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Quality of bowlers was better in 90s in ODIs, also the game wasn't batsmen favoured with stupid rules, 2 new balls etc. Extra man in circle, smaller boundaries.

It's the same in any sport you can't compare eras because the game was player different.

Best way to judge any player or team is to compare them against the best players of the era they played in and teams of that era

Simply because some has had their feelings hurt because Imam is seen as selfish player.

All greatest players of any era are judge on what they did vs the best, what they won, what they did during pressure moments.

Instead it's about celebrating mediocrity with no impact.

 

[asfandyar]

Hazrat ChatGPT says:

This is known as the "fallacy of relative privation" or "the paradox of progress." It occurs when people compare their current circumstances to the ideal or to what they believe should be the norm, rather than objectively assessing their situation. This can lead to the perception that they are worse off than they actually are because they are comparing themselves to a hypothetical ideal or to people who lived in the past, rather than focusing on their own progress and accomplishments.

 

[asfandyar]

Hazrat ChatGPT further says:

This type of bias is often referred to as presentism or present-day bias. It is the tendency to evaluate events, people, or actions in the past based on present-day knowledge, attitudes, and values. This can lead to anachronistic judgments and interpretations that are unfair or inaccurate, as they do not take into account the historical context and perspective. In the case you mentioned, it would involve unfairly comparing the actions or behavior of a person in the past to the standards and norms of today, without acknowledging the differences in knowledge, culture, and circumstances.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

It's the mystique that has been taken away from the game due to games being televised all around the world. Earlier in the 70s and 80s and to an extent in the 90s, match winning performances created anecdotes in the newspapers that sensationalised and exaggerated the players' actual cricketing skills.

For example, Ian Chappel would praise even the most basic catches taken in the 80's but come to the later part of 90s and 2000s he would hardly recognize great fielding(He hardly expressed emotions when Mcgrath took that wonder catch at ashes 02. Robelinda channel has vast amount of videos where you can check)

I don't think Wasim Akram would get away with his chronic No-ball problems in the modern game, Inzamam-Ul-Haq would be seriously criticised for his technical vulnerability against pitched up inswinging deliveries(Mcgrath expertly exploited it many a times). Pakistani players in the 90s had the luxury of playing most games in asian conditions or in England against a pathetic english side. This led to Pak batsmen facing mainly 80 mph bowlers or facing good bowlers in asian slow pitches. Whenever they visited Australia, South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand, they failed miserably most of the times.