What's new

Pakistan's domestic 'Fab Four' - Why are they so poor in international cricket?

Abdullah Rabbani

Abdullah Rabbani

Tape Ball Star
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Runs
805
People Talk About Much Of Current Fab Four Every Country Have Best Domestic Players Which Will Outperform Others We Also Have Seen In Pakistan 2005 To 2016 But When They Come In International Arena They Choks Many Examples In Are Around Us...

Ahmed Shahzad
FC: R: 5041 A:42.21
List A: R:5814 A:42.09
T20 R: 5409 A: 28.64

Umar Akmal
FC: R:6267 A:43.22
List A: R:5233 A:34.00
T20: R:5044 A:29.15

Khurram Manzoor
FC: R:9976 A:38.43
List A: R: 6581 A: 53.11
T20: R: 2337 A:27.94

Sohaib Maqsood
FC: R:4082 A:41.72
List A: R: 3864 A:40.11
T20 A: R:2122 A:27.67

In International Cricket There Average Come 30's To 20's Why ????

Many Prime Exapmle More Like
Nasir Jamshed , Khalid Latif , Mohammed Rizwan , Iftikhar Ahmed , Umar Amin ....
 
May be whole domestic cricket isn’t that fab......
 
Abdullah Rabbani said:
People Talk About Much Of Current Fab Four Every Country Have Best Domestic Players Which Will Outperform Others We Also Have Seen In Pakistan 2005 To 2016 But When They Come In International Arena They Choks Many Examples In Are Around Us...

Ahmed Shahzad
FC: R: 5041 A:42.21
List A: R:5814 A:42.09
T20 R: 5409 A: 28.64

Umar Akmal
FC: R:6267 A:43.22
List A: R:5233 A:34.00
T20: R:5044 A:29.15

Khurram Manzoor
FC: R:9976 A:38.43
List A: R: 6581 A: 53.11
T20: R: 2337 A:27.94

Sohaib Maqsood
FC: R:4082 A:41.72
List A: R: 3864 A:40.11
T20 A: R:2122 A:27.67

In International Cricket There Average Come 30's To 20's Why ????

Many Prime Exapmle More Like
Nasir Jamshed , Khalid Latif , Mohammed Rizwan , Iftikhar Ahmed , Umar Amin ....
Click to expand...

Apart from Manzoor List A record the rest have pretty normal numbers nothing special.

None of them averages over 45 in FC...
 
pakistani pride said:
Apart from Manzoor List A record the rest have pretty normal numbers nothing special.

None of them averages over 45 in FC...
Click to expand...

OP didn’t put the data as it should have been. Ahmed, Umar & to an extent Maqsood as well, have played lots of Internationals for PAK (& PAK A), which are diluting their overall List A (& partially FC) stats.

Filter out the ODI stats from List A & Test stats from FC - that’ll give the better reflection. Manzoor played very few international games, hence his domestic stats are great - play him for 50 international games, his overall numbers won’t be that impressive thereafter.
 
I think Sohaib Maqsood may come back in the team and improve his average. He is a terrific striker and easily matches Asif Ali’s hitting.

Ahmed Shehzad lost it after that blow to the head.

Khurram Manzoor was never really international quality.
 
Well when your domestic is going to be worse than club level in other countries what do you expect.

No athletes, no dietitians, no infrastructure, and where 40 year olds are making and breaking records, the less said the better about this.
 
Abdullah Rabbani said:
People Talk About Much Of Current Fab Four Every Country Have Best Domestic Players Which Will Outperform Others We Also Have Seen In Pakistan 2005 To 2016 But When They Come In International Arena They Choks Many Examples In Are Around Us...

Ahmed Shahzad
FC: R: 5041 A:42.21
List A: R:5814 A:42.09
T20 R: 5409 A: 28.64

Umar Akmal
FC: R:6267 A:43.22
List A: R:5233 A:34.00
T20: R:5044 A:29.15

Khurram Manzoor
FC: R:9976 A:38.43
List A: R: 6581 A: 53.11
T20: R: 2337 A:27.94

Sohaib Maqsood
FC: R:4082 A:41.72
List A: R: 3864 A:40.11
T20 A: R:2122 A:27.67

In International Cricket There Average Come 30's To 20's Why ????

Many Prime Exapmle More Like
Nasir Jamshed , Khalid Latif , Mohammed Rizwan , Iftikhar Ahmed , Umar Amin ....
Click to expand...

These are not special numbers. Apart from Manzoor's List A record the rest are just good. Not great.

Batsmen who have gone to taste success in test cricket usually had FC averages of 50+. I'm talking about all teams in general here not just Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Abdullah Rabbani said:
People Talk About Much Of Current Fab Four Every Country Have Best Domestic Players Which Will Outperform Others We Also Have Seen In Pakistan 2005 To 2016 But When They Come In International Arena They Choks Many Examples In Are Around Us...

Ahmed Shahzad
FC: R: 5041 A:42.21
List A: R:5814 A:42.09
T20 R: 5409 A: 28.64

Umar Akmal
FC: R:6267 A:43.22
List A: R:5233 A:34.00
T20: R:5044 A:29.15

Khurram Manzoor
FC: R:9976 A:38.43
List A: R: 6581 A: 53.11
T20: R: 2337 A:27.94

Sohaib Maqsood
FC: R:4082 A:41.72
List A: R: 3864 A:40.11
T20 A: R:2122 A:27.67

In International Cricket There Average Come 30's To 20's Why ????

Many Prime Exapmle More Like
Nasir Jamshed , Khalid Latif , Mohammed Rizwan , Iftikhar Ahmed , Umar Amin ....
Click to expand...

I don't understand why these are considered Fab anything. Shahzad is a curious case, but the others have actually been quite hit and miss even in domestics. Many domestic batsmen have better averages than they do. What is so special about an FC average in the high 30s or low 40s when Fawad Alam averages 55?
 
New Yorker said:
I don't understand why these are considered Fab anything. Shahzad is a curious case, but the others have actually been quite hit and miss even in domestics. Many domestic batsmen have better averages than they do. What is so special about an FC average in the high 30s or low 40s when Fawad Alam averages 55?
Click to expand...

This.
End of thread.
 
These are not our domestic fabs. Our fabs do not even get selected. Like Saud Shakeel, Saad Ali, Fawad Alam.
 
The word 'Fab' here is a misnomer.

There is nothing Fab about them expect, possibly, Khurram Manzoor. And you haven't included Fawad Alam.
 
Fab 4? Really? Maqsood and Umar Akmal aren't doing anything special even in domestics!
 
New Yorker said:
I don't understand why these are considered Fab anything. Shahzad is a curious case, but the others have actually been quite hit and miss even in domestics. Many domestic batsmen have better averages than they do. What is so special about an FC average in the high 30s or low 40s when Fawad Alam averages 55?
Click to expand...

Nailed on the head.

Maqsood and Umar Akmal aren't even that good in domestics.
 
All these guys had good averages. Just lowered due to poor international performances. Exception is Umar who became a regular for the international team young, not off domestics. They average/averaged similar to Saad and Shakeel (especially on first selection).

Umar didn't succeed as too inconsistent, weight issues, bad under pressure, couldn't handle media etc.

Shehzad didn't succeed as again bad under pressure. Goes into his shell far too much. I think he's regressed after he got hit on the head unfortunately (even in domestic).

Maqsood's fitness was bad, and given the nature of him as a player a lot of gifting his wicket. Shunted up and down the order. Injuries took a toll. And hasn't had many chances.

Khurram is probably the lowest on talent of the four. Not many chances. Out of all of those four, probably him (perhaps Maqsood) are the best bets for callbacks.


The best domestic batsmen should be in contention for squad places at very least. Currently I think it would be something like this:

Tests: Saad Ali, Usman Salahuddin, Fawad Alam
ODIs: Manzoor, Masood, Sami Aslam, Shakeel, Saad Ali, Fawad Alam
T20s: No one really. Maybe at a stretch Maqsood who was decent in PSL.

Kamran is an exception who has been excelling at all three formats in domestic for a long time, but is considered too old and too much previous international experience to realistically get a callback.

There's a select group of players at the top in domestic atm guys who have performed consistently for a while, so I don't think it's difficult to give all of these guys a run of chances. Even in ODIs where we have a few players, still Manzoor (who as a right handed opener when we have two left handed openers and Haris in top 4, should have been in the squad) and Mansood are far ahead of the pack and should have been given chances first over the other names listed for ODIs.
 
Last edited:
ads101 said:
All these guys had good averages. Just lowered due to poor international performances. Exception is Umar who became a regular for the international team young, not off domestics. They average/averaged similar to Saad and Shakeel (especially on first selection).

Umar didn't succeed as too inconsistent, weight issues, bad under pressure, couldn't handle media etc.

Shehzad didn't succeed as again bad under pressure. Goes into his shell far too much. I think he's regressed after he got hit on the head unfortunately (even in domestic).

Maqsood's fitness was bad, and given the nature of him as a player a lot of gifting his wicket. Shunted up and down the order. Injuries took a toll. And hasn't had many chances.

Khurram is probably the lowest on talent of the four. Not many chances. Out of all of those four, probably him (perhaps Maqsood) are the best bets for callbacks.


The best domestic batsmen should be in contention for squad places at very least. Currently I think it would be something like this:

Tests: Saad Ali, Usman Salahuddin, Fawad Alam
ODIs: Manzoor, Masood, Sami Aslam, Shakeel, Saad Ali, Fawad Alam
T20s: No one really. Maybe at a stretch Maqsood who was decent in PSL.

Kamran is an exception who has been excelling at all three formats in domestic for a long time, but is considered too old and too much previous international experience to realistically get a callback.

There's a select group of players at the top in domestic atm guys who have performed consistently for a while, so I don't think it's difficult to give all of these guys a run of chances. Even in ODIs where we have a few players, still Manzoor (who as a right handed opener when we have two left handed openers and Haris in top 4, should have been in the squad) and Mansood are far ahead of the pack and should have been given chances first over the other names listed for ODIs.
Click to expand...

Well Said Kudos To You,
But We Dont Need Khurram Manzoor Or Sohaib Maqsaad Who Are At The End of There Prime Many Players Are Better Than In Domese Just Need To Groom Like Sahibzada Farhan , Shan Masood , Sami Aslam As Openers And Saud Shakeel , Saad ali As Middle Amir Yamin, Usman Slahudin As middle Order Bateman
 
Stats from PAK domestics are not reliable at all, therefore don’t think crunching data will help much. If we are to go by domestic stats, first name in PAK XI now should be Aizaz Chema🤔

Personally, I feel Maksood was hard done by - he should be playing many more ODI & T20 than this.
 
MMHS said:
Stats from PAK domestics are not reliable at all, therefore don’t think crunching data will help much. If we are to go by domestic stats, first name in PAK XI now should be Aizaz Chema��

Personally, I feel Maksood was hard done by - he should be playing many more ODI & T20 than this.
Click to expand...

Do you have any consistet evidence for that claim? A bunch of players with mediocre domestic averages who are mediocre also in internationals does not tell me that domestic stats are unreliable, rather the opposite. Abbas and Hasan, to name but two of our better performing bowlers in recent years, have also been top performers in domestics. Rahat was also comparatively poor in domestics, with only a couple of good one day tourney's to his credit, and it showed in his international performances. Could never take a 10 fer in FC cricket, while Abbas has half a dozen by now. Wahah iis another player whose international record bears out his relative domestic underperformance. If anything, the PCB is far too slow in giving chances to top domestic performers, with Cheema, who was selected after his peak being a good case in point. I would love to see Mir Hamza play in South Africa. Again, the important point here is not that the the best domestic players will all become the best in the world - merely they are most likely to be the best possible option in Pakistan. Pretty basic stuff really.
 
New Yorker said:
Do you have any consistet evidence for that claim? A bunch of players with mediocre domestic averages who are mediocre also in internationals does not tell me that domestic stats are unreliable, rather the opposite. Abbas and Hasan, to name but two of our better performing bowlers in recent years, have also been top performers in domestics. Rahat was also comparatively poor in domestics, with only a couple of good one day tourney's to his credit, and it showed in his international performances. Could never take a 10 fer in FC cricket, while Abbas has half a dozen by now. Wahah iis another player whose international record bears out his relative domestic underperformance. If anything, the PCB is far too slow in giving chances to top domestic performers, with Cheema, who was selected after his peak being a good case in point. I would love to see Mir Hamza play in South Africa. Again, the important point here is not that the the best domestic players will all become the best in the world - merely they are most likely to be the best possible option in Pakistan. Pretty basic stuff really.
Click to expand...

I do have evidence.

Hamza, Sadaf & few others are yet to be seen at International stage, so their stocks are high at this moment; but I have seen Manzoor, Fawad, Iftekhar, Shan Masood (averaging 59 in List A FGS) in batting; Shehzad as well, and now Nawaz. Awais Zia's FC average is 40, while Rizwan has FC average of 42 & List A stats of 44/89 (take out ODI, it should jump to 48/98 level), Faisal Iqbal ... I can go on (don't force me to post Kamran's stats for last 4-5 years). In bowling, we have seen Asad Ali, Ehsan Adil, Zulfiquar Babar, Imad Wasim; while Md. Sami's FC average of 27 will come down to 23 level, if I take out his Test average of 53.

I'll say opposite actually - don't trust stats much, if you are to make a good squad. Md. Asif's FC average is just 1 run short of Test average (FC was higher till his return - last 2 years, he has reduced it to 24, which is damn ordinary in QeA standard), while Ajmal's FC average is 27, takeout Test career, it'll still be 25+ and MoHa's FC bowling average will also be 25-26, if I take out his Test career - hope that's enough evidence.

What you are saying are out layers - Wahab & Rahat are poor in every level because they don't have the bowling intelligence, & you guys are impressed with speed. Hasan Ali's FC average is 25 (taking out Tests), which is POOR for pacers debuting in PAK domestics in last 5-6 years, as the standard is 20, and exceptionals are at 15.

But yes, one thing I completely agree - bring them raw & green. Imran used to pick PAK pacers in OFFICIAL teens - Aquib at 16, WY 17, Wasim 17, Ata 16, Jafar 18, Zakir Khan 18, Mohsin Kamal 19, Maqsood Rana 17 ....... 2/3 years in National setup, they were ready (or gone) ..... and retired from FC level, at the official age when Wahab & Irfan & Rahat & Sohail are still Internationals. What Mir Hamza (who is officially 26 now), you ask me, I'll say with Amir, Abbas & Hasan - take Afridi, Sameen, this Naseem kid & Arshad (Iqbal) as well to SAF. May be that can save them from domestic coaches.

It won't work with stats bro in PAK domestics - you need someone as passionate as like Imran, who lived outside PAK & never played in domestics after early 1980 winter, but he had the eye and more clue about domestic talents than Ul Haq & Basit Ali's entire Garrison could ever imagine. Because, finding talent & fitting him into a part of strategy is a thanks-less job, it come from passion, vision & constantly updated knowledge - Ul Haqs are doing a 9-6 clerical job (that too without adequate honesty).
 
Last edited:
MMHS said:
I do have evidence.

Hamza, Sadaf & few others are yet to be seen at International stage, so their stocks are high at this moment; but I have seen Manzoor, Fawad, Iftekhar, Shan Masood (averaging 59 in List A FGS) in batting; Shehzad as well, and now Nawaz. Awais Zia's FC average is 40, while Rizwan has FC average of 42 & List A stats of 44/89 (take out ODI, it should jump to 48/98 level), Faisal Iqbal ... I can go on (don't force me to post Kamran's stats for last 4-5 years). In bowling, we have seen Asad Ali, Ehsan Adil, Zulfiquar Babar, Imad Wasim; while Md. Sami's FC average of 27 will come down to 23 level, if I take out his Test average of 53.

I'll say opposite actually - don't trust stats much, if you are to make a good squad. Md. Asif's FC average is just 1 run short of Test average (FC was higher till his return - last 2 years, he has reduced it to 24, which is damn ordinary in QeA standard), while Ajmal's FC average is 27, takeout Test career, it'll still be 25+ and MoHa's FC bowling average will also be 25-26, if I take out his Test career - hope that's enough evidence.

What you are saying are out layers - Wahab & Rahat are poor in every level because they don't have the bowling intelligence, & you guys are impressed with speed. Hasan Ali's FC average is 25 (taking out Tests), which is POOR for pacers debuting in PAK domestics in last 5-6 years, as the standard is 20, and exceptionals are at 15.

But yes, one thing I completely agree - bring them raw & green. Imran used to pick PAK pacers in OFFICIAL teens - Aquib at 16, WY 17, Wasim 17, Ata 16, Jafar 18, Zakir Khan 18, Mohsin Kamal 19, Maqsood Rana 17 ....... 2/3 years in National setup, they were ready (or gone) ..... and retired from FC level, at the official age when Wahab & Irfan & Rahat & Sohail are still Internationals. What Mir Hamza (who is officially 26 now), you ask me, I'll say with Amir, Abbas & Hasan - take Afridi, Sameen, this Naseem kid & Arshad (Iqbal) as well to SAF. May be that can save them from domestic coaches.

It won't work with stats bro in PAK domestics - you need someone as passionate as like Imran, who lived outside PAK & never played in domestics after early 1980 winter, but he had the eye and more clue about domestic talents than Ul Haq & Basit Ali's entire Garrison could ever imagine. Because, finding talent & fitting him into a part of strategy is a thanks-less job, it come from passion, vision & constantly updated knowledge - Ul Haqs are doing a 9-6 clerical job (that too without adequate honesty).
Click to expand...

I love your posts usually but I don't see much of a method in this. Mention a handful of players, rattle off some numbers? I am not asking for a regression analysis, but some kind of reasonable sample size and logic in method would be nice. Why are X and Y players supposedly outliers, but A and B not? Why is actual correlation between mediocre domestic performance (Hasan Ali's FC numbers's (25) and his similarly mediocre international performance (29) evidence that domestic performance is a poor predictor of outcome? I cited Hasan not for his FC record but for his LA record, which happens to be pretty identical to his international stats.

But my underlying point is not about actual numerical correspondence, ie that 20 in domestics will translate into 20 in internationals; it is that about the utility of relative performance, ie that there is little sense in picking a worse domestic bowler (26) ahead of a better one (20). And Rahat is a perfect example for why this is so. Rahat looks amazing in the nets, he has pace, he has height, he can bowl unplayable balls, to the naked eye he looks terrific, and if one were to go around the country just picking bowlers on how they look, he would be picked over and over again. Indeed, a legendary bowler like Waqar bet the house on Rahat twice over, and Mickey kept picking him long after it was otherwise clear that he simply did not have it in him.

This is where the Imran model just falls apart; it is premised on belief in the capacity of some uniquely talented genius selector to divine the future, and therefore substitutes for what was previously one selection conundrum, two conundrums. How do we find this magically gifted selector who can see the future ? If Waqar one of our ATG Test bowlers and Mickey got it so wrong with Rahat, why would we expect the next selector around to get it right?

The other, and even more fundamental problem in falling into this kind of reasoning is that we would be doing the opposite of building a cricketing structure; we would just turn cricket selection into some kind of lottery. And render domestic competitions more or less irrelevant in the process. Why bother playing domestic matches at all? The point is not that there is no role for discretion in selection, but that it there is little evidence that selection can supplant long term observation of actual performance. Ie stats.

Note here that it is simply not enough to say that domestic stats are not 100% right. Of course they won't be foolproof. Perhaps they are wrong as much as 60% of the time, who knows? But before we throw them out the window we need to know if the alternative method is any better? have to make the argument that the genius eye of your super selector is more accurate; not just any selector in other words, but a particular one. And you can't pick Imran because he's running the country now. To me, this seems a fool's errand.

I wonder if it not the case simply that in this day and age, we seem to be ever more inclined to desire the guidance of some kind of firm authoritarian hand in all matters of governance, a general or CEO to the rescue, rather than accepting that life is full of uncertainty, and that you have to be able to work through that uncertainty and shoulder all the anxiety and disappointment that it entails.
 
New Yorker said:
I love your posts usually but I don't see much of a method in this. Mention a handful of players, rattle off some numbers? I am not asking for a regression analysis, but some kind of reasonable sample size and logic in method would be nice. Why are X and Y players supposedly outliers, but A and B not? Why is actual correlation between mediocre domestic performance (Hasan Ali's FC numbers's (25) and his similarly mediocre international performance (29) evidence that domestic performance is a poor predictor of outcome? I cited Hasan not for his FC record but for his LA record, which happens to be pretty identical to his international stats.

But my underlying point is not about actual numerical correspondence, ie that 20 in domestics will translate into 20 in internationals; it is that about the utility of relative performance, ie that there is little sense in picking a worse domestic bowler (26) ahead of a better one (20). And Rahat is a perfect example for why this is so. Rahat looks amazing in the nets, he has pace, he has height, he can bowl unplayable balls, to the naked eye he looks terrific, and if one were to go around the country just picking bowlers on how they look, he would be picked over and over again. Indeed, a legendary bowler like Waqar bet the house on Rahat twice over, and Mickey kept picking him long after it was otherwise clear that he simply did not have it in him.

This is where the Imran model just falls apart; it is premised on belief in the capacity of some uniquely talented genius selector to divine the future, and therefore substitutes for what was previously one selection conundrum, two conundrums. How do we find this magically gifted selector who can see the future ? If Waqar one of our ATG Test bowlers and Mickey got it so wrong with Rahat, why would we expect the next selector around to get it right?

The other, and even more fundamental problem in falling into this kind of reasoning is that we would be doing the opposite of building a cricketing structure; we would just turn cricket selection into some kind of lottery. And render domestic competitions more or less irrelevant in the process. Why bother playing domestic matches at all? The point is not that there is no role for discretion in selection, but that it there is little evidence that selection can supplant long term observation of actual performance. Ie stats.

Note here that it is simply not enough to say that domestic stats are not 100% right. Of course they won't be foolproof. Perhaps they are wrong as much as 60% of the time, who knows? But before we throw them out the window we need to know if the alternative method is any better? have to make the argument that the genius eye of your super selector is more accurate; not just any selector in other words, but a particular one. And you can't pick Imran because he's running the country now. To me, this seems a fool's errand.

I wonder if it not the case simply that in this day and age, we seem to be ever more inclined to desire the guidance of some kind of firm authoritarian hand in all matters of governance, a general or CEO to the rescue, rather than accepting that life is full of uncertainty, and that you have to be able to work through that uncertainty and shoulder all the anxiety and disappointment that it entails.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. The gifted players in Pakistan were obvious until the ICC accredited coaches came in and ruined a generation of cricketers as a result of Woolmer's laptop experiment. The coaches lack intuitive wit, it seems, more harm than good seems to have been done. The old system worked better, U-19 to the national side directly, bypassing the domestic nonsense and having the best players surrounded by those who have actually achieved something in the game, including former players. I'm not a fan of domestic stats, but the fact that Sohaib Maqsood isn't playing for the national side is insane, he has one of the best eyes for the ball around, he was never given a proper chance and the obsession with fitness has clearly made him more prone to injury.

He's not the only one to be ruined by domestic coaches an its associated cricket. Anwar Ali, Shazaib Hassan, Nasir Jamshed, Hammad Azam all come to mind in the decent past and it's no surprise Amir is now suffering. The think tank Miandad suggested is right on the money, the coaching experiment has failed.
 
Last edited:
davethebrave said:
Interesting post. The gifted players in Pakistan were obvious until the ICC accredited coaches came in and ruined a generation of cricketers as a result of Woolmer's laptop experiment. The coaches lack intuitive wit, it seems, more harm than good seems to have been done. The old system worked better, U-19 to the national side directly, bypassing the domestic nonsense and having the best players surrounded by those who have actually achieved something in the game, including former players. I'm not a fan of domestic stats, but the fact that Sohaib Maqsood isn't playing for the national side is insane, he has one of the best eyes for the ball around, he was never given a proper chance and the obsession with fitness has clearly made him more prone to injury.

He's not the only one to be ruined by domestic coaches an its associated cricket. Anwar Ali, Shazaib Hassan, Nasir Jamshed, Hammad Azam all come to mind in the decent past and it's no surprise Amir is now suffering. The think tank Miandad suggested is right on the money, the coaching experiment has failed.
Click to expand...

Hard Work Beats Talent When Talent Is Having A Rest Day Those Names You Mention Have Talent But They Dont Work Hard To Compete On International Level There Are Many Aspects Why Average Come Down In International Cricket Weak Players , Different Pitches, Opposition Works On Your Weaknesses Much More Abbas, Babar Azam,Fakhar Zaman , Rahat Ali And Wahab Are Examples 5 To 6 Is 70 Percet That Your Average To Go Down
 
New Yorker said:
I love your posts usually but I don't see much of a method in this. Mention a handful of players, rattle off some numbers? I am not asking for a regression analysis, but some kind of reasonable sample size and logic in method would be nice. Why are X and Y players supposedly outliers, but A and B not? Why is actual correlation between mediocre domestic performance (Hasan Ali's FC numbers's (25) and his similarly mediocre international performance (29) evidence that domestic performance is a poor predictor of outcome? I cited Hasan not for his FC record but for his LA record, which happens to be pretty identical to his international stats.

But my underlying point is not about actual numerical correspondence, ie that 20 in domestics will translate into 20 in internationals; it is that about the utility of relative performance, ie that there is little sense in picking a worse domestic bowler (26) ahead of a better one (20). And Rahat is a perfect example for why this is so. Rahat looks amazing in the nets, he has pace, he has height, he can bowl unplayable balls, to the naked eye he looks terrific, and if one were to go around the country just picking bowlers on how they look, he would be picked over and over again. Indeed, a legendary bowler like Waqar bet the house on Rahat twice over, and Mickey kept picking him long after it was otherwise clear that he simply did not have it in him.

This is where the Imran model just falls apart; it is premised on belief in the capacity of some uniquely talented genius selector to divine the future, and therefore substitutes for what was previously one selection conundrum, two conundrums. How do we find this magically gifted selector who can see the future ? If Waqar one of our ATG Test bowlers and Mickey got it so wrong with Rahat, why would we expect the next selector around to get it right?

The other, and even more fundamental problem in falling into this kind of reasoning is that we would be doing the opposite of building a cricketing structure; we would just turn cricket selection into some kind of lottery. And render domestic competitions more or less irrelevant in the process. Why bother playing domestic matches at all? The point is not that there is no role for discretion in selection, but that it there is little evidence that selection can supplant long term observation of actual performance. Ie stats.

Note here that it is simply not enough to say that domestic stats are not 100% right. Of course they won't be foolproof. Perhaps they are wrong as much as 60% of the time, who knows? But before we throw them out the window we need to know if the alternative method is any better? have to make the argument that the genius eye of your super selector is more accurate; not just any selector in other words, but a particular one. And you can't pick Imran because he's running the country now. To me, this seems a fool's errand.

I wonder if it not the case simply that in this day and age, we seem to be ever more inclined to desire the guidance of some kind of firm authoritarian hand in all matters of governance, a general or CEO to the rescue, rather than accepting that life is full of uncertainty, and that you have to be able to work through that uncertainty and shoulder all the anxiety and disappointment that it entails.
Click to expand...

I make it easier for you - take random 25 players from PAK who has played at least 30 Test &/or 30 ODI, and take same from say IND & AUS. Then do 2 analysis -

1. Comparative analysis between IND/AUS players between their domestic & International Stats & same for PAK players. This one is easy - like Steve Smith's List A Vs ODI, Pujara's Test Vs. FC, Strac's Test Vs. FC, Shehzad's Test Vs. FC, List A Vs. ODI ...etc.


2. Comparative analysis between two players from same team & their domestic VS International stats. This one is a bit complex - take 2 batsmen from AUS - Smith & Warner. Do a comparison between their Domestic stats for both FC & List A - then do the same for their Test & ODI stats

After all that, I can categorically say the correlation for IND/AUS will be close to 1, for PAK close to ZERO, if not negative.

I spend less than 20% time on IND/AUS/ENG domestics, yet before every series, out of 16-17, I can correctly predict at least 14 players - latest is Olly Stones & Rory Burns .... and I don't follow County outside that CricInfo stats.

I understand the frustration of PAK posters here, but be honest with yourself and think again how much you can rely on stats that shows 16 wickets in a game by Saad Altaf, or 265 by Shezar Md.
 
LOL, Fab4, who woke up and made them as such?

These are just average players who did not improve on their earlier promise and their natural talent eroded due to lack of effort, hot headedness, and bad advice from their 'friends'
 
Last edited:
MMHS said:
I make it easier for you - take random 25 players from PAK who has played at least 30 Test &/or 30 ODI, and take same from say IND & AUS. Then do 2 analysis -

1. Comparative analysis between IND/AUS players between their domestic & International Stats & same for PAK players. This one is easy - like Steve Smith's List A Vs ODI, Pujara's Test Vs. FC, Strac's Test Vs. FC, Shehzad's Test Vs. FC, List A Vs. ODI ...etc.


2. Comparative analysis between two players from same team & their domestic VS International stats. This one is a bit complex - take 2 batsmen from AUS - Smith & Warner. Do a comparison between their Domestic stats for both FC & List A - then do the same for their Test & ODI stats

After all that, I can categorically say the correlation for IND/AUS will be close to 1, for PAK close to ZERO, if not negative.

I spend less than 20% time on IND/AUS/ENG domestics, yet before every series, out of 16-17, I can correctly predict at least 14 players - latest is Olly Stones & Rory Burns .... and I don't follow County outside that CricInfo stats.

I understand the frustration of PAK posters here, but be honest with yourself and think again how much you can rely on stats that shows 16 wickets in a game by Saad Altaf, or 265 by Shezar Md.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in seeing that analysis, but it also tells me that we are talking past each other. My point is not that the Pakistani domestic system may be unreliable. It is that however unreliable it may be, we don't have a better way of selection than that system. There is no evidence that selectors acting on gut instinct can do better. The failures of countless coaches to buck the stats are perfect examples in point. See Waqar and Mickey on Rahat and Wahab. Gut instinct usually translates into a predilection for a singular attribute which coaches feel is necessary for success, much like PPers. The point is not that they are wrong. Speed may well be useful, but focusing on it to the detriment of other, less easily observable attributes, like discipline, consistency etc, always causes us to loose sight of the big picture. And it is easy to focus on speed, or height, because it is eye catching. It feels like it is explains something, literally that it makes something happen for us. That is what Wahab was always supposed to do. But it does not necessarily translate into success. To the question, what was the secret to Glenn McGrath's success as the GOAT pace bowler, there is no convincing answer, because there is no single identifiable quality or attribute.

If you really do want to see what is the usefulness of Pakistani domestic performance you would have to do something like take a significant sample of players who have all been selected for international duty and have a reasonable number of Tests or matches under their belts, and then see whether their comparative domestic stats ie Ave of player B minus Average of player A, correlate with the difference in their performance in internationals? Again, the point is not whether a domestic batting average of 40 should translate into an international average of 40. It is that it does not make sense, usually, to select the guy who averages 35 in domestics over the guy who averages 40 in domesitc. It is not about predicting final statistical outcomes in internationals, but about establishing simply what is the answer to the question, which of these two or three domestic players should I select?
 
New Yorker said:
I'd be interested in seeing that analysis, but it also tells me that we are talking past each other. My point is not that the Pakistani domestic system may be unreliable. It is that however unreliable it may be, we don't have a better way of selection than that system. There is no evidence that selectors acting on gut instinct can do better. The failures of countless coaches to buck the stats are perfect examples in point. See Waqar and Mickey on Rahat and Wahab. Gut instinct usually translates into a predilection for a singular attribute which coaches feel is necessary for success, much like PPers. The point is not that they are wrong. Speed may well be useful, but focusing on it to the detriment of other, less easily observable attributes, like discipline, consistency etc, always causes us to loose sight of the big picture. And it is easy to focus on speed, or height, because it is eye catching. It feels like it is explains something, literally that it makes something happen for us. That is what Wahab was always supposed to do. But it does not necessarily translate into success. To the question, what was the secret to Glenn McGrath's success as the GOAT pace bowler, there is no convincing answer, because there is no single identifiable quality or attribute.

If you really do want to see what is the usefulness of Pakistani domestic performance you would have to do something like take a significant sample of players who have all been selected for international duty and have a reasonable number of Tests or matches under their belts, and then see whether their comparative domestic stats ie Ave of player B minus Average of player A, correlate with the difference in their performance in internationals? Again, the point is not whether a domestic batting average of 40 should translate into an international average of 40. It is that it does not make sense, usually, to select the guy who averages 35 in domestics over the guy who averages 40 in domesitc. It is not about predicting final statistical outcomes in internationals, but about establishing simply what is the answer to the question, which of these two or three domestic players should I select?
Click to expand...

Looking at data is always helpful, but using data as only selection tool isn't suggested, even in AUS. PAK's problem is, it's CS probably doesn't look at the data, neither player or game and has little clue about opponents, against whom his team is going play .... where. He doesn't bother for reviewing his calls - sent Iftekhar against NZ A to play T20!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top