Why are Pakistan Tests more exciting than India Tests?

[Robert]

It it the unpredictablility of Pakistan that makes them so much more interesting than India? Is it becauser their fast bowlers are always better? Or something else?

 

[squarecut]

Test matches involving Pakistan may be more interesting for some but they are not necessarily of a higher quality than the test matches involving India.

 

[Buffet]

It it the unpredictablility of Pakistan that makes them so much more interesting than India? Is it becauser their fast bowlers are always better? Or something else?

Indians rarely lose tests if they are in good position to win or draw. Pakistan also rarely lose if they are in position to win, but Pakistan has lost bucketful of tests despite being in strong position to draw in the last few years. That keeps everyone interested.

Another way to look will be Indians playing mostly at homes in recent years made them boring to watch. They are simply too strong at home and that produces lopsided tests. Pakistan is strong but not too strong and that produces more even contests.

Indians lose outside most of the times, but those series are more interesting to watch than their home series. That itself should tell you how lopsided test series in India has been in recent years.

 

[Zaz]

Its because historically pakistan have always had a strong bowling attack with loads of flair and talent

Even today they can win matches with extreme pace, spin or swing

India has never unfortunately had this

 

[The_Odd_One]

Unpredictably

With India you know what you are getting. Batsmen will always perform and bowlers will always lose matches.

 

[pakistanisgreat]

If a team scores 500 in a first inning then in second inning our bowling might bowl them out below 150 and same case with our batting.

So i think the unpredictability of our batting and in some cases our bowling which let a team score over 400.

 

[big_gamer007]

Indians are too strong at home and outside of home don't have the bowlers to challenge for series win in tough conditions.. Pakistan away from home can spring a surprise or two coz of their bowling resources however TT heir matches in UAE are as boring as any other boring matches..

 

[CanadianG00se]

It it the unpredictablility of Pakistan that makes them so much more interesting than India? Is it becauser their fast bowlers are always better? Or something else?

That depends how you define Exciting. Id rather want my team be clinical and not give an inch than carry a label of Unpredictability.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Exciting? Pakistan in the UAE is actually very boring to watch. Outside UAE, that's a different scenario.

 

[Sherlock]

I suppose it's a case of India being more clinical and professional when they go out and play. They make things that may excite the fans, a little redundant by the way they dominate the opposition...

With Pakistan it's a case of being unpredictable, but also naive in the way they play. They'll let things slip in one session/Test and then turn it around in the other.

They are similar in that case to the way WI are, but have a more established side at the moment.

But I rather be a predictable and boring side than be a unpredictable and naive one.

 

[Sherlock]

Exciting? Pakistan in the UAE is actually very boring to watch. Outside UAE, that's a different scenario.

Tbf the UAE has supplied some of the best conclusions to Tests in the last few years. With many going onto the last day of play.

 

[Syed1]

We play an interesting brand of cricket

 

[ego-gambit]

We play an interesting brand of cricket

And that starts with self destruction

 

[Tusker]

It it the unpredictablility of Pakistan that makes them so much more interesting than India? Is it becauser their fast bowlers are always better? Or something else?

There are 10 Test playing nations (not counting IRL and AFG yet ) and Pakistan can lose to anyone Right from the top to the bottom most ( i.e Zim/WI/SL/NZ and perhaps WI ) and that too at home !.

Whereas India will 99 out 100 times will never lose a Test to SL, WI, ZIM, NZ, BD and Pakistan too if we played them.

That leaves us with Eng, Aus and SAF as the only people that can beat us and even then it will take some doing (usually only at home) and when that happens this place goes wild (Like when Aus beat us in one test recently) . Eng made 400+ on atleast three occasions but still lost by an inngs. This is why India tests are boring for the neutrals and opposition. But not for Indian fans at all.

 

[Hasan123]

The unpredictably factor. Pakistan could collapse at any point. Certainly gives us fans a heart attack. Also our bowlers have kept us in a lot of games over the years.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Tbf the UAE has supplied some of the best conclusions to Tests in the last few years. With many going onto the last day of play.

Yeah it's interesting sometimes on the 4th or 5th day but otherwise those pitches are the worst for test cricket. No seam,bounce and not much turn either. Just slow wickets which don't have anything for anyone.

 

[Sherlock]

Yeah it's interesting sometimes on the 4th or 5th day but otherwise those pitches are the worst for test cricket. No seam,bounce and not much turn either. Just slow wickets which don't have anything for anyone.

Hence why I used the word conclusion.

 

[Sherlock]

There are 10 Test playing nations (not counting IRL and AFG yet ) and Pakistan can lose to anyone Right from the top to the bottom most ( i.e Zim/WI/SL/NZ and perhaps WI ) and that too at home !.

Whereas India will 99 out 100 times will never lose a Test to SL, WI, ZIM, NZ, BD and Pakistan too if we played them.

That leaves us with Eng, Aus and SAF as the only people that can beat us and even then it will take some doing (usually only at home) and when that happens this place goes wild (Like when Aus beat us in one test recently) . Eng made 400+ on atleast three occasions but still lost by an inngs. This is why India tests are boring for the neutrals and opposition. But not for Indian fans at all.

Nothing like blowing your own horn

 

[Tusker]

Indians lose outside most of the times, but those series are more interesting to watch than their home series. That itself should tell you how lopsided test series in India has been in recent years.

India actually lose the least in away matches (last 5 yrs ) ...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2012;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

 

[Mamoon]

Mediocrity is often more exciting than clinical performances. If you mean historically, then that is because Pakistan has had better pacers.

Right now, we are one of the most boring and mediocre Test teams around, playing our home Tests in the worst venue in the world. It really doesn't get worse than that. Pure cricketing torture.

 

[Tusker]

Nothing like blowing your own horn

nothing like bragging rights

 

[Ab Fan]

I find Pakistani batting pretty mediocre and boring to watch. There is no innovativeness and uniqueness in any of their batters games. In last 15 years, they have stopped producing great fast bowlers too.

However, watching someone like Asif or Amir(the young one) bowl were great sights.

The answer is probably unpredictability. They can lose to likes of WI or Lankans at home and can beat England or NZ in their backyard on their day and can also beat the South Africans in ICC Tournaments.

 

[Sherlock]

nothing like bragging rights

Bragging rights or fiction...!

Yes Pakistan can lose against any of the Test sides around, they can also beat them too. Hence why they had the best home record for a few years. They also went to England a drew 2-2.

 

[Sherlock]

I find Pakistani batting pretty mediocre and boring to watch. There is no innovativeness and uniqueness in any of their batters games. In last 15 years, they have stopped producing great fast bowlers too.

However, watching someone like Asif or Amir(the young one) bowl were great sights.

The answer is probably unpredictability. They can lose to likes of WI or Lankans at home and can beat England or NZ in their backyard on their day and can also beat the South Africans in ICC Tournaments.

A lot of sides can say the same

 

[Mueez]

Because the pitches aint any road!!!!????

 

[Tusker]

Bragging rights or fiction...!

Yes Pakistan can lose against any of the Test sides around, they can also beat them too. Hence why they had the best home record for a few years. They also went to England a drew 2-2.

fiction ehh? See below ...the away stats ... these are without playing Zim in India's case

and did you mention home record ?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2013;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team

India actually lose the least in away matches (last 5 yrs ) ...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2012;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

 

[Sherlock]

fiction ehh? See below ...the away stats ... these are without playing Zim in India's case

and did you mention home record ?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2013;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team

Fiction as in just including their losses. You don't mention Pakistan's winning record. Oh and I meant "neutral venue" and not home series'

Regarding the stats about records, I was talking about series and the amount of wins/draw compared to losses.

Also Pakistan playing in the UAE is hardly advantageous to the way they play either. It's not just the away sides that get nullified in the UAE, Pakistan do too.

 

[Tusker]

Fiction as in just including their losses. You don't mention Pakistan's winning record. Oh and I meant "neutral venue" and not home series'

What do you mean by that? Those 2 links have the entire sum total of matches played by Pakistan ... are you saying I'am missing matches that happened in the parallel universe ? )

Regarding the stats about records, I was talking about series and the amount of wins/draw compared to losses.

But my point was about how India rarely lose to weaker teams which you termed fiction. Iam pretty sure pretty soon you will declare the 2 wins in England as the greatest thing that ever happened on a Cricket field and declare Pak >>>>> Ind.

Also Pakistan playing in the UAE is hardly advantageous to the way they play either. It's not just the away sides that get nullified in the UAE, Pakistan do too.

You don't think it has anything to do with Cricketing abilities and that India never run into such pitches ? We just blanked SL 3-0 in their own home ... you must be pretty brave to try and defend your team which is now ranked 7th and in touching distance with WI ...

 

[Sherlock]

What do you mean by that? Those 2 links have the entire sum total of matches played by Pakistan ... are you saying I'am missing matches that happened in the parallel universe ? )



But my point was about how India rarely lose to weaker teams which you termed fiction. Iam pretty sure pretty soon you will declare the 2 wins in England as the greatest thing that ever happened on a Cricket field and declare Pak >>>>> Ind.




You don't think it has anything to do with Cricketing abilities and that India never run into such pitches ? We just blanked SL 3-0 in their own home ... you must be pretty brave to try and defend your team which is now ranked 7th and in touching distance with WI ...

1. Dude, I'm going by your initial post where you mentioned Pakistan losing to other Test sides, and never mentioned them winning any.

2. And that's what I posted above before you replied to it. I said India will rarely lose because they know how to win and are professional outfit, unlike Pakistan.

3. Oh and btw, I mentioned the England series because England are a top side at home and we are a pretty useless side away.

 

[Tusker]

1. Dude, I'm going by your initial post where you mentioned Pakistan losing to other Test sides, and never mentioned them winning any.

Yes and I also said the same for India if you read that post ... so where is the problem ? In case you don't get what I said in that post .... if India starts to lose matches as frequently as Pakistan does to lesser sides our matches will also get interesting.

In any case the stats I posted have the Win counts also .... not sure what the issue is.

 

[KingKhanWC]

India is predictiable, when they're rubbish they are really garbage. Pakistan can be playing poorly but within a couple of sessions turn the match on it's head.

Pakistan also plays with a lot more passion than India generally.

 

[squarecut]

For all their brilliance, I do not recall Pakistan winning any tests in Australia and South Africa in living memory.

 

[Sherlock]

Yes and I also said the same for India if you read that post ... so where is the problem ? In case you don't get what I said in that post .... if India starts to lose matches as frequently as Pakistan does to lesser sides our matches will also get interesting.

In any case the stats I posted have the Win counts also .... not sure what the issue is.

This was your post :

That leaves us with Eng, Aus and SAF as the only people that can beat us and even then it will take some doing (usually only at home) and when that happens this place goes wild (Like when Aus beat us in one test recently).

This is what I mean. India are very good at home, just as England and SA are too, that doesn't mean their away records aren't analyst over and over again. Like those sides are castigated for their records away from home, England more so.

 

[Markhor]

Teams like Pakistan that are historically dependent on key individuals to perform are more prone to unpredictability, hence are seen as more entertaining.

Your results will naturally fluctuate when you're always relying on 2-3 big names to fire and carrying 3-4 passengers in the side. However when you have a settled and solid all-round team like Pakistan had in the 1980s then results are more consistent.

Its not fair to compare the two sides right now - India have a settled unit that's been playing for a few years togethet and a world class batting lineup, whereas Pakistan are in a team in transition having lost two stalwarts under a new captain.

 

[Tusker]

The issue is the chip on your shoulder. The issue it's you that's making a bigger deal of this than it should be. There was nothing in my initial post to make this a rivalry thread.

This was your post :

This is what I mean. India are very good at home, just as England and SA are too, that doesn't mean their away records aren't analyst over and over again. Like those sides are castigated for their records away from home, England more so.

see this is why it helps to read what is being said and check the stats links posted and have a clear understanding of the topic before you decide to accuse people ... India have lost ONE single Test match in the last 4+ yrs (3 if we go back 5+ yrs). In the same time period England have lost 11. Heck they lost a Test to WI of all teams 2 months ago. Do you realize that its been 23 yrs since India lost a Test match to WI at home ? Do you realize that India have lost less matches AWAY than Eng have lost at Home ? SAF have lost 5 tests in the same time period at Home. So no its not true that Eng and SA are the same as India at home. I suggest you take a closer look at the home/away stats once more before accusing me.

Home:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2013;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team


Away:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2013;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team

 

[Haz95]

can always expect Tusker to be writing those paragraphs and replying to each sentence quotes in every thread that has even an ounce of India involved.

Pakistan tests are more exciting due to being a rollercoaster ride, they can be ridiculously dominant or they could lose tests to Zimbabwe. They could have a lead of 500 and somehow lose or trail by 500 and somehow win.

 

[Sachin136]

India is predictiable, when they're rubbish they are really garbage. Pakistan can be playing poorly but within a couple of sessions turn the match on it's head.

Pakistan also plays with a lot more passion than India generally.

Why do you think that?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Pakistan's ability to collapse out of nowhere could be one reason. They had this issue even with their established sides. They could also trigger a collapse.

 

[Princejain191]

You don't watch the UAE tests, do you? Exciting would the very last thing that would cross my mind.

 

[DRsohail]

it should be the other way around...pakistani test matches are very boring to watch,.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why do you think that?

Barring the likes of Kohli, Indian players dont have the same motivation to play hard passionate cricket esp in tough matches because they make a lot of easy money in the IPL. I know Pakistan has the PSL now but Pakistan not being able to play at home means the players have to always prove we are still a cricketing force. Just my opinion.

 

[giri26]

To be frank, it is the matter of perspective. Also it depends on the opposition. After the 2010 series India vs Sri Lanka tests have been pretty boring but at the same time, India vs England and Australia at home were pretty good. The biggest difference between India and Pakistan is that the latter will find a way to suddenly lose from nowhere which makes them interesting for viewers. The recent SL series was an example. Irrespective of the team selection, the Pakistan team should have never lost to SL but they still did. The test against England which everyone though would be a draw, Pakistan managed to get bowled out to Adil Rashid, giving England a chance to win. They lost a game in Zimbabwe, they lost a game to West Indies in UAE and also in WI. India though are a pretty boring team when they are playing teams who are weaker to them.

 

[shane]

Pakistan are very predictable. They are drama queens who will take even the simplest run chase down to the absolute wire. It makes for exciting conclusions to matches. India tends to overpower its opponents, but only when playing in India.

 

[giri26]

Pakistan are very predictable. They are drama queens who will take even the simplest run chase down to the absolute wire. It makes for exciting conclusions to matches. India tends to overpower its opponents, but only when playing in India.

Thats not exactly true, India tend to overpower weak opponents where ever they play. There is no drama. Like the 9-0 against SL in Sri Lanka. India blew WI away in tests in the series in WI. India blanked Zimbabwe with an A team in Zimbabwe 5-0 in ODI's. You are talking about India vs much stronger opponents away from home. Pakistan make even the above contests tight.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Because we aren't HTB )

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Because we aren't HTB )

That's because you can't bully anyone even in the UAE.

 

[Zahid87]

Its easy.

Its not the unpredictability of the batting - that basically adds to the spectacle.

It is because Pakistan has a bowling attack that is capable of taking wickets at any time in both innings of the game. There is no session that is automatically written off.

With India, the spinners (main wicket taking threat), tend to need to be bowling in the second innings, and preferably on a 4th or 5th day pitch to really come into their own. Quick bowlers tend to last for the first 10 overs, then come back when the ball starts to reverse swing. Otherwise, you never expect a wicket to fall.

So for instance, if India loses the toss - you kind of know how that test is going to pan out. Opposition will get 400, and India will have to outbat them in their first innings to avoid defeat. The thought that India might have a chance of bowling the opposition out does not even come to mind.

I know Indians may then point to Kumar, Shami etc...and how 'great' they are but come on....I doubt that anyone seriously expects Shami, Umesh Yadav, Ashwin and Jadeja to knock Sri Lanka down for 190 on the first day at Kolkata next week.

Either it will be 400 vs 400, and a second innings shoot out. Or India bat first, score 500/600, and then put Sri Lanka under pressure for the remaining 3 days.

 

[Tusker]

Its easy.

Its not the unpredictability of the batting - that basically adds to the spectacle.

It is because Pakistan has a bowling attack that is capable of taking wickets at any time in both innings of the game. There is no session that is automatically written off.

With India, the spinners (main wicket taking threat), tend to need to be bowling in the second innings, and preferably on a 4th or 5th day pitch to really come into their own. Quick bowlers tend to last for the first 10 overs, then come back when the ball starts to reverse swing. Otherwise, you never expect a wicket to fall.

So for instance, if India loses the toss - you kind of know how that test is going to pan out. Opposition will get 400, and India will have to outbat them in their first innings to avoid defeat. The thought that India might have a chance of bowling the opposition out does not even come to mind.

I know Indians may then point to Kumar, Shami etc...and how 'great' they are but come on....I doubt that anyone seriously expects Shami, Umesh Yadav, Ashwin and Jadeja to knock Sri Lanka down for 190 on the first day at Kolkata next week.

Either it will be 400 vs 400, and a second innings shoot out. Or India bat first, score 500/600, and then put Sri Lanka under pressure for the remaining 3 days.

India's W/L ratio batting second in the last 4+ yrs (Ranking time period) is more that twice as good as the next best team and 4 times better than Pakistan. Infact India is the only Test team that has won more matches than lost while batting second. Everyone else has lost more than they have won.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=bowl;template=results;type=team;view=innings

 

[Kaptan]

There are very few teams that can compete with India outside India (Eng, SA, Aus, NZ) and no team can even think about defeating India in India.

Where as there are many teams that can compete with Pakistan both in UAE and outside UAE (Aus, Eng, SA, NZ, WI, Srl, Zim)

So, matches involving Pakistan are generally more Intersting.

 

[Napa]

It it the unpredictablility of Pakistan that makes them so much more interesting than India? Is it becauser their fast bowlers are always better? Or something else?

I think that the Indian Test team had 600+ innings in 6 of their last 9 Tests or something like that. A 600+ innings takes a lot of suspense out of the game when you know that the only result possible is a win or a draw.

 

[Napa]

Barring the likes of Kohli, Indian players dont have the same motivation to play hard passionate cricket esp in tough matches because they make a lot of easy money in the IPL.

I would say the most important batsmen for India in Tests is not even Kohli, it is Pujara. And he doesn't play in the IPL.

I find all Indian players to have extremely competitive personalities, can't get into the Indian Test team without giving your maximum effort. I would say the most competitive Test player in the world is Jadeja.

 

[Napa]

Indians lose outside most of the times, but those series are more interesting to watch than their home series. That itself should tell you how lopsided test series in India has been in recent years.

India actually lose the least in away matches (last 5 yrs ) ...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2012;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

This entire idea that Pakistan does better than India abroad is based on the extra game that it won when it toured England. Not considered in this claim is the fact that it promptly got whitewashed in Aus and NZ. Even if you leave out Bang, SL and WI (countries which Pakistan is quite capable of losing to, but which the current Indian team decimates) and consider only Aus, Eng, NZ and SA, you will find that Pakistan does much worse than India abroad. During the last 5 years, it has lost 10 of its last 12 games (83.33%), whereas India has lost only 7 out of 13 (53.85%).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=5;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=team

If you follow a common scoring system of 2 points for wins, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss, then Pakistan's average is 0.3333 while India's average is 0.5385.

 

[ethan hunt]

There are very few teams that can compete with India outside India (Eng, SA, Aus, NZ) and no team can even think about defeating India in India.

Where as there are many teams that can compete with Pakistan both in UAE and outside UAE (Aus, Eng, SA, NZ, WI, Srl, Zim)

So, matches involving Pakistan are generally more Intersting.

Yes the above mentioned teans barely compete against India outside India .
Seriosly , when is the next Indian tour to England ??. This is not even funny anynore.

 

[Suleiman]

India are more clinical and consistent these days. Being consistent is boring, being erratic is entertaining for neutral fans.

 

[shaz619]

Because Pakistan are more charismatic and know how to put on a show for the people win, lose or draw. They also have cricketers which are more exciting.

 

[Tusker]

I think that the Indian Test team had 600+ innings in 6 of their last 9 Tests or something like that. A 600+ innings takes a lot of suspense out of the game when you know that the only result possible is a win or a draw.

Thats a very good point. Completely batting out your opposition so regularly can make it boring.

 

[Napa]

Thats a very good point. Completely batting out your opposition so regularly can make it boring.

I checked the actual numbers. It is a 600+ score in 6 out of the last 10 matches. SL (2/3), Australia (1/4), Bangladesh (1/1) and England (2/2).

I don't think there has every been such a 10 game streak by any other Test team in history with 6 600+ scores.

 

[squarecut]

Indians are boring because they outbat their opposition into submission. Pakistanis are exciting because they cannot outbat anyone. Simple.

 

[asfandyar]

Pakistan is a mercurial team. We have an high chance of beating an all-time great Australian team today, only to lose to Ireland tomorrow.

 

[Tusker]

I checked the actual numbers. It is a 600+ score in 6 out of the last 10 matches. SL (2/3), Australia (1/4), Bangladesh (1/1) and England (2/2).

I don't think there has every been such a 10 game streak by any other Test team in history with 6 600+ scores.

Here is the break down since Jan-2013 (Total 46 Tests played in this time frame) :

700s -- 1
600s -- 5
500s -- 5
400s -- 14 ( 10 out of the 14 were above 450 )
300s -- 10
200s -- 6
<200 -- 5

The Avg score (over these 46 Tests) is 403 despite there being a Washout after India bowled out SAF for 215 and were 80/0 on Day1 in B'luru.

 

[Yossarian]

It it the unpredictablility of Pakistan that makes them so much more interesting than India? Is it becauser their fast bowlers are always better? Or something else?

It's the same reason that's the case in every other sport.

When the final outcome is fairly predictable before even the start, for neutral fans at least, that feeling of being on tenterhooks, of twists and turns, of surprises and shocks, is just not there, and the adrenalin doesn't start flowing.

However, when the opposite is the case, and the result is unpredictable with twists and turns until the very end, that's when sport becomes interesting and enjoyable (for the neutrals anyway).

It's akin to watching an action movie or spy thriller, as opposed to a mundane film where the storyline and ending are obvious even before the film starts and the acting is monotonous, staid and predictable.

Pakistan are equally capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as they are of collapsing in a heap yards from the finishing line when victory looked certain.

So yes, unpredictability.

 

[Yossarian]

This entire idea that Pakistan does better than India abroad is based on the extra game that it won when it toured England. Not considered in this claim is the fact that it promptly got whitewashed in Aus and NZ. Even if you leave out Bang, SL and WI (countries which Pakistan is quite capable of losing to, but which the current Indian team decimates) and consider only Aus, Eng, NZ and SA, you will find that Pakistan does much worse than India abroad. During the last 5 years, it has lost 10 of its last 12 games (83.33%), whereas India has lost only 7 out of 13 (53.85%).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=5;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=team

If you follow a common scoring system of 2 points for wins, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss, then Pakistan's average is 0.3333 while India's average is 0.5385.

Except that these perceptions are built over many years, even decades, and not just the last 5 years.

When one thinks of 'exciting Pakistan', one thinks of the likes of Waqar and Wasim, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Saeed Anwar ..... who does one think of in terms of 'exciting' from India in the same way? Even SRT, great as he was, was not seen as 'exciting' in the same sense.

 

[Napa]

Except that these perceptions are built over many years, even decades, and not just the last 5 years.

When one thinks of 'exciting Pakistan', one thinks of the likes of Waqar and Wasim, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Saeed Anwar ..... who does one think of in terms of 'exciting' from India in the same way? Even SRT, great as he was, was not seen as 'exciting' in the same sense.

I will grant you the part about Waqar, Wasim and Imran Khan. They were phenomenal bowlers. I would not put Miandad and Abbas in the same category due to their poor performance abroad.

Test cricket today is won by grinders like Pujara, whose recent 525 ball double century effectively batted Australia out of the match and perhaps even the series. In fact till recently Pakistan had a similar batsman in YK.

 

[IndYeah1]

It it the unpredictablility of Pakistan that makes them so much more interesting than India? Is it becauser their fast bowlers are always better? Or something else?

Because Pakistan can lose tests and even series to SL and Zimbabwe at home. Come within a wicket of losing to Bangladesh at home.

India yet to lose even a test to these teams at home. Ever.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Except that these perceptions are built over many years, even decades, and not just the last 5 years.

When one thinks of 'exciting Pakistan', one thinks of the likes of Waqar and Wasim, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Saeed Anwar ..... who does one think of in terms of 'exciting' from India in the same way? Even SRT, great as he was, was not seen as 'exciting' in the same sense.

So in which world does Javed Miandad is better than SRT?

 

[IndYeah1]

So in which world does Javed Miandad is better than SRT?

In a world, where he can't be given out LBW in home tests.

 

[Yossarian]

I will grant you the part about Waqar, Wasim and Imran Khan. They were phenomenal bowlers. I would not put Miandad and Abbas in the same category due to their poor performance abroad.

Test cricket today is won by grinders like Pujara, whose recent 525 ball double century effectively batted Australia out of the match and perhaps even the series. In fact till recently Pakistan had a similar batsman in YK.

So in which world does Javed Miandad is better than SRT?

'Better' and 'exciting' (from an entertainment point of view) are not one and the same.
For example, most will agree that Shahid Afridi was never a great player by any stretch of the imagination, but he was a bigger crowd puller than most, because he was unpredictable, because he could lose you the match with a brainless shot whilst he could also turn an almost certain defeat into a victory.

Similarly, whilst SRT was 'better' batsman than Miandad, from a neutrals point of view Miandad was unconventional, unpredictable, ie 'exciting' in a way that SRT was not.

Even amongst Indians, SRT as a batsman was much better than Sehwag, but from a neutrals point of view Sehwag was more exciting to watch.

The OP is about 'interesting to watch'. Don't confuse 'better' with 'interesting', they are not one and the same.

 

[CanadianG00se]

'Better' and 'exciting' (from an entertainment point of view) are not one and the same.
For example, most will agree that Shahid Afridi was never a great player by any stretch of the imagination, but he was a bigger crowd puller than most, because he was unpredictable, because he could lose you the match with a brainless shot whilst he could also turn an almost certain defeat into a victory.

Similarly, whilst SRT was 'better' batsman than Miandad, from a neutrals point of view Miandad was unconventional, unpredictable, ie 'exciting' in a way that SRT was not.

Even amongst Indians, SRT as a batsman was much better than Sehwag, but from a neutrals point of view Sehwag was more exciting to watch.

The OP is about 'interesting to watch'. Don't confuse 'better' with 'interesting', they are not one and the same.

In that case Sehwag would make it to the list. Very unorthodox but mighty effective, Yuvi too would make it to the list of exciting cricketer just for his epic phainty he dished out to Barbie girl in 2007 T20.

Dhoni ( during his peak)
Tendulkar ( in 90s)
Ganguly
Yuvi
Kohli
Sehwag

Are some of the Exciting cricketers India have produced.

 

[CanadianG00se]

'Better' and 'exciting' (from an entertainment point of view) are not one and the same.
For example, most will agree that Shahid Afridi was never a great player by any stretch of the imagination, but he was a bigger crowd puller than most, because he was unpredictable, because he could lose you the match with a brainless shot whilst he could also turn an almost certain defeat into a victory.

Similarly, whilst SRT was 'better' batsman than Miandad, from a neutrals point of view Miandad was unconventional, unpredictable, ie 'exciting' in a way that SRT was not.

Even amongst Indians, SRT as a batsman was much better than Sehwag, but from a neutrals point of view Sehwag was more exciting to watch.

The OP is about 'interesting to watch'. Don't confuse 'better' with 'interesting', they are not one and the same.

If you think SRT wasnt exciting then you havent seen him bat in 90s. Check on youtube some of his innings in Sharjah specially against Aussies.

He became less agressive with the arrival of Sehwag and also due to his career threatening tennis elbow injury.

 

[squarecut]

People who call Tendulkar boring to watch and Miandad exciting to watch were most likely too young to have watched either.

 

[IMMY69]

Pakistan cricket is exciting because we produce teams that can compete with the very best in the world despite having a pathetic first class system, a bankrupt and corrupt and usually inept cricket board and a population that is less then a quarter of India’s.

We have no money, can’t play at home and rely more on talent then anything else.

That’s why we’re unpredictable and that’s why we’re an exciting team to watch. It’s like Liecester winning the premier league only more consistent.

 

[Buffet]

Pakistan is a mercurial team. We have an high chance of beating an all-time great Australian team today, only to lose to Ireland tomorrow.

Current Pakistani team has very little chance of beating the all time great Australian team.

Getting whitewashed by SL or losing to Ire could be true, but not the other extreme. We are talking about Test matches here where a better team wins most of the times. 30 good overs can win you an ODI, but it doesn't work with the test format. Better team always dominates in the longer format as long as conditions are not in favor of weaker team.

 

[dravidthewall]

Pakistans test is more interesting against zimbabwe and srilanka

 

[IndYeah1]

Pakistan is a mercurial team. We have an high chance of beating an all-time great Australian team today, only to lose to Ireland tomorrow.

Is that why Pakistan has failed to even draw a single test match in Australia this millennium?

 

[the Great Khan]

simple. Our bowling. Its a wmd in test cricket. When it clicks it can cause mass destruction. But if it doesnt well then you may get hit hard.

India just hasnt had a bowling attack that has the flair and sheer natural ability that pakistan have. India will always be a good side because of their batting. If that falters it becomes a relatively mediocre side. For some reason its the almost mathematical nature of batting that is attractive to the Indians. While for Pakistanis its the sheer joy of running in and just smashing things (i would say mindlessly but you get the drift).

 

[the Great Khan]

Is that why Pakistan has failed to even draw a single test match in Australia this millennium?

you cant win in australia without your bowling. Our bowling for some reason just doesnt click in australia. And thats why we have lost. Our batting has at times done ok but the oz know how to make runs against us. Steve waugh once said that "Pakistan is the single most talented team out there and are extremely dangerous. But we know how to beat them." End of.

 

[asfandyar]

Pakistan beat India in 2017 CT and proved themselves as the better team.

Corrected

 

[IndYeah1]

Corrected

If you buy that logic, then since India beat the greatest cricket team of all-time - the West Indies - in the 1983 World Cup, does that make them the greatest team ever?

Only infants and pseudo-patriots will claim that much importance out of a one-off ODI win.

 

[IndYeah1]

simple. Our bowling. Its a wmd in test cricket. When it clicks it can cause mass destruction. But if it doesnt well then you may get hit hard.

India just hasnt had a bowling attack that has the flair and sheer natural ability that pakistan have. India will always be a good side because of their batting. If that falters it becomes a relatively mediocre side. For some reason its the almost mathematical nature of batting that is attractive to the Indians. While for Pakistanis its the sheer joy of running in and just smashing things (i would say mindlessly but you get the drift).

This is another self-serving myth. Pakistan did have a very good bowling unit in the 1990s. They had 2 ATG pace bowlers in Akram and Younis, and they were early adopters of the art and science of reverse-swing. These 2 reasons made their entire unit more effective. But once the 2 Ws passed their prime, and the rest of the world started understanding reverse swing better, this bowling "fearsomeness" has dissolved. Arguably South Africa and Australia, are much better bowling units in test cricket. Australia, without a doubt. And if you look at the last 15 months or so, even Indian pace bowlers have put up quality performances - without even looking at the stats - I would say that they may have out-performed their Pakistani counterparts in test cricket.

 

[www787]

If you think SRT wasnt exciting then you havent seen him bat in 90s. Check on youtube some of his innings in Sharjah specially against Aussies.

He became less agressive with the arrival of Sehwag and also due to his career threatening tennis elbow injury.

Everyone has seen sachin bat, and no one has question that he was better than Miandad. But, Miandad was a fighter with a mediocre batting team, unpredictable, he would steal runs from opposition as compare to hitting for boundaries, he would talk back, he would get under opposition skin.

Sachin would just bat and score runs.

and yes! you can bring another player who would talk back, or steal runs blah blah, you can compare anyone with anyone.