Yasir Shah vs other Asian spinners

[Acricketfan]

I'm pretty sure Joshila thinks that Mishra is the best leggie in the world. Ashwin is the best offie in the world. Bhuv/Ishant/Umesh/Any other Kumar is the best pacer in the world.

Oh also Jaddu is the best left-armer in the world.

Or how Babar azam is a future atg.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I've been reading your posts for a long time now and i rate you as the best poster on this forum. Your data analysis is fantastic and to having stats are essential to have a debate but like you and others on this forum who try to prove your point with stats i would just say that stats are not scientific regarding cricket as to be scientific you can only have one variable i.e. the player and these stats have several variables such as weather conditons, pitch, team constitution(players) etc, not to mention time(different generations). Therefore, it is essential that you have watched these players in different conditions for a considerable time, even though this will only give a subjective view depending on your understanding of the game and honesty can be a better guide to a player than never seeing them and judging on stats alone. By the way Kumble may not have spun the ball much but was a damn good bowler in asian conditions, equally as important to India as Sacchin was . My point was not to disrespect Kumble but was to show that he is the second leading legspinner with 600 wickets(third in alltime wicket takers list) so if someone never saw him play would think he must of spun the ball like a kiddy's spinning top toy but he didnt. I guess what i am saying is you cant base your arguments on stats alone.

Hey thanks mate.

As for stats, I am a bit surprised you feel that way about me.

Sure, I am heavy on stats but I look at situations too. At times I have been wrong and I change my views when others point it out to me.

Yes, stats are not everything. And they cannot be used as a definitive tool when comparing players across eras cos lot of variables change.

For example, Kumble has 600 wickets but he doesn't have the same stature as Bedi, Prasanna or Chandrasekhar. Nor is he greater than someone like Derek Underwood or Lance Gibbs (in some ways, yes but not conclusively in an overall way - I am excluding longevity here). Ashwin averages 20 in Asia but there is no way anyone can use that stat to call him better than offie Prasanna (if they have compare them, they have to come up with another approach).

With all that being said, stats are an important tool to judge effectiveness (especially when comparing players of same era and one's career performances in various places).

Sometimes a bowler might bowl well in a country and still end up with bad averages (due to pitches for that series or players or whatever reason). But if there is a noticeable trend across their entire career, then it must be taken into account.

Some bowlers may have all the talent in the world but be inconsistent in games....or inconsistent with their line and length to effectively get wickets. Or not work on their game enough to be consistent. All these things matter.

I know the word over rated can look rude. I didn't mean that in that sense. Qadir was indeed well renowned all over the world for his skills and for a guy like him who could do so well in Pakistan, his performances in other countries were underwhelming.

From what I have heard he was extraordinarily talented but couldn't translate that into corresponding effectiveness.

Hence my comment.

 

[zoro]

Hey thanks mate.

As for stats, I am a bit surprised you feel that way about me.

Sure, I am heavy on stats but I look at situations too. At times I have been wrong and I change my views when others point it out to me.

Yes, stats are not everything. And they cannot be used as a definitive tool when comparing players across eras cos lot of variables change.

For example, Kumble has 600 wickets but he doesn't have the same stature as Bedi, Prasanna or Chandrasekhar. Nor is he greater than someone like Derek Underwood or Lance Gibbs (in some ways, yes but not conclusively in an overall way - I am excluding longevity here). Ashwin averages 20 in Asia but there is no way anyone can use that stat to call him better than offie Prasanna (if they have compare them, they have to come up with another approach).

With all that being said, stats are an important tool to judge effectiveness (especially when comparing players of same era and one's career performances in various places).

Sometimes a bowler might bowl well in a country and still end up with bad averages (due to pitches for that series or players or whatever reason). But if there is a noticeable trend across their entire career, then it must be taken into account.

Some bowlers may have all the talent in the world but be inconsistent in games....or inconsistent with their line and length to effectively get wickets. Or not work on their game enough to be consistent. All these things matter.

I know the word over rated can look rude. I didn't mean that in that sense. Qadir was indeed well renowned all over the world for his skills and for a guy like him who could do so well in Pakistan, his performances in other countries were underwhelming.

From what I have heard he was extraordinarily talented but couldn't translate that into corresponding effectiveness.

Hence my comment.

Fair comments. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future. Keep up the good work.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

So boys What's the major debate today ??

Anyways let's just call it peace now !! @All Pakistani Boys yar accept kar lo India is an ATG side (Past and Present) with the best bowlers ever produced from the subcontinent - Batsmen are just untouchable so I won't even go there . Never mind the averages and all; THEY ARE JUST ATG.

ACCEPT IT !! Now let's get back to beating Eng in Eng shall we

 

[Enforcer]

He is right.

Qadir is vastly overrated in PP.

Great spinner but did very little outside Pakistan.

Mustaq Ahmed was great outside Asia but in Asia he wasn't that great (averaged 30+ I think).

Its just that we have a tendency to over rate the past.

I don't know how Yasir will go from here (cos that's future where anything can happen) but he is on track to become the best ever spinner from Pakistan and one of the best ever from Asia.

over the top comment. Yasir is effective mainly because currently there n't many batsman in the world who could play spin well. Imagine yasir vs the kind of batsman we had in the 90's or in 00's.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Currently Yasir is better than Ashwin in tests. You just need to look at his performance at Lords. Yasir was looking like a dangerous bowler who can just run through a batting line up in a session. I am specifically talking about conditions which are not spin friendly.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

over the top comment. Yasir is effective mainly because currently there n't many batsman in the world who could play spin well. Imagine yasir vs the kind of batsman we had in the 90's or in 00's.

I said one of the best from Asia.

So if say XYZ spinner from this era takes say 300 wickets at say 25 average (or less), they are not one of the best from Asia cos batsmen are weaker?

I am sure you didn't mean that.

 

[Zak_Fan]

So boys What's the major debate today ??

Anyways let's just call it peace now !! @All Pakistani Boys yar accept kar lo India is an ATG side (Past and Present) with the best bowlers ever produced from the subcontinent - Batsmen are just untouchable so I won't even go there . Never mind the averages and all; THEY ARE JUST ATG.

ACCEPT IT !! Now let's get back to beating Eng in Eng shall we

One match.

Every single side that tours England has done that, including India and Sri Lanka (and they didn't do this against a depleted English attack).

 

[#GreenRoars]

One match.

Every single side that tours England has done that, including India and Sri Lanka (and they didn't do this against a depleted English attack).

Tbh, this is what i am afraid of I hope our team won't become over confident like some of our fans and will perform consistently. A good win here and there doesn't matter much if you lose series 3-1

Hoping for the best.

 

[Enforcer]

Currently Yasir is better than Ashwin in tests. You just need to look at his performance at Lords. Yasir was looking like a dangerous bowler who can just run through a batting line up in a session. I am specifically talking about conditions which are not spin friendly.

partially true. It was a dry pitch, and there was something for spinner. But it wasn't a turner and what yasir has done is outstanding.

 

[Surf]

India has never produced a single great ODI Spinner. All most all great ODI spinners from Asia have been Pakistani. And majority of great ODI spinners worldwide have been Pakistani. A hard fact for many here to digest

 

[endymion248]

Derek Underwood averaged 25 with balanced records playing from 1966.

Bedi played from 1966 and averaged 28 with decent country records and if you take away his last 2 years of struggle before retirement, his average is 26. Not all that different from underwood's stats.

This was the source of our debate and, as I mentionned repeatedly in various threads, Bedi only averaged 26 for a brief time. Taking 26 as his average is flawed as it was a brief minimum between periods before and after where his average was higher.

Here you can see a graph of Bedi's test average after each of his matches. The dotted line is an average of 26.

There is no ''final decline'', his average was consistently around 28-30, it's the 26.7 (still 2 points about Underwood) which is the exception.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This was the source of our debate and, as I mentionned repeatedly in various threads, Bedi only averaged 26 for a brief time. Taking 26 as his average is flawed as it was a brief minimum between periods before and after where his average was higher.

Here you can see a graph of Bedi's test average after each of his matches. The dotted line is an average of 26.

There is no ''final decline'', his average was consistently around 28-30, it's the 26.7 (still 2 points about Underwood) which is the exception.

1. I didn't say they were equal. I said not all that different from Underwood's stats (plus gave context for it in subsequent posts about the situation Bedi played in). Of course, that you can debate the comparison with Underwood (not that I made a direct one) which is totally fine.

2. Your point about average was well understood even back then. I didn't say he averaged more tests below 26 or contest the validity of the graph.

3. My points were simple and I have mentioned them a lot of times in this thread.

a. Average of 26 before 2 torrid final years. Standard way stats are used in cricket. You disagree with it for a reason.

b. For which I repeatedly said, he averaged 25.69 till end of 60s which makes up 28% of the tests in his career. Then he played 25% of his tests in a 2 year span and averaged 21 (thereby getting his overall average to 26 after 11 years of cricket - he retired 2 years later).

When someone averages sub 25 for 50% of his tests, then his stats (avg of 26) prior to 2 years of his retirement are not bogus. Especially considering that's how its done for all players.

You say no and see the graph.

I say yes and see the stat breakdown and % of tests and the common method used by all.

And that's our debate in a nutshell. There is really nothing more for us to discuss reg this.

 

[endymion248]

1. I didn't say they were equal. I said not all that different from Underwood's stats (plus gave context for it in subsequent posts about the situation Bedi played in). Of course, that you can debate the comparison with Underwood (not that I made a direct one) which is totally fine.

2. Your point about average was well understood even back then. I didn't say he averaged more tests below 26 or contest the validity of the graph.

3. My points were simple and I have mentioned them a lot of times in this thread.

a. Average of 26 before 2 torrid final years. Standard way stats are used in cricket. You disagree with it for a reason.

b. For which I repeatedly said, he averaged 25.69 till end of 60s which makes up 28% of the tests in his career. Then he played 25% of his tests in a 2 year span and averaged 21 (thereby getting his overall average to 26 after 11 years of cricket - he retired 2 years later).

When someone averages sub 25 for 50% of his tests, then his stats (avg of 26) prior to 2 years of his retirement are not bogus. Especially considering that's how its done for all players.

You say no and see the graph.

I say yes and see the stat breakdown and % of tests and the common method used by all.

And that's our debate in a nutshell. There is really nothing more for us to discuss reg this.

Firstly, it's not just ''final decline'', he didn't average 26 for most of his career and then have 2 bad years. There is this whole patch in the middle where he averages much more, had a golden patch where his average dropped to 26 and then final years where it rose again. This is not ''how it's done'', there is no rule that we should take average 2 years before retirement rather than average 1 year before retirement, 3 year before retirement, 4 year before retirement etc... And at all those points he averages above 28.

Secondly, you say that he had 50% of his matches where he averaged unde 25. His final average was 28.5, this means he had also 50% of his matches where he averaged above 31. And that includes the whole middle part of this career, not just the few matches at the end. That's the reason we see the whole average over a career rather than cherry-picking a few periods.

Thirdly, if he averaged 25 at the end of his 28th match, good for him. But, by the end the 50th, his average was 31. How bad did he have to perform to go from 25 to 31? This is why cherry-picking the good years is flawed. His overall average is 28.5 with the good years and the bad years.

Fourthly, no, there is no comparison to Underwood's stats. He averaged 25 compared to 28 for Bedi (not 26). If we cherry-pick Underwood's stats like you are doing then a few matches before retirement his average was high 23s. Should we say that his average is 23 vs 28 for Bedi just because we don't want to take the final few bad matches? No, we consider the whole career.

And you keep repeating ''that's how it's done for all-players'', nobody cherry-picks the good patches of a player otherwise everybowler out there would be consider a sub-25 bowler. It's either fundamentally dishonest or a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics to act like this cherry-picking is valid.

 

[The Last Of The Stars]

India has never produced a single great ODI Spinner. All most all great ODI spinners from Asia have been Pakistani. And majority of great ODI spinners worldwide have been Pakistani. A hard fact for many here to digest

Insightful post.

 

[endymion248]

b. For which I repeatedly said, he averaged 25.69 till end of 60s which makes up 28% of the tests in his career. Then he played 25% of his tests in a 2 year span and averaged 21 (thereby getting his overall average to 26 after 11 years of cricket - he retired 2 years later).

Waqar Younis:

Match 5 to Match 16 - Average 16.25

Match 19 to Match 32 - Average 17.07

Match 50 to Match 59 - Average 19.7

Therefore we can consider he averaged 17.

Malcolm Marshall career stats: 21

Thus Waqar>>>Marshall after thoroughly picking our stats.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Firstly, it's not just ''final decline'', he didn't average 26 for most of his career and then have 2 bad years. There is this whole patch in the middle where he averages much more, had a golden patch where his average dropped to 26 and then final years where it rose again. This is not ''how it's done'', there is no rule that we should take average 2 years before retirement rather than average 1 year before retirement, 3 year before retirement, 4 year before retirement etc... And at all those points he averages above 28.

Secondly, you say that he had 50% of his matches where he averaged unde 25. His final average was 28.5, this means he had also 50% of his matches where he averaged above 31. And that includes the whole middle part of this career, not just the few matches at the end. That's the reason we see the whole average over a career rather than cherry-picking a few periods.

Thirdly, if he averaged 25 at the end of his 28th match, good for him. But, by the end the 50th, his average was 31. How bad did he have to perform to go from 25 to 31? This is why cherry-picking the good years is flawed. His overall average is 28.5 with the good years and the bad years.

Fourthly, no, there is no comparison to Underwood's stats. He averaged 25 compared to 28 for Bedi (not 26). If we cherry-pick Underwood's stats like you are doing then a few matches before retirement his average was high 23s. Should we say that his average is 23 vs 28 for Bedi just because we don't want to take the final few bad matches? No, we consider the whole career.

And you keep repeating ''that's how it's done for all-players'', nobody cherry-picks the good patches of a player otherwise everybowler out there would be consider a sub-25 bowler. It's either fundamentally dishonest or a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics to act like this cherry-picking is valid.

That's not cherry picking but its called having more context (using stats) than just looking at tables. I get your point though. Got it a long time back.

After 19 tests (31 dec 1969 cut off), Bedi was good enough to average 25.68? That's 28% of his career. It doesn't matter if he averaged sub 25 after test 1 or test 5 or test 10 or test 15....what matters is he was good enough to get it to that mark after 19 tests. If a player can play one third of his career and get his average to 25.68...that is considered a freaking DECENT SAMPLE SET for his career (which is considered long enough for his era).

Same way he averaged 21 for like 17 tests which makes up another 25% of his career. If you do well to bring down your average (to 26) after playing 83% of your tests, then you DESERVE it.

If Ashwin retires now, his average is 25 cos he brought it down. It doesn't matter what his average was after test 1 or test 10 or test 15 or test 30. He was good enough to bring it down and that's that.

In case of Bedi, he has balanced records too so not like he played in one place and brought it down in a bogus way.

Reg Decline:

In his final years, he averaged 46 and 35 consecutively and I heard he declined as a bowler too. He never averaged this bad for 2 years consecutively before.

When he averaged 46 (in the only test in his debut year 1966 - ideally not a sample set and shouldn't be taken), the next year he averaged 31 (4 tests).
When he averaged 37 in 1971 (8 tests), he had averages of 20 and 19 in either side (1969, 1972) of that year.
When he averaged 46 in 1974 (5 tests), he averaged 30 and 29 on either side of it.

Only during his decline, he averaged bad for 2 years consecutively (43 over 11 tests - 35 and 45 average in 2 years) and retired.

----

Disagree with that all you want.

Disagree with the fact that he was a 26 average bowler because he was TECHNICALLY not below 26 for lots of tests. I never contested that.

But what matters is that if a bowler after 11 years (of a 13 year career) has 26 average at the end (with great periods of sub 25 average when you break things down) and then declines as a bowler plus has his stats taken for a toss a bit....any reasonable person would take that average of 26 and accept it.

Just cos he had random bad years doesn't mean its the same when he declines and genuinely has bad years. Stats will say both are same. Context will say NO.

Anyways, you can take Bedi to be a 28 average bowler and that's fine too.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Waqar Younis:

Match 5 to Match 16 - Average 16.25

Match 19 to Match 32 - Average 17.07

Match 50 to Match 59 - Average 19.7

Therefore we can consider he averaged 17.

Malcolm Marshall career stats: 21

Thus Waqar>>>Marshall after thoroughly picking our stats.

Marshall is greater due to context also and not just stat.

Failed example.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

So far . Terrible figures for Yasir. 1 for 247. Getting the ohainty of his life.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

b. For which I repeatedly said, he averaged 25.69 till end of 60s which makes up 28% of the tests in his career. Then he played 25% of his tests in a 2 year span and averaged 21 (thereby getting his overall average to 26 after 11 years of cricket - he retired 2 years later).

To use this to make a sarcastic remark about Waqar averaging 17...?

I didn't use this point to prove that Bedi is a sub 25 bowler. He is not. I said it was valid enough to give credibility to his overall numbers (avg of 26 after 11 years out of 13 years of his career).

My God...

Anyways, what was supposed to be a casual remark about Bedi turned into a full blown pointless discussion.

Whatever I have to say I have said. I am done with this.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Just to clarify:

Someone averaging around 26 throughout his career will be considered as having better overall career stats than Bedi's 26 avg (which was brought down).

In that comparison, the graph you bring out will be handy.

Underwood probably has that but I am not saying bedi has equal career stats to him anyways.

 

[blue_champion]

As I said comparing Yasir and Ashwin is pointless..:different kids of spinners but as a total package as a cricketer + all 3 formats ,i guess the debate is pretty much settled as of 07/24/2016 RIP

 

[SL_Fan]

Yasir is still top notch and easily the best Test spinner going around. Just having one of those games.

 

[#GreenRoars]

Test : Shah >

LOIs : Shouldn't be in squad.

 

[endymion248]

After 19 tests (31 dec 1969 cut off), Bedi was good enough to average 25.68? That's 28% of his career. It doesn't matter if he averaged sub 25 after test 1 or test 5 or test 10 or test 15....what matters is he was good enough to get it to that mark after 19 tests. If a player can play one third of his career and get his average to 25.68...that is considered a freaking DECENT SAMPLE SET for his career (which is considered long enough for his era).

After 40 tests, his average was 31. That's 58% of his career. Since his overall career average is 28.5, it means that we shouldn't consider his 28.5 average but rather say that he is an atrocious bowler with an average of 31. Sure, he got it down to 26 later on but he ended up with 28.5 and on top of that spent 58% of his career above 31 so we should obviously not take into account the good patches. That's how your argument is looking.

If Ashwin retires now, his average is 25 cos he brought it down. It doesn't matter what his average was after test 1 or test 10 or test 15 or test 30. He was good enough to bring it down and that's that.

Except Bedi didn't retire now. If every bowler retired in the middle of their gold patch then we'd have hundreds of bowlers with averages under 25.

Reg Decline:

In his final years, he averaged 46 and 35 consecutively and I heard he declined as a bowler too. He never averaged this bad for 2 years consecutively before.

When he averaged 46 (in the only test in his debut year 1966 - ideally not a sample set and shouldn't be taken), the next year he averaged 31 (4 tests).
When he averaged 37 in 1971 (8 tests), he had averages of 20 and 19 in either side (1969, 1972) of that year.
When he averaged 46 in 1974 (5 tests), he averaged 30 and 29 on either side of it.

Only during his decline, he averaged bad for 2 years consecutively (43 over 11 tests - 35 and 45 average in 2 years) and retired.

So, according to your own stats, he averaged 30 in 1973 and 43 in 1974. That's definitely two consecutive bad years if you are taking 35 and 45. What would his average have been if he retired in 1974? Should we discredit everything that happened afterwards?

But what matters is that if a bowler after 11 years (of a 13 year career) has 26 average at the end (with great periods of sub 25 average when you break things down) and then declines as a bowler plus has his stats taken for a toss a bit....any reasonable person would take that average of 26 and accept it.

Except, again, he didn't have an average of 26 at the end, it was 28.5. The point where he had an average of 26 is random point of your choosing, not the end. There are 10-20 other random points we can call the end where his average was far higher.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Yeah he averaged 31 after 58% of his career but he also brought it down to 26 at 83% of his career tests before he declined. And he did that by doing well both home and overseas and got it down fair and square.

Now hypothetically speaking, if Bedi had retired with a flourish after the end of 1977 (instead of 1979), the dude would have had 26.xx average after 11 long years (which is a solid sample set). This is not similar to retiring after a few peak years.

In that case, I guess you would go like:

"I know Bedi averages 26 overall after 11 long years but since he just averaged less than 26 for only 2 tests and averaged 28 for most tests...I would consider him as a 28 average bowler EVEN THOUGH his career overall average is 26."

That's how absurd your logic looks.

Would love to see how many people would have bought your angle then.

Fact is simple:

1. If someone can average 26.xx after 11 long years (playing 83% f his tests) and then decline for 2 years...I would consider that average as golden.

2. Just because you have bad years in between doesn't mean its the same as your bad years when you decline which happens for a lot of cricketers. Stats would say both are same but context would say they aren't.

3. If we compare Bedi with a player who averages 26 consistently over his career, then in that case, your graph is fair and you can say that player had better overall career stats cos he maintained it across his career unlike Bedi.

That in nutshell sums up my views.

Uncomplicated, non-nitpicky and a perfectly reasonable and fair way to look at things.

And with this, I think I have literally said everything that I have to say.

 

[Xeeebon]

Compare: Yasir Shah, Rangana Herath and Ravichandran Ashwin (Tests)

As they are being excellent in test for their respective teams and being the frontline bowler for their respective teams win or at least draw in test...i'd love to hear pper's about comparison of these three.Thanx.

 

[endymion248]

Yeah he averaged 31 after 58% of his career but he also brought it down to 26 at 83% of his career tests before he declined. And he did that by doing well both home and overseas and got it down fair and square.

Now hypothetically speaking, if Bedi had retired with a flourish after the end of 1977 (instead of 1979), the dude would have had 26.xx average after 11 long years (which is a solid sample set). This is not similar to retiring after a few peak years.

In that case, I guess you would go like:

"I know Bedi averages 26 overall after 11 long years but since he just averaged less than 26 for only 2 tests and averaged 28 for most tests...I would consider him as a 28 average bowler EVEN THOUGH his career overall average is 26."

That's how absurd your logic looks.

Would love to see how many people would have bought your angle then.

Fact is simple:

1. If someone can average 26.xx after 11 long years (playing 83% f his tests) and then decline for 2 years...I would consider that average as golden.

2. Just because you have bad years in between doesn't mean its the same as your bad years when you decline which happens for a lot of cricketers. Stats would say both are same but context would say they aren't.

3. If we compare Bedi with a player who averages 26 consistently over his career, then in that case, your graph is fair and you can say that player had better overall career stats cos he maintained it across his career unlike Bedi.

That in nutshell sums up my views.

Uncomplicated, non-nitpicky and a perfectly reasonable and fair way to look at things.

And with this, I think I have literally said everything that I have to say.

Now hypothetically speaking, if Bedi had retired in 1976 (instead of 1979), the dude would have had 30.xx average after 10 long years (which is a solid sample set).

But he didn't retire in 1976 or 1977, he retired in 1979, that's why he is a 28.5 average player and no better.

It's very important that he averaged under 27 for only 3-4 test matches, despite your hand-waving over it. Because you are taking an arbitrary point to say ''had he retired here''. He played 67 matches. If ''hypothetically'', he retired before he actually did, he was far more likely to have averaged over 30 than under 27 as he only averaged under 27 for 3-4 matches but averaged over 30 4x more.

 

[endymion248]

But this is pretty pointless, it's like trying to explain grammar to someone who can't read. Your total lack of understanding for stats is evident for any reader, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Abhilash93]

But this is pretty pointless, it's like trying to explain grammar to someone who can't read. Your total lack of understanding for stats is evident for any reader, I'll leave it at that.

Pl elaborate.

From what I know, A confidence interval of above 80% is pretty decent for a test of significance in this context.

 

[Ab Fan]

Ashwin will go down as a greater cricketer among three.

Yasir will also end up with very high regards.

They have long way to go though.

 

[endymion248]

Pl elaborate.

From what I know, A confidence interval of above 80% is pretty decent for a test of significance in this context.

It is not considering a single match can represent 10% of the player's total wickets at that point. And you can see it on Bedhi's career average, he goes from averaging 30, next 26.7, next 28.5 again.

 

[Abhilash93]

It is not considering a single match can represent 10% of the player's total wickets at that point. And you can see it on Bedhi's career average, he goes from averaging 30, next 26.7, next 28.5 again.

That amount of standard deviation will always be there. Analyse any bowlers stats. What threshold of p value are you really looking for ?

 

[pullshot]

Ashwin is best spinner in the world and if you add his batting as well he is one of the best player in test cricket at the moment.

 

[endymion248]

That amount of standard deviation will always be there. Analyse any bowlers stats. What threshold of p value are you really looking for ?

That's the reason you can't cherry-pick a single point in a player's career. No amount of ''games played'' is statistically significant as, by definition, if the amount of games played was enough, then the end of career average would be the same as the p-value (or near enough to be irrelevant). I prefer to look at the overall trend, ie how many times in his career did a player have an average under a certain threshold.

 

[The Last Of The Stars]

Ashwin's bowling average will be disturbed after playing some Tests in Australia and England. So far, his bowling average is inflated due to cricket on spinning tracks.

 

[geraltofrivia]

Ashwin's bowling average will be disturbed after playing some Tests in Australia and England. So far, his bowling average is inflated due to cricket on spinning tracks.

Thing is he has played matches there and his current average includes that. Yasir has played less matches there and still more to come so that average will go up even further.

Besides Ashwin has a better average in England than Yasir.

 

[The Last Of The Stars]

Thing is he has played matches there and his current average includes that. Yasir has played less matches there and still more to come so that average will go up even further.

Besides Ashwin has a better average in England than Yasir.

Yasir can click more in England and Australia, compared to Ashwin, so his average can get even better. Ashwin improved his average mainly in the Tests against South Africa on rank turners. His big test will be in England and Australia.

 

[Chokli]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION], is he still good?

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION], is he still good?

Yasir is facing 2 personal challenges - 1. he has cheated at least 6 years of age (if he is just 33, then Afridi & Razzak are indeed in their 30s yet). 2. He is very unprofessional with his fitness (diet), for his once he tried wife's pill to reduce weight. Without much variations, his main weapons are his accuracy and stamina - those 2 challenges are very much against him.

No, I don't think Yasir is that good any more. He'll still run through sides on odd days like the NZ 2nd Test, but we'll not see the same Yasir Shah again. PAK better find couple of spinners o share the work load in UAE otherwise this tactics of bowling 85+ overs by Yasir is going to invite lots of eggs on face in future.