The significance of injuries to teams throughout test history.

[War]

I have always been one to take extreme important to this.

My simple stance to injuries to star players in major series is that..In test history, unless a team has the depth in back-up like West Indies 76-91, Australia 95-2006/07, England 1951-58, then if team loses a key player to injury it can significantly reduce the effectiveness of a side. Thus performances against such a weakened side needs to be taken into context.

Note: Even some leeway can be given to teams with certain teams with great debt, although they have proven they can win big series if they lose key players.

We look at the ongoing test match with IND & ENG at its fairly obvious that losing Khan reduces the potency of the Indian attack by 50%, that has been proven just recently in during their recent tour of S Africa. His presence alone psychologically lifts the other young Indian bowlers to bowl better.

Thus Indian if they lose the 1st test can rightfully claim that losing Zaheer could have made a significant difference in the outcome of the test.

You look at other international teams around the world like S Africa also and if they lose Steyn and Kallis (especially Kallis ability to bowl in a test) it weakens S Africa alot i.e vs England 09/10.

We saw many times of a fit Shane Bond the few times he played made a difference to New Zealand test fortunes compared to majority of time when he was injured.

These examples can be pointed out with many teams over the course of the last 135 years of test cricket. Given as aforementioned teams generally dont have depth to cover for individual player star players whose general test-by-test contribution plays a key part in them winnings consistently if they are a top team or being competitive if they are a weak team i.e John Reid with NZ in the 1960s.

I make this an issue since in my lifetime i see many cricket fans taking up the point of view that injuries are insignificant and are just a part of the game, that can be ignored. Which i have always found to be very short-sighted cricket reasoning.

Discuss..

 

[Owzat]

We look at the ongoing test match with IND & ENG at its fairly obvious that losing Khan reduces the potency of the Indian attack by 50%, that has been proven just recently in during their recent tour of S Africa. His presence alone physiologically lifts the other young Indian bowlers to bowl better.

You sure you don't mean psychologically?!?

 

[War]

You sure you don't mean psychologically?!?

Ye ha, i think the computer adjusted that word for some reason.

 

[6ry4nj]

Injuries - especially to faster bowlers - have had a huge impact on Test history. But that is not the same as saying history can be validly replaced by what-if scenarios regarding various injuries. Yes, what-if scenarios are of interest to historians, but they should not be mistaken for history.

Might make good fiction though...

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I think india are suffering as much from just having two seamers as they are suffering from not having khan. I'm pretty sure englands first innings would have been much the same had praveen been injured.

and the second innings score was screaming out for someone fresh to come in and break broad and prior up.

however yes, I do think khan is important to india's attack and they will be worse for his absence in the other tests if he sits out. every team struggles with these lynch pins. the aussies greatest spells have always coincided with them having a great spinner.

funnily for india, with them being so batting focused I sometimes feel they actually rely on having some good openers. with so little practice playing the moving ball they struggle to find openers but when they do they've had their best periods. sure seamers are important, but there's always someone.

 

[Chewie]

When Shane Bond played, New Zealand won 10 test, lost 2 and drew 6. When he didn't I think we won 9, lost 21 and drew 15. That's a huge impact on a side.

 

[shravi]

Injuries - especially to faster bowlers - have had a huge impact on Test history. But that is not the same as saying history can be validly replaced by what-if scenarios regarding various injuries. Yes, what-if scenarios are of interest to historians, but they should not be mistaken for history.

Might make good fiction though...

Took the words right out of my mouth. You can't live in this perfect parallel universe and imagine what could have happened because we simply don't know. There's a good chance it might have turned out differently but at the end of the day, it's pure speculation. An educated guess. Mistaking that for a fact is just plain stupid.

For example, India might have had a better chance if Zak was around in this match and there's a good chance that the result may have gone differently or maybe it would have been a closer victory for England. However, it didn't happen so all we can do is look to the next match and accept that England won. Injuries and selection issues are a part of any sport and you can't always have a best case scenario. It just isn't possible because the world isn't that perfect.

 

[War]

Injuries - especially to faster bowlers - have had a huge impact on Test history. But that is not the same as saying history can be validly replaced by what-if scenarios regarding various injuries. Yes, what-if scenarios are of interest to historians, but they should not be mistaken for history.

Might make good fiction though...

I'm certainly not suggesting the bold. I'm saying that the respective series in which a team loses a key player to injury and they may have lost needs to be taken into context.

Especially if they injured player is usually 100% fit & suddenly got injured for that key series that was lost. Given as i said in my opening, no team in test history expect for those 3 legendary teams have the back-up to cover for losing players which is usually the heart-beat of a side.

When you toured India for the majority of the last 15 years the challenge was facing the Indian spinner. Those spinner were Kumble & Harbhajan - not any other average spinner. So if a team had managed to beat India at home famously and those two key players were out injured (although this never happened), that would be significant. Since India invincibility at home was built around those two especially Kumble.

You look at two modern top teams India dont have cover for Tendulkar & Khan. S Africa dont have for Steyn & Kallis. They dont play a test & the potency of their performance decreases significantly. You have to recent 1st test vs S Africa & England to prove that case with Khan & you have the 2009/10 England tour to S Africa to prove that case with Steyn/Kallis.

So rather when one looks back at such a series in history one needs to make a major note that "Key player A & B" was missing & dont treat it on the same level as winning when those key players were fit.

One final example i'd give is with India last tour here in 2007 when they won 1-0. I always said that India win should be taken into context given England's entire 1st choice pace attack was out injured & the young green attack was never going to be strong enough to own that very experienced Indian top 7.

Fast-forward 4 years now & the same top-order is back basically & England have a top-class attack and although its early days. ENG full-strength attack is given that experienced top 7 the challenge that only a quality bowling attack can given them.

----------

Took the words right out of my mouth. You can't live in this perfect parallel universe and imagine what could have happened because we simply don't know. There's a good chance it might have turned out differently but at the end of the day, it's pure speculation. An educated guess. Mistaking that for a fact is just plain stupid.

Just to be clear i'm not saying the parallel should be mistaken for a fact at all. Absolutely not. Its obviously still speculation and a informative guess based cricket logics and players performances.

The only way it can be proven theoretically is if lets say you have back-to-back world championship test series and team (A), loses the series with 1-3 big players out. Then in the return series with those 1-3 returned team (A) wins.

But of course that doesn't always happen, given such return series back be years apart, Players may retire, form of players may have declined etc etc. Thats why i saw take the series in which a team (top team) loses key players to injury into context, dont treat beating the same way as when all their star players are fit.

For example, India might have had a better chance if Zak was around in this match and there's a good chance that the result may have gone differently or maybe it would have been a closer victory for England. However, it didn't happen so all we can do is look to the next match and accept that England won. Injuries and selection issues are a part of any sport and you can't always have a best case scenario. It just isn't possible because the world isn't that perfect.

Poor selections that weaken a team and injuries that weaken a team are different.

Selections are something that can be controlled, if wiser people are at the helm, especially if fit better players are being overlooked for less talented players and that team loses a series. That totally their fault, they deserve to lose.

Injuries are uncontrollable and can pop up at any time and potentially at the worst times. If a team like Australia in their hey-day with a player like McGrath who played every test for AUS non stop between 97-2001 (i believe he had a record for the most consecutive test players during this period) - got injured for a big series, that huge on AUS although they generally had enough quality depth during that time to win series in his absence (the few times he was absent mind you).

During that 2002-2007 period when Tendulkar was in and out due to his tennis-elbow problems and his performances had declined especially in test cricket, wasn't that a big problem for India?

 

[6ry4nj]

(does it matter what he said? it was the usual blah blah blah blah blah...for a very...very...very...very long time)

This is fun. I pre-empted what you were going to do. I refuted your replacing history with what-ifs before you did it. So instead of the usual three pages of replacing history with what-ifs, you said "no I'm not going to do that".

Then you posted the usual three pages of history replaced by what-ifs.

Hilarious! Hugely amusing!

 

[War]

This is fun. I pre-empted what you were going to do. I refuted your replacing history with what-ifs before you did it. So instead of the usual three pages of replacing history with what-ifs, you said "no I'm not going to do that".

Then you posted the usual three pages of history replaced by what-ifs.

Hilarious! Hugely amusing!

At no point in that post did i replace any aspect of history with a "what ifs" scenario due to injury. I dont know what you were reading.

Did you see me say anything like "if player/players A was not injured for series B - then the outcome of the series A would have definately X or Y, in players A teams favour?. No i didn't.

I merely said that series in which key players go missing should be taken into context when we review history of the said series. While being careful not treat it on the same level as if the major injured player was fit.

 

[sifter132]

Hmm I agree with the premise, but it can start a slippery slope of analysis. I mean I'm usually the first to point out that Sachin Tendulkar has only made TWO centuries against Australia when both Warne and McGrath were present in the Test side, while his other NINE against Australia have come with one, but mostly both of them missing.

But I like to make that the exception of when I rely on that kind of isolated breakdown. Because there's soon other general arguments that come up like, oh X player wasn't at his best in that series so the opposition's performances don't count eg. players coming back from injury or long lay offs, or players who have just started their career or have nearly ended it.

 

[War]

Hmm I agree with the premise, but it can start a slippery slope of analysis. I mean I'm usually the first to point out that Sachin Tendulkar has only made TWO centuries against Australia when both Warne and McGrath were present in the Test side, while his other NINE against Australia have come with one, but mostly both of them missing.

Yes but thats not much of an issue IMO really. Those two hundreds he scored was at MCG 99 & Chennai 2001 - cool.

Although McWarne weren't involved in the next nine. In playing vs AUS, Tendy generally always faced AUS attacks ranging from good to great except for:

- 98 tour to IND when the pace attack was average. Missing McGrath, Fleming, Gillespie

- 03/04 in AUS vs Bracken, Bichel, Williams, a injury plagued Gillespie and crap Lee as a test bowler in that time period.

- 2008 home series against an injury plagued and inexperienced AUS attack.

4 of those 11 hundreds were scored against these average attacks. So if you wish to ignore them when judging his performances proper AUS test attacks, then thats pretty fair.

But the:
- 91/92 attack of McDermott/Reid/Hughes
- 07/08 " if Lee/Clark at their peaks
- 2010 attack of Hilfy/Bollinger/Johnson bowling as unit for once

These were good attacks and his hundreds here count. Which im pretty sure if you calculate his average just for those series he would still have a healthy average vs the best AUS attacks in test during his career.

But I like to make that the exception of when I rely on that kind of isolated breakdown. Because there's soon other general arguments that come up like, oh X player wasn't at his best in that series so the opposition's performances don't count eg. players coming back from injury or long lay offs, or players who have just started their career or have nearly ended it.

Yep that's what you have to do.

 

[Robelinda]

4 of those 11 hundreds were scored against these average attacks. So if you wish to ignore them when judging his performances proper AUS test attacks, then thats pretty fair.

But the:
- 91/92 attack of McDermott/Reid/Hughes.

Yeah but dude his celebrated Perth ton was against Hughes, McDermott, Whitney and Reiffel (on debut). McDermott and Hughes were must underwhelming, long summer I guess, Reiffel was raw and innocuous and didn't trouble anyone. Whitney bowled really well however, like he mostly did when he wasn't injured. The Indians had played our attack so badly all series anyway bar Sydney, aside from Sachin's two tons the Indians series batting was awful, full of soft dismissals. Azhar played a gem of a knock on the last day in Adelaide, but mostly smacked around a hapless Warne, hit some nice drives off McDermott but boy he was shown up in every other innings, hopeless batting. The bowling fared a little better, Srinath was pretty darn good, the rest average.

 

[sifter132]

These were good attacks and his hundreds here count. Which im pretty sure if you calculate his average just for those series he would still have a healthy average vs the best AUS attacks in test during his career

Indeed, still great innings of course, just most of them weren't against the usual standard of Australian bowling you'd expect in that period. I just like pointing that out to worshippers I guess

I did the stat thing in another thread, Sachin vs Australia with McGrath in the team averages 36 (in 18 innings), without McGrath averages 73 (in 41 innings). Warne never gave him too many hassles, although apart from 1997/98 at least he kept Sachin fairly honest most of the time. But it was the relentless Pigeon that seemed to stifle and trouble him most. Ducking into low bouncers helped too Rather than gloating, those numbers in fact sadden me a bit, because despite both players having long careers, 2/3rds of the time Tendulkar has played Australia there's been no battle with McGrath

 

[Fenil]

Injuries to key players make a huge impact on the game and even the result of a match. India in the recent series is the best example of it.