Indian stock bowlers- why can't they last longer?

[Manee]

While Kallis has bowled those spells in the 130's and even 140's, Ganguly is still useful as a 110k bowler. Besides, there's no reason why he can't increase his pace, if so many bowlers in other teams can increase theirs.

How do you propose that Ganguly increase his pace?

 

[Arjun]

The confusion obviously over the term 'stock bowler'. 'Part time' or 'fill in' may be a better term.

As for the answer, I wouldnt worry about it. You only need 10 overs a day approx. They dont have to be good, they just need to offer something different like Richards, Border, Boycott etc have done to a certain extent.

4 bowlers are enough to get the job done. 20 overs a day isnt an issue. Less than 1 spell per session. 'Part timers' are there to fill in if a rest is needed, or the game is meandering or to try something different.

I wouldnt be too bothered about how good they are. Obviously the better they are the better it is, but you are not going to win games (obvious rare example excepted) with the fill-in bowlers.

Sehwag and Ganguly are just fine, as long as they are not expected to fulfil a front line responsibility.

EDIT- Interestingly, Im looking at a random scorecard and it happens to be a game that India went into with only 2 specialist bowlers. Amazing.

Man for man, Ganguly and Sehwag can perform well as stock bowlers. Match for match, however, they don't get a chance.

The 'part-timers' don't provide enough rest- either they are introduced very late, or they are taken off after a very short time. That's how an out-of-form RP Singh or an out-of-ammunition Kumble bowled all those overs. If Kumble is bowling over 35 overs in every innings, without getting much, there is something wrong, either with the bowler, or the pitch, or (worse) the fielding. At least 15 overs can be taken off him by Sehwag.

A full front-line responsibility isn't important- that they have to have three slips and a gully, or open the bowling, or even final overs. They just have to hold one end up for a long time, so that the main bowlers recharge and come back better- and their series or match figures end up better.

Look at most of the best Test teams around. They've got (at least) five bowling options, with the notable exception of Australia- and even they feel the pinch after the retirement of McGrath and Warne. New Zealand's bowlers, individually, are not much good, but with help from Styris and Oram, are an effective bowling unit. South Africa have had Kallis bowling long spells, and while returns from one man haven't been remarkable, the whole unit does well. And of course, who can forget Sanath's services for the Lankan team? Or Gayle? At least one Indian batsman should do that.

 

[bond21]

also the path to being an allrounder is different than a straight bowler or batsman.

Someone like Flintoff of Kallis, they have worked hard at both batting and bowling, they are strong in one field slightly more, bowling and batting respectively, but they devote time to the other skill, because they have to, to improve it.

Someone like McGrath wouldve spent very little time on his batting and would be bowling for the majority of his training, although later in his career Steve Waugh helped him with his batting.

 

[silentstriker]

Tendulkar is a useful bowler too, don't forget. I rather like his bowling over Sehwag, though Sehwag has been in much better form with the ball lately.

 

[Arjun]

How do you propose that Ganguly increase his pace?

There may be bowling consultants, bio-mechanists (as with the Chappel years) or even fitness trainers to help him out there- get fit and sort out that action. A lesser player like Bangar got better pace, bowling with a proper action, and he was much fitter. Ganguly needs to improve on both.

 

[bond21]

I duno, what our team does is in test matches we have 4 front line bowlers - Johnson, Lee, Hogg and Clark.

Those 4 bowl 95% of all overs in a match, because theres 4 it allows 2 to rest at a time.

But when they need a change, they bring on symonds or clarke, which worked against india in Perth because Clarke got 3 wickets in an over or something to win the match, when the top bowlers couldnt.

In a test match you want your top bowlers to be bowling nearly all the time.

 

[silentstriker]

Ganguly is almost 36....it's hard enough for 22 year olds to improve pace...

Though obviously Ganguly is starting at a much lower point, so it might be possible, but really....at 36?

 

[Arjun]

Kallis is an exceptional bowler in his own right though, I imagine he would be a top line bowler for his FCC side in SA or county cricket in england.

Gayle is like Andrew Symonds but not doesnt have the medium pace option. He just bowls 100k and puts it on the spot, nothing special, hes a part timer but gets more of a bowl because WI dont have a decent spinner.

for ODIs you only need 4 bowlers to bowl 10 overs, then 1 bowler to bowl 10 or 2 to bowl 5 each or whatever.

They dont have to be top line bowlers, ie Clarke and Symonds bowl for Aus in ODIs, and rarely bowl in test matches, theyre just there to keep the runs down and maybe get a wicket because the batsman might relax with lee and johnson out of the attack.

Someone like Sehwag is good for ODIs because he just fires it in, not trying to spin it like Warne, knows his job.

Tendulkar flights it too much and a good batsman will punish him if he gets it slightly wrong.

But yea Kallis is a batting all rounder, although you wouldnt expect an all rounder to be one of the best batsmen in the world but he is.

Gayle isn't a frontline spinner, but he's used to fill in at least six overs an innings- and does it well. For a frontline batsman, he's doing a good job with the ball- doing just as expected. The West Indian bowlers have got enough support with Gayle's off-spin, and their part-timers, used very sparingly, are quite effective.

Flintoff is in a different league altogether- if India can find such a player, it would be fantastic, but even someone like Gayle or Symonds or especially Sanath would be just right.

 

[Manee]

There may be bowling consultants, bio-mechanists (as with the Chappel years) or even fitness trainers to help him out there- get fit and sort out that action. A lesser player like Bangar got better pace, bowling with a proper action, and he was much fitter. Ganguly needs to improve on both.

Ganguly is old though, he will be out of the international setup within approximately two years - I doubt he will do so much work just for some more pace. As for biomechanists, I truly doubt that India have any.

 

[Arjun]

Ganguly is almost 36....it's hard enough for 22 year olds to improve pace...

Though obviously Ganguly is starting at a much lower point, so it might be possible, but really....at 36?

Pollock was bowling in the 120's in the early 2000's, but got back in the 130's later. Likewise, even Kallis got back to the high 130's in the same period. Some pace bowlers (mostly South African or Kiwi or English) were bowling fast initially, then lost pace, then got it back- Harmison being a good example. Some bowlers get faster with age. There's no reason why it can't happen with an Indian, and it's just a case of bad management.

 

[Manee]

Ganguly is almost 36....it's hard enough for 22 year olds to improve pace...

I am getting timed today after a change in technique - lets see how hard it is for a 16 year old to improve pace

 

[Arjun]

Ganguly is old though, he will be out of the international setup within approximately two years - I doubt he will do so much work just for some more pace. As for biomechanists, I truly doubt that India have any.

Chappell handpicked someone from Australia as a biomechanist, and even some odd breed of sports scientist, to help him in such matters. The people in charge can definitely look abroad.

 

[Arjun]

I duno, what our team does is in test matches we have 4 front line bowlers - Johnson, Lee, Hogg and Clark.

Those 4 bowl 95% of all overs in a match, because theres 4 it allows 2 to rest at a time.

But when they need a change, they bring on symonds or clarke, which worked against india in Perth because Clarke got 3 wickets in an over or something to win the match, when the top bowlers couldnt.

In a test match you want your top bowlers to be bowling nearly all the time.

We see a lot more of Symonds and Clarke now, and that lineup isn't as strong as those including McGrath and Warne. For some time, Symonds was even played as a full-fledged all-rounder, after the 2005 Ashes. When the wickets are falling, you'd have the top four bowling all the time, but in some cases, it's not happening- especially in Sydney 2004, where Brett Lee got an over too many.

 

[bond21]

No way Ganguly will get over 130, hes 36 and if he could only bowl 115 whenever he did, no way he can bowl faster than that now.

Kallis is faster than 130, he bowls 140+ regularly from what i saw in the NZ series.

 

[Manee]

Chappell handpicked someone from Australia as a biomechanist, and even some odd breed of sports scientist, to help him in such matters. The people in charge can definitely look abroad.

Yes, Iain Frazier (IIRC), but I was just pointing out that I don't think they have one now. Personally, I believe that the international (especially Indian) schedule is too cramped that only a dropped player can work on bowling technique.

 

[Goughy]

Its very important to have someone to throw the ball to like a Sanath or a Symonds and (to my happiness) a Collingwood.

They do a valuable job. But again I maintain that its the option thats more important than the quality. You dont give these guys a bowl to take lots of wickets but to provide something different. Its nice if they are good but the results of games dont often hinge on the performance with the ball of such players.

I dont think Sri Lanka would have had their results drastically affected (maybe the odd game or 2) if Sehwag had bowled the overs Jayasuriya did.

The quality of the 5th bowler is a bonus but most importantly is that they exist and fulfil that backup role.

Dont get me wrong though. Id rather a Symonds or Jayasuriya bowl than a Trescothick, for example. It helps with the captains confidence and the balance of the side.

 

[Arjun]

No way Ganguly will get over 130, hes 36 and if he could only bowl 115 whenever he did, no way he can bowl faster than that now.

Kallis is faster than 130, he bowls 140+ regularly from what i saw in the NZ series.

We've seen and read enough about pace, but that's not the issue, as much as turning out enough overs to give those tiring arms some rest, and also picking up an extra wicket. There have been more batting all-rounders, for South Africa, New Zealand and Pakistan (or medium-pace bowling all-rounders who can also score runs) who have done well in that capacity, as medium-pace support bowlers.

 

[Manee]

If you overbowl part timers, you merely play in the batsman.

 

[shortpitched713]

The confusion obviously over the term 'stock bowler'. 'Part time' or 'fill in' may be a better term.

As for the answer, I wouldnt worry about it. You only need 10 overs a day approx. They dont have to be good, they just need to offer something different like Richards, Border, Boycott etc have done to a certain extent.

4 bowlers are enough to get the job done. 20 overs a day isnt an issue. Less than 1 spell per session. 'Part timers' are there to fill in if a rest is needed, or the game is meandering or to try something different.

I wouldnt be too bothered about how good they are. Obviously the better they are the better it is, but you are not going to win games (obvious rare example excepted) with the fill-in bowlers.

Sehwag and Ganguly are just fine, as long as they are not expected to fulfil a front line responsibility.

EDIT- Interestingly, Im looking at a random scorecard and it happens to be a game that India went into with only 2 specialist bowlers. Amazing.

Nah, every team needs a Jacques Kallis or they're nothing, imo.

 

[honestbharani]

The confusion obviously over the term 'stock bowler'. 'Part time' or 'fill in' may be a better term.

As for the answer, I wouldnt worry about it. You only need 10 overs a day approx. They dont have to be good, they just need to offer something different like Richards, Border, Boycott etc have done to a certain extent.

4 bowlers are enough to get the job done. 20 overs a day isnt an issue. Less than 1 spell per session. 'Part timers' are there to fill in if a rest is needed, or the game is meandering or to try something different.

I wouldnt be too bothered about how good they are. Obviously the better they are the better it is, but you are not going to win games (obvious rare example excepted) with the fill-in bowlers.

Sehwag and Ganguly are just fine, as long as they are not expected to fulfil a front line responsibility.

EDIT- Interestingly, Im looking at a random scorecard and it happens to be a game that India went into with only 2 specialist bowlers. Amazing.

link plz?