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

[honestbharani]

Forget about Ganguly and Sehwag. Take a look at the upcoming young batsmen in India. Almost all of them can't bowl at even the levels of a Sehwag or Sachin or Sourav.... We will almost definitely need to play with 5 bowlers then. Rohit Sharma is a part timer to the extreme, Uthappa I have never seen bowl, Gambhir and Chopra ditto, Karthik is a wicket keeper and can't bowl, really...... And Raina and Kaif don't bowl at all these days. All we will have is Yuvraj and then that's it... Maybe if Badrinath comes in, because he does seem to be one guy who tries to bowl a lot. But the lack of even part time bowling options amongst our upcoming batsmen is shocking, to say the least.

 

[Goughy]

link plz?

This one.

Specialists
Raju
Srinath

Bowling Allrounders
Kapil
Prabhakar

Batting Allrounders
Shastri
Tendulkar

A little too far the other way for my liking. IMO, this is why its a question of balance. This series saw Pandit and More at 9. Just noone really fired with either bat or ball.

 

[viktor]

This one.

Specialists
Raju
Srinath

Bowling Allrounders
Kapil
Prabhakar

Batting Allrounders
Shastri
Tendulkar

A little too far the other way for my liking. IMO, this is why its a question of balance. This series saw Pandit and More at 9. Just noone really fired with either bat or ball.

But both Kapil and Prabhakar would have made the side as bowlers alone. So, apart from workload, I don't see a huge problem with that.

 

[Arjun]

This one.

Specialists
Raju
Srinath

Bowling Allrounders
Kapil
Prabhakar

Batting Allrounders
Shastri
Tendulkar

A little too far the other way for my liking. IMO, this is why its a question of balance. This series saw Pandit and More at 9. Just noone really fired with either bat or ball.

That's actually a good lineup. More an ideal Indian lineup.

 

[Goughy]

That's actually a good lineup. More an ideal Indian lineup.

Its a bowler light IMO. Balance is the key and whilst they can all do their job there seems to be a lack of firepower.

I saw a fair bit of Prabhakar and frankly he wasnt a very good Test bowler. If he was one of the top 3 seamers in the nation then I cant argue with the line-up. However, Id be looking for a 3rd specialist combinded with Kapil (bowling allrounder) and Shastri (batting allrounder).

The inclusion of Prabhakar seems over cautious, in addition to 2 other allrounders. Its possible that he justified selection as a specialist bowler and his batting was a bonus but were things really so thin back then? Maybe they were

 

[Arjun]

Who can do it best for India? Let's look at these options from the current squad:

Sehwag- The best bet, talentwise. Also the least useful. With Harbhajan being the top bowler after Kumble (the top bowler period, in ODI's), Sehwag may be one offie too many, unless used properly. He's a very intelligent bowler, and at his slow speed, will be difficult to hit out. His only real problem is his tendency to bowl no-balls and wides, which has reduced. And of course, age isn't on his side. The value he provides is as a second spinner abroad (or even home now), so that the team can pick three seamers and a spinner.

Ganguly- The most relevant of the group. However, also a lot less equipped to deal with the task. He's valuable because if India play four bowlers, they can pick their two spinners, who have over 700 wickets between them, as against three seamers who barely have as much collectively as one of the spinners. His most obvious problem is the stark lack of pace, as well a fitness issues, and also a terrible action- and his all-too-obvious reluctance to bowl- he thinks he's doing the team a big favour, and it shows in his mannerisms, his action and the no-balls and boundary-balls he bowls.

Tendulkar- In the late 90's, he was one of the best leg-spinners the team had, but hardly got a chance. He can turn the ball a great deal, and get a lot of bounce. He's also a handy off-spinner, and when needed, can bowl seam-up. The only problem is lack of practice, leading to lack of focus (explaining as many bowling styles as possible) and lack of consistency- at least two Tendulkar deliveries go over the ropes or into the stands. With injuries plaguing him now, and age not on his side, this bowling arm needs to rest.

Yuvraj- Youngest of the lot. Unfortunately the worst of the lot, and by a long margin. Remember Dimi?

Outside of them, there are options in SRK Vidyut (left-arm spinner for TN, who is also a quick-scoring batting mainstay), Yusuf Pathan (off-spinner who opens the OD batting for his teams), Sanjay Bangar (remember him? possibly the most under-rated cricketer to play for India in the 2000's, post-Robin Singh) and lesser-known contenders such as Rajat Bhatia (slow-medium swing/seam), Abhishek Nayar (sticky seamer), Ravi Jadeja (SLA) and Chandrashekhar Raghu (offie), but we'd be surprised if any of them made India A.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

That's actually a good lineup. More an ideal Indian lineup.

But only Pathan comes close to a Test quality bowling allrounder and you've already written off Sehwag/Tendulkar/Ganguly as a spare option. No comparison. Plus I don't think there's much balance in that attack. One decent part timer is enough in Tests (different altogether in ODIs), because as has been pointed out they only have to bowl 10 overs a day maximum - less if you have a really good frontline spinner or two.

Stom in a teacup IMO. You'd be better off looking to develop and criticise the frontline bowlers than try to coax extra pace of Ganguly, which TBH isn't the point. I also think India have much, much better part time options than most other sides. Australia have Symonds, West Indies have Gayle - I'm struggling to name many other batsmen who are better bowlers than Sehwag, Tendulkar and Ganguly after that. Collingwood, Clarke and Aftab Ahmed perhaps. Such players are very, very rare at Test level - it's hard enough to get there as a batsman alone after all.

 

[ret]

We have to understand that bowling requires constant practice and dedication .... The reason why some of the part-timers have not been able to go to the next level is probably because it's not easy to focus on two things, i.e. batting and bowling with the same amount of dedication. Today, one has to be at the top of the game so it's understandable that batsmen focus on their core competency more than anything else .... and let's not forget fielding which has to be spot on too

Part-timers are called part-timers for a reason while all-rounders are called all-rounders for a reason .... What India is lacking is a quality test level all-rounder i.e. someone who can be in the side for both his batting and bowling .... And since we are not able to find one, we struggle to create the right balance in the side .... this struggles makes us want to turn the part-timers in to all-rounders as if everyone can be turned in to one

As long as we don't find a genuine all-rounder, we will have to decide on the balance depending up on the surface [and to an extent the quality of bowlers available for selection]. If the surface is one where 4 bowlers can pick up 20 wkts then play 4 bowlers. If it's one where batsmen are going to have a good time then pick a 5th bowler who can also bat a bit like Pathan

 

[Goughy]

Interesting to see how the team composition of the other 3 teams playing a Test right now is different to that selected by India for this Test.

SA are blessed with Kallis so they can pick 4 bowlers are one of their specialist bats is a very good bowler. However, having a specialist batsman in de Villiers at 6 stopped the team getting rolloed over for a possible 250 or less.

Sri Lanka have picked just 4 bowlers and been rewarded with Silva (a batsman) top scoring at 7 and pulling the innings out of trouble. Only the 4 specialist bowlers used so far in WI innings

West Indies picked only specialist 3 bowlers and had the allrounder, Bravo at 7 and the wicketkeeper at 8. In the Sri Lanka innings all but 2 overs were bowled by the main 4 (those 2 being bowled by Gayle).

Indias selection policy looking very black and white TV. The game has long moved on from picking 5 batsmen, 5 bowlers and a keeper and selection and team roles are more sophisticated than this now. They need 4 bowlers and Sehwag and Ganguly filling in. In the same way England have Collingwood and, less so, KP.

You have to pick your best batsmen and then make your fill-in bowler oot of one of them. Unless its very close, then selecting a top order batsman just because he adds an extra dimention in terms of some bowling will weaken the batting too much.

 

[honestbharani]

There is no real hard and fast rule for selection, though, Goughy.......


You pick the combination that you think will be the best. This pitch obviously is not so difficult to bat on as has been demonstrated. On a lively pitch, your specialist #6 is just as likely to get knocked over as any Tom, Dick or Harry... You pick the sort of combination that you think will give you the best chance to win a match. With the sort of top 5 we have right now, it is more than enough to put the runs on the board. I understand Dhoni is no Boucher, or Gilchrist but even he can FTB his way to 100s in such conditions.


They picked 5 bowlers because it is our weak area and also because, given the options for #6 (Kaif and Yuvraj) are not exactly much better than Pathan as batsmen. What exactly do they average and how does it hold up against someone like Pathan? Picking a specialist batsman just for the heck of it will never work. And for the record, Pathan was the unbeaten guy in our disastrous first innings..... It is the top 5 (the shoe ins) who were at fault.....


Generally, I agree with you that ideally a team should have batsmen capable of scoring test 100s against quality opposition till #7 and also have a couple who can stick around and be annoying at 8 and 9. But when you don't have such options, you have to fiddle around a little bit with the combination depending on the conditions you encounter. Had this been a green top, I can see the logic in 6 batsmen. AS it is, it is a flat deck and it is obvious why the management might have felt that the extra bowling option was required.

 

[Arjun]

But only Pathan comes close to a Test quality bowling allrounder and you've already written off Sehwag/Tendulkar/Ganguly as a spare option.

I am game for Pathan to fill in the role of an all-rounder, but there is a lot of insecurity out there. It's just that he's better than having nobody in that role. I am also game for having one of Sehwag, Tendulkar or Ganguly as the fifth, full-time bowler but again, it's a question of the team management having faith in them or them having any interest. We talk of players putting their hands up to take wickets for their teams- but these Indian batsmen go about it like they're doing the team a big favour, and would prefer a walk on the outfield instead- with the exception of Sehwag.

No comparison. Plus I don't think there's much balance in that attack. One decent part timer is enough in Tests (different altogether in ODIs), because as has been pointed out they only have to bowl 10 overs a day maximum - less if you have a really good frontline spinner or two.

It all depends on how much your bowlers can take. Maybe you have a Murali, who can manage the loads of 50 overs an innings well, but not India's bowlers. They can't go beyond twenty in top form, then their shoulders droop, their arms ache and knees start wobbling- and some get injured, mid-series. India may have better bowlers, man-to-man, than most other teams, but they take more wickets collectively, when they have those service bowlers (Kallis and Hall for SA, Razzaq, Mahmood and Afridi for Pakistan, Styris and Oram for NZ, Collingwood for England, Gayle for WI, Sanath for SL) backing them.

Stom in a teacup IMO. You'd be better off looking to develop and criticise the frontline bowlers than try to coax extra pace of Ganguly, which TBH isn't the point.

If you keep blaming the bowlers, you're turning the revolving door fast enough to lose a lot of promising young bowlers as has happened with India. They've been sent on impossible missions with little or no help from fielders, keeper or batsmen-who-can-bowl. If anything, the bowlers are good raw material and need to be persisted with, and supported.[

I also think India have much, much better part time options than most other sides. Australia have Symonds, West Indies have Gayle - I'm struggling to name many other batsmen who are better bowlers than Sehwag, Tendulkar and Ganguly after that. Collingwood, Clarke and Aftab Ahmed perhaps. Such players are very, very rare at Test level - it's hard enough to get there as a batsman alone after all.

Symonds, Gayle and Collingwood (even Aftab) regularly contribute with the ball. Gayle is very much a full-time stock spinner for WI, and provides good balance to that team. Likewise, when the Aussie bowlers are tiring, Symonds does his job. None of India's batsmen who can bowl have shown that kind of value to the team.

 

[Arjun]

We have to understand that bowling requires constant practice and dedication .... The reason why some of the part-timers have not been able to go to the next level is probably because it's not easy to focus on two things, i.e. batting and bowling with the same amount of dedication. Today, one has to be at the top of the game so it's understandable that batsmen focus on their core competency more than anything else .... and let's not forget fielding which has to be spot on too

Pre-Dhoni, the Indian team made several colossal blunders with the wicketkeeping position. They picked the raw Parthiv Patel and Dinesh Karthik in Tests, hoping they'd- believe it or not- learn as they play more. Likewise, Dravid was played out of position as a keeper, hoping he too would learn to keep. That was a recipe for disaster.

In comparison, when these batsmen have to bowl, they don't have to match their frontline counterparts. They just have to get the job done. Just get a few overs off, with no damage done, and that will be enough. Some batsmen (Gayle outside, Sehwag within) enjoy bowling, and given how they bat, they're the best candidates for a dual role.

Part-timers are called part-timers for a reason while all-rounders are called all-rounders for a reason .... What India is lacking is a quality test level all-rounder i.e. someone who can be in the side for both his batting and bowling .... And since we are not able to find one, we struggle to create the right balance in the side .... this struggles makes us want to turn the part-timers in to all-rounders as if everyone can be turned in to one

Since India is still struggling to find a Test-class all-rounder, and they're not too keen on gambling with prospects (like I said, I'm game for Irfan, Yusuf or Grappler or even Robby for the position), so they have to make do with their 'best', 'safest' alternative. If you need to have 'six best batsmen' in the team, one of them will have to fill in as a regular bowler until the time they get that mystery all-rounder. It's a good idea to turn a part-timer into an all-rounder, as long as he's got the raw material. There's no point in making Rahul Dravid into an offie or keeper.

As long as we don't find a genuine all-rounder, we will have to decide on the balance depending up on the surface [and to an extent the quality of bowlers available for selection]. If the surface is one where 4 bowlers can pick up 20 wkts then play 4 bowlers. If it's one where batsmen are going to have a good time then pick a 5th bowler who can also bat a bit like Pathan

Like I said, I'm game for a risk, especially when the scene isn't that safe now.

 

[ret]

Pre-Dhoni, the Indian team made several colossal blunders with the wicketkeeping position. They picked the raw Parthiv Patel and Dinesh Karthik in Tests, hoping they'd- believe it or not- learn as they play more. Likewise, Dravid was played out of position as a keeper, hoping he too would learn to keep. That was a recipe for disaster.

In comparison, when these batsmen have to bowl, they don't have to match their frontline counterparts. They just have to get the job done. Just get a few overs off, with no damage done, and that will be enough. Some batsmen (Gayle outside, Sehwag within) enjoy bowling, and given how they bat, they're the best candidates for a dual role.
Since India is still struggling to find a Test-class all-rounder, and they're not too keen on gambling with prospects (like I said, I'm game for Irfan, Yusuf or Grappler or even Robby for the position), so they have to make do with their 'best', 'safest' alternative. If you need to have 'six best batsmen' in the team, one of them will have to fill in as a regular bowler until the time they get that mystery all-rounder. It's a good idea to turn a part-timer into an all-rounder, as long as he's got the raw material. There's no point in making Rahul Dravid into an offie or keeper.Like I said, I'm game for a risk, especially when the scene isn't that safe now.

filling in and being effective are two different things .... and like i said it's difficult to turn a part-timer into a good bowling all-rounder in tests, thats underestimating the bowling needed at the test level

from the e.g. that you gave above, India had Dravid as a WK in ODIs and not in tests .... and then discontinued with that coz Dravid was not able to meet the physical requirements of doing the two jobs .... which points that ppl do realize not risking the core competency of a player at the cost of playing dual roles .... an injury to Dravid while keeping would have been heart-breaking as it would have knocked out one of the top batsmen

 

[Arjun]

filling in and being effective are two different things .... and like i said it's difficult to turn a part-timer into a good bowling all-rounder in tests, thats underestimating the bowling needed at the test level

When the captain throws the ball to Sehwag, there's a differece between saying ' roll down those overs, Kumble needs rest' and 'come on, take five wickets and beat the world'.

from the e.g. that you gave above, India had Dravid as a WK in ODIs and not in tests .... and then discontinued with that coz Dravid was not able to meet the physical requirements of doing the two jobs .... which points that ppl do realize not risking the core competency of a player at the cost of playing dual roles .... an injury to Dravid while keeping would have been heart-breaking as it would have knocked out one of the top batsmen

The fact that Dravid was wicketkeeping for so long, as much as three years, shows how short of options they were before they found Dhoni, and that he kept wickets in nearly every match (bar seven) in the period shows that the management would not relent. That's no doubt an absolutely dumb thing to do with such a crucial position, but until there's a competent option, you are stuck with a batsman filling in.

Sehwag, for example, loves bowling, and being a big-hitting frontline batsman, he has no pressure on him to get wickets regularly, unlike the main bowlers. This should be exploited to help the team. It's better for the team to have Sehwag (or anyone) as a fifth bowler, rather than have no bowler at all.

 

[ret]

When the captain throws the ball to Sehwag, there's a differece between saying ' roll down those overs, Kumble needs rest' and 'come on, take five wickets and beat the world'.

The fact that Dravid was wicketkeeping for so long, as much as three years, shows how short of options they were before they found Dhoni, and that he kept wickets in nearly every match (bar seven) in the period shows that the management would not relent. That's no doubt an absolutely dumb thing to do with such a crucial position, but until there's a competent option, you are stuck with a batsman filling in.

Sehwag, for example, loves bowling, and being a big-hitting frontline batsman, he has no pressure on him to get wickets regularly, unlike the main bowlers. This should be exploited to help the team. It's better for the team to have Sehwag (or anyone) as a fifth bowler, rather than have no bowler at all.

But if it's just abt filling in and not being effective then whats the use of discussing this? Anyone can fill in, even Laxman can roll his arms over .... i have seen even WKeeprs bowl a few overs!!!!

 

[Arjun]

But if it's just abt filling in and not being effective then whats the use of discussing this? Anyone can fill in, even Laxman can roll his arms over .... i have seen even WKeeprs bowl a few overs!!!!

Look, this Indian team needs a fifth bowler. You can solve that best by picking a genuine all-rounder or someone who has that potential. Otherwise, you eithe play five bowlers, or play a specialist batsman as a fifth backup bowler.

As I said, I'm game for someone like Irfan Pathan or Sanjay Bangar or Praveen Kumar for the role, but if strengthening the batting is so important, then you'll have to explore the third option.

In this current lineup, the only batsmen who can adapt are Sehwag and Ganguly, so you have to use them with the ball to get the best effect, until you get that mystery all-rounder in the team.

 

[ret]

Look, this Indian team needs a fifth bowler. You can solve that best by picking a genuine all-rounder or someone who has that potential. Otherwise, you eithe play five bowlers, or play a specialist batsman as a fifth backup bowler.

As I said, I'm game for someone like Irfan Pathan or Sanjay Bangar or Praveen Kumar for the role, but if strengthening the batting is so important, then you'll have to explore the third option.

In this current lineup, the only batsmen who can adapt are Sehwag and Ganguly, so you have to use them with the ball to get the best effect, until you get that mystery all-rounder in the team.

why not keep it simple, i.e. if it's a pitch where the captain thinks that it's difficult to get bowled out twice [conversely bowl the opposition out twice too] then he plays a bowling all-rounder .... if he thinks that the opposition can bowl him out twice [conversley, his 4 main bowlers are good enough to ball out the opposition twice] then play the 7th batsman

 

[UncleTheOne]

i am disgusted tbh.

a thread title like that on CW, two pages in and not one response containing this...

 

[Arjun]

Looking at the South Africa innings here in Kanpur, Sehwag looked good bowling his off-spinners. He didn't give too much to hit to the batsmen, got good bounce and was ifficult to play. He even got a wicket for his efforts, and looked as good as a regular in this innings.

 

[Arjun]

In the last four Test series Sewag has played, he's bowled at least 178 overs, and picked up 21 wickets at an average a little over 20. That's very good for a part-timer. These figures, as well as the recent series, offer a useful option for the team, in case they play four bowlers (especially three seamers abroad) in Test matches. In the match at Kanpur, he's bowled like any regular, very smartly, getting good turn and bounce, surprising even the frontline SA batsmen. He's even bowled better than regular Chawla. They can use him as a fifth bowler, until the reserves find their feet and form.