Pakistan's bowling and India's batting?

[Sanz]

Qadir, Saqlain. Mushtaq, Kaneria. Think before you speak

Bedi, Chandra, Kumble, Venkat, Gupte, Prasanna.

 

[subshakerz]

Bedi, Chandra, Kumble, Venkat, Gupte, Prasanna.

Four of those five are from the 70s or before. India didn't produce any notable spinner in the 80s unlike Pakistan who had Iqbal Qasim and Qadir and Pakistan's spinners Mushtaq and Saqlain frankly were better than Kumble in the 90s. This decade its been India with Kaneria and Harbajan around the same level but overall Pakistan and India are very close in the spinning stocks if you look at the last few decades altogether.

 

[Sanz]

Four of those five are from the 70s or before. India didn't produce any notable spinner in the 80s unlike Pakistan who had Iqbal Qasim and Qadir and Pakistan's spinners Mushtaq and Saqlain frankly were better than Kumble in the 90s. This decade its been India with Kaneria and Harbajan around the same level but overall Pakistan and India are very close in the spinning stocks if you look at the last few decades altogether.

Actually India did produce some good spinners in 80s SivaramKrishnan, Maninder Singh are the two names come to mind, that they couldn't handle the pressure of international cricket is a different matter. Not saying they were as good as Qadir, Qasim though . And no Mushtaq/Saqlain were not better than Kumble, IMO It is not even close and neither is Kaneria as good as Bhajji.

 

[aussie]

I'd say Saqlain at his peak was better than Kumble. Just like how Botham at his peak was probably better than Imran as an all-rounder. But overall career wise Kumble would win.

 

[Uppercut]

Four of those five are from the 70s or before. India didn't produce any notable spinner in the 80s unlike Pakistan who had Iqbal Qasim and Qadir and Pakistan's spinners Mushtaq and Saqlain frankly were better than Kumble in the 90s. This decade its been India with Kaneria and Harbajan around the same level but overall Pakistan and India are very close in the spinning stocks if you look at the last few decades altogether.

Would rate Kumble far ahead of Mushtaq and Saqlain. Doing it for twenty years and ending up third in the all-time wicket-takers list has to count for something, even if he may not have been at Saqlain's level for the relatively tiny period when he was at his peak.

 

[Sanz]

I'd say Saqlain at his peak was better than Kumble. Just like how Botham at his peak was probably better than Imran as an all-rounder. But overall career wise Kumble would win.

Saqlain was a better Test bowler than Anil for a very short period but basically we can not compare someone who took 600+ wickets to someone who took 200 wickets .

And I do not want to sidetrack this but IMO Imran isn't a better allrounder than Botham, neither at peak nor overall.

 

[Shri]

We have got Mishra, Murali Karthik, Ojha, Chawla who can all be called up to replace a front line test match spin bowler without losing a lot of quality. India's spin bowling bench strength is way better imo.

 

[aussie]

Saqlain was a better Test bowler than Anil for a very short period but basically we can not compare someone who took 600+ wickets to someone who took 200 wickets.

It depends. I would say John Snow was better bowler than Walsh although he took 200 & Walsh 500.

And I do not want to sidetrack this but IMO Imran isn't a better allrounder than Botham, neither at peak nor overall.

At their respective 'all-rounder" peaks as batsmen Botham (77-84) was the better batsman, while Imran the better bowler during his peak years (80-88). But yea overall career wise Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

Actually India did produce some good spinners in 80s SivaramKrishnan, Maninder Singh are the two names come to mind, that they couldn't handle the pressure of international cricket is a different matter. Not saying they were as good as Qadir, Qasim though . And no Mushtaq/Saqlain were not better than Kumble, IMO It is not even close and neither is Kaneria as good as Bhajji.

Even you admit India didn't produce any worldclass spinners in the 80s (SivaramKrishnan played a grand total of 9 tests).

And I said Mushtaq and Saqlain were better than Kumble in the 90s, not career-wise. Mushtaq Ahmed in the 90s was able to win tests in New Zealand, Australia, England, and South Africa, something Kumble didn't come close to in the entire decade. Saqlain at his peak in the 90s was near Murali/Warne level, and was well ahead of Kumble at that time. It was only in the 2000s that Kumble experience success outside India consistently, by that time Saqlain and Mushtaq were near gone.

Over the course of their career, no doubt Kumble was better, but in the 90s, he was not.

 

[subshakerz]

My whole point about the spinners is that for twenty something years (1980-2000) Pakistan unquestionably had better spinners than India. So I think it is a stretch to say that India is "miles ahead" of Pakistan overall in the spinning category, even if they are ahead now or were in the 70s.

 

[Uppercut]

We have got Mishra, Murali Karthik, Ojha, Chawla who can all be called up to replace a front line test match spin bowler without losing a lot of quality. India's spin bowling bench strength is way better imo.

That's a pretty good point. Pakistan have pretty decent strength in depth in the spin department too though. Kaneria, Afridi, Ajmal. A bowler of the class of Imran Tahir never even got a look in!

 

[Shri]

Knew you were going to quote my post and reply when I typed 'Mishra' tbh.

 

[Sanz]

My whole point about the spinners is that for twenty something years (1980-2000) Pakistan unquestionably had better spinners than India. So I think it is a stretch to say that India is "miles ahead" of Pakistan overall in the spinning category, even if they are ahead now or were in the 70s.

Because history of India Pak cricket does not contain only 20 years of cricket and even those 20 years the spinner from India had as much (if not more) success as the Pakistani spinners. Yes for few years they were ahead but since Kumble's arrival India has been ahead fairly easily in spin bowling department.

 

[Sanz]

Even you admit India didn't produce any worldclass spinners in the 80s (SivaramKrishnan played a grand total of 9 tests).

And I said Mushtaq and Saqlain were better than Kumble in the 90s, not career-wise. Mushtaq Ahmed in the 90s was able to win tests in New Zealand, Australia, England, and South Africa, something Kumble didn't come close to in the entire decade. Saqlain at his peak in the 90s was near Murali/Warne level, and was well ahead of Kumble at that time. It was only in the 2000s that Kumble experience success outside India consistently, by that time Saqlain and Mushtaq were near gone.

Over the course of their career, no doubt Kumble was better, but in the 90s, he was not.

Saqlain was never in Murali/Warne level. And no Mushtaq did not win all those matches by himself, Most of those matches that you are suggesting Pakistan won because of Mushtaq's performance is simply not true. He sure was part of the teams that won those matches but the Pakistani pace attack of the 90s was the main hand behind those wins.

Mushy and Saqi had never had to carry the load of Pakistan bowling on their shoulders in the 90s, Kumble did that effectively for 20 years. It is so easy to come and bowl along with guys like Akram, Imran, Waqar and Shoaib. and so many others who were as talented as those four but couldn;t last in International Cricket The fact is that Mushy/Saq couldn't do much after the decline of the those guys shows a lot about their talent level(in comparison to Kumble) and the success they achieved during their career. Not saying they were not world class, but just not in Kumble's class .

 

[subshakerz]

Saqlain was never in Murali/Warne level. And no Mushtaq did not win all those matches by himself, Most of those matches that you are suggesting Pakistan won because of Mushtaq's performance is simply not true. He sure was part of the teams that won those matches but the Pakistani pace attack of the 90s was the main hand behind those wins.

Saqlain at his peak in the late 90s was near Murali/Warne level, but even if he was not he was comfortably better than Kumble at that stage.

As far as Mushtaq's performance? Here are a few scorecards of his performances away from home in the 90s. Sure, you can suggest that he had help from pacers but to simply write them off when Kumble never performed well outside of India in that decade is silly. He was man of the match is all these victories.

2nd Test: South Africa v Pakistan at Durban, Feb 26-Mar 2, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
3rd Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 22-26, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
Only Test: New Zealand v Pakistan at Christchurch, Dec 8-12, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
3rd Test: Australia v Pakistan at Sydney, Nov 30-Dec 4, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Mushy and Saqi had never had to carry the load of Pakistan bowling on their shoulders in the 90s, Kumble did that effectively for 20 years. It is so easy to come and bowl along with guys like Akram, Imran, Waqar and Shoaib. and so many others who were as talented as those four but couldn;t last in International Cricket The fact is that Mushy/Saq couldn't do much after the decline of the those guys shows a lot about their talent level(in comparison to Kumble) and the success they achieved during their career. Not saying they were not world class, but just not in Kumble's class .

The same argument could be made for saying that Kumble was better than Warne in the 90s. Do yourself a favor and check out how well Kumble did in England in 96, SA in 97, New Zealand in 98 and Australia in 99 before you suggest that Kumble was so faaar superior than Mushtaq and Saqlain in that decade. If the pitch wasn't prepared for him, he floundered. Again, in the 90s, Kumble was pretty much a lion at home and toothless abroad. Mushtaq and Saqlain were not.

 

[Richard]

Really? Perhaps they are ahead now, but if you look at the last few decades it would be hard to declare India "miles ahead". They certainly were better in the 70s with their spin quartet, but they had virtually no spinner of note in the 80s whereas Pakistan had both Abdul Qadir and Iqbal Qasim. In the 90s Kumble was their worldclass spinner but was pretty much useless outside of India for the entire decade, whereas Pakistan had both Mushaq Ahmed and Saqlain who were matchwinners home and abroad. In the 2000s Kumble improved abroad and Harbajan has taken over his mantle while Kaneria is frankly around Harbajan-level, with Ajmal and Mishra looking like decent prospects.

Overall, India might perhaps have a slight edge, but "miles ahead"? I think not.

Mushtaq Ahmed was only a matchwinner for 2-3 years; for the rest of the time he was hopeless at Test level. Likewise Saqlain was, just like Kumble, only a good bowler on a turning deck.

Over history India come-out on top over Pakistan in spin. Pakistan's only two particularly good spinners have been Abdul Qadir and Iqbal Qasim.

 

[Sanz]

Saqlain at his peak in the late 90s was near Murali/Warne level, but even if he was not he was comfortably better than Kumble at that stage.

Well I think we should just agree to disagree on this.

As far as Mushtaq's performance? Here are a few scorecards of his performances away from home in the 90s. Sure, you can suggest that he had help from pacers but to simply write them off when Kumble never performed well outside of India in that decade is silly. He was man of the match is all these victories.

2nd Test: South Africa v Pakistan at Durban, Feb 26-Mar 2, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
3rd Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 22-26, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
Only Test: New Zealand v Pakistan at Christchurch, Dec 8-12, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
3rd Test: Australia v Pakistan at Sydney, Nov 30-Dec 4, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Kumble did that too and obviously had very little help from his team mates. But I can't explain it to someone who has made up his mind.

2nd Test: South Africa v India at Johannesburg, Nov 26-30, 1992 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
2nd Test: Sri Lanka v India at Colombo (SSC), Jul 27-Aug 1, 1993 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
1st Test: West Indies v India at Kingston, Mar 6-10, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
2nd Test: West Indies v India at Port of Spain, Mar 14-18, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

The same argument could be made for saying that Kumble was better than Warne in the 90s. Do yourself a favor and check out how well Kumble did in England in 96, SA in 97, New Zealand in 98 and Australia in 99 before you suggest that Kumble was so faaar superior than Mushtaq and Saqlain in that decade. If the pitch wasn't prepared for him, he floundered. Again, in the 90s, Kumble was pretty much a lion at home and toothless abroad. Mushtaq and Saqlain were not.

Kumble was indeed ordinary in 1996-97, partly because he was going through a shoulder injury and mostly because he was over bowled. Besides I am not picking an choosing and including only 90s or when these guys peaked, when I compare Saqlain/Mushtaq with Kumble I look at their careers not what they did in one test or what they did when they were at their peak for 2 months. I look at Kumble's career overall and how well he did and when I look at it objectively I see that Mushtaq/Saqlain are nowhere close as bowler.

Were they talented as much as Kumble, definately perhaps more, but did they perform as well as Anil. Not even close.

 

[bagapath]

amar singh, karsan ghavri, kapil dev, roger binny, madan lal, zaheer khan and irffan pathan - all meat eating indian pace bowlers. and none as good as imran, akram, waqar, fazal and shoaib. in fact, srinath - a vegetarian fast bowler was better than all of them except kapil. i dont get this "pakistani pacers are better coz they are meat eaters whereas indian pacers are veggies hence they are inferior" logic. it is totally fabricated.

 

[Richard]

It's become something of a CW joke, and for good reason - the poster who initially pushed it was something of a joke.

Nonetheless, it isn't a theory with no basis in logic. There is no doubt that, for all the long-term health negatives of meat-eating, until pretty recently meat-eaters were by-and-large better-built than vegeterians (these days all the supplements you can get mean vegeterians can easily rival meat-eaters for size and strength with the right training). The fact that some Indian meat-eating bowlers can be named who were still inferior to Pakistani ones does not in itself prove that, any more than anything proves there's a strong correlation between meat-eating and being a good seam bowler. Inherant talent obviously plays a fair part as well, far more in fact than any dietary upbringing.

For two people of roughly equal talent, youth diet can easily make an impact on who turns-out best. The likes of Imran Khan were simply supremely talented bowlers, and no amount of diet was going to make an Indian of lesser talent close to equal.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

amar singh, karsan ghavri, kapil dev, roger binny, madan lal, zaheer khan and irffan pathan - all meat eating indian pace bowlers. and none as good as imran, akram, waqar, fazal and shoaib. in fact, srinath - a vegetarian fast bowler was better than all of them except kapil. i dont get this "pakistani pacers are better coz they are meat eaters whereas indian pacers are veggies hence they are inferior" logic. it is totally fabricated.

Like some else said on this thread, maybe it has to do with ethinicity more? like for example africans are known to be atheltic fast runners, thats why they win so many races. Punjabies and Pathans are known for thier well built and strength not just in cricket but in many other things. You can also see on the cricket field that pakistanis players look bigger then their indian counter parts for the most part, Yuvraj Singh (punjabi) is the only indian cricketer that matches many pakistani players

anyways lets focus less on racial or meat eating thing, this is not what this thread is about. I think that not the main reason either.