Strongest First-Class Competition

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Spark

Indeed. Doesn't matter how good your best domestic players are if for some reason they don't get picked.

Originally Posted by TumTum

Or you could have a case where there are 11 exceptional players in a country that are all in the Test side and the others are mediocre, compared with a country where there are lots of good players and 11 of them make a Test side.

Yep, and there is also the issue of talent dilution. Despite having a poor Test team, Pakistan's domestic competition would undoubtedly be the strongest in the world if they only had two teams playing in it. There are pros and cons to having large domestic competitions but in terms of competition strength, the less teams the better.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by Athlai

That logic would dictate that India is full of quality bowlers.

Therefore that logic is wrong.

The bowling talent has always been there but the management of bowlers has been ****house for a decade now. We had so many good bowlers this decade who failed after international success this decade: Nehra(kill me), Balaji, Pathan, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Ishant Sharma. These guys were all world class bowlers when they started off for India, if they had played in a country that manages it's players better, they would have been awesome. The system has done its job but all that talent was wasted by the management.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Shri

The bowling talent has always been there but the management of bowlers has been ****house for a decade now. We had so many good bowlers this decade who failed after international success this decade: Nehra(kill me), Balaji, Pathan, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Ishant Sharma. These guys were all world class bowlers when they started off for India, if they had played in a country that manages it's players better, they would have been awesome. The system has done its job but all that talent was wasted by the management.

Is it really all the management's fault though? I agree with you, the way India manages its quicks isn't the greatest, but bowlers get found out all the time. There's been countless guys who have dominated FC cricket and ripped through international batsmen but have been found out and countered later on. The game is somewhat easier for any player who has never been seen before, for the sole fact that the opposition won't have a specific plan for him.

In batting terms, look at Phil Hughes. His unorthodox technique and the fact that the South African's hadn't seen him bat meant he hit a ton of runs in that series, yet by the time the Ashes came around he was found out to have a weakness against the short ball, fell to it and got dropped. Same thing with bowlers. When Sharma debuted against Australia and looked to be world class straight up, he was 19 (?) and unheard of. The Australians wouldn't have had a clue what was going to come out of his hand. But over time, batsmen developed a plan to counter his bowling and his returns diminished. Or at least they're my thoughts...

So yeah, I'm not sure management is the sole reason for the fast bowling problems, but it definitely is a factor.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Is it really all the management's fault though? I agree with you, the way India manages its quicks isn't the greatest, but bowlers get found out all the time. There's been countless guys who have dominated FC cricket and ripped through international batsmen but have been found out and countered later on. The game is somewhat easier for any player who has never been seen before, for the sole fact that the opposition won't have a specific plan for him.

In batting terms, look at Phil Hughes. His unorthodox technique and the fact that the South African's hadn't seen him bat meant he hit a ton of runs in that series, yet by the time the Ashes came around he was found out to have a weakness against the short ball, fell to it and got dropped. Same thing with bowlers. When Sharma debuted against Australia and looked to be world class straight up, he was 19 (?) and unheard of. The Australians wouldn't have had a clue what was going to come out of his hand. But over time, batsmen developed a plan to counter his bowling and his returns diminished. Or at least they're my thoughts...

So yeah, I'm not sure management is the sole reason for the fast bowling problems, but it definitely is a factor.

The perception that Ishanth has "diminished" is vastly overrated. He's been **** in the limited versions, but his poor performances in tests have a lot to do with aving to play on absolutely dead pitches. The guy's still a kid and learning.

[Borges]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Is it really all the management's fault though? I agree with you, the way India manages its quicks isn't the greatest, but bowlers get found out all the time. There's been countless guys who have dominated FC cricket and ripped through international batsmen but have been found out and countered later on. The game is somewhat easier for any player who has never been seen before, for the sole fact that the opposition won't have a specific plan for him.

In batting terms, look at Phil Hughes. His unorthodox technique and the fact that the South African's hadn't seen him bat meant he hit a ton of runs in that series, yet by the time the Ashes came around he was found out to have a weakness against the short ball, fell to it and got dropped. Same thing with bowlers. When Sharma debuted against Australia and looked to be world class straight up, he was 19 (?) and unheard of. The Australians wouldn't have had a clue what was going to come out of his hand. But over time, batsmen developed a plan to counter his bowling and his returns diminished. Or at least they're my thoughts...

So yeah, I'm not sure management is the sole reason for the fast bowling problems, but it definitely is a factor.

Agree with this completely.

I would add that with the extended video footage that is available these days, bowlers who will attain long-term success at the international level are the bowlers who evolve, refine their technique, add more variety to their armoury, after they have debuted in tests. Zaheer is an unbelievably better bowler today than when he played his first test; Ishant isn't, as he discovered when he returned to FC cricket and had a very forgettable season. Wouldn't write Ishant off though, as many people seem to have done; he is still young, he still has a few years of learning left before he attains the age where pace bowlers reach their peaks.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Bun

The perception that Ishanth has "diminished" is vastly overrated. He's been **** in the limited versions, but his poor performances in tests have a lot to do with aving to play on absolutely dead pitches. The guy's still a kid and learning.

Pitches weren't dead in South Africa.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by Jono

Pitches weren't dead in South Africa.

Kid can't have a bad series can he? He was toiled beyond what his body could take at this point in time and that affected his performances. He's now had a decent enough break, and has shown that in the IPL where he was pushing it 145kmph even 150 iirc. He is not cut out for ODIs dead set, and neither is Sreesanth, but both have a great future in test cricket.

[Jono]

Well just correcting the fact that you suggested he's only played on dead wickets when he hasn't. He had a great opportunity to bowl India to a series victory and fell way short.

Agree that he and Sree should just not play limited overs cricket.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

Is it really all the management's fault though? I agree with you, the way India manages its quicks isn't the greatest, but bowlers get found out all the time. There's been countless guys who have dominated FC cricket and ripped through international batsmen but have been found out and countered later on. The game is somewhat easier for any player who has never been seen before, for the sole fact that the opposition won't have a specific plan for him.

In batting terms, look at Phil Hughes. His unorthodox technique and the fact that the South African's hadn't seen him bat meant he hit a ton of runs in that series, yet by the time the Ashes came around he was found out to have a weakness against the short ball, fell to it and got dropped. Same thing with bowlers. When Sharma debuted against Australia and looked to be world class straight up, he was 19 (?) and unheard of. The Australians wouldn't have had a clue what was going to come out of his hand. But over time, batsmen developed a plan to counter his bowling and his returns diminished. Or at least they're my thoughts...

So yeah, I'm not sure management is the sole reason for the fast bowling problems, but it definitely is a factor.

Agree with a lot of what you said but in Sharma's case the batsmen did not find ways to counter him, he just lost about 20Kmph of pace after playing a lot for India without a break. He went from being a consistent 148Kmph bowler to a 130Kmph bowler who doesn't swing it. He was just too fatigued after 2 years of non-stop cricket. If he had more breaks he would still be world class and him finding form again now after some rest isn't off the cards.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Ikki

A question: Indian seamers, and bowling in general, seems to get big knocks against it for not being of a high standard. The domestic setup isn't lauded for being particularly good either. So how do they produce fine batsmen so regularly? You'd think they'd be shocked by the jump in standard at Test level.

I think the fact that Indian players probably get a huge amount of access with A-team tours, U/19 tours to foreign conditions, more than any other country in the world, I'd say, also assists and has reduced the shock to the system that players experience when they first get picked for the national team.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Borges

Agree with this completely.

I would add that with the extended video footage that is available these days, bowlers who will attain long-term success at the international level are the bowlers who evolve, refine their technique, add more variety to their armoury, after they have debuted in tests. Zaheer is an unbelievably better bowler today than when he played his first test; Ishant isn't, as he discovered when he returned to FC cricket and had a very forgettable season. Wouldn't write Ishant off though, as many people seem to have done; he is still young, he still has a few years of learning left before he attains the age where pace bowlers reach their peaks.

I dont think it is necessary to evolve to have long term success as a seamer in Test cricket. Nothing has changed in generations. Consistently bowl just back of a full length, just outside offstump at good pace and do a little bit with the ball. The hard part is being able to do it.

Video analysis is very useful for 'mystery' spinners, picking up a variation or dealing with a freakish action though.