• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

India's ATG Bowling Attack Revisited

Please the select the strongest Indian attack

  • Mankad + Dev + Amar Singh + Srinath + Prasanna

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21

watson

Banned
In the recent ATG Indian XI thread there was some facinating discussion as to whether;

1. The pace bowler Amar Singh should have been included at the expense of Srinath, Kumble, or Prasanna.

2. Chandra is the best Indian leg-spinner and should have been included instead of his counterpart, Kumble.

There was little or no discussion regarding the inclusion of Kapil Dev or Vinoo Mankad. They were agreed by most to be indispensible.

Therefore, please (if you want to) select from the various options in the poll the strongest ATG Indian attack in your opinion.

As a reminder the ATG Indian XI that we came up with after extensive voting was;

01. Sunil Gavaskar
02. Vijay Merchant
03. Rahul Dravid
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Vijay Hazare
06. Vinoo Mankad
07. Kapil Dev
08. Farouk Engineer
09. Anil Kumble
10. Javagal Srinath
11. Erapalli Prasanna
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
In the recent ATG Indian XI thread there was some facinating discussion as to whether;

1. The pace bowler Amar Singh should have been included at the expense of Srinath, Kumble, or Prasanna.

2. Chandra is the best Indian leg-spinner and should have been included instead of his counterpart, Kumble.

There was little or no discussion regarding the inclusion of Kapil Dev or Vinoo Mankad. They were agreed by most to be indispensible.

Therefore, please (if you want to) select from the various options in the poll the strongest ATG Indian attack in your opinion.

As a reminder the ATG Indian XI that we came up with after extensive voting was;

01. Sunil Gavaskar
02. Vijay Merchant
03. Rahul Dravid
04. Sachin Tendulkar
05. Vijay Hazare
06. Vinoo Mankad
07. Kapil Dev
08. Farouk Engineer
09. Anil Kumble
10. Javagal Srinath
11. Erapalli Prasanna
Well done !!
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
As I write this 55 people have visited this thread (besides me) or there have been 55 visits in all by whatever number of members and only two, besides me, have voted.

Is it tougher to choose a composite attack than to vote in a one on one contest. Its like the selectors having to find a replacement for one injured player against selecting a squad.

OR is it difficult to choose from an options list, each of which has at least one choice you disagree with ?

Interesting.

Imagine what the selectors, a bunch of them with different preferences, have to go through :o)
 

watson

Banned
As I write this 55 people have visited this thread (besides me) or there have been 55 visits in all by whatever number of members and only two, besides me, have voted.

Is it tougher to choose a composite attack than to vote in a one on one contest. Its like the selectors having to find a replacement for one injured player against selecting a squad.

OR is it difficult to choose from an options list, each of which has at least one choice you disagree with ?

Interesting.

Imagine what the selectors, a bunch of them with different preferences, have to go through :o)
I think that things would be easier to comprehend if you had followed/participated in the actual ATG Indian XI thread and therefore knew more about Amar Singh, or even Chandra and Prasanna.

Those 3 players might be confusing to people who don't know Indian cricket very well. I'd never heard of Amar Singh (much) up until a week ago.
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I think that things would be easier to comprehend if you had followed/participated in the actual ATG Indian XI thread and therefore knew more about Amar Singh, or even Chandra and Prasanna.

Those 3 players might be confusing to people who don't know Indian cricket very well. I'd never heard of Amar Singh up until a week ago.
I fully appreciate that. Exactly the point I am trying to make in the The importance of cricket history and literature . . . thread.

I agree it is tough to know about players in the eras gone by but trust me it would be worthwhile to read up a bit on them. Fortunately a lot of the cricket writers like Cardus, Thomson, Swanton, Ray Robinson, Bailey, Batchelor, Fingleton etc make fabulous reading for they are masters of the written word as well. You know, second hand cricket books do not cost a lot. It is the new ones from the modern day writers that are so expensive. It is not difficult to buy second hand Carduses etc and start building a library from a young man's pocket money these days.

We had no clue where to get a Cardus from. I had to beg on my bended knees from my coach to part with his Cardus books, one at a time and with a strict instruction to return each within 48 hours. . . . and I dared not dog ear a single page let alone allow a drop of tea to fall on a page :D

Start reading Cardus and the chances are you will be hooked.
 

Kirkut

International Regular
Strange no Zaheer Khan in the list. I mean for a period 2007-10, he came up with some of the most quality spells of reverse swing.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Strange no Zaheer Khan in the list. I mean for a period 2007-10, he came up with some of the most quality spells of reverse swing.
He isn't there because we have the choices offered by Kapil, Amar Singh and Srinath - all arguably better bowlers. Imagine we have no Bishan Bedi, without doubt the best left arm spinner we have ever produced. There is also no Gupte, easily the best conventional leg spinner with some awesome credentials as well.

In a side selected from a pool of 7 decades, it is no surprise that someone like Zaheer is not there just like there will be no Lee in an Aussie side.
 

Satyanash89

Banned
He isn't there because we have the choices offered by Kapil, Amar Singh and Srinath - all arguably better bowlers. Imagine we have no Bishan Bedi, without doubt the best left arm spinner we have ever produced. There is also no Gupte, easily the best conventional leg spinner with some awesome credentials as well.

In a side selected from a pool of 7 decades, it is no surprise that someone like Zaheer is not there just like there will be no Lee in an Aussie side.
Zaheer's achievements in 2007-2010 are massively underrated imo... he carried the otherwise extremely toothless attack on his shoulders and produced quality spells with real consistency. Plus he provides some variety as a left armer. Id probably pick Srinath but imo Zaheer should atleast be in the discussion
 

doesitmatter

U19 Cricketer
i selected Zaheer over Srinath in the Indian ATG thread..For a FB right attitude, body language is very important..Srinath had none of it..
 

watson

Banned
i selected Zaheer over Srinath in the Indian ATG thread..For a FB right attitude, body language is very important..Srinath had none of it..
At first glance Zaheer Khan's stat's appear stronger than Srinath's. There is also the bonus that he is a left-armer which adds variety.

However, Srinith's playing years were 1991-2002. This is significant because it was really was a tough decade to play Test match cricket with some truly great players like Lara and Ponting approaching their peak. I don't think the cricket during the 90s was quite as tough as the 1980s, but it was pretty close to it. And yet Srinath was able to compete against the very best with distinction.

On the other hand, Zaheer Khan's playing years of 2000-2012 were not on the same plane as Srinath's. So the point being, I'd rather have a toughened bowler in my team who's been there and done that, and proven himself against the very best, than not.
 
Last edited:

Satyanash89

Banned
At first glance Zaheer Khan's stat's appear stronger than Srinath's. There is also the bonus that he is a left-armer which adds variety.

However, Srinith's playing years were 1991-2002. This is significant because it was really was a tough decade to play Test match cricket with some truly great players like Lara and Ponting approaching their peak. I don't think the cricket during the 90s was quite as tough as the 1980s, but it was pretty close to it. And yet Srinath was able to compete against the very best with distinction.

On the other hand, Zaheer Khan's playing years of 2000-2012 were not on the same plane as Srinath's. So the point being, I'd rather have a toughened bowler in my team who's been there and done that, and proven himself against the very best, than not.
I thought the 2000s were supposed to be tougher for the bowlers... this 1990s vs 2000s debate brings up more contradictions every time its mentioned
 

watson

Banned
I thought the 2000s were supposed to be tougher for the bowlers... this 1990s vs 2000s debate brings up more contradictions every time its mentioned
OK, it's just my overriding perception. Anyone with some hard facts care to comment on the 1990s V 2000s
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
At first glance Zaheer Khan's stat's appear stronger than Srinath's. There is also the bonus that he is a left-armer which adds variety.

However, Srinith's playing years were 1991-2002. This is significant because it was really was a tough decade to play Test match cricket with some truly great players like Lara and Ponting approaching their peak. I don't think the cricket during the 90s was quite as tough as the 1980s, but it was pretty close to it. And yet Srinath was able to compete against the very best with distinction.

On the other hand, Zaheer Khan's playing years of 2000-2012 were not on the same plane as Srinath's. So the point being, I'd rather have a toughened bowler in my team who's been there and done that, and proven himself against the very best, than not.
You make some very good points.

I find it a bit difficult to compare Zaheer with Srinath although they were not so far apart and one saw both their careers in their entirety. For reasons that include some of what you have written.

I have always felt Srinath was overhyped and this made him try to bowl above himself. He was not a tear away fast bowler and his attempts to bowl as if he was one made him look like an idiot at times to any thinking viewer, Bowlers like Srinath, ( in Indian cricket post partition even his type have been so very rarethat they are to be cherished) need to bowl to their strengths and Srinaths strengths would have been best used if he had done just that. Something like what Zaheer learnt in England during his county stint after being dropped by India, and came back to the international side a completely different bowler. Zaheer bowled to the best of his abilities during his second innings with team India and this enabled him to become a far better weapon for India than he ever looked like he would be in his first innings.

Srinath did not make this transition. Of course he became more mature as he played longer but he did not have the transformation that one observed in Zaheer from an instinctive young fast bowler to a thinking professional who could be handed the responsibility of leading the attack and mentoring the younger crop in the latter part of his career.

Srinath started his career under the shadow of the mighty Kapil Dev. It prevented him from making the Indian team on a permanent basis for some time and when he did, Srinath was determined to show he was no slouch as compared to the great Kapil. I suspect this made him bowl faster and more aggressively during this early period. Maybe he would have bowled like that anyway. His speed got noticed and that he was much quicker than kapil had become by now but only the lay observers forgot the fact that Srinath was young while Kapil was at the fag end of a long career. Ib fact, had he not been such a good batsman as well, Kapil would have left the scene earlier and in the last year for that silly chase of Hadlee's record.

Of course, Kapil was slower than Srinath when they bowled together but how many people remember Kapil when he first came. He was at the higher end of fast medium bowlers and was always bowling within himself so that he could slip in the faster ball now and then that took the best in the world by surprise.

So, while the latter day Kapil was distinctly slower than the young and chaffing-at-the-bit Srinath, he was still superbly accurate. This showed up Srinath's wayward bowling. Srinath continued to attempt his bouncers and generally bowl a tad shorter than he should have to make best use of his sharply in coming main weapon. It was only towards the very end of his career, probably the last year, if I remember right, that he bowled the lengths he should have bowled all through. I remember talking to friends during the 2003 world cup, Srinath's last international performance and saying "Why didn't he bowl like this earlier in his career." His Test career had already ended by then.

This to me was the major plus for Zaheer that he learnt his lesson and came back a better bowler who bowled above his class. Srinath, despite being an engineer and, clearly a bright guy, continued to behave like an idiot with a ball in hand and bowled well below what he was capable of.

So who do we choose between them? I would pick neither in my ATG India side. For me Kapil, Nissar and Amar Singh would precede both of them so even if I wanted three pacers I wouldn't choose them. But to select between them is tougher because of what might have been ?

When I first responded to Kirkut's post on "why Zaheer isn't there" I was probably answering on behalf of everyone who voted Srinath in and Zaheer out of the mix. Asked directly, or even if I ask myself, it is a tougher choice than one thinks at the outset.

I will come back on this for I have to leave right away :o((

to be continued . . .
 
Last edited:

shankar

International Debutant
It was only towards the very end of his career, probably the last year, if I remember right, that he bowled the lengths he should have bowled all through. I remember talking to friends during the 2003 world cup, Srinath's last international performance and saying "Why didn't he bowl like this earlier in his career." His Test career had already ended by then.
He had finally developed a proper away-going delivery (at the fag end of his career) which made a massive difference to his bowling. The lack of a fast-bowling tradition (a parampara) that passes down such simple skills quickly to young bowlers really hurts India time and again. Zaheer as you point out, made the changes needed early enough to make a contribution to India's test cricket fortunes. But he too, spent ages being average before learning what he needed to. Ishant I think is one who could have gone down this route of being average; instead he tried to learn new skills early in his career, failed spectacularly and now it's a struggle to even get back to where he was and relearn his old skills.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Well that's interesting. The bowling attack that was democratically elected is probably not the one that is the most popular after all.

Not only that, but I think that Mankad-Dev-Amar Singh-Prasanna-Chandra would probably be a better attack than Mankad-Dev-Kumble-Srinath-Prasanna.

I wonder whether other CW ATG teams have the same problem with their attacks?
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Well that's interesting. The bowling attack that was democratically elected is probably not the one that is the most popular after all.

Not only that, but I think that Mankad-Dev-Amar Singh-Prasanna-Chandra would probably be a better attack than Mankad-Dev-Kumble-Srinath-Prasanna.

I wonder whether other CW ATG teams have the same problem with their attacks?
I think it is not so much about democracy but about two things both somewhat connected. One is about making more informed choices and the other about choosing the entire attack which is what the selectors are supposed to do then a bowler or a pair of bowlers at a time where it is a one on one choice rather than a balanced attack. It has happened before in some earlier such exercises where a bowler has lost out in a one on one and not been able to make a comeback.

I think the choice of a complete and balanced attack is a better option.

What I do, if I am not shooting off the cuff, for ATG sides is to first choose a short list. This would normally consist of a pool of about 20 players
  • 3 openers
  • 2 one-drops
  • 4 middle-order bats (4-5)
  • 2 batting all rounders
  • 2 bowling all rounders
  • 1 batsman keeper
  • 1 specialist keeper (only if I think he is a better gloveman than the batsman keeper)
  • 3 pacers
  • 3 spinners

All the specialist batsmen, pacers and spinners are chosen purely because they are the best in my opinion for that category. The fact that I may have Sobers in the best all rounder category, does not stop me from choosing him for the middle order where I ALWAYS have him.

Then in the next step I whittle this down to a touring squad of, say 15 which would typically have

  • 2 openers
  • 1 one-drop
  • 2 middle order bats
  • 1 batting all rounder
  • 1 bowling all rounder
  • 1 batsman keeper
  • 1 specialist keeper
  • 5 specialist bowlers - the proportion of spinners and pacers in the attack depends upon what my two all rounders bowl

Then, finally, I prefer to choose a team of twelve (not eleven) in which there will be six bowlers (including the two all rounders) so that I will have a choice of five bowlers, at least to cover a wider range of under ground conditions.

What this process does is that at every stage after the first pool of 20-21 is finalised, one keeps the balance of the entire side always in mind. This is critical and always at the back of the selectors' mind in real life as well, as is apparent from what Bedser writes in choosing that post WW II side.

This is not as complicated as it sounds and can actually be fun as well. It takes a bit longer but what is time for those who have the onerous responsibility of selecting an ATG side for the planet ?

:happy:
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
There is an interesting aside and being put here as much in humour as in serious comment.

In India the zonal-representation nature of the five member selection committee has led to some very strange choices in the past - although, in recent times, this has, apparently gone down.

Selectors are keen to get players from their zones in so they tend to trade votes. If you vote for my pacer, I will voote for your spinner when that comes up for voting. Some of these wranglings have come out in the open in the past but the thick-skinned and monopolist BCCI hasn't bothered to do something about it.

I am reminded of it because this too involved selecting players in bits - openers, then middle order, then spinners and so on and not the entire attack at the same time. I think from the time of Vengsarkar (I am open to correction) this has changed and selections have become more considered and have taken the entire squads into account. What is still missing to some extent, however, is the question of grooming youngsters, not choosing players who might be better off playing elsewhere, say in an India A tour, than warming the bench on tour and so on. But things are better than before.

Of course, actually dropping a senior instead of resting him is still something we baulk at.
 

Top