fastest domestic bowlers

[Arjun]

Pathan outclassed Shoaib and Sami in Pakistan in very flat pitches. So did Balaji.

That was because Shoaib (half fit) and Sami faced a powerful batting lineup with three top class batsmen, while Pathan and Balaji were up against a 50-all-out batting side.

Yes we do need a guy who can bowl fast, and someone will come up.

I hope he doesn't end up slowing down just to gain swing and seam movement, like many young Indian fast bowlers.

I still have high hopes for Munaf, Dennis Lilee couldn't be wrong.

He's a lot better than the more experienced Siddharth Trivedi, who lacks power. He should be played as an aggressive fast bowler and not be told to work too much on lateral movement.

But right now our pace attack is decent if Zaheer can stay fit.

Zaheer was at his best when he was 100% fit in mid-2002. Even on flat pitches, he got wickets for not too many. In New Zealand, he got 2 5-wicket hauls. Even against the Australians, he got one. However, repeated hammerings by Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting and Symonds has reduced him to a rather innocuous bowler. He should get that Aussie mental block out of his way if he has to return to his mid-2002 form. His fielding has to improve a lot if he has to stay in the team longer- there are several fast bowlers (or slow medium-pacers, which is what they are) who can bat and field better and make good replacements.

 

[chicane]

That was because Shoaib (half fit) and Sami faced a powerful batting lineup with three top class batsmen, while Pathan and Balaji were up against a 50-all-out batting side.

I hope he doesn't end up slowing down just to gain swing and seam movement, like many young Indian fast bowlers.

He's a lot better than the more experienced Siddharth Trivedi, who lacks power. He should be played as an aggressive fast bowler and not be told to work too much on lateral movement.

Zaheer was at his best when he was 100% fit in mid-2002. Even on flat pitches, he got wickets for not too many. In New Zealand, he got 2 5-wicket hauls. Even against the Australians, he got one. However, repeated hammerings by Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting and Symonds has reduced him to a rather innocuous bowler. He should get that Aussie mental block out of his way if he has to return to his mid-2002 form. His fielding has to improve a lot if he has to stay in the team longer- there are several fast bowlers (or slow medium-pacers, which is what they are) who can bat and field better and make good replacements.

1- Pakistan were not a 50 all out side. You are just taking away all the credibility of the Indian win. Don't bring them down to Zim levels.
2- Zaheer is pretty quick. He averages around 140 km/hr which is pretty lively. He has to work on his fitness really hard as he's even put on some weight.
3- Shoaib was fully fit till Rawalpindi. And he has the ability to destroy the best batting line-ups. You could see that both him and Sami struggled in those flat wickets because they don't like bowling line and length over long spells. They like to dictate, something the pitch didn't permit. Umar Gul on the other hand, was brilliant while he was fit.
4- Pathan bowled immaculately and quite cleverly. The bouncer in the first ball of the new spell which got the PAK batsmen by surprise and his swing both ways etc.

 

[Arjun]

1- Pakistan were not a 50 all out side. You are just taking away all the credibility of the Indian win. Don't bring them down to Zim levels.

The Australians dismissed the Pakistanis all out for 59, then 53, on a flat pitch. This is more or less the same team.

2- Zaheer is pretty quick. He averages around 140 km/hr which is pretty lively. He has to work on his fitness really hard as he's even put on some weight.

2- Zaheer is pretty quick. He averages around 140 km/hr which is pretty lively. He has to work on his fitness really hard as he's even put on some weight.[/quote]Perhaps that's why he is bowling rubbish. At his best, he is India's best fast bowler, but he can't stay in the team on bowling alone- his batting and fielding need to improve.

3- Shoaib was fully fit till Rawalpindi. And he has the ability to destroy the best batting line-ups. You could see that both him and Sami struggled in those flat wickets because they don't like bowling line and length over long spells. They like to dictate, something the pitch didn't permit. Umar Gul on the other hand, was brilliant while he was fit.

Shoaib and Sami have bowled well on flat pitches of Pakistan and Sharjah. They can bowl well anywhere. However, the captain was using them as line and length bowlers, when they are best at attacking the batsmen. He was not playing the pair to their strengths. Besides, they can't bowl long spells. That said, they can change a match by a burst of 4/5 wickets, which can't be said about Indian pacemen. The spinners can do that to some extent.

4- Pathan bowled immaculately and quite cleverly. The bouncer in the first ball of the new spell which got the PAK batsmen by surprise and his swing both ways etc.

He didn't get too many wickets and averaged 28, not good enough, though Kumble bowled a lot better. Of course, he'll get more chances and get a few 5-wicket hauls. Hopefully he'll even bowl faster. The team needs a tearaway fast bowler if they have to win matches with 3 seamers, or else they should play another spinner instead.

 

[Dasa]

^I don't know why you have this obsession with pace. Look at Australia's tearaway fast bowler, and how he's faired in recent tests. I'd prefer someone who can bowl line and length than someone who can merely bowl it fast and wayward.

By the way, I don't think a team should be picking it's bowlers on their batting ability. Fielding can come into account, but they should be picked on the merits of their discipline, that being bowling. Zaheer shouldn't have to improve his batting because he's not a batsman. That's like saying Laxman should be dropped until he can improve his bowling.

 

[Arjun]

I don't know why you have this obsession with pace.

Every team has at least 2 tearaway fast bowlers, except India. This is why their pace attacks are stronger than the Indian pace attack. Much stronger.

Look at Australia's tearaway fast bowler, and how he's faired in recent tests.

He was carrying an injury. At Sydney in the ODI, he got his act together and was back to his best. Had he continued his form in the Sydney Test, the Indians could have come close to winning, or even win the VB Series.

I'd prefer someone who can bowl line and length than someone who can merely bowl it fast and wayward.

I would rather have one line and length bowler than three in the same team. Basically, that is what makes an Indian pace attack. They're not always accurate, so teams bred on quality fast bowling always stay safe. It is better to have a fast bowler who bowls at blistering pace and attacks the batting, than someone who bowls at an easy pace and feeds the batting later on. A faster bowler can take 4/5 quick wickets anywhere. Slower bowlers will struggle away from England/New Zealand. Look at Umar Gul. He was running hot in the first innings, with grass on the pitch, but when the pitch got flat, he struggled. Fast bowlers should be used in short bursts, but Inzamam used them wrongly.

By the way, I don't think a team should be picking it's bowlers on their batting ability. Fielding can come into account, but they should be picked on the merits of their discipline, that being bowling.

Nothing else to decide when the bowling is not great. They have to contribute with other skills. All Australian players, batsmen and bowlers, are very good fielders.
[/quote]Zaheer shouldn't have to improve his batting because he's not a batsman.[/quote]He is a much better batsman than his batting position and figures suggest. After all, the Indians have been trying to make great batsmen out of Bangar and Parthiv, so why not Zaheer? He can hit a quick 30/40 with a few sixes, which can be very useful. That has to be tapped.

 

[chicane]

The Australians dismissed the Pakistanis all out for 59, then 53, on a flat pitch. This is more or less the same team.

So what? That was one match against the best team in the world. It could happen to anyone. In New Zealand we were bowled out for sub-100 totals, and we too had more or less the same team.

Perhaps that's why he is bowling rubbish. At his best, he is India's best fast bowler, but he can't stay in the team on bowling alone- his batting and fielding need to improve.

He can't stay in the team because he doesn't bat well enough?! ridiculous. He's a bowler and he will make the team purely as one. Besides we bat to no.8 now, why should we bat all the way down?! You have some strange and screwy fundas.

Shoaib and Sami have bowled well on flat pitches of Pakistan and Sharjah. They can bowl well anywhere. However, the captain was using them as line and length bowlers, when they are best at attacking the batsmen. He was not playing the pair to their strengths. Besides, they can't bowl long spells. That said, they can change a match by a burst of 4/5 wickets, which can't be said about Indian pacemen. The spinners can do that to some extent.

You just retyped what I said. And why can't the Indian quicks, like Pathan, get 4-5 quick wickets?! Lemme guess they don't have pace. Pace isn't everything. You need to be accurate and then be able to either swing the ball, or generate bounce, or bowl fast. Pathan and Balaji both swing the ball and are quite good with the old ball as well. Chaminda Vaas has sometimes been unplayable and has skittled sides for some ridiculously low scores, and he barely clocks 125 kph. Pace isn't everything.

He didn't get too many wickets and averaged 28, not good enough, though Kumble bowled a lot better. Of course, he'll get more chances and get a few 5-wicket hauls. Hopefully he'll even bowl faster. The team needs a tearaway fast bowler if they have to win matches with 3 seamers, or else they should play another spinner instead.

He averaged 28, but Shoaib and Sami averaged 42 and 64 . Now do you see how well he has bowled? He may well be able to bowl quicker even now, but quite obviously he will sacrifice pace for swing. We do need a guy who can bowl fast, to add a new dimension to the pace attack. All our guys are only bowling around 80 mph ATM, and the similarity in pace like in the NZ attack in the 1st test against England, makes it easier for the batsmen. Munaf may still live up to expectations and quite simply he's our best hope.

 

[twctopcat]

I hope he doesn't end up slowing down just to gain swing and seam movement, like many young Indian fast bowlers.

Bit of an odd statement considering pollock, mcgrath and gillespie (IMO the best in the world) aren't exactly tearaway fast. Most bowlers who start off fast slow down either due to want of better control or age. If you can have control and pace then congratulations, however most pace bowlers realise that control is the essential ingredient, unless you're shoaib akhtar!

 

[marc71178]

That's like saying Laxman should be dropped until he can improve his bowling.

Nope, because all players have to bat, but not all have to bowl...

 

[tooextracool]

Bit of an odd statement considering pollock, mcgrath and gillespie (IMO the best in the world) aren't exactly tearaway fast. Most bowlers who start off fast slow down either due to want of better control or age. If you can have control and pace then congratulations, however most pace bowlers realise that control is the essential ingredient, unless you're shoaib akhtar!

definetly depends on the kind of bowler you are. i've always believed that the taller bowlers didnt really need pace and if they bowled at 80 mph as long as they were accurate they were still effective....like mcgrath,ambrose and walsh,caddick etc and its not surprising that they lastest longer too. and the shorter bowlers like gough,donald etc generally lost it once they lose their pace. even pollock isnt half the bowler he used to be despite the fact that hes deadly accurate which is what still makes him a good bowler but unless the conditions favour him he isnt really wicket taking like he used to be.
mind you gillespie is pretty fast and is capable of reaching 90 mph when hes fully fit.

 

[Arjun]

Pathan and Balaji both swing the ball and are quite good with the old ball as well. Chaminda Vaas has sometimes been unplayable and has skittled sides for some ridiculously low scores, and he barely clocks 125 kph. Pace isn't everything.

The same Pathan and Balaji have struggled elsewhere, against better batting sides. In the home series against NZ, Balaji averaged 183, for 1 wicket in 2 matches and in the side matches, went for 100 runs a wicket at 4 an over. Pathan was averaging 66 against the Australians. They need to improve on their bowling against good batting sides on flat pitches.

Pace is something, and the only thing, when seam and swing are gone. This is why Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar and Shane Bonda re effective everywhere, while Indian pacers are only effective in helpful conditions but get caned on flat pitches. Even Vaas is not that great, his best performances come against minnows and his bowling average swells against the Aussies.

Besides we bat to no.8 now, why should we bat all the way down?! You have some strange and screwy fundas.

That expression can be used for that idea of playing 7 batsmen and Dravid as keeper. Of what use was it? It has weakened the bowling and fielding and as many as 8 totals over 300 have been conceded. If the bowlers could bat, you wouldn't need a seventh batsman, would you?

 

[imranrabb]

The Pakistani batsman made the indian bowlers look good as they gave them too much respect and the whole team underperformed.Shoaib was short of confidence and Sami is a much better bowler then that.If Shoiab and Sami bowled against Australia in Australia they will get more wickets then Balaji and Pathan.

 

[chicane]

The same Pathan and Balaji have struggled elsewhere, against better batting sides. In the home series against NZ, Balaji averaged 183, for 1 wicket in 2 matches and in the side matches, went for 100 runs a wicket at 4 an over. Pathan was averaging 66 against the Australians. They need to improve on their bowling against good batting sides on flat pitches.

But you still don't get it. Pathan was up against a ruthless batting line-up, as a rookie, but still bowled well. He was mainly praised for his attitude (by Glenn McGrath among others) and his ability to swing the ball. Even while batting he showed good technique and he also held onto a couple of tough catches. Then in the VB series, he bowled so well against an opposition which are leagues ahead of everyone else. It's not easy to maintain a good ODI average for a rookie against the current Australian team.

Pace is something, and the only thing, when seam and swing are gone. This is why Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar and Shane Bonda re effective everywhere, while Indian pacers are only effective in helpful conditions but get caned on flat pitches. Even Vaas is not that great, his best performances come against minnows and his bowling average swells against the Aussies.

Brett Lee is effective everywhere? Ithink he's the best example I can use to tell you pace is not the only thing. Indian bowlers get caned on flat pitches?! I think the 3 test series against Pakistan, wen Pathan and Shoaib were bowling in the same flat pitch is the best example to tell you just raw pace won't get you wickets on flat-decks. Just look at Tino Best in the last game against bangladesh, just 1 wicket. The way Sehwag smashed Sami in Multan just goes to show that without control pace can aid the batsmen's strokeplay.

That expression can be used for that idea of playing 7 batsmen and Dravid as keeper. Of what use was it? It has weakened the bowling and fielding and as many as 8 totals over 300 have been conceded. If the bowlers could bat, you wouldn't need a seventh batsman, would you?

So you want the bowlers - Zaheer, Nehra, Kumble, Balaji to be capable enough to bat at no.7.....you are insane. If a keeper has to be accomodated to replace Dravid, then he has to be capable enough with the bat at no.7. Why should the bowlers bat?! We have quite a good tail, with Pathan Balaji and Zaheer, all are capable sloggers in the final few overs. In fact it's just great Pathan has shown he can bat well, we couldn't ask for more.

 

[Arjun]

Brett Lee is effective everywhere? Ithink he's the best example I can use to tell you pace is not the only thing.

The World Cup in SA had a lot of flat pitches, yet Brett Lee got wickets for little. In fact, he was the best bowler in the World Cup, with Bichel. He is effective everywhere, as long as he is fully fit. In fact, he has run through several Indian and English batting lineups.

Pathan was up against a ruthless batting line-up, as a rookie, but still bowled well.

He hardly ever got too many overs. Besides, he didn't bowl well enough to keep that average well above 66.

Indian bowlers get caned on flat pitches?!

They got caned in the World Cup final, in the Test series against NZ, in the TVS Cup, all over Australia and even in Pakistan. They conceded 4 consecutive 300+ totals. If even 1 bowler could bowl in the 150's, they could have got caned a lot less.

I think the 3 test series against Pakistan, wen Pathan and Shoaib were bowling in the same flat pitch is the best example to tell you just raw pace won't get you wickets on flat-decks.

Compare any batting side of international quality with this bits and pieces batting side and you'll know what I am talking about. There are countless matches on flat pitches where raw pace does get wickets. These examples of the struggles of 1% fit Lee, Shoaib and Sami are exceptions.

So you want the bowlers - Zaheer, Nehra, Kumble, Balaji to be capable enough to bat at no.7.....you are insane.

Just two of them. Kumble can't bat for toffees now, but he can hang on as he did in the past. Nehra should improve his batting basics. Zaheer is a hitter of sorts, not much of a batsman, but he should practice that.

If a keeper has to be accomodated to replace Dravid, then he has to be capable enough with the bat at no.7. Why should the bowlers bat?!

Why necessarily a wicketkeeper? Why not a bowler? New Zealand has Chris Cairns and Jacob Oram, England has Flintoff, Pakistan has Razzaq, South Africa have Klusener and Pollock, so why can't India have bowlers who can bat?

We have quite a good tail

Then why have 7 batsmen?

In fact it's just great Pathan has shown he can bat well, we couldn't ask for more.

Nothing more. Just practice. We shouldn't lose it. He can bat as well as most top 6 batsmen. He can't bowl fast, but he can bat, so it solves one problem.

And why can't the Indian quicks, like Pathan, get 4-5 quick wickets?! Lemme guess they don't have pace. Pace isn't everything. You need to be accurate and then be able to either swing the ball, or generate bounce, or bowl fast.

They lack pace as well as the skills to get wickets on unhelpful surfaces. In fact, almost every Indian medium-pacer has struggled on flat pitches. None of them have ever got 4/5 quick wickets. The only bowlers who could do so (and still can) are Kumble and Harbhajan.

 

[Arjun]

That said, I would like to know why all Indian 'fast' bowlers in domestic matches bowl so slowly? The fastest bowl at later 130's, while everyone else bowls in the 120's. Perhaps because the coaches emphasize more on seam and swing than pace. In Australia, they tell young fast bowlers to bowl fast, which is how they may produce so many tearaway fast bowlers. No doubt pace is not everything, but it may be the last thing to fall back on, along with accuracy. Some Shoaib Akhtar spells in Sharjah and Pakistan, as well as Brett Lee's performances in South Africa and also Shane Bond's match-winning 5-wicket hauls have made pace a very potent weapon in a bowling attack. The people in charge back in India need to do a serious rethink of their plans with pace bowlers- all the way down to school level.

 

[EnglishRose]

Sami is a much better bowler then that.If Shoiab and Sami bowled against Australia in Australia they will get more wickets then Balaji and Pathan.

I don't believe how much you Pakistanis hype up Mohammad Sami.
Unless the lad starts performing consistently well in test cricket, I'm afraid I can't see him as being anything other than a mediocre bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

The World Cup in SA had a lot of flat pitches, yet Brett Lee got wickets for little. In fact, he was the best bowler in the World Cup, with Bichel. He is effective everywhere, as long as he is fully fit. In fact, he has run through several Indian and English batting lineups.

brett lee might be a good ODI bowler but ODIs are completely different from tests. also there were many non flat wickets in the world cup.

Compare any batting side of international quality with this bits and pieces batting side and you'll know what I am talking about. There are countless matches on flat pitches where raw pace does get wickets. These examples of the struggles of 1% fit Lee, Shoaib and Sami are exceptions.

raw pace alone wont get you wickets....raw pace + accuracy will

 

[chicane]

The World Cup in SA had a lot of flat pitches, yet Brett Lee got wickets for little. In fact, he was the best bowler in the World Cup, with Bichel. He is effective everywhere, as long as he is fully fit. In fact, he has run through several Indian and English batting lineups.[/QOUTE]
When he gets it on target, he's effective. But the WC pitches weren't all flat. The melbourne and Sydney wickets were, and you saw how Sehwag 'caned' him.

He hardly ever got too many overs. Besides, he didn't bowl well enough to keep that average well above 66.[/QOUTE]
In Pakistan he bowled more overs than even Kumble, and yet he kept his average to 28. I don't think Pathan will ever be express. He can even now bowl quicker, i've seen him touch 145 kph...but I don't think he will or needs to....because he will only try to swing the ball more. He might gradually get his average pace upto 140 kph, but no more.

They got caned in the World Cup final, in the Test series against NZ, in the TVS Cup, all over Australia and even in Pakistan. They conceded 4 consecutive 300+ totals. If even 1 bowler could bowl in the 150's, they could have got caned a lot less.

The WC Final was a disaster because they tried too hard. They gave away 37 extras and totally lost it in the final overs against Ponting's onslaught. Where did they get caned in the Test series against NZ?! And the wickets in NZ were in fact aiding the bowlers. All over Australia the Aussie bowlers got 'caned' even more. Same with Pakistan. 150+kph pace when not directed well, just needs a touch from the bat to blast it to the fence (eg.India-Pak WC match).

Compare any batting side of international quality with this bits and pieces batting side and you'll know what I am talking about. There are countless matches on flat pitches where raw pace does get wickets. These examples of the struggles of 1% fit Lee, Shoaib and Sami are exceptions.

But even more where raw pace gets 'caned'(aargh). And just rule out Brett Lee's Sydney and Melbourne, Shoaib and Sami's three tests, Tino Best against Bangladesh etc. as exceptions .

Just two of them. Kumble can't bat for toffees now, but he can hang on as he did in the past. Nehra should improve his batting basics. Zaheer is a hitter of sorts, not much of a batsman, but he should practice that.

There's something more sensible from you. Yes they should be able to hang around in the crease. Nehra should improve his basic batting and Zaheer can practice more, because he has some ability. But with a batting line-up like ours they don't need to.

Why necessarily a wicketkeeper? Why not a bowler? New Zealand has Chris Cairns and Jacob Oram, England has Flintoff, Pakistan has Razzaq, South Africa have Klusener and Pollock, so why can't India have bowlers who can bat?

Becaues keeping Dravid as keeper at the moment is giving away too many runs and chances. We are doing fine without an all-rounder now, but if some exceptional talent comes through, good for us. I don't want that allrounder craze started again or we may see Reetinder Singh Sodhi and AA at no.3 come back.

Then why have 7 batsmen?

Nothing more. Just practice. We shouldn't lose it. He can bat as well as most top 6 batsmen. He can't bowl fast, but he can bat, so it solves one problem.

His batting ability has nothing to do with any shortcoming he may have bowling( not that his lack of express speed is a shortcoming).

They lack pace as well as the skills to get wickets on unhelpful surfaces. In fact, almost every Indian medium-pacer has struggled on flat pitches. None of them have ever got 4/5 quick wickets. The only bowlers who could do so (and still can) are Kumble and Harbhajan.

You pointed out NZ. Zaheer picked up 4-wicket hauls regularly there. You pointed out the WC. Our bowlers were among the top wicket takers. You pointed out Australia. Our bowlers took more wickets than the Australians. Your logic makes no sense. They can try as hard as they can to bowl fast, but none of these guys will ever be express. Zaheer Khan was the quickest and in 2002 was clocking over 150 kph. But now his injuries have robbed him of some pace. Express bowlers are rare talents even for Australia. Alan Donald had said we have a lot of potential talent, but we need to produce better pitches. But now there's a lot of quicks coming through and it's just a matter of time before some tearaway is found.

That said, I would like to know why all Indian 'fast' bowlers in domestic matches bowl so slowly? The fastest bowl at later 130's, while everyone else bowls in the 120's. Perhaps because the coaches emphasize more on seam and swing than pace. In Australia, they tell young fast bowlers to bowl fast, which is how they may produce so many tearaway fast bowlers. No doubt pace is not everything, but it may be the last thing to fall back on, along with accuracy. Some Shoaib Akhtar spells in Sharjah and Pakistan, as well as Brett Lee's performances in South Africa and also Shane Bond's match-winning 5-wicket hauls have made pace a very potent weapon in a bowling attack. The people in charge back in India need to do a serious rethink of their plans with pace bowlers- all the way down to school level.

Quite simply because they can't, they are only military medium. It's really amazing how many genuine quicks Pakistan produces and it's the envy of every other nation. But we too produce so many quality batsmen, and our batting order is indeed the envy of the world. So all we can do is wait. We produced one in Srinath, and someone will come through.

 

[Arjun]

Alan Donald had said we have a lot of potential talent, but we need to produce better pitches.

It's not just the pitches that needs to change....it's also the pitching. Australia and Pakistan produce several fast bowlers even on flat pitches. Besides, how many fast bowlers do England and NZ have? Just 4, of which 2 are of any quality, though Butler and Jones are better bowlers than what figures suggest.

You pointed out NZ. Zaheer picked up 4-wicket hauls regularly there.

As Wisden journo Dileep said, even his 10 year old cousin could get wickets there. All NZ bowlers got wickets. Look at the home series. He got 4/6 wickets in the first match, but got no wicket in the second.

You pointed out the WC. Our bowlers were among the top wicket takers.

And what about the final? None of the others batted even half as well as the Aussies and the surfaces suited the bowlers more. Against the Aussies, they just threw pies.

You pointed out Australia. Our bowlers took more wickets than the Australians.

Only Kumble was competent. Agarkar bowled nonsense except for his 6/41. Nehra, Zaheer and Pathan were disappointing, except Zaheer's 5/95.

But now there's a lot of quicks coming through and it's just a matter of time before some tearaway is found.

Are these new quicks really of international quality? They have been found out many times, especially by WI/Aus, after which they have to go back to a full-strength pace attack, which is not of any great quality either.

We are doing fine without an all-rounder now, but if some exceptional talent comes through, good for us. I don't want that allrounder craze started again or we may see Reetinder Singh Sodhi and AA at no.3 come back.

No way. They have not won a single ODI series except for one in England gifted by the English, then one in Pakistan, which an Aussie side wouldhave won 4-1, 4 matches in a row. They are not doing fine, they are having problems. As many as 8 300+ totals have been handed out.

Sehwag bowling, or Powar getting an all-round role to the fullest and Pathan or Balaji batting at 6/7/8 is better than those examples you mentioned. Besides, Sodhi has a lot of talent. It's just that he is too weak and too aggressive, two things that don't match. He could be a good investment for the next 7 years and you can play 2 spinners- the team's best bowlers.

We produced one in Srinath

That's all? Every other team had 4/5 bowlers like him, and all were better.

His batting ability has nothing to do with any shortcoming he may have bowling( not that his lack of express speed is a shortcoming).

I never said his batting has anything to do with his bowling. He is a good six-hitter and deserves a long run as a batsman.

 

[Mingster]

Sherlock of New Zealand

 

[anzac]

Sherlock of New Zealand

that's the youngster isn't it???????

I think I raised him in the 'A' team thread & you advised me that he couldn't get a start for Auckland or something........