Domestic cricket overhaul in a country

[adharcric]

Yes, but that's just the way it always has been. India have for the last 40 years and more been incredibly hard to beat at home and usually a pushover away.

Anyway - if there were more Chandrasekhars alongside the Bedi\Kumble\Harbhajan\loads-of-others, maybe India would win a few more away Tests without quality seamers.

Trying to improve our crop of fast bowlers should not hurt our spin attack. It will only give us a balanced attack that can consistently perform in a variety of conditions.

 

[Richard]

It's automatic. More seamers = less spinners.

More seam-friendly wickets = less spin-receptive wickets.

I can't see one without the other, TBH.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah, more seam friendly wickets could mean less batsman friendly wickets. You could still have the same number of pitches that offer plenty of turn on the 4th day. Plus, as we discussed before, uneven bounce helps all bowlers.

 

[adharcric]

It's automatic. More seamers = less spinners.

More seam-friendly wickets = less spin-receptive wickets.

I can't see one without the other, TBH.

Less spin-receptive wickets = spinners take less wickets on these wickets.
Less spin-receptive wickets != spinners are crap in general.
The key is to have a good variety of wickets that encourage all types of bowlers. In addition, this will be a better test for spinners who otherwise feast on turning pitches.

 

[Richard]

Nah, more seam friendly wickets could mean less batsman friendly wickets. You could still have the same number of pitches that offer plenty of turn on the 4th day. Plus, as we discussed before, uneven bounce helps all bowlers.

Less batsman-friendly wickets could quite possibly mean less Azharuddins, Tendulkars, Dravids, Gangulys, Laxmans and that's only those of the last 15 years.

 

[Richard]

Less spin-receptive wickets = spinners take less wickets on these wickets.
Less spin-receptive wickets != spinners are crap in general.
The key is to have a good variety of wickets that encourage all types of bowlers. In addition, this will be a better test for spinners who otherwise feast on turning pitches.

But if you play Tests on said pitches it doesn't matter if there are only fingerspinners - good fingerspinners win you Tests if you can choose the pitches you play on.

 

[adharcric]

But if you play Tests on said pitches it doesn't matter if there are only fingerspinners - good fingerspinners win you Tests if you can choose the pitches you play on.

That's great. If they can't win tests on less helpful surfaces, we'll have other bowlers who can, for once.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not. I'm arguing against trying to change something that's been the case for decades. And IMO if you try to improve in one area it almost invariably has to mean another goes downhill. IMO, if India try to become more competetive away on a consistent basis (there have been several periods in their history when they've had spells of a year or three of away competetiveness or even dominance) then they're almost certain to lose the other part of their historical trait.

Personally if I'm happy with India being the way they always have been. Obviously, some people aren't. That, of course, is fair enough - it's a case of personal preference.

Hahaha, vintage Richard right here. You're happy with India the way they are? Crap away from home? Obviously, I mean, whether or not you want to be good is just a matter of preference. Hell, why reform the English County Cricket system like you suggested earlier in the thread? It's been the way it is for a while now, so obviously that's just the natural way of things and there's no point in changing it.

Who, other than you on selected topics, could possibly be happy with mediocrity?

 

[chris.hinton]

Ideal English cricket set up

County Championship

Premier League of 6 counties ( Lancashire,Hampshire, Notts, Sussex, Surrey, Warwickshire)

First Division of 12 counties ( the rest of them)

Minor Counties merge with the counties Second Xis together with Scotland,Ireland and Holland (Under 23 sides) and MCC Young cricketers ( 42 clubs) 2 groups of 11 and 2 groups of 10 with Play offs a
ONE DAY COMPS

Nat west trophy

As it was in 2001/2002 a true FA cup of cricket with a view of expanding to 64 teams ( Oxford/Cambridge University, Isle of Man and Channel Islands

Twenty20 cup

Could remain as it is because of the freshness of the competiton

Pro40 League

As it is because i enjoyed the competition last year

* European Championship ( England and ECB Academy (Under 23) enter with Holland, Ireland, Denmark, Scotland and perhaps A Welsh team.

* Under 19 County championship should be brought back

* Club cricket at high level should be 2 day cricket

 

[viktor]

Yes, but that's just the way it always has been. India have for the last 40 years and more been incredibly hard to beat at home and usually a pushover away.

Anyway - if there were more Chandrasekhars alongside the Bedi\Kumble\Harbhajan\loads-of-others, maybe India would win a few more away Tests without quality seamers.

Its been that way for 40 years and what has India's away record been in that time?
It would help if we had some seamers (other than the Great One) and also some batsmen who could actually play the moving ball, again other than the usual suspects.

 

[Richard]

Hahaha, vintage Richard right here. You're happy with India the way they are? Crap away from home? Obviously, I mean, whether or not you want to be good is just a matter of preference.

But they have been good - very good - at home.

Hell, why reform the English County Cricket system like you suggested earlier in the thread? It's been the way it is for a while now, so obviously that's just the natural way of things and there's no point in changing it.

Except that's far from true - there's been virtually endless tinkering, especially over the last 8 years.

Who, other than you on selected topics, could possibly be happy with mediocrity?

Why does being good at home and generally poor away = mediocre? I'd not personally say the entire history of Indian cricket has been one of mediocrity, myself.

 

[Richard]

Its been that way for 40 years and what has India's away record been in that time?
It would help if we had some seamers (other than the Great One) and also some batsmen who could actually play the moving ball, again other than the usual suspects.

TBF, there have been plenty of highly capable Indian batsmen who've been more than proficient against the seaming ball.

 

[viktor]

TBF, there have been plenty of highly capable Indian batsmen who've been more than proficient against the seaming ball.

That's for another thread. I still don't get why you think India shouldn't try and develop good seamers.

 

[Richard]

Not saying they shouldn't - but no way should that come at the expense of spin.

The foremost priority in India, IMO, should be to encourage spin-bowling.

 

[adharcric]

Why does being good at home and generally poor away = mediocre?

The average of good and poor is usually mediocre.

I'd not personally say the entire history of Indian cricket has been one of mediocrity, myself.

I would. This coming from the eternal optimist of Indian cricket.

 

[Richard]

The average of good and poor is usually mediocre.

I disagree. Mediocre is a term that tends to the poor side of average.

Anyway, it's not as simple as that when it's a very clear home:away thing.

I would. This coming from the eternal optimist of Indian cricket.

Pah, never. You've evidently not met a guy called silentstriker.

 

[jeevan]

The big problem with only emphasizing spin bowling and not prepping seamers with fast tracks is that the batsmen also end up with no clue on how to play seam.

And collapse like a pack of cards, as in SA. Even if you write off winning games in SA, a crushing series like that sets back teams for months and months.

Not developing pacers is not a good option for India. And it appeared that India was making progress till about a year or two ago almost everyone decided to slow down. Only Munaf gained anything (accuracy in his case) from slowing down.

In the 2003WC Zaheer and Nehra were both regularly in the mid-140s, IIRC with sufficient accuracy and good movement (recall Nehra's 6-for against England). And the third guy in that instance was Srinath.

What happened?

 

[silentstriker]

Indian cricket has been a journey from a low of being complete **** to a high of being almost complete-****, and then back to complete **** again.

We need bowlers who can bowl pace, and batsman who can play it. Simple as that.

 

[silentstriker]

Pah, never. You've evidently not met a guy called silentstriker.

Did you just call me the optimist?

 

[Richard]

Spot the sarcasm, dude...

You're like me, remember - the eternal pessimist.