Appreciation Society for the Indian bowling attack apart from Zaheer

[Borges]

Bit of a cheerleader thread both ways. Not really worth of CW I'd have thought.

A whole lot less pukeworthy than the staple Bradman-Tendulkar threads, I would have thought. Also substantially less nonsensical than any CW thread in which 'UDRS' appears more than once.

Having said that, I don't find anything much to appreciate in the current Indian bowling attack apart from Zaheer. But fair enough to say that there are a few good things that can be pointed out; that it doesn't look all that horrendous when compared with the overall abysmal quality of bowling in world cricket at this juncture.

Just because there aren't many good bowlers around at the moment doesn't make the distinctly above mediocre ones suddenly good

+1

Frightening, when one considers that this Indian bowling could actually be a shade better than that of Australia at the moment. SA good, England fair, and the rest are assorted varieties of bilge. The loss of Aamir to cricket looks bigger and bigger with each passing day.

Harbhajan's problem is how defensively he bowls if he doesn't pick up wickets quickly in his spell.

Yeah. The problem is exacerbated because more often than not, he bowls defensively right at the beginning of his spell. He has managed to be ok - just about ok - when he has started out with the idea that his main job in test matches is taking wickets.

 

[Jono]

A whole lot less pukeworthy than the staple Bradman-Tendulkar threads, I would have thought. Also substantially less nonsensical than any CW thread in which 'UDRS' appears more than once.

Setting the bar high.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Mishra has the makings of becoming a potent wicket-taking bowler in tests. He must be given a consistent run. IMHO, he should be able to wreak havoc among the inept West Indian batsmen in the upcoming tests. Mishra's real test will come when he bowls to above average/good players of spin and that should be interesting.

Sehwag is a good off-spinner. If Ishant Sharma has got his old rhythm back, he could be a formidable medium-pacer. Sreesanth is too inconsistent for my liking. Irfan Pathan should be given another go in tests as the medium-paced swing bowling all-rounder. He can be an effective third seamer in English conditions.

 

[GotSpin]

+1

Frightening, when one considers that this Indian bowling could actually be a shade better than that of Australia at the moment. SA good, England fair, and the rest are assorted varieties of bilge. The loss of Aamir to cricket looks bigger and bigger with each passing day.
.

It'd be pretty close. Depends on our selectors tbh but Zaheer is the deciding factor. Without him India are cooked. If an Aussie pace bowler goes down he can just get replaced by another similar mediocre one

 

[ankitj]

Harbhajan can do things that no one else can dare to.

Evidence!

 

[shankar]

Leaving aside questions of their quality, I find Sreesanth and Ishant to be quite enjoyable bowlers to watch when on form (which is admittedly less than half the time)

Harbhajan's problem is how defensively he bowls if he doesn't pick up wickets quickly in his spell. While the popular theory is that he only thrives on subcontinent wickets, I actually think he nowadays prefers wickets abroad, that give him a bit of bounce. Subcontinent wickets only break up late in the match, and nowadays stay low and slow most of the time.

Yeah, agree with this. The slowness is a real killer. Batsmen are so comfortable camping on the backfoot and working it away. Whereas in the 90's the skill was in getting to the pitch of the ball and smothering the turn. Very few overseas batsmen were able to be succcesful then. The last 6-7 years, loads of overseas batsmen have flourished in India. Even Kumble suffered (relatively) in the latter half of his career despite having a better googly in his armoury.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Harbhajan can do things that no one else can dare to.

Evidence!

Boy, that's a heavyweight performance. I'll give you that!

 

[Cevno]

Someone to start a Broad vs Ishant vs Sreesanth thread(bowling only).

 

[Bun]

Since 2008, with Zaheer Khan, India has played 25 tests, and won 13 of those. Out of these are 2 vs Bangladesh. So without considering Bangers, it's like 23 tests played and 11 won.

Without him, India have played 11 and won 4 out of them. It's not as if they have been all **** without Zaheer. Following are the games:

Result	Margin		Opposition	Ground		Date
lost	122 runs	v Australia	Sydney		2-Jan-08
won	72 runs		v Australia	Perth		16-Jan-08
draw	-		v Australia	Adelaide	24-Jan-08
draw	-		v South Africa	Chennai		26-Mar-08
lost	inns & 90 runs	v South Africa	Ahmedabad	3-Apr-08
won	8 wickets	v South Africa	Kanpur		11-Apr-08
lost	10 wickets	v Sri Lanka	Galle		18-Jul-10
draw	-		v Sri Lanka	Colombo (SSC)	26-Jul-10
won	5 wickets	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (PSS)	3-Aug-10
won	inns & 198 runs	v New Zealand	Nagpur		20-Nov-10
lost	inns & 25 runs	v South Africa	Centurion	16-Dec-10

Call it anything that you can, but given some of those pitches and opposition, it's not by any definition "dire".

 

[Bun]

Comparitively, England has won 19 out of their 38 tests featuring Anderson in the same period, while without them, England has played 5 tests, and won 2 and lost 2. Not a record dissimilar in entirety to India's without Zak in the same period.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's true that India have picked up the results, which is of course to their credit, but you must admit that without Zaheer it's often in spite of the bowlers rather than because of them. It's both bowlers and batsmen that win you matches, and it's really not an exaggeration that India have relied heavily on the former.

The 5-wicket win in Sri Lanka, for example, required Sehwag to come out of nowhere and take the wickets, while the win over New Zealand had the Kiwis caving in from scoreboard pressure more than anything else. Again, credit to India as a team for the wins, but we can't really credit Sree, Ishant and the like.

If we're going for stats, the Indian attack, in matches without Zaheer, have averaged 45.92 over the period you mentioned. That's worse than any other side, including Bangladesh.

Removing Anderson from mid-2009-onwards (I use 2009 as before that he couldn't really be said to be the most important member of the attack) does raise England's average, as expected, but the sample size there isn't enough to draw much from. It's not really helpful to see what effect Jimmy has on the figures before 2009 as he was typically the 3rd-4th best bowler in the side, and has vastly improved since then.

 

[Bun]

It's true that India have picked up the results, which is of course to their credit, but you must admit that without Zaheer it's often in spite of the bowlers rather than because of them. It's both bowlers and batsmen that win you matches, and it's really not an exaggeration that India have relied heavily on the former.

The 5-wicket win in Sri Lanka, for example, required Sehwag to come out of nowhere and take the wickets, while the win over New Zealand had the Kiwis caving in from scoreboard pressure more than anything else. Again, credit to India as a team for the wins, but we can't really credit Sree, Ishant and the like.

Not really mate,

All of India's wins mentioned above without Zaheer had significant inputs from Ishant Sharma.

There were also efforts from Harby Singh, Ojha, Amit Mishra, and even RP Singh and Irfan Pathan.

If we're going for stats, the Indian attack, in matches without Zaheer, have averaged 45.92 over the period you mentioned. That's worse than any other side, including Bangladesh.

As for the averages, you seem to forget that most of these matches were played in the subcontinent (India and SL to be precise), against some very good players on such pitches. And then there were grounds like Adelaide also. In fact, in the 2010 series against Sri Lanka at home, our bowlers averaged something in the mid 40s iirc, and yet we won that series 2-0! (3 test series), so perhaps the bowling averages here need to get viewed in that context, rather than absolute figures.

Removing Anderson from mid-2009-onwards (I use 2009 as before that he couldn't really be said to be the most important member of the attack) does raise England's average, as expected, but the sample size there isn't enough to draw much from. It's not really helpful to see what effect Jimmy has on the figures before 2007-8 as he was typically the 3rd-4th best bowler in the side, and has vastly improved since then.

yes, without anderson england's bowling average jumps from about 31 to 37 which, I believe for the pitches they have played in is a pretty high number as well. Maybe the sample's small but I think it shows up the reliance that Eng team places on Anderson these days. Just like how much India is reliant on Zak.

But to sum up, both these teams aren't going to dogs without their lead fast bowlers. And India aren't exactly doing a Bangladesh without Zak for sure!

 

[Blaze 18]

The third test against Sri Lanka was crazy. We managed to screw a full strength Sri Lankan side in Sri Lanka - without Zaheer and Harbhajan - with duds like Ishant Sharma and Abhimanyu Mithun! Crazy.

 

[Bun]

The third test against Sri Lanka was crazy. We managed to screw a full strength Sri Lankan side in Sri Lanka - without Zaheer and Harbhajan - with duds like Ishant Sharma and Abhimanyu Mithun! Crazy.

as incredulous as winning a perth test with performances from rp singh, irfan pathan and a rookie ishant

 

[vcs]

The third test against Sri Lanka was crazy. We managed to screw a full strength Sri Lankan side in Sri Lanka - without Zaheer and Harbhajan - with duds like Ishant Sharma and Abhimanyu Mithun! Crazy.

Yeah, that was a fantastic win.

 

[Xuhaib]

The third test against Sri Lanka was crazy. We managed to screw a full strength Sri Lankan side in Sri Lanka - without Zaheer and Harbhajan - with duds like Ishant Sharma and Abhimanyu Mithun! Crazy.

tbf that was batsman winning the game.Sure they picked 20 wickets but they conceded 425+ in the first innings and then chased down 250 on a 5th day track.Not many batting line ups barring India will do that to SL in SL.If Pakistan ends up conceding 400 in the first innings I am always certain that a heavy defeat is coming up.

 

[Athlai]

Hey I think everyone is forgetting the purpose of this thread.

That Zaheer is a chump.

 

[Bun]

tbf that was batsman winning the game.Sure they picked 20 wickets but they conceded 425+ in the first innings and then chased down 250 on a 5th day track.Not many batting line ups barring India will do that to SL in SL.If Pakistan ends up conceding 400 in the first innings I am always certain that a heavy defeat is coming up.

the wicket was such one. I am fairly sure sl bowlers had similar or worse figures in that series. in the end, indian bowlers did just enough to win it.

 

[Xuhaib]

Ofcourse bowlers played the part but it was very much a support role to the batsman who were the main driving force.

 

[Flem274*]

India minus Zaheer are a quirky thing. Last year with Zaheer they couldn't dismiss our lot. Take away the world class bowler and we died like flies. It's like the bowlers suddenly decide they better do something or people will actually realize they're truly quite terrible 90% of the time.