Have India failed to capitalize on Bumrah?

[OverratedSanity]

Shami is an immense loss to the team. Was the perfect new ball partner for Bumrah and even though he was never that good in England (always bowled too short), he was never too wayward in terms of accuracy. He'd have been enough of a handful in the Australia tour on those pitches especially to the extent where I think we'd have won that series.

 

[ankitj]

Ishant, Bhuvi and Umesh too to varying degrees. We dumped our golden generation bowlers too soon.

 

[Spark]

Shami is an immense loss to the team. Was the perfect new ball partner for Bumrah and even though he was never that good in England (always bowled too short), he was never too wayward in terms of accuracy. He'd have been enough of a handful in the Australia tour on those pitches especially to the extent where I think we'd have won that series.

IIRC the word (before the most recent series of course) was that the Indian bowler the Aus players worried about the most was always Shami rather than Bumrah, they found him really really difficult to face.

 

[subshakerz]

This is literally the first genuinely poor innings of his career,

That's not true.

 

[ma1978]

That's not true.

whatever, it’s an outlier. Every bowler has them. Bumrash has them less than anyone else. Great players don’t make teams. Pakistan failed to capitalize on Imran, Waqar and Wasim. South Africa failed to capitalize on Steyn. If you use the same argument and metrics

 

[Randomfan]

India in 83 years before Bumrah debuted - 13 test wins in Aus,Eng,SA
India in 7 years after Bumrah debuted - 12 test wins in Aus, Eng, SA

 

[subshakerz]

whatever, it’s an outlier. Every bowler has them. Bumrash has them less than anyone else. Great players don’t make teams. Pakistan failed to capitalize on Imran, Waqar and Wasim. South Africa failed to capitalize on Steyn. If you use the same argument and metrics

Lol that's not true with Pakistan and SA

 

[ma1978]

Lol that's not true with Pakistan and SA

they were certainly not ranked higher or more dominant than india

Pakistan has still never won in Aus lol

 

[TheJediBrah]

South Africa failed to capitalize on Steyn

Not sure you can rationalise this. They did pretty well. I'd be surprised if they lost 3 consecutive series (they might have though)

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

Bumrah-Kuldeep should've been the McGrath-Warne of this era albeit on a much lesser statistical scale. Fast bowlers hunt in pairs but not necessarily always with other fast bowlers. So no, India haven't maximised his potential. Or Kuldeep's for that matter.

 

[ma1978]

Not sure you can rationalise this. They did pretty well. I'd be surprised if they lost 3 consecutive series (they might have though)

and India did well for 80% of Bumrah’s career by any statistical measure, comparable or better than the best of SA or Pakistan when they had their stars . There’s a transition on now but that doesn’t take away from the first long bit of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

they were certainly not ranked higher or more dominant than india

Pakistan has still never won in Aus lol

The question was if Pakistan or SA failed to capitalize on them.

Pakistan after Imran won their first series in Eng and India and a WC and the Champions Trophy in their time, reached no.1 briefly and were unbeaten at home.

Steyn? Where do we start. SA were unbeaten away from home a decade mostly due to him and also reached no.1.

I agree that with Wasim and Waqar, Pakistan didn't reach full potential though due to captaincy and fixing.

 

[subshakerz]

and India did well for 80% of Bumrah’s career by any statistical measure, comparable or better than the best of SA or Pakistan when they had their stars . There’s a transition on now but that doesn’t take away from the first long bit of his career.

That's not the question, it's whether India got the most out of Bumrah and the stat I used is that India lost more with him than without him.

 

[centurymaker]

Lol that's not true with Pakistan and SA

Ofcourse it is true for Pakistan at least.

Pakistan never won in AUS, SA or WI. These were the best sides. Pakistan only beat up weak English sides of the 90s.

 

[shortpitched713]

Ofcourse it is true for Pakistan.

Pakistan never won in AUS, SA or WI. These were the best sides. Pakistan only beat up weak English sides of the 90s.

90s wasn't the best Pakistan side. Late 80s into early 90 with all-rounder Imran, Miandad, and early peak Wasim was the best side.

 

[subshakerz]

Ofcourse it is true for Pakistan.

Pakistan never won in AUS, SA or WI. These were the best sides. Pakistan only beat up weak English sides of the 90s.

This is so silly. You compare with what the team was before.

SA wasn't even there in Imran's time.

Pakistan before Imran hadn't even won a single test in Aus and with him they did and were competitive.

They by all rights should have won in WI in 88 but even drawing there is to their credit and would have been inconceivable before Imran.

They won first time in Eng and India.

For any player the above are excellent returns as far as transforming your team.

Whereas before Bumrah, India had already drawn in SA and won in England before and were strong at home. So the real new ground he broke was in Aus before not really as impressive outside that.

 

[centurymaker]

The question was if Pakistan or SA failed to capitalize on them.

Pakistan after Imran won their first series in Eng and India and a WC and the Champions Trophy in their time, reached no.1 briefly and were unbeaten at home.

Steyn? Where do we start. SA were unbeaten away from home a decade mostly due to him and also reached no.1.

I agree that with Wasim and Waqar, Pakistan didn't reach full potential though due to captaincy and fixing.

India weren't a top 3 side in 1987. They were mid table. It's like India winning in Pakistan in 2004. Pakistan too was a mid table side in 04.

You are talking about capitalising on great bowling talent. Pakistan never really did so either. They only beat sides that they were supposed to beat (away from home). They never beat Aus, WI or SA (during Imran and then Ws time).

It's similar to India not beating England or SA away. But at least India won in Australia.

Meanwhile Pakistan beat Eng, you can say. But if you claim that India didn't capitalise, Pakistan by same yardstick didn't either.

 

[centurymaker]

Why Asian sides don't capitalise? It's partly because they are often very sloppy at critical points and in the field especially!

 

[subshakerz]

India weren't a top 3 side in 1987. They were mid table. It's like India winning in Pakistan in 2004. Pakistan too was a mid table side in 04.

You are talking about capitalising on great bowling talent. Pakistan never did so either. They only beat sides that they were supposed to beat (away from home). They never beat Aus, WI or SA (during Imran and then Ws time).

It's similar to India not beating England or SA away. But at least India won in Australia.

Beating sides you are supposed to beat IS capitalising on bowling talent. Otherwise you would have beaten them before without these bowlers.

Just because NZ had Hadlee doesn't mean they had a realistic chance of beating WI in WI. But they did have a chance of beating mid teams like Eng and Aus away and they did exactly that so NZ did capitalise on Hadlee. Similar Pakistan under Imran, beat who they should have beaten, Eng and India, and were very competitive against the sides stronger than them.

The reason I raised this question is because when India faced teams like Eng 2018 and SA 2021 they should have beaten them but they didn't.

 

[subshakerz]

It's rather simple, the more bowling resources you have, the wider is the pool of teams you are reasonably expected of beating, and if you don't beat them, you didn't capitalise on your bowling resources.