Have India failed to capitalize on Bumrah?

[shortpitched713]

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.

Did India capitalize on Ashwin's bowling talent?

 

[subshakerz]

Did India capitalize on Ashwin's bowling talent?

Absolutely.

 

[centurymaker]

SA 2021 turned out to a lot harder than anyone expected because SA unearthed Marco Jansen from nowhere, who ended up being unplayable on those tracks.

In fact SA's attack that series was better than India's after the 1st test. Taller and quicker SA bowlers extracted more movement than shorter Indian counterparts. That was the difference.

India may have won the second test if Siraj hadn't got injured during the match and if Kohli hadn't missed that test due to back spasms. Injuries went against India at the wrong time and momentum completely shifted towards SA. SA then became the better side in the 2nd half of the series. India were clearly 2nd best. It wasn't that India didn't capitalise, SA were just better. If there was no Jansen and India still lost then I would agree with you. But SA were just better in their conditions. Those decks suited their bowlers a lot more.

 

[subshakerz]

SA 2021 turned out to a lot harder than anyone expected because SA unearthed Marco Jansen from nowhere, who ended up being unplayable on those tracks.

In fact SA's attack that series was better than India's after the 1st test. Taller and quicker SA bowlers extracted more movement than shorter Indian counterparts. That was the difference.

India may have won the second test if Siraj hadn't got injured during the match and if Kohli hadn't missed that test due to back spasms. Injuries went against India at the wrong time and momentum completely shifted towards SA. SA then became the better side in the 2nd half of the series. India were clearly 2nd best. It wasn't that India didn't capitalise, SA were just better. If there was no Jansen and India still lost then I would agree with you. But SA were just better in their conditions. Those decks suited their bowlers a lot more.

Nah sorry India allowed two 200 plus scores to be chased twice in a row on bowling wickets with SA one down in the series.

India were better to me overall as a side coming into the series.

 

[Coronis]

re Steyn: once he became the Steyn we all know and love (2007 vs NZ I’d say) SA went 43-19-18 in games he played. 11-4-3 in home series, 10-2-4 in away series.

 

[centurymaker]

Nah sorry India allowed two 200 plus scores to be chased twice in a row on bowling wickets with SA one down in the series.

India were better to me overall as a side coming into the series.

India were a bowler short in the 2nd test.
And by the 3rd test, SA were just much better with the ball and much better at nullifying key Indian bowlers who had a height disadvantage. South Africa extracted much more bounce and seam movement. There was so much analysis and talk about lack of height in the Indian side costing them. So this is just your belief. India weren't better in the 2nd half of the series. SA were. In SA, including that series, chasing 200+ against shorter bowlers (5'9, 5'10, 5'11) vs chasing 200+ against tall bowlers (6'3, 6,4, 6'9) was a completely different story.

Rabada 6'3
Ngidi 6'4
Jansen 6'9

You had to watch to know the trouble the tall bowlers were causing both with sideways movement as well as vertical movement (bounce). Indians bowlers couldn't compete. They got less seam movement and significantly less variable bounce. You are fixed to your opinion because you are not looking at it analytically. Indian bowlers were inferior. Not suited to those conditions. Thats why in ATG XI, or in real life, you have to have variety in seamers and variation in their attributes. These things really matter.

 

[subshakerz]

India were a bowler short in the 2nd test.
And by the 3rd test, SA were just much better with the ball and much better at nullifying key Indian bowlers who had a height disadvantage. South Africa extracted much more bounce and seam movement. There was so much analysis and talk about lack of height in the Indian side costing them. So this is just your belief. India weren't better in the 2nd half of the series. SA were. In SA, including that series, chasing 200+ against shorter bowlers (5'9, 5'10, 5'11) vs chasing 200+ against tall bowlers (6'3, 6,4, 6'9) was a completely different story.

Rabada 6'3
Ngidi 6'4
Jansen 6'9

You had to watch to know the trouble the tall bowlers were causing both with sideways movement as well as vertical movement (bounce). Indians bowlers couldn't compete. They got less seam movement and significantly less variable bounce. You are fixed to your opinion because you are not looking at it analytically. Indian bowlers were inferior. Not suited to those conditions. Thats why in ATG XI, or in real life, you have to have variety in seamers and variation in their attributes. These things really matter.

Again I don't buy this. Those were defendable scores on those pitches. India didn't have trouble dismissing them for those scores in the 1st innings.

 

[Chin Music]

Surely the last 18 months shows that India is in transition. No more Kohli/Rohit and no Ashwin/Shami. Four big players to lose. The batting clearly has some talent, but there needs to be some bowling coming through. That's going to affect the overall impact that he can have and especially the support available to him with the ball.

 

[TheJediBrah]

From now they should always write his name as BUMRAH to prove this thread wrong