Ajit Agarkar vs Sreesanth in Limited Overs

[Arjun]

You're making the somewhat brave presumption that Ishant Sharma will not be a burnt-out hazzbin in 3 years' time. I mean, I think he looks damn good now, yeah, but I thought the same about Munaf Patel 2 years ago. And several other bowlers before that - including even Ajit Agarkar, despite his short stature.

If Ishant Sharma is to become a good bowler, he has an unspeakably large amount of history to defy. He's capable of doing so, unquestionably, but that hasn't stopped countless seam-bowlers before him failing to. And the same pitfalls that befell them remain in place for him.

Frankly, Ishant is substantially better than most of those has-beens who've played for India lately, and has done enough to play as a long-term regular. It's not just the bowlers, but also some horrendous, impatient planning by the team management that's led to this problem we're seeing.

Rather than try, use and throw away, they need to look at four pacers from all over India who will last at least four years from now, and four more to back up, and stick to them. It's not a question of good, bad or mediocre bowlers, but also the competency of leaders- just like extreme military training, where the hazardous consequences of failure are due to failed leadership. Extreme example, of course, but pace bowling in Indian cricket isn't very different.

 

[Richard]

The trouble is, if you identify a bowler who you think is going to be good (eg, Vikram Raj Vir Singh) then pick him for 4 years and he averages 60 constantly over those years, you're going to do far more damage to your team's chances than if you chop-and-change between this poor player and someone who might possibly do a bit better.

The simple truth of selection is that you can only plan so much. If the player does not produce the results after a certain length of time - and I'd go so far as to say a single Test series, never mind the 15 or 16 of them you might play in 4 years - he has to go, no two ways about. Planning and trying to give a fair chance to the maximum extent possible is indeed important, but it can only go on so long.

For example - Ravinder Bopara. Bopara did not deserve to play against Sri Lanka recently - there were at least 3 candidates who would have been preferable - but once he played the opening Test it would have been wrong to change mid-series, even despite the fact that the mistake was becoming clearer and clearer and the series was slipping away. But to continue to pick Bopara in New Zealand would have been insanity. If and when he comes back, hopefully he'll be better than he was last time.

 

[Arjun]

World-class bowlers don't come in one series. They take several years to reach their peak, on the back of performance. You've got to identify who has that in him, carefully, keeping in mind the side-effects and kickbacks. A thorough analysis, possibly in a few matches for India or India A, and some domestic seasons, will give you a clear picture of what someone is made of. The goal, however, should be to get 20 wickets for the team, and repeated chopping and changing between players of similar (and less) quality doesn't help. You've got to pick someone you'd back to average a lot less than 60, rather than hope so. There's no point in chopping and changing if all your options do well initially and then fizzle out in the same short span.

 

[Prince EWS]

The trouble is, if you identify a bowler who you think is going to be good (eg, Vikram Raj Vir Singh) then pick him for 4 years and he averages 60 constantly over those years, you're going to do far more damage to your team's chances than if you chop-and-change between this poor player and someone who might possibly do a bit better.

The simple truth of selection is that you can only plan so much. If the player does not produce the results after a certain length of time - and I'd go so far as to say a single Test series, never mind the 15 or 16 of them you might play in 4 years - he has to go, no two ways about. Planning and trying to give a fair chance to the maximum extent possible is indeed important, but it can only go on so long.

For example - Ravinder Bopara. Bopara did not deserve to play against Sri Lanka recently - there were at least 3 candidates who would have been preferable - but once he played the opening Test it would have been wrong to change mid-series, even despite the fact that the mistake was becoming clearer and clearer and the series was slipping away. But to continue to pick Bopara in New Zealand would have been insanity. If and when he comes back, hopefully he'll be better than he was last time.

I agree, but personally I think a series is a little too short, for batsmen anyway. A good batsman can quite easily have a bad series - even fall into a rut and look absolutely horrid - especially when they are under additional pressure (eg. a player's first Test series, or a recall after failing the first time..). I was glad to see Bopara gone as he clearly shouldn't have been selected to begin with and looked well and truly out of his depth, but from a selection process POV, I disagreed with it.

I'd be more inclined to axe a bowler after a series, or even mid-series, though. It doesn't really sound fair, but as a bowler you can get the chance to keep bowling even if you have a bad over, a bad spell or even a bad session. As a batsman, one mistake can see you gone for the innings.

 

[Manee]

Vikram Rajvir is one of the worst bowlers I've ever seen so far in his international career, and Munaf Patel in the state he was most recently in when I saw him I don't want anywhere near ODIs either.

In any case, Ishant Sharma is the new Munaf Patel and I imagine someone else might well be the new Ishant Sharma in January 2010.

VRV Singh is not a bad bowler. He had the potential to bowl at 140kph consistently throughout a Test spell (not sure if he has that anymore), and he rips through domestic line ups, somehow.

You're making the somewhat brave presumption that Ishant Sharma will not be a burnt-out hazzbin in 3 years' time. I mean, I think he looks damn good now, yeah, but I thought the same about Munaf Patel 2 years ago. And several other bowlers before that - including even Ajit Agarkar, despite his short stature.

If Ishant Sharma is to become a good bowler, he has an unspeakably large amount of history to defy. He's capable of doing so, unquestionably, but that hasn't stopped countless seam-bowlers before him failing to. And the same pitfalls that befell them remain in place for him.

Ishant Sharma won't burn out in 3 years.

Frankly, Ishant is substantially better than most of those has-beens who've played for India lately, and has done enough to play as a long-term regular. It's not just the bowlers, but also some horrendous, impatient planning by the team management that's led to this problem we're seeing.

Yes, Ishant is the best Indian fast bowling talent that I have ever seen.

Rather than try, use and throw away, they need to look at four pacers from all over India who will last at least four years from now, and four more to back up, and stick to them.

Yes and no. Yes to the general principle, but they should just pick 15 pace bowlers who they want to take them through the next 5 years and stick to them (no "4 for future first team, 4 reserves), given a reassessment after about 2 years. The camp for the top 20 fast bowlers at the NCA is a good start, but they must go from there to extensive off-season-long fitness work. Bowling technique with the best coaches that the country have to offer - Sekhar, Prabakhar, Lillee, etc.

Going from the bowlers who I have seen bowl, I'd go with (as a start):
- Zaheer Khan
- Sreesanth
- Irfan Pathan
- RP Singh
- Munaf Patel
- Ishant Sharma
- VRV Singh
- Pradeep Sangwan
- Manpreet Gony
- Pankaj Singh
- Praveen Kumar

The trouble is, if you identify a bowler who you think is going to be good (eg, Vikram Raj Vir Singh) then pick him for 4 years and he averages 60 constantly over those years, you're going to do far more damage to your team's chances than if you chop-and-change between this poor player and someone who might possibly do a bit better.

But the whole point is grooming more talent than will play in one game - so, if he plays badly for a match or three, back to the gym and nets.

A thorough analysis, possibly in a few matches for India or India A, and some domestic seasons, will give you a clear picture of what someone is made of. The goal, however, should be to get 20 wickets for the team, and repeated chopping and changing between players of similar (and less) quality doesn't help. You've got to pick someone you'd back to average a lot less than 60, rather than hope so. There's no point in chopping and changing if all your options do well initially and then fizzle out in the same short span.

AWTA.

 

[Richard]

World-class bowlers don't come in one series. They take several years to reach their peak, on the back of performance. You've got to identify who has that in him, carefully, keeping in mind the side-effects and kickbacks. A thorough analysis, possibly in a few matches for India or India A, and some domestic seasons, will give you a clear picture of what someone is made of. The goal, however, should be to get 20 wickets for the team, and repeated chopping and changing between players of similar (and less) quality doesn't help. You've got to pick someone you'd back to average a lot less than 60, rather than hope so. There's no point in chopping and changing if all your options do well initially and then fizzle out in the same short span.

World-class bowlers don't come in a single series, sure. And more bowlers than not struggle early in their international career.

But has it occurred to anyone that the reason for this is very often premature elevation? Players are picked because they have potential rather than because they actually look like they're up to it at the time they're first picked.

But if a bowler is not up to it - even if you are confident he will be sometime in the future - the worst thing you can do is to continue to pick him.

 

[slowfinger]

You're making the somewhat brave presumption that Ishant Sharma will not be a burnt-out hazzbin in 3 years' time. I mean, I think he looks damn good now, yeah, but I thought the same about Munaf Patel 2 years ago. And several other bowlers before that - including even Ajit Agarkar, despite his short stature.

If Ishant Sharma is to become a good bowler, he has an unspeakably large amount of history to defy. He's capable of doing so, unquestionably, but that hasn't stopped countless seam-bowlers before him failing to. And the same pitfalls that befell them remain in place for him.

Definately

 

[Richard]

VRV Singh is not a bad bowler. He had the potential to bowl at 140kph consistently throughout a Test spell (not sure if he has that anymore), and he rips through domestic line ups, somehow.

He may not be a bad bowler all the time, but he's been truly woeful every single time I've seen him, and those number a considerable number indeed. He may even have potential to get better.

But so far he truly is one of the worst I've seen, however quick he is.

Ishant Sharma won't burn out in 3 years.

I'd not want to be confident of that. I'm not saying it'll happen, at all, but it'd be a brave man (or boy ) who said "it won't". Pitfalls remain and have always remained for Indian seam-bowlers, it's not just coincidence that so many promising ones have fallen by the wayside. Is Ishant really more promising than Munaf? I don't think so TBH. More so than Rudra Pratap Singh, or Pathan, or Balaji, or Agarkar, or Kumaran, or Yohannan, or any number of others I could name, yes. But the fact that Munaf has fallen, so far, to exactly the same problems they have is indicative, for mine, that the same could easily happen to Ishant. It's up to him and those around him to try and stop it doing so.

 

[Prince EWS]

He may not be a bad bowler all the time, but he's been truly woeful every single time I've seen him, and those number a considerable number indeed. He may even have potential to get better.

But so far he truly is one of the worst I've seen, however quick he is..

Haha yeah, AWTA. I tend not to say much about him because I've only seen him bowl in a few matches and his First Class record, particularly in the last season or so, is brilliant. However, he's looked like a poor man Saj Mahmood on every occasion I've seen him, with a bit of poor man's Steve Harmison mixed in. Truly awful.

I'm certainly not writing him off based on it, but I'd definitely be trying out Sreesanth, Ishant and RP for extended periods first.

 

[Manee]

I'd not want to be confident of that. I'm not saying it'll happen, at all, but it'd be a brave man (or boy ) who said "it won't". Pitfalls remain and have always remained for Indian seam-bowlers, it's not just coincidence that so many promising ones have fallen by the wayside. Is Ishant really more promising than Munaf? I don't think so TBH. More so than Rudra Pratap Singh, or Pathan, or Balaji, or Agarkar, or Kumaran, or Yohannan, or any number of others I could name, yes. But the fact that Munaf has fallen, so far, to exactly the same problems they have is indicative, for mine, that the same could easily happen to Ishant. It's up to him and those around him to try and stop it doing so.

You note Munaf Patel, but Munaf has been terribly unfit throughout his career, before international cricket. Ishant has had no such issues. Ishant Sharma is also much more promising than RP Singh, Pathan, Balaji and Agarkar - simply from bowling very well in his first Test and very well in his first ODI stint. RP Singh was okay to begin with, Pathan was a raw Test bowler to begin with and Balaji fell to massive injuries - something which is unlikely in a given case; Agarkar had a good, long career in ODIs and he is sadly burnt out.