Indian bowlers

[marc71178]

Well, I don't see why you can't get what I had said. Read back the conversation I had with aussie maybe. I don't see any thing wrong with analysing players regardless of whether they have performed at the international level yet.

There's a difference between analysing players and declaring them world class.

 

[silentstriker]

There's a difference between analysing players and declaring them world class.

Forget world-class, I'd be happy with 'almost rubbish'.

 

[adharcric]

There's a difference between analysing players and declaring them world class.

Who exactly did that?
Please refrain from throwing around baseless comments just to increase your post count.

 

[marc71178]

Oh sorry, the actual word used was great, not world-class - such a huge difference there

 

[adharcric]

Oh sorry, the actual word used was great, not world-class - such a huge difference there

We never said it had to be huge.
Alright, well who called them "great" bowlers? Let's settle this once and for all.
You know what, I'll do the work for you. The word "great" has been used by three people in this thread - first me in saying that Irfan Pathan could potentially become a great ODI bowler, then Aussie in saying that India hasn't produced many great fast bowlers and finally you in being yourself. So which of us is guilty of declaring a bowler "great"?

Expected Response: "you" ... think of something else please

 

[shortpitched713]

Irfan Pathan is a very good swing bowler. If he could consistently apply reverse swing he would be much better, and if he added some pace (which I think is extremely unlikely) he could be great. In all likelihood though I don't see him going much further than the first category.

 

[Nate]

They all suck, India should pick 11 batsmen. Munaf Patel looks about 70, lacks energy and is malnourished. Sreesanth is a schizophrenic (self calming and breathing exercises followed by fist pumping before each delivery). That guy with the hat is alright though.

Sreesanth looks really good to me, and Patel pretty decent. Agarkar should always be thereabouts in the ODI side. Pathan without his extra pace is useless. Singh could be promising, but needs more control.

 

[Dasa]

With some people calling Sreesanth, Munaf et al mediocre etc, I thought I'd do a quick comparison of how they've done so far (Tests only):

Sreesanth 19 @ 29.79 after 5 (2 Eng, 3 WI)
Munaf 24 @ 28.33 after 6 (2 Eng, 4 WI)
-------------------------------------------------------
Pathan 18 @ 39.33 after 6 (3 Aus, 3 Pak)
Agarkar 17 @ 33.24 after 6 (1 Zim, 3 Aus, 1 Saf, 1 Ban)
Zaheer 15 @ 38.47 after 6 (1 Ban, 2 Zim, 2 Aus, 1 SrL)
Nehra 23 @ 29.43 after 6 (1 SrL, 2 Zim, 1 Saf, 2 WI)
Balaji 22 @ 32.86 after 6 (2 NZ, 4 Pak)
-------------------------------------------------------
Srinath 13 @ 50.53 after 6 (5 Aus, 1 Zim)
-------------------------------------------------------
Pollock 21 @ 20.00 after 6 (5 Eng, 1 Ind)
McGrath 14 @ 40.85 after 6 (2 NZ, 3 Saf, 1 Pak)

 

[adharcric]

Thank you Dasa.

 

[Jono]

SS would have claimed McGrath was rubbish after his first few tests then.

Plus I reckon the pitches Sreesanth and Munaf bowled on in the WI (the first 3 tests anyway) were flatter than those Pollock and McGrath started their careers with.

 

[Fratboy]

With some people calling Sreesanth, Munaf et al mediocre etc, I thought I'd do a quick comparison of how they've done so far (Tests only):

Sreesanth 19 @ 29.79 after 5 (2 Eng, 3 WI)
Munaf 24 @ 28.33 after 6 (2 Eng, 4 WI)
-------------------------------------------------------
Pathan 18 @ 39.33 after 6 (3 Aus, 3 Pak)
Agarkar 17 @ 33.24 after 6 (1 Zim, 3 Aus, 1 Saf, 1 Ban)
Zaheer 15 @ 38.47 after 6 (1 Ban, 2 Zim, 2 Aus, 1 SrL)
Nehra 23 @ 29.43 after 6 (1 SrL, 2 Zim, 1 Saf, 2 WI)
Balaji 22 @ 32.86 after 6 (2 NZ, 4 Pak)
-------------------------------------------------------
Srinath 13 @ 50.53 after 6 (5 Aus, 1 Zim)
-------------------------------------------------------
Pollock 21 @ 20.00 after 6 (5 Eng, 1 Ind)
McGrath 14 @ 40.85 after 6 (2 NZ, 3 Saf, 1 Pak)

Pathan's stats are actually passable if one considers he went for 1/136 in his first ever innings.

 

[Dasa]

Pathan's stats are actually passable if one considers he went for 1/136 in his first ever innings.

Well he had an excellent first tour of Pakistan. Probably still his best series with the ball considering the pitches and the opposition.
At that time he was really looking the part at international level.

 

[Fratboy]

Well he had an excellent first tour of Pakistan. Probably still his best series with the ball considering the pitches and the opposition.
At that time he was really looking the part at international level.

Yeah, he still isn't that bad tbh. People expect the world from him, forgetting he's still 22 (?) And contrary to what someone has been claiming in another thread, Pathan actually has better bowling stats after Chappell took over, even including those couple of tests on absolute roads in the last tour to Pakistan.

 

[R_D]

Yeah, he still isn't that bad tbh. People expect the world from him, forgetting he's still 22 (?) And contrary to what someone has been claiming in another thread, Pathan actually has better bowling stats after Chappell took over, even including those couple of tests on absolute roads in the last tour to Pakistan.

The worrying thing about Pathan is his lack of pace.... he used to bowl around 135 Km/h + when he satrted out and now he barely reaches 125km/h.

 

[silentstriker]

The worrying thing about Pathan is his lack of pace.... he used to bowl around 135 Km/h + when he satrted out and now he barely reaches 125km/h.

Exactly. If you're going to bowl at 125, then you need McGrath type accuracy, or you're just going to get smashed around.

 

[Pratters]

We never said it had to be huge.
Alright, well who called them "great" bowlers? Let's settle this once and for all.
You know what, I'll do the work for you. The word "great" has been used by three people in this thread - first me in saying that Irfan Pathan could potentially become a great ODI bowler, then Aussie in saying that India hasn't produced many great fast bowlers and finally you in being yourself. So which of us is guilty of declaring a bowler "great"?

Expected Response: "you" ... think of something else please

Funny how Marc didn't reply to this after making such an issue. Maybe I should call him xenophobic or some thing like he did with Scaly as well. Heh.

 

[marc71178]

Not seeing something tends to impact on making a response.

Funny how you attack me for a comment that others have made but not been attacked by you for though.

Especially if you actually followed things and saw where they were coming from rather than finding the current bandwagon and jumping on it.

 

[Pratters]

Not seeing something tends to impact on making a response.

Funny how you attack me for a comment that others have made but not been attacked by you for though.

Especially if you actually followed things and saw where they were coming from rather than finding the current bandwagon and jumping on it.

 

[Fratboy]

Exactly. If you're going to bowl at 125, then you need McGrath type accuracy, or you're just going to get smashed around.

Word on the street is that Chappell arm twisted Pathan into losing his pace. Chappell is pure evil, you see.