Is Ravichandran Ashwin an ATG test bowler?

[kyear2]

Tests XIs should be picked to take 20 wickets and win games, not lose respectfully with the bat. How does having only 4 bowlers accomplish this? The other ATG lineups can afford it because they had better bowlers who didn't average close to 30 from first to fourth option. For India that isn't the case, so you have to pick more bowlers to offset that. The quantity of good overs being bowled will make up for it, because long spells tire people out, even ATG bowlers, and to pretend like the ATGs will be perfectly effective all the time is idiotic when we've literally seen them slog uselessly at times.

The Jadeja disrespect is unbelievable, the best AR in the world at the moment and we get **** for saying he's a lock in the Indian ATG XI. Come on, be serious please.

You make some good points, it's just that you're so unnecessarily abrasive that it makes it hard to engage with you.

While I understand your point that the bowlers are quite as good as those from other countries, especially outside of the SC, just adding another one could be seen as not an all together better solution, especially if it's going to weaken the batting.

But I do understand the conundrum, and I'm not trying to disrespect any of the players, was purely speaking from a perspective of balance, but everything in this thread is so charged (of which you've led the charge), that everything is taken perosnally as an an affront.
The batting looks short to me, that's literally my only point.

And finally, no one is disrespecting Jadeja, and no one is ****ting on anyone. I similarity don't believe that Miller is an ideal for for the Australian XI either, but again you refuse to even acknowledge another point of view of be willing to cede even the smallest ground on anything. It's either Jadeja and Ashwin are amazing and perfect or you're biased. That's not how this works.

 

[subshakerz]

And finally, no one is disrespecting Jadeja, and no one is ****ting on anyone. I similarity don't believe that Miller is an ideal for for the Australian XI either, but again you refuse to even acknowledge another point of view of be willing to cede even the smallest ground on anything. It's either Jadeja and Ashwin are amazing and perfect or you're biased. That's not how this works.

Miller gets in because of Bradman and Gilly and because it allows two spinners in Warne and O Reilly while still having a 3 man pace attack. For me, at least. Becomes more difficult though if Cummins becomes McGrath Lillee level bowler.

 

[kyear2]

It is disrespect to say Jadeja shouldn't make an XI. There's not much to that argument unless the overall point is to pick a losing team, because Kumble and Kapil as legendary as they are were not on the same level as Murali and Hadlee as bowlers. The bowlers matter more when it comes to winning Tests, because they dictate the bat and ball contest more than the batters and because the most important win condition is taking 20 wickets, not just outscoring the opposition.

Like if you said I could pick a 4 man bowling attack of Hadlee, Ashwin, Murali and Bumrah I'd take it and the extra batter no problem. That isn't the case if it's about India's ATGs.

It is not, and this absolutist argument is getting tiring.

I do understand and agree that an extra bowler can be useful because of the argument in the previous, being a more quality 5th would be better than tiring the bowlers out. Point well made.

But in doing do you're making it more likely to not post competitive totals to defend and is equally fraught with danger.

The team being bandied about has reached consensus, and it's a good XI, but compared to the others from Pakistan (once Imran is at 8), Australia, South Africa, WI etc the batting looks a little short or comparatively exposed. That's all I was saying. At the end of the day the problem is quality over quantity.

This will piss off a few, but it's true from my limited perspective. Bumrah is possibly the best thing that's ever happened to Indian cricket. It may inspire more youngsters to try out fast bowling which may inspire more sporting pitches to inspire them.
The true issue with the team (real and ATG) is a lack of true top tier pacers and it's encouraged by the need to win at home by capitalizing on the very real gulf in talent and quantity between Indian and touring spinners. So the need (and justified pride derived from) to win at home that drives many of the responses in this very thread with regards to ignoring results and performances outside of India, hinders the ability to truly rule the world. To truly dominate you need great pacers, which needs pitches that encourages them, but that would on the short term dull the current home advantage. It is a rough call, and tbh with the current state of world cricket, there would appear to be no need to make that change.

I genuinely hope that the message is taken within the spirit that it was written, and I'm not trying to say that India should give up their dominance at home. It's been historically great and is comparable to that of any other team accomplishment.

 

[Xix2565]

SNIP

SNIP

I mean what does it ultimately matter? All the batters in the world won't save teams from getting bowled out, that's just the inherent power of bowling vs batting. It looks short because for some reason batters are viewed as equals in this context when they are generally working at a large disadvantage. If the bowlers are good enough to take wickets without getting too exhausted then maybe you can have the luxury of weakening the bowling depth to fit in an extra batter, but otherwise taking 20 wickets should be prioritised. Why should it be easier for batters to score runs by giving them less threatening overs overall to face? What's the cricketing logic behind that?

And yes, it is disrespectful to view Jadeja's career and feel like he can't walk into ATG sides or real teams easily. Easiest sign of lack of knowledge of cricket. He helps so much with taking 20 wickets while also providing runs it's not even funny.

What is this nonsense about pacers and sporting pitches? Have you seen the Indian pace bowling record since 2015? They've literally been out bowling touring pacers for a long time. This has already been happening for a good while now even before Bumrah debuted, and was being developed for much longer before then. The search for pacers and the ability to take 20 wickets consistently has been the goal of various Indian team managements, and it's embarrassing to say that they weren't trying before Bumrah. Like come on, you shouldn't be this uneducated on the history.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't think an extra lower order bat is as critical as you are making out in an ATG game at the expense of specialist bowling skill.

What expense?

He's spectacular at home. Assuming Kumble is better, the gap is small, and home bowling (assuming a 5 man attack) is the last of India's concerns.

Away, either him or Kumble are playing as 4th/5th bowlers. Kumble is clearly better, but how much extra value do you think he's adding in this capacity? Kumble averaged 36 away against real teams. He's not exactly going to be running through ATGs. Both of them will be trying to play a holding role/offer comparable variety/capitalize on rare occasions.

Jadeja's value as a bat is much, much clearer.

 

[Xix2565]

I swear, sometimes it feels like some people don't even watch Test cricket or else they wouldn't be saying anything like this about the general history and development of the Indian bowling attack.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I swear, sometimes it feels like some people don't even watch Test cricket

Clowns the lot of them

 

[kyear2]

Miller gets in because of Bradman and Gilly and because it allows two spinners in Warne and O Reilly while still having a 3 man pace attack. For me, at least. Becomes more difficult though if Cummins becomes McGrath Lillee level bowler.

Simpson
Hayden
Bradman
Smith
Chappell
Ponting / Border
Gilchrist
Warne
Cummins
Lillee
McGrath

How does Miller improve that?

 

[Xix2565]

Drop one of Chappell/Border/Ponting and use Miller at 7, move Gilly up a spot IMO. But like you've noted, if the bowlers are good enough to not get too overworked you don't really need the AR.

 

[Xix2565]

Clowns the lot of them

Jokes on them though, I'm the biggest clown.

 

[subshakerz]

Simpson
Hayden
Bradman
Smith
Chappell
Ponting / Border
Gilchrist
Warne
Cummins
Lillee
McGrath

How does Miller improve that?

Cummins not there yet IMO. Otherwise I agree.

 

[kyear2]

I mean what does it ultimately matter? All the batters in the world won't save teams from getting bowled out, that's just the inherent power of bowling vs batting. It looks short because for some reason batters are viewed as equals in this context when they are generally working at a large disadvantage. If the bowlers are good enough to take wickets without getting too exhausted then maybe you can have the luxury of weakening the bowling depth to fit in an extra batter, but otherwise taking 20 wickets should be prioritised. Why should it be easier for batters to score runs by giving them less threatening overs overall to face? What's the cricketing logic behind that?

And yes, it is disrespectful to view Jadeja's career and feel like he can't walk into ATG sides or real teams easily. Easiest sign of lack of knowledge of cricket. He helps so much with taking 20 wickets while also providing runs it's not even funny.

What is this nonsense about pacers and sporting pitches? Have you seen the Indian pace bowling record since 2015? They've literally been out bowling touring pacers for a long time. This has already been happening for a good while now even before Bumrah debuted, and was being developed for much longer before then. The search for pacers and the ability to take 20 wickets consistently has been the goal of various Indian team managements, and it's embarrassing to say that they weren't trying before Bumrah. Like come on, you shouldn't be this uneducated on the history.

This post literally proves everything I said in my first one.

You don't read to understand or grasp context, or heaven forbid cede the high ground to have a proper conversation.

It's I'm right and everyone else is an idiot

 

[subshakerz]

What expense?

He's spectacular at home. Assuming Kumble is better, the gap is small, and home bowling (assuming a 5 man attack) is the last of India's concerns.

Away, either him or Kumble are playing as 4th/5th bowlers. Kumble is clearly better, but how much extra value do you think he's adding in this capacity? Kumble averaged 36 away against real teams. He's not exactly going to be running through ATGs. Both of them will be trying to play a holding role/offer comparable variety/capitalize on rare occasions.

Jadeja's value as a bat is much, much clearer.

That perceived little extra value is actually the difference between the odd game that is won by Kumble with support from Ashwin running through a batting order when conditions are right away from home. Kumble did enough against Australia in the 2000s to suggest he is more capable against ATG sides as an occasional threat. Again, I don't want to exaggerate here, because India are already at a disadvantage as a bowling team, but batting is not an issue for them that Jadeja becomes necessary. They need to throw their remaining eggs in their bowling resources and Kumble is their best overseas spinner.

 

[Xix2565]

This post literally proves everything I said in my first one.

You don't read to understand or grasp context, or heaven forbid cede the high ground to have a proper conversation.

It's I'm right and everyone else is an idiot

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the subject matter and then complain about me missing the context. Give me a break.

 

[honestbharani]

I love Kumble but why tf is one guy overrating his ability away from home? He was just as bad, if not worse, than Ashwin in conditions that did not negate spin as much as it did for Ashwin.

 

[Xix2565]

I love Kumble but why tf is one guy overrating his ability away from home? He was just as bad, if not worse, than Ashwin in conditions that did not negate spin as much as it did for Ashwin.

Probably because he took a 5fer on a road in a drawn series. At least, I've not seen much more thought put into it than that.

 

[honestbharani]

Probably because he took a 5fer on a road in a drawn series. At least, I've not seen much more thought put into it than that.

That was literally him bowling a lot of overs though. Murali Kartik created more chances against the top order in that Sydney test. Man the lengths some go to diss a player they do not like.

 

[Xix2565]

That was literally him bowling a lot of overs though. Murali Kartik created more chances against the top order in that Sydney test. Man the lengths some go to diss a player they do not like.

The gap in Indian spin options (real or ATG) in places where pacers dominate (fast/bouncy/seaming/etc) isn't that big in general, and the lack of 5fers and big hauls isn't really connected to the conditions played in when discussions happen.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean, Ashwin is very much > Kumble as a spinner. Its just that I would like the variety of having all 3 sorts of spinners in my side that I would pick Kumble over Ash. I also pick Zak over Srinath or Shami, does not necessarily mean I think he was the better bowler. I just think the variation these guys bring is important enough in a team environment and the difference in skill level or performances has not been that huge.

 

[subshakerz]

I love Kumble but why tf is one guy overrating his ability away from home? He was just as bad, if not worse, than Ashwin in conditions that did not negate spin as much as it did for Ashwin.

Kumble is easily better than Ash in SA.

If posters want to give credit to Ash for BG 2018 and 2021 test wins, then they should for Kumble for 2002 and 2007 match victories in England, so he is ahead of Ash there in terms of impact.

In Australia, Kumble also clearly better than Ash based on his exploits against an ATG side in the 2000s with 44 wickets in 7 tests that decade.

Ash better in SC but outside it's clearly Kumble.