• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Respect for disciplined medium pace - PK and Copeland

Furball

Evil Scotsman
RP was crap before the 18 months too while Irfan was doing well and has continued being Crap since. Don't think even if we had selected him in the FC season he would have done well.May have done better though.

Irfan has been playing Corporate trophies, OD cricket, and other SC matches since he recovered.
FFS!! Even if you watched both bowl in the IPL, you could see who was in better rythm and form. Plus Irfan specially in ODI's gives us a option of 5 bowlers.

Outswinger@Pace who has connection in Baroda cricket, confirmed the other day that Irfan was in Mumbai working on his fitness and raring to go.
I'll take a guy bowling absolute crap over someone who isn't bowling at all.

Twenty20 form and OD form means absolutely nothing when it comes to bowling in Test cricket. None whatsoever. This isn't a Glenn McGrath, or even a Zaheer Khan we're talking about, it's Irfan "hasn't bowled a good spell since Australia were number 1 in the world" Pathan.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
Disagree with you entirely there.

Btw, weren't you one of those saying that there were 100's of county bowlers like Praveen and he would get smacked around easily earlier?
And then advocating Raina and Yuvraj were the best selections India could make and that Ishant would do really well in England?

Shouldn't really talk about Indian players.:p
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Disagree with you entirely there.

Btw, weren't you one of those saying that there were 100's of county bowlers like Praveen and he would get smacked around easily earlier?
And then advocating Raina and Yuvraj were the best selections India could make and that Ishant would do really well in England?

Shouldn't really talk about Indian players.:p
No.

I said that Praveen looked good in the West Indies but he wasn't a bowler who would cause England's batsman enormous problems because they'll have faced plenty of bowlers of a similar style to him. I think Praveen's series average of 30 and SR of over 60 back that up.

I didn't once advocate Yuvraj as a selection. I predicted that India would pick him. Massive difference. As for Raina - he was quite obviously the best selection for the number 6 slot going into the series, and no amount of revisionism based on how badly he went during the series changes that. I also predicted that Raina would fail massively, which he did.

I went overboard based on Ishant's series in the West Indies, but my main prediction was that India's bowling attack without Zaheer were on the same level as Bangladesh - another prediction I got spot on.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
I didn't once advocate Yuvraj as a selection. I also predicted that Raina would fail massively, which he did.
Pretty sure you and somebody else was arguing how Yuvraj should be selected ahead of Badrinath and it was the right decision and how Raina was to be selected ahead of Pujara and others even if he was fit.

Will do some digging later.:p

And don't remember you saying the rest of the things in the same toned down language or in the words you are now using either. Pretty much like you to go into hyperbole on such matters.Still wrong on most:p
 
Last edited:

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Pretty sure you and somebody else was arguing how Yuvraj should be selected ahead of Badrinath and it was the right decision and how Raina was to be selected ahead of Pujara and others even if he was fit.

Will do some digging later.:p

And don't remember you saying the rest of the things in the same toned down language or in the words you are now using either. Pretty much like you to go into hyperbole on such matters.Still wrong on most:p
I might have posted "Yuvraj Singh" as the answer to the "who should be India's number 6" thread; sadly no-one bit.

I also specifically agreed with you that Pujara was the best option for the number 6 spot, but that given his injury and Raina's performance in the West Indies that Raina had earned his spot. You can go on about how you knew Raina would fail; everyone knew Raina would fail against good bowling but there was nobody more qualified for the spot before the series than Raina.

Dig away though, you won't find anything unless you pull your usual quoting out of context trick.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Pretty sure you and somebody else was arguing how Yuvraj should be selected ahead of Badrinath and it was the right decision and how Raina was to be selected ahead of Pujara and others even if he was fit.

Will do some digging later.:p

And don't remember you saying the rest of the things in the same toned down language or in the words you are now using either. Pretty much like you to go into hyperbole on such matters.Still wrong on most:p
At the time, I said that picking Yuvraj over Bandrinath made some sense, that he was getting an unnecessarily hard time from Indian fans, and that as an England fan I'd rather not face him. I don't think I was wrong.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
At the time, I said that picking Yuvraj over Bandrinath made some sense, that he was getting an unnecessarily hard time from Indian fans, and that as an England fan I'd rather not face him. I don't think I was wrong.
Made a 50 but was lucky that he didn't get out on 0(?) when he got a simple catch dropped by KP and also hit few in the air early on IIRC.

Selecting him Wasn't a shocker as such individually, but still reckon Badrinath would have done better.

As for Raina,Ishant and Praveen predicted what would have happen with all 3 in both the 2 tours more or less respectively,even before the West Indies tour.

Edit - Also about Dravid before the West Indies series too.:p
 
Last edited:

Outswinger@Pace

International 12th Man
Already turning into a lively thread. Some very good responses, guys! :thumbup1:

As others have remarked too, a magnificent assessment from Howe_zat.

Look, I'd be lying if I said that I am not excited like a 5-year-old kid everytime I see a genuinely quick bowler with a smooth, rhythmic action steaming in and letting it fly. Such an athletic endeavour subconsciously scores high points with most of us and we tend to view such bowlers more favourably.

Simultaneously, it must not be forgotten that bowling genuine swing and extracting life off the seam is becoming a bit of a less practiced art too. And it's a delightful artform, which at least IMHO, ranks up there with the best and must be boosted to greater heights. Bedser's or Mahmood's style of bowling was very effective in that era and I am certain that, if practiced properly, it'll be successful in any era.

After a fair while, I just saw the 1989 Ashes video of Alderman decimating England, so it further affirms my belief in the merits of quality seam and swing bowling. :cool:


Cevno
brought up Irfan Pathan's case a few posts back. GingerFurball correctly pointed out that the man hasn't played f/c cricket in more than a year and coming directly from club cricket is a quantum leap.

What however isn't well-known outside the circuit is that the club scene under Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) is highly competitive and there are about 15-16 first-class players playing different club fixtures. Pathan has gone through the 2011 season and by all accounts, his bowling rhythm is back.

Anyone who's bowled pace and/or swing at any level would understand how important bowling rhythm is. It has to feel right in your action and you've got to go through the crease properly. When coaches and the management are tinkering with your action, approach, delivery stride and bowling acumen left, right and centre (especially mid-way through a series), as bowler you can get derailed.

It is my opinion, and solely my own, that Irfan was a victim of overcoaching. A natural swing bowler being asked to adapt to three different formats, asked to run his fingers over the ball and bowl cutters to contain them and bat higher up in the order ultimately took its toll. Player management (particularly fast bowler management) has never been the strongest point of Indian cricket. I mean, you can appreciate if a young athlete doesn't exactly know what's best for him but grey-haired folks should have known better. To differing degrees, Zaheer, Ishant Sharma and a lot of others fell prey to this lack of management at some point or the other.

This was just to add some perspective to the story. Pathan could well be ready to fire, but I appreciate that coming directly from club to international cricket is not done. He should be allowed to get some first-class form under his belt and then let nature take its course.
 
Last edited:

miscer

U19 Cricketer
No.

I said that Praveen looked good in the West Indies but he wasn't a bowler who would cause England's batsman enormous problems because they'll have faced plenty of bowlers of a similar style to him. I think Praveen's series average of 30 and SR of over 60 back that up.

I didn't once advocate Yuvraj as a selection. I predicted that India would pick him. Massive difference. As for Raina - he was quite obviously the best selection for the number 6 slot going into the series, and no amount of revisionism based on how badly he went during the series changes that. I also predicted that Raina would fail massively, which he did.

I went overboard based on Ishant's series in the West Indies, but my main prediction was that India's bowling attack without Zaheer were on the same level as Bangladesh - another prediction I got spot on.
don't just round up whenever you feel like it because the perceived difference from 29 to 30 is huge. he averaged 29.53 in the series which by any ones standards is a fine average in this day and age. (especially when your colleagues are averaging 50+). For an English lineup who basically demolished the rest of the indian bowling this stat definitely mean he "caused England's batsmen problems." As for the strike rate 64 is by no means bad in fact it's pretty decent. He isn't really a strike bowler anyway so you wouldn't except it of him.

now you've added "enormous." to the mix. well ofcourse not. In fact to cause enormous problems would mean you routinely tear through their lineup and average something like 21 over the series. Well congrats, you got that prediction right. He didn't average 21. He wasn't epic, he was merely really good. edit: most bowlers aren't going to cause enormous problems for most opposition. I mean that's basically saying "yea he's good but he's not gonna rip them apart."

Lets be real he has looked excellent in the west indies and very good in England. Hopefully he keeps on performing. I for one back this guy.
 
Last edited:

Athlai

Not Terrible
Clearly these guys have proven that without pace you can't be effective in Test cricket.

Case closed.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I still do not get the Kumar love. Relative to the other Indian bowlers he did well but he didnt do much.

In perfect conditions for swing seam bowling on the morning of the 1st Test England were at 270-3. The game was gone already there and the Indian front line seamers failed and failed badly. Kumar took a fifer but the damage was done and it was nothing more than polishing the proverbial. Taking wickets after the damage is done looks good but helps noone. Kumar is as culpable as anyone for the failure on the first day.

In the 2nd innings of the 2nd Test he took another 4 wickets, all after England were 340odd for 4. Again, very much a case of figures looking good without doing damage at the important end of the innings.

In the 3rd Test England scored 710-7. Enough said, even though he was the pick of the bowlers.

Early wickets give you a chance of bowling a team out for a low score. Picking up wickets that make your stats look good may help your career but doesnt really help the team.

He was the pick of the Indian bowlers who bowled in more than 1 innings but he didnt do a great job. He has his pros. He runs in all day, swings it a long way and can be economical but, and it may just be me, I get the feeling that there should be more. He didnt take wickets early while India were still in the game. That is a fast bowlers job and no amount of mid-late order wickets can make up for that.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
If India had Zaheer in the mix, Praveen Kumar's value would have been doubled.
Hypothetical and I dont think it makes much difference when you have a new cherry in your hand. Opposition batsmen are circumspect early against most, if not all, bowlers. It isnt as if they are looking to see off one bowler. They are looking to see off the new ball in general.

Opening bowlers prove their worth with early wickets. The rest is window dressing.

The job of a new ball bowler is to take wickets at the beginning of the innings. Kumar didnt do that-- in that regard he is no different to the rest apart from Zaheer. However, Im sure people say that because of the way he swings the ball then he has to have the new ball.

Well then you have a bowler who has to open and doesnt take early wickets. Ill let you draw your own conclusions on that. Opening bowlers have a primary role of picking up wickets early. Kumar didnt do that. As such he failed in his main role. Averaging 30 for the series doesnt look bad but he barely made an impact when it mattered. This is where you have to break down roles and responsibilities in a team and not just what the scorecard tells you.
 
Last edited:

uvelocity

International Coach
Hypothetical and I dont think it makes much difference when you have a new cherry in your hand. Opposition batsmen are circumspect early. It isnt as if they are looking to see of one bowler. They are looking to see off the new ball.
It can work just as well as an attacking & a more reserved opening batting pair.

If one bowler is being frugal and putting the ball in the right areas, while at the other end you have a firebrand (not bowling wide/short/half volley rubbish) it can help either or both bowler take wickets.

People forget bowling is in partnership, makes it so much harder when the guy at the other end isn't pulling his weight.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
It can work just as well as an attacking & a more reserved opening batting pair.

If one bowler is being frugal and putting the ball in the right areas, while at the other end you have a firebrand (not bowling wide/short/half volley rubbish) it can help either or both bowler take wickets.

People forget bowling is in partnership, makes it so much harder when the guy at the other end isn't pulling his weight.
Bowling is far more about partnerships once the shine has gone and the bowling team has to work hard and disciplined for wickets and work to a plan.

It is less so with the new ball where you are looking to 'get' the batsman out with good balls. It is more on making the ball do something yourself and forcing the batsman out rather than working as a team.

Ironically, given how much he swings the ball, Kumar proved better in the former than the latter. Opening the bowling with a new ball is different to bowling to settled batsmen with an older ball.
 

Top