The reason Indian bowlers are the way they are

[krkode]

This is a question that I've wondered about and would like to hear other peoples' thoughts on. I'm very stats-oriented and whenever someone says, "oh, he was a good bowler" or "he was a great batsman," I immediately search the player's profile and see for myself. And although it's true as people say numbers don't tell the whole story, these numbers mean something to me and I'm sure even if they don't tell the whole story, they tell a good chunk of it.

So that got me to thinking about bowlers in history: virtually every country has had one or two, maybe more bowlers who have been absolute stat legends. Generally, my threshold for what I consider an amazing bowler is a bowling average of 25 or below and every (decent) test-playing nation has had a few greats who have met this criteria. Except India.

Take a list of the greatest Indian bowlers: Kumble, Srinath, Harbhajan, Kapil Dev, Prasanna, Bedi, Chandrashekar - I believe the lowest bowling average among this group is 28. Kumble, who is arguably the greatest, averages 29.5.

Then I asked myself, why is this so? It's not that India is a bad team - we've had a fair share of glories and have almost consistently been in the top 4-5 teams in the world if not better.

Maybe it's because we play most of our matches in the subcontinent where bowling is generally tougher? But then there are other subcontinental players who are far and away detached from the records listed above - men like Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Akhtar and Muralitharan all average in the low 20s, similar to the greats from non-subcontinental teams.

Maybe it's because we're actually just poor bowlers and our batsmen have made up for that defect? Maybe it's genes and diet and Indians are just not big, strong and fast the way Australians and West Indians are? Why don't India have any great bowlers in the numerical sense like Akram (23), McGrath (21), Ambrose (21), Donald (23), etc. Or am I being too harsh in my criteria of what constitutes a great bowler?

 

[Precambrian]

This is a question that I've wondered about and would like to hear other peoples' thoughts on. I'm very stats-oriented and whenever someone says, "oh, he was a good bowler" or "he was a great batsman," I immediately search the player's profile and see for myself. And although it's true as people say numbers don't tell the whole story, these numbers mean something to me and I'm sure even if they don't tell the whole story, they tell a good chunk of it.

So that got me to thinking about bowlers in history: virtually every country has had one or two, maybe more bowlers who have been absolute stat legends. Generally, my threshold for what I consider an amazing bowler is a bowling average of 25 or below and every (decent) test-playing nation has had a few greats who have met this criteria. Except India.

Take a list of the greatest Indian bowlers: Kumble, Srinath, Harbhajan, Kapil Dev, Prasanna, Bedi, Chandrashekar - I believe the lowest bowling average among this group is 28. Kumble, who is arguably the greatest, averages 29.5.

Then I asked myself, why is this so? It's not that India is a bad team - we've had a fair share of glories and have almost consistently been in the top 4-5 teams in the world if not better.

Maybe it's because we play most of our matches in the subcontinent where bowling is generally tougher? But then there are other subcontinental players who are far and away detached from the records listed above - men like Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Akhtar and Muralitharan all average in the low 20s, similar to the greats from non-subcontinental teams.

Maybe it's because we're actually just poor bowlers and our batsmen have made up for that defect? Maybe it's genes and diet and Indians are just not big, strong and fast the way Australians and West Indians are? Why don't India have any great bowlers in the numerical sense like Akram (23), McGrath (21), Ambrose (21), Donald (23), etc. Or am I being too harsh in my criteria of what constitutes a great bowler?

I think that during partition, we lost our bowlers to Pakistan, and they lost their batsmen to India.

To go deeper into that, bowlers esp fast bowlers require stamina, height, etc which were naturally abundant in Pakistan due to genetic factors. Now, that the general nutrition levels and diet etc have improved tremendously, also thanks to increase in sports nutrition, and specialised care, India is also unearthing good fast bowlers who are capable of averaging in the mid twenties.

Also to do with the pitches, being mostly in the tropical regions, and since spin has been India's strength most of the time in history, pitches were dry and didnt help development of fast bowling. Now that is also changing.

 

[Mard]

^ genetic factor is indeed very true for fast bowlers but not for spinners in my opnion. Pakistan is majority made up of two races, Punjabis and Pathans, both of these races are well known for thier bravery and warrior type image and ofcourse this is true because these people are usually tall, well built and powerfull compared to lets say a guy from bengal or south india. I think the only area in India which can match pakistanis is Indian Punjab. Indian Sikhs are usally really powerful thats why the Indian army is full of them.

 

[silentstriker]

While genetics undoubtedly plays a role in natural ability in sports, that effect is quite overrated. Most populations fall within a bell curve. So let's use one of the criteria (height) as an example, since we have some concrete data. You can actually substitute height with 'pace bowling' ability, or whatever else you want, and it remains pretty much the same.


The average height of an Australian male is 5'10. The average height of an Indian male is 5'5. They can't directly be compared due to factors like nutrition, as the average height increased from 5'7 in 1776 to about 5'10 right now in the United States. If and when nutrition levels are similar, I'd expect the average height to go up from 5'5 to 5'8 or so, though it'll still be lower than the average Australian population, I would think. I'd be interested in a study that measured the heights of people of Indian ancestry who were born and in Australia or US or UK. But I couldn't find it after a cursory search through the literature.

In any case, that's a bit of a tangent. So let's assume for the moment that you have one population who is 5'6, and the other is 5'10. Let's set an arbitrary line saying that the physical requirements for fast bowling are a minimum of 6'4. The standard deviation for height is approximately three inches.

So assuming a normal population like this:

The yellow part on the right is what we're talking about here.

So, on the one hand, we have 10,000,000 Australian males. And on the other hand, we have 500,000,000 Indian males. If the standard deviation is three inches, than two standard deviations above the mean would yield 210,000 Australian men. Now, let's say Indians are 1.3 standard deviation behind, meaning, instead of 2.1% of males falling into the category, we only have 0.01% of males falling into that category. That still leaves 500,000 Indian men who fit the category. And this would be a worst case scenario. In the real world, the differences would not be this stark accounting for different variables.

So yes, proportionally, many fewer people may be able to do it, numbers wise, it still should not be a problem. I don't believe either of the three, but even so, I don't think you can blame genetics here. It definitely can and does play a part, but it's too easy to place the blame on that. I think there are other, more significant issues to consider before coming to that conclusion.

 

[Turbinator]

^ genetic factor is indeed very true for fast bowlers but not for spinners in my opnion. Pakistan is majority made up of two races, Punjabis and Pathans, both of these races are well known for thier bravery and warrior type image and ofcourse this is true because these people are usually tall, well built and powerfull compared to lets say a guy from bengal or south india. I think the only area in India which can match pakistanis is Indian Punjab. Indian Sikhs are usally really powerful thats why the Indian army is full of them.

 

[duffer]

This.

 

[Precambrian]

While genetics undoubtedly plays a role in natural ability in sports, that effect is quite overrated. Most populations fall within a bell curve. So let's use one of the criteria (height) as an example, since we have some concrete data. You can actually substitute height with 'pace bowling' ability, or whatever else you want, and it remains pretty much the same.


The average height of an Australian male is 5'10. The average height of an Indian male is 5'5. They can't directly be compared due to factors like nutrition, as the average height increased from 5'7 in 1776 to about 5'10 right now in the United States. If and when nutrition levels are similar, I'd expect the average height to go up from 5'5 to 5'8 or so, though it'll still be lower than the average Australian population, I would think. I'd be interested in a study that measured the heights of people of Indian ancestry who were born and in Australia or US or UK. But I couldn't find it after a cursory search through the literature.

In any case, that's a bit of a tangent. So let's assume for the moment that you have one population who is 5'6, and the other is 5'10. Let's set an arbitrary line saying that the physical requirements for fast bowling are a minimum of 6'4. The standard deviation for height is approximately three inches.

So assuming a normal population like this:

The yellow part on the right is what we're talking about here.

So, on the one hand, we have 10,000,000 Australian males. And on the other hand, we have 500,000,000 Indian males. If the standard deviation is three inches, than two standard deviations above the mean would yield 210,000 Australian men. Now, let's say Indians are 1.3 standard deviation behind, meaning, instead of 2.1% of males falling into the category, we only have 0.01% of males falling into that category. That still leaves 500,000 Indian men who fit the category. And this would be a worst case scenario. In the real world, the differences would not be this stark accounting for different variables.

So yes, proportionally, many fewer people may be able to do it, numbers wise, it still should not be a problem. I don't believe either of the three, but even so, I don't think you can blame genetics here. It definitely can and does play a part, but it's too easy to place the blame on that. I think there are other, more significant issues to consider before coming to that conclusion.

Not doubting that India will not be having adequate no. of men who are 6 foot 4 inches. However how many of them would be thinking of a career in sports, let alone cricket? (Atleast till 2000?)

 

[Precambrian]

^ genetic factor is indeed very true for fast bowlers but not for spinners in my opnion. Pakistan is majority made up of two races, Punjabis and Pathans, both of these races are well known for thier bravery and warrior type image and ofcourse this is true because these people are usually tall, well built and powerfull compared to lets say a guy from bengal or south india. I think the only area in India which can match pakistanis is Indian Punjab. Indian Sikhs are usally really powerful thats why the Indian army is full of them.

Haha love the last line.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Its too hot to bowl in India. I think thats it.

 

[Uppercut]

You don't need a reason. In the past 40 years there have been 15 bowlers averaging under 25 over a period of more than 50 innings. It's hardly a huge statistical improbability that none were Indian, I may as well ask why none were Irish.

 

[Matt79]

Plus the best Indian bowlers have been spinners, who generally have a higher average in any case - what's merely a good average for a quick is a very good average for a spinner, and <25 avg for a spinner is absolutely elite.

 

[Goughy]

Its got nothing to do with genetics IMO.

There are plenty of other factors. Diet and nutrition with have played a role, culture will have played a role, climate will have played a role and pitches will have played a role.

Its not easy getting excited to bowl long spells of fast bowling in the heat when the ball barely bounces over stump height.

 

[Uppercut]

Its got nothing to do with genetics IMO.

There are plenty of other factors. Diet and nutrition with have played a role, culture will have played a role, climate will have played a role and pitches will have played a role.

Its not easy getting excited to bowl long spells of fast bowling in the heat when the ball barely bounces over stump height.

While there's truth in all of that, i don't think there's any need to explain things as such. England haven't had a bowler averaging under 25 in the past 40 years, and there's nothing wrong with fast bowling conditions here.

 

[Goughy]

While there's truth in all of that, i don't think there's any need to explain things as such. England haven't had a bowler averaging under 25 in the past 40 years, and there's nothing wrong with fast bowling conditions here.

Actually I think there is and good reason why the English have not produced top level fast bowlers for a while.

Of the top of my head there are 3 reasons.

1- Cricket a minority sport and fewer 'blue chip' athletes partcipate that we would like. Many cricketers are 2nd and 3rd rate athletes whilst often better athletes concentrate on other sports in the UK.

2- Weather. It is cold and rainy. Even in the summer it rains a lot. The pitches are very soft. Good club cricket has covered tracks but lower level and junior cricket often doesnt. Quicks can barely stand and slip and lose overs to spinners and medium paces. Its hard to promote fast bowling given the conditions as the quick slides around like a clown and then the ball just 'plops' in the middle of the track.

3- Coaching. The English coach fast bowling the wrong way.

 

[Uppercut]

Actually I think there is and good reason why the English have not produced top level fast bowlers for a while.

Of the top of my head there are 3 reasons.

1- Cricket a minority sport and fewer 'blue chip' athletes partcipate that we would like. Many cricketers are 2nd and 3rd rate athletes whilst often better athletes concentrate on other sports in the UK.

2- Weather. It is cold and rainy. Even in the summer it rains a lot. The pitches are very soft. Good club cricket has covered tracks but lower level and junior cricket often doesnt. Quicks can barely stand and slip and lose overs to spinners and medium paces. Its hard to promote fast bowling given the conditions as the quick slides around like a clown and then the ball just 'plops' in the middle of the track.

3- Coaching. The English coach fast bowling the wrong way.

How do you mean, the wrong way? Do you think they "overcoach"?

Also, i didn't mean fast bowling exclusively- they haven't had any bowler averaging under 25, the criteria listed by the thread starter (although obviously any other type of bowler averaging that would be beyond exceptional). But what is it in Pakistan, Australia and the West Indies that means they have so many more top-class bowlers?

 

[Goughy]

How do you mean, the wrong way? Do you think they "overcoach"?

The approach and mentality towards it is wrong and then there is overcoaching (lots of it and much clueless) added in.

Also, i didn't mean fast bowling exclusively- they haven't had any bowler averaging under 25, the criteria listed by the thread starter (although obviously any other type of bowler averaging that would be beyond exceptional). But what is it in Pakistan, Australia and the West Indies that means they have so many more top-class bowlers?

Pakistan is interesting as they have produced a core of amazing bowlers but there is no depth beyond that.

Interesting you dont mention SA. I could explain the lack of SA bowlers in similar reason. Something I dont really see improving either.

 

[Uppercut]

The approach and mentality towards it is wrong and then there is overcoaching (lots of it and much clueless) added in.



Pakistan is interesting as they have produced a core of amazing bowlers but there is no depth beyond that.

Interesting you dont mention SA. I could explain the lack of SA bowlers in similar reason. Something I dont really see improving either.

I tend to agree regarding English coaching and its non-mainstream nature as a sport. What i have trouble with is what any other country, bar Australia, has that makes them produce more such bowlers than England or India?

 

[Goughy]

I tend to agree regarding English coaching and its non-mainstream nature as a sport. What i have trouble with is what any other country, bar Australia, has that makes them produce more such bowlers than England or India?

Taking fast bowling for a second and ignoring spin (something that WI and Pakistan have never really, barring an exception or 2 lead the world in).

West Indies and Pakistan have traditionally tended to focus on a less structured approach to coaching and encouraged pace ahead of accuracy. An action is developed that generates pace and then has its rough edges shaved off to improve accuracy.

West Indies had this down to a tee when they had islands of young guys bowling as fast as possible, then getting into the local club system that gets them playing orgaised cricket against good players, then they got shipped off to the UK to further learn and then hit the International scene as experienced and skilled, speed of light bowlers.

The Pakistan system has not been quite as slick but the bottom of the pyramid encourages quicks.

English cricket has traditionally focused on adding speed only after line and length has been learnt. The problem with that is that an action that lends itself to easy accuracy isnt one that will generate the maximum pace. You cant just do the same thing but faster.

Hence the reason England produces legions of medium quicks and few genuine nasty fasties.

 

[Uppercut]

Taking fast bowling for a second and ignoring spin (something that WI and Pakistan have never really, barring an exception or 2 lead the world in).

West Indies and Pakistan have traditionally tended to focus on a less structured approach to coaching and encouraged pace ahead of accuracy. An action is developed that generates pace and then has its rough edges shaved off to improve accuracy.

West Indies had this down to a tee when they had islands of young guys bowling as fast as possible, then getting into the local club system that gets them playing orgaised cricket against good players, then they got shipped off to the UK to further learn and then hit the International scene as experienced and skilled, speed of light bowlers.

The Pakistan system has not been quite as slick but the bottom of the pyramid encourages quicks.

English cricket has traditionally focused on adding speed only after line and length has been learnt. The problem with that is that an action that lends itself to easy accuracy isnt one that will generate the maximum pace. You cant just do the same thing but faster.

Hence the reason England produces legions of medium quicks and few genuine nasty fasties.

I should probably read Beyond a Boundary regarding WI cricket. I take this to mean, too, that you're of the opinion that a RFM swing bowler can never be of the same standard as a genuine fast bowler?

I am aware that i'm treading a fine line across one of Dicko's favourite religious topics.

 

[Goughy]

I should probably read Beyond a Boundary regarding WI cricket. I take this to mean, too, that you're of the opinion that a RFM swing bowler can never be of the same standard as a genuine fast bowler?

I am aware that i'm treading a fine line across one of Dicko's favourite religious topics.

No, not at all.

My problem is that guys that have the potential to be genuine fast bowlers are turned into average medium/quicks.