Jump to content

Umesh Yadav the best India pacer: Rodney Hogg


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

Pollock was much better than Umesh Yadav imo. He had control over the ball, while moving it both ways. Umesh has no control over line and length simultaneously. I am shocked to see Umesh being compared to Pollock. Speed wise yes Umesh is faster but better than Pollock. No way imo.

no one is claiming he is, but was pollock 10000x better is the question. No , and is there someone so much better than Umesh in India that Umesh can be let go now after investing and seeming like it is paying off ? No & yes again. Thats the argument going on. No one is claiming or Comparing Umesh with Pollock.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, maniac said:

Shaun Pollock compared to Umesh Yadav :blink: Did I wake up in a different dimension.

get the context in maniac, was Pollock or Mcgrath 10000x better than Umesh, for that Umesh would have to be a highschool kid and bowl 1000's of international deliveries that get hit to 6 and Pollock should have got wickets in thousands of consecutive deliveries. lol. There is a gulf but not as ridiculous as being argued, and the reality is how good is the next pacer in India, how is the recent trend in Umesh's returns, is he really as bad as his overall stat in the last few games or is he doing better, is there value to him playing in tests for India in Aus series etc.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Vilander said:

no one is claiming he is, but was pollock 10000x better is the question. No , and is there someone so much better than Umesh in India that Umesh can be let go now after investing and seeming like it is paying off ? No & yes again. Thats the argument going on. No one is claiming or Comparing Umesh with Pollock.

Thats the issue. Our top 5 pacers are all average quality, no world beaters. So we have to stick with the average performance bowlers. But as i said i am not to fussed because we atleast produce great batters than others. It's tough to top in all skills.

Link to comment
On 2/20/2017 at 3:14 PM, express bowling said:

I am not comparing  Donald with Umesh but  talking about bowling combinations in general IF  a  fast-medium or  medium-fast bowler  is in the team. 

 

James  Anderson was military medium. !!!!     This is the biggest joke I have read on this forum        :laugh:

 

Botham averaged 28.4  playing almost 60% of his tests in swing friendly England and 90% of his tests in  England, Australia, NZ and WI in the 1980s, when the pitches were much more seamer friendly.  He is hardly the ideal bowler to look up to.

People underestimate Ian Botham, when he has at his peak, he is the best allrounder after Sobers. He could take wickets anywhere. He took 13 wickets and scored a 100 that too coming at 58/5 in Mumbai. You do not take 383 wickets by being useless.When he was young he was if not  faster than Anderson at least on par with him.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Please read the context and then respond. While Pollock was a good bowler, he was never a world beater. NEVER. So lets not get into that argument.

Honestly I don't know how Shaun Pollock came here into the discussion and I won't bother reading who got into the discussion and why because Umesh is a different kind of bowler, but I would like to comment on Pollock.

 

 

About Pollock

Pollock wasn't any ordinary bowler. He tested the best of the best. Just like how Punter was compared to Tendulkar, Pollock was compared to Mcgrath by many because of his accuracy and ability to trouble the best of the best.

 

Pollock was exceptional. Tendulkar at times struggled to him who was by far the most complete player in his time.

 

Pollock averaged in 20s on flat tracks of Pakistan, Sri Lanka. He had brilliant record in India and did well in both Australia and England.

 

He was briliant even when he wasn't bowling fast. Some people here would even call him trunder also since he bowled a lot of times at 78 MPH-83mph. Many of his good bowling spells I remember at low speeds.

 

One of the best bowlers ever to have played of our times. 

 

I was lucky enough to meet him about 18 months ago. Absolute Hall of famer of this game.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Honestly I don't know how Shaun Pollock came here into the discussion and I won't bother reading who got into the discussion and why because Umesh is a different kind of bowler, but I would like to comment on Pollock.

 

 

About Pollock

Pollock wasn't any ordinary bowler. He tested the best of the best. Just like how Punter was compared to Tendulkar, Pollock was compared to Mcgrath by many because of his accuracy and ability to trouble the best of the best.

 

Pollock was exceptional. Tendulkar at times struggled to him who was by far the most complete player in his time.

 

Pollock averaged in 20s on flat tracks of Pakistan, Sri Lanka. He had brilliant record in India and did well in both Australia and England.

 

He was briliant even when he wasn't bowling fast. Some people here would even call him trunder also since he bowled a lot of times at 78 MPH-83mph. Many of his good bowling spells I remember at low speeds.

 

One of the best bowlers ever to have played of our times. 

 

I was lucky enough to meet him about 18 months ago. Absolute Hall of famer of this game.

Rightarmfast/express bowling said that Umesh is replacable only if we find 3 bowlers who are more skilled than him and have more/same pace as Umesh.

At which point, i told him, Umesh is expendable when we have 3 bowlers better than him, I don't care if they are Shoaib Akhtar fast or Shaun Pollock-esque medium fast (slower than Umesh). Which these folks disagree with apparently, coz they don;t care about performance or quality of bowlers, they are scarred by the 'veggie Indians' steriotype Pakistanis use and just want to be able to say 'look ! Indians can bowl fast! too bad its 20-0-80-2 type of figures, but FAST ! '

 

Link to comment
On 2/20/2017 at 0:33 PM, express bowling said:

Just your opinion.   If Botham did not have batting ability,   was just a bowler and was not from either England or NZ ( where the ball swings )  ..... he would have been an average cricketer.   The fact that he was an excellent batsman and bowled in swing friendly England 60% of the time,  made him special.

 

Mulobhai.... you need to watch more cricket.   Even in the just concluded England series, a 34 year old Anderson who has played for 12+ years, and has lost a lot of pace in the last 12 months after return from injury..... was bowling some  135 k to 145 k spells on occasions and bowling sizzling bouncers at will on flat tracks, which were climbing steeply.

Even if Botham was 'just' a bowler,  most people would take him over 'mr 40 average' Umesh 100 times out of 100. 


There is no comparison. And as i said, you wanting a fast bowler just coz he is fast and even making an argument that he is irreplacable till we find someone else fast, not just better than him, speaks of some deep-seated issues in your psyche about fast bowling. 

 

The objective of cricket match is to win matches. If we win with 4 bowlers bowling at 80mph, thats a better deal than losing with 4 bowlers bowling at 90mph. And I don't care how fast Umesh is, picking up less than 2 wickets/match at an average of nearly 40 deserves to be chucked out of the team, period- and so long as his replacement does better, we don't care if he bowls at 100mph or 70mph.

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Rightarmfast/express bowling said that Umesh is replacable only if we find 3 bowlers who are more skilled than him and have more/same pace as Umesh.

At which point, i told him, Umesh is expendable when we have 3 bowlers better than him, I don't care if they are Shoaib Akhtar fast or Shaun Pollock-esque medium fast (slower than Umesh). Which these folks disagree with apparently, coz they don;t care about performance or quality of bowlers, they are scarred by the 'veggie Indians' steriotype Pakistanis use and just want to be able to say 'look ! Indians can bowl fast! too bad its 20-0-80-2 type of figures, but FAST ! '

 

I won't get into your guys argument as I have shared enoigh on that before but my take on the whole thing is that we have three tiers in the Indian bowling right now.

 

Tier 1- Mohammad Shami - Whenever available, should play.

 

Tier 2 - Bhuvnedhwar, Umesh, Ishant

 

Tier 3 - All the ones like Pandya and co waiting to be picked into Indian test team, including Aniket and co.

 

The tiers can change fast if they perfom better like say if Aniket is given chance and comes out to be exceptional.

 

Other than that, I don't really see much difference among our bowlers at this stage. 

 

Ishant Sharma is the luckiest bowler. He has gotten the most amount of chances even after being extremely ordinary. 

 

I would even back Bhuvneshwar ahead of him even on Bouncy tracks. 

 

Bhuvi is a special bowler who needs to be given more games. Soon we will find him as Tier 1 bowler. He can be our own fit version of Ryan Harris. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

lol, ind's entire cricket history is full of trying out such legends ,for close to 70 odd yrs yrs such greats were tried ,why not tryout a few quick spray guns for half that amount of time ,whats there to lose ...in any case it is the batsmen and spinners who shoulder the burden, if any one knows the cost of promoting dibbly dobblers overs quicks it is ind and i am sure you know zilch about domestic cricket  or care to follow it ..you will never put forward any names ...just keep on arguing for the sake of it ,everyone knows you need to be a quality bowler to succeed in int cricket ,that too in ind type conditions

Yes. Try them. As in give them 5,10,15 test to prove they got something. 
but after 27 tests and 71 wickets at an average almost 39, with the most recent 1 year being 18 wickets from 10 matches at 47.44, at the physical peak of 29, maybe its time to toss the garbage into the garbage dump and try someone else. 
As it has been pointed out, there are other prospects arising.

You want names ? 
We should be trying the likes of Aniket Choudhary, Mohammed Siraj, Ishwar Pandey, etc. 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, putrevus said:

People underestimate Ian Botham, when he has at his peak, he is the best allrounder after Sobers. He could take wickets anywhere. He took 13 wickets and scored a 100 that too coming at 58/5 in Mumbai. You do not take 383 wickets by being useless.When he was young he was if not  faster than Anderson at least on par with him.

Manjeraker was recently talking about that game during England series and said that pitch was a green mamba. Anyway, Indian batting in those was very fragile. They have one and a half batsmen, one Gavaskar and half Vishwanath. This is what older people who have see cricket those days usually say. I just heard this from one of my relatives recently saying that Indian team had dedh batsmen in those days.

Link to comment
On 2/21/2017 at 0:44 AM, Muloghonto said:

I am simply disputing the fact that Umesh needs to be in the team until we find someone who has more skills than him AND similar/more pace.

We need no such thing. If we find 3 bowlers who are all Shaun Pollock-esque 'medium fast but not fast' or even three James Andersons, who is neither fast, nor bouncy, Umesh and the like of him should be a permanent injury-replacement bowler only.

Because what ultimately matters,is a better bowler. 

Do we have a Pollock sitting on the bench? I would defintitely take a Pollock any day over any Indian bowler, but thing is we dont have. Bowling slow alone does not make one a Pollock. It takes extreme skills to become a Pollock or McGrath or even a Philander. You can count such bowlers on fingers who bowled most of their life under 135K and were successful. Those are exceptions and are not norms. Most great test test fast bowlers have have genuine pace. This is why I talk about pace. If one has pace, then one does not need to be as accurate as McGrath or Pollock, but bowler must understand how to use that pace to good effect and take wickets. Even pace is of no use if you don't know how to use it. If had bowlers with McGrath like accuracy, they would have already been playing. But people India have that misconception that if a bowler is slow that means accurate.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Do we have a Pollock sitting on the bench? I would defintitely take a Pollock any day over any Indian bowler, but thing is we dont have. Bowling slow alone does not make one a Pollock. It takes extreme skills to become a Pollock or McGrath or even a Philander. You can count such bowlers on fingers who bowled most of their life under 135K and were successful. Those are exceptions and are not norms. Most great test test fast bowlers have have genuine pace. This is why I talk about pace. If one has pace, then one does not need to be as accurate as McGrath or Pollock, but bowler must understand how to use that pace to good effect and take wickets. Even pace is of no use if you don't know how to use it. If had bowlers with McGrath like accuracy, they would have already been playing. But people India have that misconception that if a bowler is slow that means accurate.

actually no, quite a few bowlers bowled most of their careers under 135k and did just fine. McGrath, Pollock, Philander, Botham, Willis, Hadlee, Kapil- these were all GREAT bowlers.

You want people who bowled 135K or less but were merely adequate- we have the likes of Caddick, Hoggard, Streak, Chris Martin, Siddle, McDermott, Zaheer, Vaas- the list is endless for people who did adequate job and still bowled at 135Ks or less for all/most of their careers.


It is a misconception that you need pace to be an adequate test bowler- which Umesh is not. 
And Umesh, is a colossal failure at this point at being adequate, never mind great. 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Cricketics said:

I won't get into your guys argument as I have shared enoigh on that before but my take on the whole thing is that we have three tiers in the Indian bowling right now.

 

Tier 1- Mohammad Shami - Whenever available, should play.

 

Tier 2 - Bhuvnedhwar, Umesh, Ishant

 

Tier 3 - All the ones like Pandya and co waiting to be picked into Indian test team, including Aniket and co.

 

The tiers can change fast if they perfom better like say if Aniket is given chance and comes out to be exceptional.

 

Other than that, I don't really see much difference among our bowlers at this stage. 

 

Ishant Sharma is the luckiest bowler. He has gotten the most amount of chances even after being extremely ordinary. 

 

I would even back Bhuvneshwar ahead of him even on Bouncy tracks. 

 

Bhuvi is a special bowler who needs to be given more games. Soon we will find him as Tier 1 bowler. He can be our own fit version of Ryan Harris. 

 

 

 

 

Ryan Harris used to hit 140 most of the time too. Good example.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

you knew about siraj aniket etc before ??siraj just came through this season, aniket  got injured last season and ishwar pandey yeah that the one now left ... umesh had played 9 matches since his test debut in 2011 till the very end of 2014 ,only over the last 2 yrs has he got some matches

Umesh is 29, at his peak, played 27 tests, the last 10 at a horrible average, wicket-taking etc. So what he was in the past, how hard it was for him, how little he played- all of them do not matter. What matters, is he is at his peak and sucks. And i am talking about him being removed NOW, not 2 years ago. So the players available NOW matter.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

actually no, quite a few bowlers bowled most of their careers under 135k and did just fine. McGrath, Pollock, Philander, Botham, Willis, Hadlee, Kapil- these were all GREAT bowlers.

You want people who bowled 135K or less but were merely adequate- we have the likes of Caddick, Hoggard, Streak, Chris Martin, Siddle, McDermott, Zaheer, Vaas- the list is endless for people who did adequate job and still bowled at 135Ks or less for all/most of their careers.


It is a misconception that you need pace to be an adequate test bowler- which Umesh is not. 
And Umesh, is a colossal failure at this point at being adequate, never mind great. 

 

Kapil hadlee Botham you sure they bowled 135, sure ?? They had speed guns then?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Umesh is 29, at his peak, played 27 tests, the last 10 at a horrible average, wicket-taking etc. So what he was in the past, how hard it was for him, how little he played- all of them do not matter. What matters, is he is at his peak and sucks. And i am talking about him being removed NOW, not 2 years ago. So the players available NOW matter.

 

Where is your substantiation on 10000x ?? Non linear asymptotic quality apparently :) 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:


There is no comparison. And as i said, you wanting a fast bowler just coz he is fast and even making an argument that he is irreplacable till we find someone else fast, not just better than him, speaks of some deep-seated issues in your psyche about fast bowling. 

 

The objective of cricket match is to win matches. If we win with 4 bowlers bowling at 80mph, thats a better deal than losing with 4 bowlers bowling at 90mph. And I don't care how fast Umesh is, picking up less than 2 wickets/match at an average of nearly 40 deserves to be chucked out of the team, period- and so long as his replacement does better, we don't care if he bowls at 100mph or 70mph.

 

 

 

We play around 50% of our test matches in India and around 60% of our test matches in Asia.  What happens is that teams playing here start preparing  the ball for reverse swing from the first over of the  innings these days. That, combined with the type of balls used here,  results in conventional swing going out of the picture very quickly. We do not see conventional swing for more than a few overs these days.  This was not the case in the '80s and '90s and was not so acute in the '00s.  Now, pace bowling has become mostly about reverse swing at pace in test matches in Asia.

 

In the words of Akram, reverse swing works best when you have genuine pace.   Medium fast bowlers may get it sometimes when the ball condition is perfect but medium pacers get it much later, for fewer overs and the ball does not swing late. Genuine fast bowlers get reverse swing much earlier, for many more overs, the swing is late and a perfect condition ball is not necessary.  hence, we saw Umesh reversing the ball from the 14th over in the last test wile Bhuvi got it after the 60th over.

 

This is the reason why most teams try to get genuine fast bowlers who can reverse the ball.... while playing tests in Asia in the 2010s. It is not just us fans.... Kohli and Kumble are preferring  Umesh and other genuine fast bowlers over medium pacers for this reason.  We saw something similar with Dhoni even. Apart from Bhuvi in a few tests, he did not try any medium pacers in test matches. Medium fast pacers like Ishwar Pandey,  Pankaj Singh and Vinay Kumar did not get chances despite being skilled bowlers.  Yet, Dhoni was not known to be a fan of fast bowling.  Did you ever think why this happened then  ?

 

While playing outside Asia, where some of the tracks provide pace and bounce, it is possible to play a medium-fast bowler if he is highly skilled.  In such case a medium-skilled fast bowler maybe replaced by a highly skilled medium fast bowler..... but that happens in only about 30% of the tests we play.  Hence, the search for genuine quicks is always on. In an interview yesterday, Kumble said that he Aniket C, Nathu and Thampi are in their scheme of things All these 3 are genuine fast bowlers .... no medium pacers mentioned. and they are being looked into for the above mentioned reason.

 

Teams like  South Africa, Australia , England and NZ don't face similar situations and they can afford to play a medium fast pacer if good.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...