Virat Kohli, Mitchell Starc & MS Dhoni voted best in world by peers .Bhuvi voted the 3rd best bowler

[Hell Raiser]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

No.  What I'm saying is that if you look at both their body of work over an extended period of time over the last 8 months, then you'll be able to see which one is the better, more consistent performer.   Umesh Yadav is the Shahid Afridi of Indian ODI bowling.  His fans will remember and hype up his once in 25 game good performances, while justifying and/or excusing his pedestrian ones most of the time.  

 

Dude, I have a lot of love for Yadav - love his work ethic, absolutely love the effort he has put in, to become the best fielder among all bowlers after Jadeja.   He wasn't like that when he first made the team.  And have no words to express my respect for his stud effort as a workhorse for the Indian test team.  The guy has been a high-pace high effort bowling machine for so many tests. And did it without breaking down, or dropping his pace too much.  And markedly improved his bowling quality as well in the last 2 years, with the red ball.  

 

But when it comes to LOI cricket - also an area where he has visibly improved a lot - Bhuvi is still the better option - now that he's upped his pace to around 140s.   Bhuvi's accuracy, and for me, his special rare ability to move the ball both ways, his control over his knuckleball and yorkers, make him an automatic pick for the ODI team, along with Bumrah.  And even if you put aside their on-paper skills and abilities - Bhuvi has simply outperformed Yadav.  

Wow. Just wow. You are just unnecesarily bringing Yadav here and then you call him Shahid Afridi of Indian bowling. Dude you can take stats of Bhuvi and Yadav's  last 8 months, 1 year, last two years or their entire career. Number of wickets, bowling average,  strike rate Yadav is ahead of Bhuvi. Bhuvi gets under the radar becuase he can bowl economical spells albeit without taking wickets. But let me tell you one thing if goings for runs is a crime then not taking wickets by your main bowler is also a crime then, which bhuvi is guilty of many times.

Sure Yadav may or may not deserve to play ODI's but the level of stick that he gets is amazing.

[sandeep]

6 minutes ago, Hell Raiser said:

Wow. Just wow. You are just unnecesarily bringing Yadav here and then you call him Shahid Afridi of Indian bowling. Dude you can take stats of Bhuvi and Yadav's  last 8 months, 1 year, last two years or their entire career. Number of wickets, bowling average,  strike rate Yadav is ahead of Bhuvi. Bhuvi gets under the radar becuase he can bowl economical spells albeit without taking wickets. But let me tell you one thing if goings for runs is a crime then not taking wickets by your main bowler is also a crime then, which bhuvi is guilty of many times.

Sure Yadav may or may not deserve to play ODI's but the level of stick that he gets is amazing.

What are their respective numbers in this champions trophy?  Don't just assert that the numbers back up your theory, without actually quoting them.  

 

And my reference to Shahid Afridi was with respect to how fans perceive his ODI bowling.  I dont' think you have properly read the post you quoted btw, its filled with genuine heartfelt appreciation for Yadav.   

[Ultimate_Game]

1 minute ago, Pollack said:

Any you be man enough to accept you never debated the duplicity of my posts. You were debating exactly what ai said before and not the twist you are giving it now. By the way this was my next post to the one you quoted which clearly explains what I meant. But alas you didn't stop there. Why did you not stop after this clarification. Here is the post :

 

 

First of all take a deep breath. I said him limited not in terms of runs scored but in terms of his abilities. He has no access to a range of shots like many players who average similar have.Neither the technique. Have you seen him dancing down the pitch in swing conditions and defending. These street smart techniques along with great game sense is his USP. What has worked for him is his ability to read the game and use his own abilities in the best possible way at the right time. He has great hand eye coordination and power game.

The term Limited is not usually used in the sense you are taking it to be and getting offended.

 

What you were debating was dhoni cannot be a limited batsman if he has scored many runs and excelled. If you were really debating about limited player vs limited technique you should have stopped after above post.But no you continued.

 

 

And I still maintain Dhoni is not a "limited batsman". He's a batsman who has limited but unorthodox technique but is not a "limited batsman". I thought I had already made the distinction clear  But let me give it one more shot in the context of shorter formats...

 

Dhoni has limited technique: Yes

Dhoni is a limited batsman/player: No

 

Conversely...

 

Rahane has decent technique: Yes

Rahane is a limited batsman/player: Yes

 

See the difference? For me, "limited technique" means someone who doesn't bat by the book a la Sehwag, Dhoni etc. But a "limited batsman" or a "limited player" is someone who can't overcome the lack of technique or other challenges he's faced with and is constrained in his performances a la Rahane or Murali Vijay. There's a world of difference between the two terms.

 

Likes of Dhoni and Sehwag have a very limited and unorthodox technique but they are not "limited players" or "limited batsmen". See the difference?

[Tibarn]

Quote

Australia, Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa all took part but, despite repeated attempts to get their responses, India and Sri Lanka did not meet the deadline.

I guess, but it's a big stretch to say this list is meaningful or representative of peer view of players ability when only 6 people voted: Smith, ABD, Morgan, Sarfraz, Mortaza, and Williamson; Kohli, Mathews, and Holder didn't even vote .Three of those captains couldn't even crack an average test 11, so what weight can it have for an all formats selection.There is no way in hell there is that big of a gap between Kohli and Smith as the best batsmen in the world. 

 

Also this is dumb:

Quote

captains were not allowed to vote for players from their own country

 So Smith couldn't vote for himself,  ABD couldn't vote for Rabada, and if Kohli voted, he couldn't vote for MSD.

 

I wonder which idiot voted for Kaidi #5 as one of the best 3 bowlers or Saha/Akmal  as one of the best 3 keepers in the world across formats. 

 

 

Side note: This obsessive hatred some Kumar fans have for Yadav is getting a bit disturbing. You can't say you don't hate a player and then bring him up when he isn't even mentioned in the OP or the OP's source.   

 

[Pollack]

2 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

And I still maintain Dhoni is not a "limited batsman". He's a batsman who has limited but unorthodox technique but is not a "limited batsman". I thought I had already made the distinction clear  But let me give it one more shot in the context of shorter formats...

 

Dhoni has limited technique: Yes

Dhoni is a limited batsman/player: No

 

Conversely...

 

Rahane has decent technique: Yes

Rahane is a limited batsman/player: Yes

 

See the difference? For me, "limited technique" means someone who doesn't bat by the book a la Sehwag, Dhoni etc. But a "limited batsman" or a "limited player" is someone who can't overcome the lack of technique or other challenges he's faced with and is constrained in his performances a la Rahane or Murali Vijay. There's a world of difference between the two terms.

 

Likes of Dhoni and Sehwag have a very limited and unorthodox technique but they are not "limited players" or "limited batsmen". See the difference?

Now you are just spinning words bhai. Guess it should end here then.   Okay with your 'distinction' of Limited player and limited batsman. You have your own version and thats fine. But you made that now. Anyway have some work to do. 

[Hell Raiser]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

What are their respective numbers in this champions trophy?  Don't just assert that the numbers back up your theory, without actually quoting them.  

 

And my reference to Shahid Afridi was with respect to how fans perceive his ODI bowling.  I dont' think you have properly read the post you quoted btw, its filled with genuine heartfelt appreciation for Yadav.   

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=wickets;spanmin1=1+jan+2015;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=bowling

These are the stats of Indian bowlers in last two years. You can yourself see where they both stand. 

 

I don't have anything against Bhuvi, he has been the best Indian bowler in champions trophy and he can continue to play ahead of Yadav in Loi's but i don't understand the need to bring down Yadav to make Bhuvi look good when Yadav is even ahead of Bhuvi in average and strike rate over their career.

[Ultimate_Game]

4 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Now you are just spinning words bhai. Guess it should end here then.   Okay with your 'distinction' of Limited player and limited batsman. You have your own version and thats fine. But you made that now. Anyway have some work to do. 

How exactly I've made this distinction now when I used the same argument in the first post in this thread and pointed out it was not the term but context?  

 

Let me ask you this question... Do you think Sehwag was a limited batsman?

 

My answer would be 'No' though Sehwag had a limited but unorthodox technique and relied more on hand-eye coordination.

[Pollack]

43 minutes ago, Rasgulla said:

You agree to those   so pretty mych you are one of those people...

Lmao. Why would anyone even agree Sarfaraz being better keeper than dhoni? When did I agree? Sarfaraz is not even half a keeper or batsman or athlete as dhoni

 

[sandeep]

7 minutes ago, Hell Raiser said:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=wickets;spanmin1=1+jan+2015;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=bowling

These are the stats of Indian bowlers in last two years. You can yourself see where they both stand. 

 

I don't have anything against Bhuvi, he has been the best Indian bowler in champions trophy and he can continue to play ahead of Yadav in Loi's but i don't understand the need to bring down Yadav to make Bhuvi look good when Yadav is even ahead of Bhuvi in average and strike rate over their career.

So Yadav has a few more wickets in the last year or so than Bhuvi - 12 from 8 games vs 5 from 5 for Bhuvi - hardly an earth-shattering difference over a small sample set.  

Bottomline is that if its a crunch situation, you wouldn't hesitate throwing the ball to Bhuvi, where as with Yadav, everybody knows that you can't expect him to bowl at the death, especially when defending a total.   That just says it all - about their ODI abilities and calibre.  

[sandeep]

8 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Lmao. Why would anyone even agree Sarfaraz being better keeper than dhoni? When did I agree? Sarfaraz is not even half a keeper or batsman or athlete as dhoni

 

That was that @MCcricket fella who made that preposterous claim not you I think.

[Pollack]

4 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

How exactly I've made this distinction now when I used the same argument in the first post in this thread and pointed out it was not the term but context?  

 

Let me ask you this question... Do you think Sehwag was a limited batsman?

 

My answer would be 'No' though Sehwag had a limited but unorthodox technique and relied more on hand-eye coordination.

Sehwag has limited technique but wider range of shots. He was not completely unorthodox in his technique either.Definitely he relied on his hand -eye coordination but haven't seen many other hand eye coordination batsman having such a great range of strokes. Technique vs Player vs Batsman don't know. Not much pedantic about it for now.But would give it a thought some other day.

[Ultimate_Game]

9 minutes ago, sandeep said:

That was that @MCcricket fella who made that preposterous claim not you I think.

I thought he was a B'desh troll  

[Hell Raiser]

@sandeep

 

Sure Bhuvi is a better bowler at death. No one even doubts that. But likewise Yadav is a wicket taker at the beginning and in the middle and you would definitely throw him the ball if you want wickets. 

 

Stats that i have posted proves my above point.

Yadav has 44 wicket in 27 matches and overall 91 wickets in 65 matches

 

Bhuvi 23 wickets in 21 matches and overall 65 wickets in 62 matches.

 

Almost the same number of matches but look how many more wickets Yadav has than Bhuvi. If Yadav needs to improve his economy rate, Bhuvi certainly has to improve his average and strike rate which he is certainly capable of. So its not wise to diss one bowler in order to priase the other. If Yadav is no Glenn Mcgrath when it comes to economy rates, Bhuvi is no Allan Donald himself in terms of all round performance.

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Hell Raiser

[sandeep]

@sandeep

 

Sure Bhuvi is a better bowler at death. No one even doubts that. But likewise Yadav is a wicket taker at the beginning and in the middle and you would definitely throw him the ball if you want wickets. 

 

Stats that i have posted proves my above point.

Yadav has 44 wicket in 27 matches and overall 91 wickets in 65 matches

 

Bhuvi 23 wickets in 21 matches and overall 65 wickets in 62 matches.

 

Almost the same number of matches but look how many more wickets Yadav has than Bhuvi. If Yadav needs to improve his economy rate, Bhuvi certainly has to improve his average and strike rate which he is certainly capable of. So its not wise to diss one bowler in order to priase the other. If Yadav is no Glenn Mcgrath when it comes to economy rates, Bhuvi is no Allan Donald himself in terms of all round performance.

 

 

 

So Bhuvi is better at the death, and he is better with the new ball. So what exactly is the role of a pacer in ODIs again?

 

 

 

[maniac]

5 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Yup and DeKock and Buttler are legends. Yup I get it   

Oh the irony of you calling others haters  

Butler is sure on his way look at his average and s/r he already has the top 3-4 out of say 20 of the fastest 100s of all time .

 

De Kock is leagues ahead of Dhoni in terms of talent and upside both as keeper and batsman

[Ultimate_Game]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

Butler is sure on his way look at his average and s/r he already has the top 3-4 out of say 20 of the fastest 100s of all time .

 

De Kock is leagues ahead of Dhoni in terms of talent and upside both as keeper and batsman

Upside and talent is all good but actual results is what counts. Coz if it was upside and talent, Pakistan would be World Champions every time and Rohit would be challenging Bradman in Tests  

[Pollack]

Who voted for K Akmal ? He should retire from all forms of cricket with immediate effect.

 

[Ultimate_Game]

9 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Who voted for K Akmal ? He should retire from all forms of cricket with immediate effect.

 

Mushfiqur Rahim of B'desh  

[Ankit_sharma03]

Bhuvi voted 3rd best 

Kamran akmal ka naam bhi daala hai 

[CG]

Did you even check the stats and read what he wrote .Stats show Yadav is better with new ball and middle overs and more of wicket taker where are Bhuvi is better death bowler.Bhuvi hardly picks any wicket with new ball so has few wickets in his career.