Kuldeep Yadav vs Ashwin Ravichandran in ODIs

[sensible-indian]

Jaddu is accurate but was never a great T20 bowler.

 

The logic presented applies to him.

 

2010 Ashwin was accurate but rarely ever got hit.

 

Why? Cos he combined accuracy with knowing what to do when batsmen attack him.

 

There is a difference fellas. You can't use sweeping definitions to explain away everything when there are OTHER factors in play.

[sensible-indian]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

This bolded part makes no sense. 
A bowler doesnt become more/less accurate depending on which format they bowl ?!

 

Old Ashwin was accurate in tests too but he didn't have the guile to get wickets through proper flight, dip and drift. Or had lesser guile I would say.

 

This would result in him trying a lot of things and thus losing his rhythm, line and length.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Vijy said:

yes, as per this tag of "accuracy", bowlers like gavin larsen would still be kings in LOIs in the 2010s. In reality, they would be given a thrashing if they played now. the game has changed greatly. ashwin turns the ball, but not massively. hence, if he was so accurate and bowled the same line and length, he would be treated as a slow medium bowler and given a thrashing.

Yep. 
ODIs 20 years ago was effectively a 50 over test match. if you found a spot where the batsmen were most troubled, batsmen would go 'crap, cant hit him today' and end up with 10-1-28-1 type figures.

Nowadays, batsmen are like 'we must hit you. if i get out, so be it' and specifically target bowlers who bowl accurately and predictably a lot more. We see this, in the batting stances and what batsmen do in LOIs today compared to in the past- batsmen pre-meditate a lot more, which makes accurate but predictable bowlers chopped liver.

Gavin Larsen would be the guy who'd bowl first three overs for 12 runs, then next two overs for 25 runs in today's climate. 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, sensible-indian said:

Old Ashwin was accurate in tests too but he didn't have the guile to get wickets through proper flight, dip and drift. Or had lesser guile I would say.

 

This would result in him trying a lot of things and thus losing his rhythm, line and length.

No he wasn't accurate at all in tests back then. He was a T20 variety bowler, transplanted to tests. Losing line, length etc. means you are not accurate !

He tried more things, because he was not accurate enough to find that length that bothers batsmen the most & stick to it for an entire spell.

[Vijy]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Yep. 
ODIs 20 years ago was effectively a 50 over test match. if you found a spot where the batsmen were most troubled, batsmen would go 'crap, cant hit him today' and end up with 10-1-28-1 type figures.

Nowadays, batsmen are like 'we must hit you. if i get out, so be it' and specifically target bowlers who bowl accurately and predictably a lot more. We see this, in the batting stances and what batsmen do in LOIs today compared to in the past- batsmen pre-meditate a lot more, which makes accurate but predictable bowlers chopped liver.

Gavin Larsen would be the guy who'd bowl first three overs for 12 runs, then next two overs for 25 runs in today's climate. 

 

indeed, there were so many "useless" bowlers who just bowled dibbly-dobbly and got away with it. harris, larsen, ealham, harvey, etc. this was why both Ind and SL could afford to go with so many part timers. the likes of ganguly, de silva, arnold, sehwag would be pummeled. tendu at least had both big spin and variations (but not much control) so he may do about the same these days.

 

people don't fully appreciate how much the game has changed in 20 years. it has gone from being closer to tests to closer to t20s.

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

No he wasn't accurate at all in tests back then. He was a T20 variety bowler, transplanted to tests. Losing line, length etc. means you are not accurate !

He tried more things, because he was not accurate enough to find that length that bothers batsmen the most & stick to it for an entire spell.

yes, cause and effect were mixed up. he lacked accuracy, lacked the mental stamina to bowl long, controlled spells, and lacked guile. he was just a LOI trickster at that point. look at jo'burg test 4th innings.. he didn't gave away too many runs per over, but had no idea how to pick up wkts.

[sensible-indian]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

No he wasn't accurate at all in tests back then. He was a T20 variety bowler, transplanted to tests. Losing line, length etc. means you are not accurate !

He tried more things, because he was not accurate enough to find that length that bothers batsmen the most & stick to it for an entire spell.

That's your view. Fair enough mate.

 

I have explained my view and reasoning for it in detail in past posts.

 

Old Ashwin was defo more accurate than this Ashwin in LOIs. The difference is staggering. But its not too late. Ashwin can go back to what worked for him and combine it with the lessons learnt from years of playing cricket and find his path.

 

The very fact that Washington Sundar was so successful in IPL last year should give you clues. Sure he hasn't yet been worked out which he could be but accuracy STILL matters in LOI.

[sandeep]

I looked through this entire thread that talks about Ashwin's ODI performances circa 2010, 2012, and more recently.  And not a single poster pointed out the fact that ODI rules have changed in the 2 time-frames.  Right now, with only 4 outfielders in overs 10-40, you can attack finger spinners with less risk, than you could, back then.  This is the biggest reason why all finger spinners, not just Ash and Jaddu, have become less effective in the last few years.  

 

All I see is arm-chair analysts pontificating and spreading all kinds of raita about Ash's loop, variations, technical glitches, accuracy, you name it.  

 

Take away the field restrictions, and the likes of Adil Rashid will no longer be more wicket-taking than Ashwin, who is 10 times the bowler Rashid is, even in his fantasies.  

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I looked through this entire thread that talks about Ashwin's ODI performances circa 2010, 2012, and more recently.  And not a single poster pointed out the fact that ODI rules have changed in the 2 time-frames.  Right now, with only 4 outfielders in overs 10-40, you can attack finger spinners with less risk, than you could, back then.  This is the biggest reason why all finger spinners, not just Ash and Jaddu, have become less effective in the last few years.  

 

All I see is arm-chair analysts pontificating and spreading all kinds of raita about Ash's loop, variations, technical glitches, accuracy, you name it.  

 

Take away the field restrictions, and the likes of Adil Rashid will no longer be more wicket-taking than Ashwin, who is 10 times the bowler Rashid is, even in his fantasies.  

obviously, as a whole, ashwin is a much better bowler than rashid. however, you're daydreaming if you think fielding restrictions alone explain everything. for example, santner, nurse and axar (all of whom are finger spinners) averaged around 30 with ERs < 5 since the beginning of 2016. in comparison, the great ash-jaddu in ODIs have averaged around 60 with ERs of 5.5 to 6.0

 

[Vijy]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I looked through this entire thread that talks about Ashwin's ODI performances circa 2010, 2012, and more recently.  And not a single poster pointed out the fact that ODI rules have changed in the 2 time-frames.  Right now, with only 4 outfielders in overs 10-40, you can attack finger spinners with less risk, than you could, back then.  This is the biggest reason why all finger spinners, not just Ash and Jaddu, have become less effective in the last few years.  

 

All I see is arm-chair analysts pontificating and spreading all kinds of raita about Ash's loop, variations, technical glitches, accuracy, you name it.  

 

Take away the field restrictions, and the likes of Adil Rashid will no longer be more wicket-taking than Ashwin, who is 10 times the bowler Rashid is, even in his fantasies.  

All I see is yet another arm chair analyst adding to us arm chair analysts in pontificating and putting forth his theory. I think it goes without saying that most of us (perhaps all) are arm chair theorists.

[sensible-indian]

Ashwin was a very good ipl bowler back in the day. Not the same in the last few years. 

 

What rule changed in ipl since then? 

 

Two things happened.  Batsmen got more bolder and Ash in his part declined in ipl.

 

Ashwin had an awful 2012 in odis even before the rule change i think. Not sure of the timeline. 

[Vijy]

7 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

Ashwin was a very good ipl bowler back in the day. Not the same in the last few years. 

 

What rule changed in ipl since then? 

 

Two things happened.  Batsmen got more bolder and Ash in his part declined in ipl.

 

Ashwin had an awful 2012 in odis even before the rule change i think. Not sure of the timeline. 

yes, he did badly in 2012 in ODIs.

[MCcricket]

We cannot afford both Jadeja , Ashwin in the side, Chahal, K Yadav is a better option anywhere in ODi n I would say even in test we have to play one leggie n one finger spinner max

[sensible-indian]

Less than 24 hours after our discussion, you can see what happened in the TN Ranji game against Andhra.

 

Ashwin picked 4/71 in first innings. TN having conceded a lead, had to force a win by bowling out opposition in 1.5 sessions so set them a target of 220 odd.

 

Ashwin started off with extremely aggressive field sets and bowled well for 2 overs creating chances. Then gave away a few runs due to over pitched balls and from there on, things took a different turn. Andhra bats started off cautiously, then started scoring runs and soon TN had to go to damage control mode to save the test.

 

Ashwin started getting literally thrashed around like a club level bowler by no-name Andhra bats. Leave alone wickets, he couldn't control his economy below 4. And he had to do LOI style bowling.

 

Either Ash bowled a lot of bad balls or Andra bats have gotten soooooooo better than they started smashing his perfectly good length deliveries into the stands. You can guess what really happened.

 

Ash lengths were all over the place (overpitched, half tracker, leg side). Sure he picked up 2 wickets but it was because they had to slog. The real hero was pacer K Vignesh who picked up R Bhui who mauled Ash and bowled intelligently in the end.

 

This is exactly the point I am trying to make.

 

1. Ash's control for LOI situations has gone down big time. If you bowl in the arc, even club batsmen will destroy you. If you drop it short, ditto. Imagine bowling like this to IPL monsters. No wonder you will be smashed.

2. If Ash had bowled this innings like a proper test match situation, his figures may have been very different.

 

3. Another factor is once Ash goes off rhythm, he really struggles to get back to rhythm unlike bowlers like Herath and Jaddu. That is why his figures in tests get affected at times. Even in county this year, he gave away too many runs so his averages took a hit.

 

He needs to work on this. If he works on this, both his LOI and test figures will improve.

Edited October 9, 2017 by sensible-indian

[sandeep]

15 hours ago, Vijy said:

All I see is yet another arm chair analyst adding to us arm chair analysts in pontificating and putting forth his theory. I think it goes without saying that most of us (perhaps all) are arm chair theorists.

  Touche.   

[sandeep]

37 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

Another factor is once Ash goes off rhythm, he really struggles to get back to rhythm unlike bowlers like Herath and Jaddu. That is why his figures in tests get affected at times. Even in county this year, he gave away too many runs so his averages took a hit.

That is an excellent observation.  This is the reason behind that celebrated stat that Ashwin doesn't usually strike right away, but starts taking wickets around his 14th over or so.   For such a "smart" bowler, he really should figure out a way to find and maintain his rhythm quicker and more often.  

[someone]

We need away performances to decide it. Away matches are very different, and even batting of tailenders become very useful.

[sensible-indian]

9 hours ago, sandeep said:

That is an excellent observation.  This is the reason behind that celebrated stat that Ashwin doesn't usually strike right away, but starts taking wickets around his 14th over or so.   For such a "smart" bowler, he really should figure out a way to find and maintain his rhythm quicker and more often.  

When he loses rhythm completely after a good/decent start, he struggles to get it back and can go haywire at times. One of my friends observed years back, if you score like 60-80 runs off him without giving him wickets, he is done for that innings.

Edited October 9, 2017 by sensible-indian

[Lannister]

The one thing I noticed with Ashwin is his lack of ability to extract bounce when there is no turn in the pitch and he bowls way slower than he did before. That's a recipe for disaster in LOIs and add to his fitness issues. He's done for as for limited overs are concerned. 

[sarcastic]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/559235.html?class=2;template=results;type=bowling

 

Fair to say, Kuldeep has won this comparison as he won India first series in South Africa ( with the help of Chahal, Bumrah etc.). 

 

Ashwin has been an embarrassment whenever we toured abroad whereas Kuldeep has shown his potential in his first challenging overseas assignment. My original point regarding their wicket taking ability still seems to be the difference.