Do India have the bowling resources for successful 2018 overseas campaign and remain No.1?

[goose]

7 minutes ago, Gollum said:

He has taken a more realistic view. 

would you say that in a team talk?

[Gollum]

14 minutes ago, goose said:

would you say that in a team talk?

I am not in the team, I am just a fan .

[G_B_]

the sad answer is no

 

hope i am proved wrong

[Vilander]

9 hours ago, Gollum said:

And let us be very clear we aren't as good as 70s/80s WI or 90s/2000s Australia..those teams were absolute freak teams and probably we may never see such teams for the next 100 years.

how do you say that we wont see teams winnings like those teams you mentioned.

[Gollum]

13 minutes ago, Vilander said:

how do you say that we wont see teams winnings like those teams you mentioned.

I never said we won't, I said we may never.......big difference. Great teams/players are very difficult to replicate, we may or may not see other's equaling their greatness. The achievements of Jack Nicklaus, Sugar Ray Robinson, Bradman, Dhyan Chand, Jahangir Khan etc have stood the test of time, no one has come close to attaining such dominance in all these years. Similarly teams like pre WW 2 Indian Hockey Team, 1920s New York Yankees, Boston Celtics under Bill Russell etc were so far ahead of their peers that still there are no equals. Similarly I hinted at the possibility of no another team dominating like WI and Aus did in cricket for many many years to come.  

[Vilander]

26 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I never said we won't, I said we may never.......big difference. Great teams/players are very difficult to replicate, we may or may not see other's equaling their greatness. The achievements of Jack Nicklaus, Sugar Ray Robinson, Bradman, Dhyan Chand, Jahangir Khan etc have stood the test of time, no one has come close to attaining such dominance in all these years. Similarly teams like pre WW 2 Indian Hockey Team, 1920s New York Yankees, Boston Celtics under Bill Russell etc were so far ahead of their peers that still there are no equals. Similarly I hinted at the possibility of no another team dominating like WI and Aus did in cricket for many many years to come.  

actually. There is scientific evidence to point that Humans have achieved their max physical attributes, as in bone density, height,longevity etc. There wont be rapid strides further like what we saw in the past, the only changes will be more % of population reaching these high physical attributes ( in clean/green communities) and people deteriorating in societies lacking proper nutrition/sanitation etc ( There were some countries in Africa where people have grown smaller). I read this , will look for the link.

 

The reason i say is may be this is one of the contributing factors as to why we will never find big gulf in sporting skills between nations that are close in terms of investment like say top 8 countries in cricket or top 10 in football etc. 

[Gollum]

7 minutes ago, Vilander said:

actually. There is scientific evidence to point that Humans have achieved their max physical attributes, as in bone density, height,longevity etc. There wont be rapid strides further like what we saw in the past, the only changes will be more % of population reaching these high physical attributes ( in clean/green communities) and people deteriorating in societies lacking proper nutrition/sanitation etc ( There were some countries in Africa where people have grown smaller). I read this , will look for the link.

 

The reason i say is may be this is one of the contributing factors as to why we will never find big gulf in sporting skills between nations that are close in terms of investment like say top 8 countries in cricket or top 10 in football etc. 

I get what you are saying. There may be qualitatively better teams than WI and Aus in the future but they may not dominate their peers like the former 2 did. Kinda similar to Paul Morphy vs modern chess players. Morphy was so much ahead of his peers that it is simply unthinkable, whereas today 2 elite GMs will be very close in strength and both will be much stronger than Morphy. Here because of advancement of opening theory and better endgame techniques developed over many decades (all incorporated in computer chess engines, the new sparring partner for young players) have helped modern players surpass the giants of yesteryear in terms of chess strength. 

[Vilander]

16 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I get what you are saying. There may be qualitatively better teams than WI and Aus in the future but they may not dominate their peers like the former 2 did. Kinda similar to Paul Morphy vs modern chess players. Morphy was so much ahead of his peers that it is simply unthinkable, whereas today 2 elite GMs will be very close in strength and both will be much stronger than Morphy. Here because of advancement of opening theory and better endgame techniques developed over many decades (all incorporated in computer chess engines, the new sparring partner for young players) have helped modern players surpass the giants of yesteryear in terms of chess strength. 

i believe there are qualitatively better teams now than them but all teams are just playing closer together in terms of skills, meaning normally home games for any team is a greater advantage ( all teams know how to take advantage of home conditions or have skills required to do so) and none of the teams as a result have sufficient skills to win away consistently but there is SC vs Eng/Aus/SA/NZ skill mismatch variable in play as well.  

[Tridibans_16]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

I never said we won't, I said we may never.......big difference. Great teams/players are very difficult to replicate, we may or may not see other's equaling their greatness. The achievements of Jack Nicklaus, Sugar Ray Robinson, Bradman, Dhyan Chand, Jahangir Khan etc have stood the test of time, no one has come close to attaining such dominance in all these years. Similarly teams like pre WW 2 Indian Hockey Team, 1920s New York Yankees, Boston Celtics under Bill Russell etc were so far ahead of their peers that still there are no equals. Similarly I hinted at the possibility of no another team dominating like WI and Aus did in cricket for many many years to come.  

Top post man! I just want to add a few points....

 

All the greats you mentioned, in a way or the other, changed the way the game was played FOREVER! I mean, the ruthlessness of the Yankees captured the Ameican Psyche so much that even after the great depression in wall street, early 1930's USA saw a resurgence in sports and entertainment associated with it. In a way, this mobilisation was effectively used by Roosevelt (though in an almost different context ala Military) come the second world war.

 

The Windies, in a way changed the way cricket was played. Fast bowlers always were a pampered bunch but after the Windies of 1970s and 80s obliterated batting orders from the MCG to Barbados, fast bowling and pace and bounce.... all became glamorous once again.

 

Same with the Aussies, I (along with many who grew up in the 1990s and early 2000s) only knew cricketing dominance because of Gilly blasting 50 inside 10 overs or Lee/ McGrth reducing teams to 50/4. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Tridibans_16

[express bowling]

In the last 2.5 years ( the period of our dominating run in tests ), India has played 6  test matches in seamer-friendly conditions.

 

SSC 2015 against SL 

Antigua  2016 against WI

Gros Islet  2016  against WI

Kolkata 2016 against NZ

Dharamsala 2017 against Australia 

Kolkata 2017 against SL

 

We have won the first 5 tests and would have won the 6th if 2 days were not lost due to rain.

 

Defeating  NZ in Kolkata 2016, an up and down green seaming track  and defeating Australia in Dharamsala 2017, a green, seaming and very bouncy track,  would give our team a lot of confidence for the upcoming tours in 2018.

 

 

Bhuvi      22 wickets  from 4 matches @ 5.5 wickets per match 

Shami     19 wickets  from 4 matches @ 4.8 wickets per match 

Umesh    13 wickets  from 3 matches @ 4.3 wickets per match 

Ishant    12 wickets  from 3 matches  @ 4.0 wickets per match 

 

all have picked wickets on seaming tracks

Edited December 9, 2017 by express bowling

[Gollum]

10 hours ago, Vilander said:

i believe there are qualitatively better teams now than them but all teams are just playing closer together in terms of skills, meaning normally home games for any team is a greater advantage ( all teams know how to take advantage of home conditions or have skills required to do so) and none of the teams as a result have sufficient skills to win away consistently but there is SC vs Eng/Aus/SA/NZ skill mismatch variable in play as well.  

Let us agree to disagree on this one .

[Pollack]

Pandya, the bowler needs to lend a hand of help. Ishant will be sh!t. Shami needs to be fit and up his game. Bhuvi should be fine. Since captains buddy Ishant surely start in 1st test in SA, if he doesn't take wickets should be replaced by Umesh. No bowled well sh!t please.

[worldpositive1]

No chance we have idiots that are flat track bullies. Last time vs Sri Lanka we also choked on green mamba. We are going to be drilled on our asses. Better to turn of TV. 

[Late Cut]

The batting is the question. Playing at home has given lots of people on here unreasonable expectations. This team won’t be ranked number 1 or 2 by the end of next year. Outside of Pujara,  no one else will consistently succeed in SA and England, unless conditions are favorable 

[Vijy]

On 12/8/2017 at 2:50 AM, Gollum said:

This.

We need to become cricket's version of Nadal. All we need to do in the upcoming overseas assignments (SA, Eng, Aus,NZ) is one win, two draws and one narrow loss. Then once we are Asia or WI we should strive to be ruthless like we were in this cycle. We can never be dislodged from no 1 if we apply that formula. And let us be very clear we aren't as good as 70s/80s WI or 90s/2000s Australia..those teams were absolute freak teams and probably we may never see such teams for the next 100 years. We need to be very smart and understand our limitations, esp on the bowling front (+catching ). 

If we can say lose to SA 0-2 in a hotly contested series, win in England 2-1 and draw in Australia and NZ only to smash them when they tour here even haters can't dispute our ranking. Come on, Nadal is a GOAT contender with 60-70% of his titles on clay, why can't we take that route?

such teams happen once every 20-30 yrs, i.e. a team far better than its competitors at the same time. in the 40s, bradman's invincibles, in 60s-70s sa, in 70s-80s wi and oz in late 90s-2000s.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Vijy

[Gollum]

6 hours ago, Vijy said:

such teams happen once every 20-30 yrs, i.e. a team far better than its competitors at the same time. in the 40s, bradman's invincibles, in 60s-70s sa, in 70s-80s wi and oz in late 90s-2000s.

 

 

In the 40s there weren't enough top class teams around and I don't rate the 60s-70s SA that highly, ofc both were great teams but I am hesitant to put them in the same bracket as WI and Aus. 

[adi B]

No

[Vijy]

10 hours ago, Gollum said:

In the 40s there weren't enough top class teams around and I don't rate the 60s-70s SA that highly, ofc both were great teams but I am hesitant to put them in the same bracket as WI and Aus. 

hence, I said that they were far better than competitors, which doesn't automatically make them ATG. but the SA squad is highly underrated - Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock were most likely better than any of the WI bats of the 70s-80s barring Viv. and some contemporaries rated 1 of these 2 higher than viv as well. similarly, lindsay and irvine were better than dujon. I think WI had the better pace attack but Peter Pollock, Proctor, van der Bilj and le roux is very good too. there's a decent  (although not that good) article by mark nicholas on the SA team of the 70s.

 

As for Oz 40s, it's a completely diff era. but bradman and miller were definitely ATGs.

[kunal_171183]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:57 PM, Late Cut said:

The batting is the question. Playing at home has given lots of people on here unreasonable expectations. This team won’t be ranked number 1 or 2 by the end of next year. Outside of Pujara,  no one else will consistently succeed in SA and England, unless conditions are favorable 

Apart from Rahane who has fared consistently abroad, no one else has actually been dominant on all the tours. Pujara was clueless on most of England, New Zealand, and Australia...barring that 152 in Johannesburg he had no contribution at all. Virat amassed 692 runs on the tour down under, but in the same series, at Brisbane, was dismissed for single digit scores when the ball was darting around. Vijay has patience, and Rahane has the ability to do well on such pitches. I fail to understand why the stingless Ashwin is opted ahead of Kuldeep in the abroad tests. Am damn sure he would be a big failure again.

[Vijy]

6 minutes ago, kunal_171183 said:

Apart from Rahane who has fared consistently abroad, no one else has actually been dominant on all the tours. Pujara was clueless on most of England, New Zealand, and Australia...barring that 152 in Johannesburg he had no contribution at all. Virat amassed 692 runs on the tour down under, but in the same series, at Brisbane, was dismissed for single digit scores when the ball was darting around. Vijay has patience, and Rahane has the ability to do well on such pitches. I fail to understand why the stingless Ashwin is opted ahead of Kuldeep in the abroad tests. Am damn sure he would be a big failure again.

yes, rahane has been the sole steady contributor but let's not forget that his form also fell off badly in Eng in the later tests. this inconsistency issue is also present for vijay. I still have lots of questions about VK (despite his good overseas record barring Eng) and Chepu. And the less said about Dhawan and Rohit in Tests the better. Although Saha has done decently as a bat since he became a regular, our 6 and 7 could prove to be the critical weak point.

Regd Ashwin, he is clearly being chosen for his superior batting and because he's the best fielder in the Indian team. In this statement, only 1 of the two claims is correct ;)