Pandya v. Bhuvneshwar - the better choice of allrounder?

[express bowling]

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

In test cricket, it'd be Bhuvi 80% of the time.  Pandya can only edge out Bhuvi situationally, in cases where you are playing 3 other seamers already and want to strengthen the batting more than improving the bowling.  AND the conditions are hostile to swing bowling.  

 

If Pant can become a No.6 batsman  (  and he has all the qualities needed to become one if he cuts out those ugly hoicks, which he has done in the last 2 tests  )   then Pandya can bat at No.7 and won't be competing with Bhuvi.

 

Quote

Bhuvi is very, very underrated by a few on ICF - he can be effective even without overly swinging conditions.  He's a class test player period.  

 

What we fans think is not that important.  Issue is,  neither Kohli nor Dhoni, as captains of India, have had the confidence to play him in every test series or every test match.   And this typically happens to short medium pacers. Has happened for the last 40 years in all countries. Captains typically want either quick pacers or tall pacers for test matches. They get preference in ODIs too.

 

What I think is ... when the ball was not swinging, Bhuvi started hitting the deck and extracting life out of the pitch from mid 2016 and this continued till early 2018.  This made him more of an all condition bowler, and I wrote about it often enough.  But  after his injury in England in mid 2018, he has lost this ability atleast for the time being.

 

If Bhuvi gets back the ability to hit the deck then he maybe a backup or replacement for Ishant Sharma and take on the role of the accurate,  run saving workhorse pacer who can run through sides if the ball is moving. I don't think he is needed in test matches in Asia unless there is a green track like Eden or Dharamsala.  And he can't be a backup or replacement for the enforcer pacers, Bumrah and Shami.  

 

But the not-fully-recoverd Bhuvi is looking innocuous.  He should be allowed to rest and recover fully, get his pace and deck-hitting-ability back.  Maybe the rest in the last one month has helped.

Edited December 31, 2018 by express bowling

[vvvslaxman]

In hindsight, an aggressive bowler like Sreesanth would have served well for Kohli. He could bowl a mean outswinger. Basil Thampi mostly brings the ball back in. An inswing bowler. Vijay Shankar is good at shaping the ball away from the batsman. But he operates at 125 kph mostly. We need an aggressive bowler who can bend their back when needed. They have to identify 5 or 6 more bowlers as backup for these guys.

[rkt.india]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

In hindsight, an aggressive bowler like Sreesanth would have served well for Kohli. He could bowl a mean outswinger. Basil Thampi mostly brings the ball back in. An inswing bowler. Vijay Shankar is good at shaping the ball away from the batsman. But he operates at 125 kph mostly. We need an aggressive bowler who can bend their back when needed. They have to identify 5 or 6 more bowlers as backup for these guys.

Sreesanth was useless apart from that SA series. He could lose us game in a session, highly inconsistent and temperamental. Every bowler playing currently is better than him. Also ball does not swing in Australia. Here hit the deck bowlers work.

Edited December 31, 2018 by rkt.india

[rkt.india]

30 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

Yes Bhuvi in place of Ishant would make this team more complete. I have high hopes from Nagarkoti, if he hasnt lose pace post injury, he can be great addition in a short while. This guy is Jaddu level fielder and capable batsman.

No. Bhuvi doesn't make this team complete. In fact, Ishant has bowled as good or even berter. Ishant is swinging the ball more than any bowler in the world currently. He has also made use of bounce and has bounced out batsmen. Bhuvi would depend solely in swing and seam which Ishant has done better. Bhuvi is a one trick pony. Though he would have done great in England in place of Shami who isn't a swing bowler. England, SA and to some extent NZ are ideal for Bhuvi type bowler.

[vvvslaxman]

3 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Sreesanth was useless apart from that SA series. He could lose us game in a session, highly inconsistent and temperamental. Every bowler playing currently is better than him. Also ball does not swing in Australia. Here hit the deck bowlers work.

He had accuracy issues. I believe he would have been a better bowler under Kohli. Sreesanth was known for picking out the gun batsmen. Definitely better new ball bowler than any of these guys.

 

Amla 6

ABDV 5

G Smith 5

Kevin pietersen 5

Kallis 4

collingwood 4

Sarwan 4

Bouncher 3

straus 33

Gayle 3

Lara 2

[rkt.india]

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

He had accuracy issues. I believe he would have been a better bowler under Kohli. Sreesanth was known for picking out the gun batsmen. Definitely better new ball bowler than any of these guys.

 

Amla 6

ABDV 5

G Smith 5

Kevin pietersen 5

Kallis 4

collingwood 4

Sarwan 4

Bouncher 3

straus 33

Gayle 3

Lara 2

I will still every bowler today is better than him. New ball bowler isn't what required to win test matches overseas.

[SK_IH]

11 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

No. Bhuvi doesn't make this team complete. In fact, Ishant has bowled as good or even berter. Ishant is swinging the ball more than any bowler in the world currently. He has also made use of bounce and has bounced out batsmen. Bhuvi would depend solely in swing and seam which Ishant has done better. Bhuvi is a one trick pony. Though he would have done great in England in place of Shami who isn't a swing bowler. England, SA and to some extent NZ are ideal for Bhuvi type bowler.

Bhuvi whenever he plays makes an impact, he is definitely not a downgrade on Ishant.

[rkt.india]

1 minute ago, SK_IH said:

Bhuvi whenever he plays makes an impact, he is definitely not a downgrade on Ishant.

Because he only plays in highly bowling friendly conditions. If he does not make impact even then he won't make it to the team. Even then he played a big part in us losing first test in SA along with Shami.

[vvvslaxman]

4 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

I will still every bowler today is better than him. New ball bowler isn't what required to win test matches overseas.

You are kidding.  That is exactly you need to create an opening.  You cannot possibly question Sreesanth's talent. His seam position is possibly the best i have seen from an Indian bowler in the last several years.  You really think Sreesanth would struggle against the likes of the batsmen of current era? When he was playing there were world class batsmen in every country. 

[express bowling]

Pandya was messing up the balance of the test team as a No.6 batsman.   But he can be an ideal No.7  if Pant can settle in at No.6  (  which he is perfectly capable of  ).

 

Most of the tests Pandya has played in till now have been in the toughest batting conditions, where everyone, apart from Kohli, had not succeeded.  We haven't  got a full idea about his test batting ability yet.  He has batted well in SL and rescued the team after a collapse against Afghanistan.  Minnow team, yes ... but the middle order still collapsed.

 

An aggressive batsman, who plays with a straight bat,  can be very handy at No.7.   And he can be an ideal 4th pacer and 5th bowler. 

 

His bowling has improved by leaps and bounds during the England tour.  He now has a good outswinging stock ball, can hit the deck when needed and has a decent bouncer.  His accuracy has improved too.  And he can bowl at a lively pace in certain spells.

 

We still have the 6 proper batsmen and 4 proper bowlers needed in tests with Pandya lending balance at No.7.

 

 

 

Bhuvi is a No 8 batsman and a good one at that position  ...  an accurate third seamer on flatter tracks ... becomes the strike bowler cum first seamer in swing-friendly conditions ... not needed in tests in Asia unless we are playing in Dharamsala or the Eden gardens type pitches.  

 

 

 

There is no clash between Pandya and Bhuvi's roles.  They have different roles to play.

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by express bowling

[SK_IH]

12 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Because he only plays in highly bowling friendly conditions. If he does not make impact even then he won't make it to the team. Even then he played a big part in us losing first test in SA along with Shami.

he scored runs and tooK wickets but he played a part in losing 1st test in SA 

[gattaca]

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

In test cricket, it'd be Bhuvi 80% of the time.  Pandya can only edge out Bhuvi situationally, in cases where you are playing 3 other seamers already and want to strengthen the batting more than improving the bowling.  AND the conditions are hostile to swing bowling.  

 

Bhuvi is very, very underrated by a few on ICF - he can be effective even without overly swinging conditions.  He's a class test player period.  

Bhuvi struggled last time he played Australia. Even good bowers like Anderson struggled in Australia who relies on swing than hit the deck  kind of bowlers.

Edited December 31, 2018 by gattaca

[sandeep]

10 minutes ago, express bowling said:

We still have the 6 proper batsmen and 4 proper bowlers needed in tests with Pandya lending balance at No.7.

If he's to be counted as 'proper' batsman, then he shouldn't need to hide at #7.   If he's going to bat lower than 6, then he needs to be 4th bowler or better.  Can't be part-time on both sides of the ball and make the team regularly.  

[vvvslaxman]

2 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Bhuvi struggled last time he played Australia. Even good bowers like Anderson struggled in Australia who relies on swing than hit the deck  kind of bowlers.

Bhuvi is ideal for England and SA. If India wins the toss in NZ and bowl first in winter then Bhuvi can be handy. :) He has some limitations. Tall hit the deck hard bowlers will be handy in Australia. Someone like Avesh Khan could have been picked if they were not sure about fitness of Bhuvi. This is ridiculous that they still have doubts about his match fitness. Series is going to be over now.

[afan]

Incomparable isn't it.. Pandya is a better batsman and a third change bowler at best, while Bhuvi is a better new ball bowler and nothing much after that. 

But here's the point, Mitch Marsh has a better height than Pandya and needless to say better experience bowling in Australia, but look what happened ?

 

[rkt.india]

15 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

he scored runs and tooK wickets but he played a part in losing 1st test in SA 

Yes. He went for 4-5 rpo after they were 12/3. Couldn't capitalise on that start. Shami was even more rubbish in that first innings.

[rkt.india]

32 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

You are kidding.  That is exactly you need to create an opening.  You cannot possibly question Sreesanth's talent. His seam position is possibly the best i have seen from an Indian bowler in the last several years.  You really think Sreesanth would struggle against the likes of the batsmen of current era? When he was playing there were world class batsmen in every country. 

Yes, he would have struggled. You need to understand why current bowlers are so good. Shami has as good a seam position as Sreesanth had. The biggest difference is lack of bad balls. Current bowling hardly gives any freebies. Shami is the most expensive of the three who is less expensive than Sreesanth was. Sreesanth was highly inconsistent and Sreesanth was similar to Shami. Both have/had upright seam position and both are/were not swing bowlers. BK, Umesh and current Ishant are swing bowlers. Ishant has been #1 in getting swing this year.  And you are talking like teams don't have world class batsmen now. Amla, abdv, faf, root, cook, Williamson, Taylor, Latham are world class batsmen.

 

Consistency, not magical deliveries that is what a bowler needs to be successful long term. There is a reason Ishant stayed in the team despite not giving results. He always had consistency in bowling, hitting good areas that would have eventually brought him results at some point. He is getting those results now. Sreesanth overseas was like Umesh at home. Great on his day but largely inconsistent and expensive.

Edited December 31, 2018 by rkt.india

[SK_IH]

6 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Yes. He went for 4-5 rpo after they were 12/3. Couldn't capitalise on that start. Shami was even more rubbish in that first innings.

you are being harsh here. he tried his best in that test match and i remember lots of castigation for Virat for dropping him in next test. The point you are making is he performs only because he  gets to play in favorable conditions, which i cant agree with. 

[rkt.india]

4 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

you are being harsh here. he tried his best in that test match and i remember lots of castigation for Virat for dropping him in next test. The point you are making is he performs only because he  gets to play in favorable conditions, which i cant agree with. 

Show me where he performed in unhelpful conditions. He hasn't played any test in unhelpful conditions in recent years.

[rkt.india]

13 minutes ago, afan said:

Incomparable isn't it.. Pandya is a better batsman and a third change bowler at best, while Bhuvi is a better new ball bowler and nothing much after that. 

But here's the point, Mitch Marsh has a better height than Pandya and needless to say better experience bowling in Australia, but look what happened ?

 

But Mitch marsh lacks pace, was a 5th bowler and Pandya is a better batsman than him.