India all time test XI

[Soldier]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

But yes they are. 

The ones who have seen them both say this unanimously.

T20 is much easier than FC cricket for bowlers' body. 24 balls in one day is way easier than potentially 120 and regularly 90+. Duh.

 

Dont make up nonsense. Bowling is running in and bowling, regardless of the format. There is a reason why the players today cannot finish a series with such regularity: inferior fitness regime than in the past. Because morons like you thought the wheel needed reinventing.

 

Nonsense. Bowling is bowling. Their schedule is lighter than that of the past. thats why someone like cummins averages 45 days of cricket per annum and everyone from the 90s averaged 80-90 days of cricket per annum. 

 

 

The prior eras had fitter bowlers. The evidence is decisive. Kapil was fitter than Bumrah- hence Bumrah cannot play 14 tests in one year or come close to it, while Kapil could. 

 

I have watched both era's and no I don't believe your much romanticized overrated past 90s fodders are better. Sorry to burst your bubble. 

 

They are not. Just because you said so doesn't mean anything to me. 

 

Its all pure conjecture.

90s teams din't play t20, franchzie cricket. Don't give me that rubbish about how they played long test series. Half the time they played on bowling friendly pitches. 

 

They dint play in a result oriented era. There were many draws especially in 2000 era.

 

Do you have dmenetia? Cause you repeating yourself. 

 

 

[Soldier]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Err  I did the math earlier on this thread. cummins has less than 50 days of cricket per annum. Out of which 20% is the easy on the body 24 ball T20 cricket. 

Peope like Walsh has nearly TWICE as much cricket per annum over a 20 year span.

 

Dont be insulting. Kapil cut down his pace after his knee injury. 

If he had to play IPL it would have been easier on his body. IPL or T20 bowling is the easiest workload per match for a bowler.

 

Ok. Forget Kapil. Take a look at Walsh, Ambrose, McGrath, Lee, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Donald etc. 

ALL of them fitter than your Bumrah-Cummins et al. All of them capable of playing way more cricket through their careers than the inferior fitness millenials.

 

 

And i would rather have a honest person, than a moron millenial who is an insult to humanity by thinking that its millenials who invented professionalism and all the older gen are inferior, parroting postmodernist western scum ideology and applying it like a typical house negro of the whites. 

All the while ignoring objective evidence of inferior bowler fitness today than 20 years ago and ignoring expert opinion of the coaches and former bowlers calling THIS generation inferior in fitness ( which had never been done in prior generations). 

Inferior only according to your rambling dimwitted self. It's an insult to compare fodder 90s era players to modern era superstars. 90s was a joke era riddled with fixing, tampering. Test matches were barely played between sub continent teams. 

 

Why do you think Asian teams barring Pakistan to a lesser extent struggled in the 90s vs the top boys? Because they had poor fitness obviously and their fielding standards were poor. 

 

India din't have one single pacer apart from sirnath who was capable of hitting 140 plus in 90s. 

 

Walsh etc looked good because batsmen of that era lacked the power game to take him in.

 

He would get worked out in current era due to superior technology. He had a men's bouncer but skill wise both bumrah and Cummins are far ahead. 

[Trichromatic]

3 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Inferior only according to your rambling dimwitted self. It's an insult to compare fodder 90s era players to modern era superstars. 90s was a joke era riddled with fixing, tampering. Test matches were barely played between sub continent teams. 

 

Why do you think Asian teams barring Pakistan to a lesser extent struggled in the 90s vs the top boys? Because they had poor fitness obviously and their fielding standards were poor. 

 

India din't have one single pacer apart from sirnath who was capable of hitting 140 plus in 90s. 

 

Walsh etc looked good because batsmen of that era lacked the power game to take him in.

 

He would get worked out in current era due to superior technology. He had a men's bouncer but skill wise both bumrah and Cummins are far ahead. 

 

And then I see what someone like Kyle Jamieson did in NZ when India went there last time.

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, Soldier said:

I have watched both era's and no I don't believe your much romanticized overrated past 90s fodders are better. Sorry to burst your bubble. 

 

They are not. Just because you said so doesn't mean anything to me. 

Stats are stats, sorry.

Current crop of bowlers are inferior in fitness. experts say so, stats bear this out. No amount of modernist whitewashing will change this.

 

15 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

Its all pure conjecture.

90s teams din't play t20, franchzie cricket. Don't give me that rubbish about how they played long test series. Half the time they played on bowling friendly pitches. 

 

They dint play in a result oriented era. There were many draws especially in 2000 era.

 

Do you have dmenetia? Cause you repeating yourself. 

 

 

 

whether you play on roads or clay or mars, has ZERO BEARING on the workload of a bower. Bowlers run in, they bowl. per delivery effort == same, regardless of which format. 

 

Bowlers today are objectively inferior in fitness. As well as in expert opinion. 

11 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Inferior only according to your rambling dimwitted self. It's an insult to compare fodder 90s era players to modern era superstars. 90s was a joke era riddled with fixing, tampering. Test matches were barely played between sub continent teams. 

inferior according to stats for longetivity, inferior according to the experts. 

 

They are inferior physically because they are just not a fit. Something that bears out in their lesser durability. 

 

11 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

Why do you think Asian teams barring Pakistan to a lesser extent struggled in the 90s vs the top boys? Because they had poor fitness obviously and their fielding standards were poor. 

 

India din't have one single pacer apart from sirnath who was capable of hitting 140 plus in 90s. 

Agarkar says hello. So does Ankola. Both timed in 140+ range. As i said, dont lie about seeing cricket back then - lies of children are easily exposed in the details

 

11 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

Walsh etc looked good because batsmen of that era lacked the power game to take him in.

 

He would get worked out in current era due to superior technology. He had a men's bouncer but skill wise both bumrah and Cummins are far ahead. 

 

Skillwise they are inferior IMO. Doesnt have nearly as good a slower ball for eg. Nowhere near as much durability or stamina due to their inferior training regimes. 

 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

And then I see what someone like Kyle Jamieson did in NZ when India went there last time.

hey dont you know ? 

According to this moron, millenials has the greatest work ethic ever, they so arent the ONLY generation ever to be criticized for poor work ethic by their elders. 

Every human born in 1990 or later >>>> human born earlier coz hey evolution or some nonsense liberal modernist ideology.

[Soldier]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No. Thats the selectors, not the coaches. A coaches job is to address fitness and technique for the bowlers. 

Because they are inferior in fitness and break down easily, thats why. 

No, the countries who produced fast bowlers have always been the ones who had good fast bowlers to groom the younger generation.  Low averages and low SR these days are a direct consequence of impatient batsmen, as Murali says, especially for the lower Strike rate.

 

You cant run away from the fact that modern pacers are less fit than their prior counterparts and its reflected in data, in opinion of the experts and their coaches, along with the fact that teams like West Indies who have ditched the modern gym and returned to old school training methods are the ones who have made the most noticable gain in availability and fitness of their bowlers.

 

 

Yea and that has helped West Indies reach new heights right? The old school method for bowling. 

[Soldier]

42 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

And then I see what someone like Kyle Jamieson did in NZ when India went there last time.

Maybe Kyle Jamieson is better than you give him credit for????

 

Don't forget Simon Doull used to wreck the great Tendulkar. 

[Soldier]

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

hey dont you know ? 

According to this moron, millenials has the greatest work ethic ever, they so arent the ONLY generation ever to be criticized for poor work ethic by their elders. 

Every human born in 1990 or later >>>> human born earlier coz hey evolution or some nonsense liberal modernist ideology.

Could say about your dunce antiquated self.

 

Past is always great. old is gold. Lmao go home. 

 

 

[Soldier]

35 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Stats are stats, sorry.

Current crop of bowlers are inferior in fitness. experts say so, stats bear this out. No amount of modernist whitewashing will change this.

 

 

whether you play on roads or clay or mars, has ZERO BEARING on the workload of a bower. Bowlers run in, they bowl. per delivery effort == same, regardless of which format. 

 

Bowlers today are objectively inferior in fitness. As well as in expert opinion. 

inferior according to stats for longetivity, inferior according to the experts. 

 

They are inferior physically because they are just not a fit. Something that bears out in their lesser durability. 

 

Agarkar says hello. So does Ankola. Both timed in 140+ range. As i said, dont lie about seeing cricket back then - lies of children are easily exposed in the details

 

 

Skillwise they are inferior IMO. Doesnt have nearly as good a slower ball for eg. Nowhere near as much durability or stamina due to their inferior training regimes. 

 

Unless you can transpose 90s players into modern era and let them play t20 internationals and franchize cricket, we don't know how they will fare. 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Yea and that has helped West Indies reach new heights right? The old school method for bowling. 

It has helped their bowlers show significant improvement in fitness. 

3 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Could say about your dunce antiquated self.

 

Past is always great. old is gold. Lmao go home. 

 

 

great is great, regardless of past or present. Unlike you, i am old enough to know that everything new is not by default better. You too will realise this as you get older. That is, if you have a backbone left and havent already americanised yourself.

2 minutes ago, Soldier said:

Unless you can transpose 90s players into modern era and let them play t20 internationals and franchize cricket, we don't know how they will fare. 

We do know that they were fitter, hence they played more cricket through their careers.

T20 is ez for the bowlers bodies. Because 24 legal balls for one whole day is easy for those who are used to bowling 36-42 balls within the first 2 hrs of a day.

 

[Trichromatic]

Thread is confusing though.

 

 

[Soldier]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

It has helped their bowlers show significant improvement in fitness. 

great is great, regardless of past or present. Unlike you, i am old enough to know that everything new is not by default better. You too will realise this as you get older. That is, if you have a backbone left and havent already americanised yourself.

We do know that they were fitter, hence they played more cricket through their careers.

T20 is ez for the bowlers bodies. Because 24 legal balls for one whole day is easy for those who are used to bowling 36-42 balls within the first 2 hrs of a day.

 

You don't understand the intensity that goes into training in order to prepare for a T20 game. You need to work on Yorkers, cutters, slow ball, bouncer. That takes hours of practice. All that training adds up.

 

In 90s they played more games with lesser match practice. The intensity is different when you compare it to modern era where you are required to keep optimal fitness levels for all 3 formats plus franchize cricket. Also remember cricketers are now well paid. 

 

It's like your boxing example. Sparring is where you train. The course you put in the gym all adds up. You can't be a great fighter if you don't train. It take stars to master different material arts. 

 

The intensity of the game is something you are not understanding. 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Soldier said:

You don't understand the intensity that goes into training in order to prepare for a T20 game. You need to work on Yorkers, cutters, slow ball, bouncer. That takes hours of practice. All that training adds up.

Yes because bowlers clearly sit on their asses and dont train unless its T20s. 

Only for T20s they practiec yorkers cutters, slower balls, not for LOIs or Tests.

Anything else, kiddo to whine against simple fact that your modern training methods are inferior for fitness as objective evidence + expert testimonial shows ??

 

3 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

In 90s they played more games with lesser match practice. The intensity is different when you compare it to modern era where you are required to keep optimal fitness levels for all 3 formats plus franchize cricket. Also remember cricketers are now well paid. 

Cricket has been well paid for county cricketers for decades now.

Dont make lame excuses on why your modern training methods are inferior for durability and fitness.

 

3 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

It's like your boxing example. Sparring is where you train. The course you put in the gym all adds up. You can't be a great fighter if you don't train. It take stars to master different material arts. 

 

The intensity of the game is something you are not understanding. 

 

Nonense. Eveyone trains and practices for their professional craft. 

Your modern players dont have the fitness to last because thanks to T20s  a bowler can bowl only 24 balls and gather a paycheque. Hence their focus on durability has suffered and thanks to your social media image concscious loser culture, men are more interested in looking strong than being strong. It all adds up to why bowlers today have less stamina, less durability in the past - you couldnt collect a paycheque for 4 hrs of cricket only while bowling 24 balls. Now you can.

 

Who needs to train for the marathon when you only wanna do the 100m kind of rationale.

 

[Trichromatic]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

We do know that they were fitter, hence they played more cricket through their careers.

T20 is ez for the bowlers bodies. Because 24 legal balls for one whole day is easy for those who are used to bowling 36-42 balls within the first 2 hrs of a day.

 

 

Who played more cricket?

 

90s pacers of India

Srinath 147 FC games. 

Prasad 123

Agarkar 110

Ankola 54

Kuruvila 82

Atul 80

Dodda Ganesh 104

Mohanty 117

David Johnson 39

 

2000s

Zak 169 

Ishant 141

Umesh 96

Shami 74

Bhuvi 70

 

And they will add another 30 FC matches.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Who played more cricket?

 

Srinath 147 FC games. 

Prasad 123

Agarkar 110

Ankola 54

Kuruvila 82

Atul 80

Dodda Ganesh 104

Mohanty 117

David Johnson 39

 

Zak 169 

Ishant 141

Umesh 96

Shami 74

Bhuvi 70

 

And they will add another 30 FC matches.

 

 

In general those who play county cricket end up playing the most cricket in their careers. 

 

If you look around the world, most bowlers of the pre 2005/6 change of guard era had far more durability and played far more cricket than the ones who came after.

 

[Trichromatic]

10 minutes ago, Soldier said:

You don't understand the intensity that goes into training in order to prepare for a T20 game. You need to work on Yorkers, cutters, slow ball, bouncer. That takes hours of practice. All that training adds up.

 

In 90s they played more games with lesser match practice. The intensity is different when you compare it to modern era where you are required to keep optimal fitness levels for all 3 formats plus franchize cricket. Also remember cricketers are now well paid. 

 

It's like your boxing example. Sparring is where you train. The course you put in the gym all adds up. You can't be a great fighter if you don't train. It take stars to master different material arts. 

 

The intensity of the game is something you are not understanding. 

 

90s players used to play more matches as practice match before any series. 

[Trichromatic]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

In general those who play county cricket end up playing the most cricket in their careers. 

 

If you look around the world, most bowlers of the pre 2005/6 change of guard era had far more durability and played far more cricket than the ones who came after.

 

 

But Indian bolwers are playing more cricket as it seems from those FC numbers. Does that mean they are futter than bowlers from 90s?

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Trichromatic said:

 

But Indian bolwers are playing more cricket as it seems from those FC numbers. Does that mean they are futter than bowlers from 90s?

 

I would have to check their total career length along with their total career span to see who is playing more and who is playing less.

 

[Trichromatic]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

I would have to check their total career length along with their total career span to see who is playing more and who is playing less.

 

 

Srinath played his first FC game at age of 20 and last at age of 33.

Same for Prasad. 

Both of them palyed 147 and 123 games.

 

 

Ishant made FC debut age of 18 and still playing at age of 32. Might as well play for another 3-4 years.

Total 141 games.

 

Who would be fittest bowler among all 3?

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Srinath played his first FC game at age of 20 and last at age of 33.

Same for Prasad. 

Both of them palyed 147 and 123 games.

 

 

Ishant made FC debut age of 18 and still playing at age of 32. Might as well play for another 3-4 years.

Total 141 games.

 

Who would be fittest bowler among all 3?

 

Ishant. now do Shami please.