India all time test XI

[Trichromatic]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Ishant. now do Shami please. 

 

Shami has played 74 FC games in 10 years. Umesh has 96 in 12 years.

 

How many more will they play?

 

It seems Indian pacers of 90s managed 80-120 FC games in 90s. Only Srinath managed more than 120 games. There could be more who didn't get chance in international. I didn't check all. In 2000s generation, Zak has already played more, Ishant, Umesh both will surpass Srinath's numbers probably.

 

Number of tests is even lower. Srinath had 67 games and he was at top. 

[Soldier]

42 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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 ??

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

The only cold hard certainties in life are those that transpire in front of our eyes. Everything else is conjecture. Transitivity is a fickle concept and does not even bear the test of tweaking one or two variables in isolation. a fallacy itself to think there is no interdependence at play and that variables can be tweaked in isolation - in the same geography and time let alone across those.

For those posters who have not been following the sport for decades, the events of last few weeks alone should tell you of the uncertainties of life and cricket.

 

just because a bowler was fitter in that era doesn't necessarily mean he would be the same in current era and vice versa. 

 

I don't agree with your notion about past being greater. Players weren't fitter. They appear fitter because they trained less for high intensity games in an era riddled by fixing, scandals and ball tampering.

 

Btw the great Ambrose din't even tour India. He avoided all the hard tours. 

 

unless your so called fit 90s players have played all 3 formats of current era, I can't accept them as a fitter athletes. 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Soldier

[Soldier]

25 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?

Because ishu Bhai din't play t20. Guess what? That allows him to play and focus more won Tests.

 

Same with Anderson and broad.

 

 

So clearly t20 has an impact on a player's ability to play across formats the intensity levels are different. That's why arm chair couch potatoes critiques who have never played sports at a high level like the maghulato dude should quit smoking what he has been smoking and just stay mute. Permanently. 

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Shami has played 74 FC games in 10 years. Umesh has 96 in 12 years.

 

How many more will they play?

 

It seems Indian pacers of 90s managed 80-120 FC games in 90s. Only Srinath managed more than 120 games. There could be more who didn't get chance in international. I didn't check all. In 2000s generation, Zak has already played more, Ishant, Umesh both will surpass Srinath's numbers probably.

 

Number of tests is even lower. Srinath had 67 games and he was at top. 

 

I would like to include ALL playing stats as it pertains to fitness. For eg its known that through the 90s Indians played a lot more LOIs than Test cricket compared to the english.

 

 

[Soldier]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

I would like to include ALL playing stats as it pertains to fitness. For eg its known that through the 90s Indians played a lot more LOIs than Test cricket compared to the english.

 

 

They'd dint play t20 Internationals plus franchize cricket along with odi and tests though. So stop comparing eras. 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

The only cold hard certainties in life are those that transpire in front of our eyes. Everything else is conjecture. Transitivity is a fickle concept and does not even bear the test of tweaking one or two variables in isolation. a fallacy itself to think there is no interdependence at play and that variables can be tweaked in isolation - in the same geography and time let alone across those.

Blah blah blah.

Fact : your current lot plays less cricket than the older lot. 

Fact: your current lot is the ONLY GENERATION EVER to get called out for inferior fitness and work ethic by the older generation.

 

9 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

just because a bowler was fitter in that era doesn't necessarily mean he would be the same in current era and vice versa. 

Uh...yes it does. If they keep the same training regime they would be fitter because the fitness regime back then was superior. 

 

9 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

I don't agree with your notion about past being greater. Players weren't fitter. They appear fitter because they trained less for high intensity games in an era riddled by fixing, scandals and ball tampering.

False. 

They were fitter and its evidenced by them playing far more cricket. 

Current players have been called out for their fitness culture.

 

The past is greater than the present in this respect and the past has been greater than the future in many things all through human history. 

 

9 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

Btw the great Ambrose din't even tour India. He avoided all the hard tours. 

India is the only place he didnt tour and west indies toured India only twice in his entire career IIRC - both of which he missed due to shoulder injury which knocked him out for 4-5 months at a time. 

 

9 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

unless your so called fit 90s players have played all 3 formats of current era, I can't accept them as a fitter athletes. 

 

They are fitter, because they played more cricket. 

T20 is the easist cricket for a bowler's body because its the easiest workload on a bowler's body.

no amount of whining will change these basic facts.

its easier to bowl 24 balls in a day than 60. or 100. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

They'd dint play t20 Internationals plus franchize cricket along with odi and tests though. So stop comparing eras. 

 

You mean they didnt play the easiest cricket on the bowler's body and STILL played more.

Maybe thats why they are on record calling out inferior fitness of the modern bowlers.

[Muloghonto]

@Soldier

"Past cannot be greater than the present"

- Indian idiot, circa 1500 BC, after the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization.

 

" Past cannot be greater than the present"

- an italian in 700 AD, looking at the coloseum

[Soldier]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

@Soldier

"Past cannot be greater than the present"

- Indian idiot, circa 1500 BC, after the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization.

 

" Past cannot be greater than the present"

- an italian in 700 AD, looking at the coloseum

i know you are mentally challenged but to stoop down to that level is a new high even for your challenged self.

[Soldier]

30 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

You mean they didnt play the easiest cricket on the bowler's body and STILL played more.

Maybe thats why they are on record calling out inferior fitness of the modern bowlers.

easier cricket lmao. according to whom? if it was so easy why cant broad and anderson who have played 130 plus tests excel in those formats. or ishant. 

[Soldier]

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Blah blah blah.

Fact : your current lot plays less cricket than the older lot. 

Fact: your current lot is the ONLY GENERATION EVER to get called out for inferior fitness and work ethic by the older generation.

 

Uh...yes it does. If they keep the same training regime they would be fitter because the fitness regime back then was superior. 

 

False. 

They were fitter and its evidenced by them playing far more cricket. 

Current players have been called out for their fitness culture.

 

The past is greater than the present in this respect and the past has been greater than the future in many things all through human history. 

 

India is the only place he didnt tour and west indies toured India only twice in his entire career IIRC - both of which he missed due to shoulder injury which knocked him out for 4-5 months at a time. 

 

They are fitter, because they played more cricket. 

T20 is the easist cricket for a bowler's body because its the easiest workload on a bowler's body.

no amount of whining will change these basic facts.

its easier to bowl 24 balls in a day than 60. or 100. 

 

 

they wont keep the same regime. players learn from the past mistakes. players evolve. They used to play tests as direct practice games which equates to lower intensity in training. Rather than peaking for test conditions they utilize official tests as a stepping stone to find their optimal peak. 

 

are you dense? modern players have to play tests, odi and t20 internationals along with franchise cricket all in one calendar year. a couch potatoe like yourself woudnt understand the rigours of playing 3 competitions. All 3 formats require different levels of intensity. they have specific training camps for each format. so the amount of balls the bowl in nets dont count lmao?

 

Your expert dumbass says they are fitter doesnt mean they are. Unless you can transpose those players to modern era and allow them to compete vs modern era players, you cant prove who is fitter. You are a product of your time. 

[Muloghonto]

25 minutes ago, Soldier said:

i know you are mentally challenged but to stoop down to that level is a new high even for your challenged self.

just giving you example how your 'newer is better' ideology has objective evidence against it in history.

24 minutes ago, Soldier said:

easier cricket lmao. according to whom? if it was so easy why cant broad and anderson who have played 130 plus tests excel in those formats. or ishant. 

 

because easier on the body doesnt mean you have the skillset to do it. T20 cricket is all about dot-balls, not wicket-taking while being tonked around ala Waqar. The latter is whats worth its weight in gold in the longer formats.

18 minutes ago, Soldier said:

 

 

they wont keep the same regime. players learn from the past mistakes. players evolve.

 

And sometimes they devolve, trying to re-invent the wheel. Like bowler fitness has devolved in terms of longetivity and durability. Progress isnt linear function.

 

Quote

They used to play tests as direct practice games which equates to lower intensity in training. Rather than peaking for test conditions they utilize official tests as a stepping stone to find their optimal peak. 

Sounds like yet another thing you pulled out of your butt to justify your hatred of the past and worship of the new. Doesnt change the bottomline that the current bowlers are inferior in fitness.

Quote

 

are you dense? modern players have to play tests, odi and t20 internationals along with franchise cricket all in one calendar year. a couch potatoe like yourself woudnt understand the rigours of playing 3 competitions. All 3 formats require different levels of intensity. they have specific training camps for each format. so the amount of balls the bowl in nets dont count lmao?

Oh right because you only bowl in the nets since T20s came around and there was no net bowling prior to it, correct ???

 

All the tests + ODIs + T20s == less cricket than what the average bower played in the 90s. 
Those are the facts.

Quote

 

Your expert dumbass says they are fitter doesnt mean they are. Unless you can transpose those players to modern era and allow them to compete vs modern era players, you cant prove who is fitter. You are a product of your time. 

 

They arent fitter an the evidence is in their lower durability. The comment that they are less fit than in the past has also been made by experts and coaches. I can cite them if you wish. 

You are a product of your time. The previous times, you couldnt make a career with questionable stamina by bowling just 24 balls in a day. Now you can. Hence players now have less stamina and less need for stamina to make $$ in the shortest format which is easiest on the body of the bowlers.

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Soldier]

26 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

just giving you example how your 'newer is better' ideology has objective evidence against it in history.

 

because easier on the body doesnt mean you have the skillset to do it. T20 cricket is all about dot-balls, not wicket-taking while being tonked around ala Waqar. The latter is whats worth its weight in gold in the longer formats.

And sometimes they devolve, trying to re-invent the wheel. Like bowler fitness has devolved in terms of longetivity and durability. Progress isnt linear function.

 

Sounds like yet another thing you pulled out of your butt to justify your hatred of the past and worship of the new. Doesnt change the bottomline that the current bowlers are inferior in fitness.

Oh right because you only bowl in the nets since T20s came around and there was no net bowling prior to it, correct ???

 

All the tests + ODIs + T20s == less cricket than what the average bower played in the 90s. 
Those are the facts.

 

They arent fitter an the evidence is in their lower durability. The comment that they are less fit than in the past has also been made by experts and coaches. I can cite them if you wish. 

You are a product of your time. The previous times, you couldnt make a career with questionable stamina by bowling just 24 balls in a day. Now you can. Hence players now have less stamina and less need for stamina to make $$ in the shortest format which is easiest on the body of the bowlers.

 

i get your last part but you wouldnt get paid top dollars if you werent that good to being with so i doubt players are taking t20 lightly. You are severely underestimating the impact of t20 on tests and odi formats. You have tailored regimes for all 3 formats which equates to countless hours of more training hence players are likely to get more fatigued. We just cant compare them unless the players in question have played vs each other in the same era. 

 

the ones you are talking about who make easy cash via t20 are usually fodder players and not top calibre talents. Almost all top players especially bowlers play all formats. 

 

i dint pull it out of my ass. in the past especially 90s, india and most subcontinent teams played less cricket overall as the focus was more on odi. 

tests plus odi and t20 does equal more cricket being played because all 3 require proper regime to train and prep for. Intensity level is much higher for t20 franhcize cricket particularly when there is so much money at stake. 

 

i can also extrapolate and isolate variables to make current era look better through stats etc and so can you for past generation. It doesnt work that way. A being fitter in 90s doesnt mean A will be fitter in current era. There are far too many variables to account for. Like i said for, the transitivity theory cannot be upheld. 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Soldier

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

i get your last part but you wouldnt get paid top dollars if you werent that good to being with so i doubt players are taking t20 lightly.

 

Well you dont need stamina if your plan is to run the 100m.  same applies for T20s. 

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

You are severely underestimating the impact of t20 on tests and odi formats. You have to tailored regime for all 3 formats which equates to countless hours of more training hence players are likely to get more fatigued. We just cant compare them unless the players in question have played vs each other in the same era. 

Nonsense. 
Total, utter, nonsense. The only thing that has changed due to T20s, is the line and length of the bowlers. Runup, pace, etc is the same. 

 

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

 

the ones you are talking about who make easy cash via t20 are usually fodder players and not top calibre talents. Almost all top players especially bowlers play all formats. 

Yes, but since teir main money-maker is T20s, they have lesser durablity and stamina, since both are not very high on T20's bowlers list of needs

 

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

 

i dint pull it out of my ass. in the past especially 90s, india and most subcontinent teams played less cricket overall as the focus was more on odi. 

So playing more ODIs == less cricket overall ??

Yep, not only did you pull it out of your buttocks, you have also lost the plot by saying more odi cricket == less cricket overall 

 

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

tests plus odi and t20 does equal more cricket being played because all 3 require proper regime to train and prep for. Intensity level is much higher for t20 franhcize cricket particularly when there is so much money at stake. 

BS. 

They all require a bowler to do the same - go in and bowl. All the difference is in the line and length. 

And T20 bowling is easier on the body because its less of a workload. Duh.

 

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

 

i can also extrapolate and isolate variables to make current era look better through stats etc and so can you for past generation. It doesnt work that way. A being fitter in 90s doesnt mean A will be fitter in current era.

it does mean that if the 90s guy follows the same fitness regimen. Which Otis gibson and Walsh started for the West Indian pacers and it has made them less injury prone, according to the bowlers themselves.

 

1 minute ago, Soldier said:

 

There are far too many variables to account for. Like i said for, the transitivity theory cannot be upheld. 

 

 

Except it can, when we have the experts saying it, the objective evidence showing it and even the players today on record for saying their fitness and stamina are superior by going back to the tried and tested methods of the past.

 

I can cite if you wish. In tennis terms, thats game, set & match.

 

[zen]

Cummins!

 

 

[Soldier]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Well you dont need stamina if your plan is to run the 100m.  same applies for T20s. 

Nonsense. 
Total, utter, nonsense. The only thing that has changed due to T20s, is the line and length of the bowlers. Runup, pace, etc is the same. 

you do need stamina even for 100 m sprint. do you realize the amount of power and speed required to be successful in 100m? its a different sport altogether. running 100m at a marathon pace is different from running a 100 m at ridiculous top speeds. t20 is a top speed game. 

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, but since teir main money-maker is T20s, they have lesser durablity and stamina, since both are not very high on T20's bowlers list of needs

 

So playing more ODIs == less cricket overall ??

Yep, not only did you pull it out of your buttocks, you have also lost the plot by saying more odi cricket == less cricket overall 

 

BS. 

They all require a bowler to do the same - go in and bowl. All the difference is in the line and length. 

And T20 bowling is easier on the body because its less of a workload. Duh.

its not as simple as that. if it was that easy then broad, anderson and ishant would excel in all 3 formats. they dont. 

it may be easier on the body because you bowl less overs but players play test cricket on top of t20 franchize cricket, t20 internationals plus their training routines that are tailored for each specific format

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

it does mean that if the 90s guy follows the same fitness regimen. Which Otis gibson and Walsh started for the West Indian pacers and it has made them less injury prone, according to the bowlers themselves.

but the test bowlers apart from jospeh dont play t20. gabriel does he play ipl? does roach play ipl? 

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Except it can, when we have the experts saying it, the objective evidence showing it and even the players today on record for saying their fitness and stamina are superior by going back to the tried and tested methods of the past.

 

I can cite if you wish. In tennis terms, thats game, set & match.

that let me guess comes from the mouths of old generation cricketers? am i right? Every player romanticizes about his or her era because they are all too nostalgic to think without any prejudice. 

[express bowling]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That expert is Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Otis Gibson, etc. I can cite if you wish. 

 

 

The training methods followed by Indian fast bowlers have been guided by McGrath, Lillee, Lee etc. McGrath and Lillee have mentored the MRF pace foundation.

 

 

Quote

They are used because players are free to train however they wish and the gym fad to look good naked has overriden the whole fit is fit, regardless of how you look result driven paradigm. 

 

That is just your opinion.

 

 

Quote

Ah. So then you pulled it out of your buttocks then that they were slower 

We saw the speeds of the bowlers in South Africa world cup. cite them. 

 

Your problem is that you have not watched much cricket in the last 20 years.

 

And cite just extreme examples in trying to prove your point. The biggest issue with 2000s decade Indian pacers was that they started as 140 k+ and became 130 k+ in a couple of years.

 

What is being lauded regarding Indian fast bowlers nowadays is that ... Most of them are retaining pace for a very long time.

 

Umesh still bowling 140 k+ after 10 years 

Shami still bowling 140 k+ after 8 years

Bumrah still bowling 140 k+ after 5 years 

Ishant can still bowl 140 k after 12 years

 

While Zaheer, Nehra, Agarkar, Irfan, Munaf etc. all lost pace after some time.

 

 

Quote

Agarkar regularly clocked in the 140+ zone when he went on his wicket-taking early career tear. As seen by speed guns back then. Agarkar on average was slightly quicker than Bumrah has been. 

 

 

 

At the beginning of his career,  Agarkar bowled 135 k to 143 k in his fastest spells.

 

Fastest known speed is 145 k.

 

Lost pace after a few years.

 

 

BUMRAH bowls 140 k to 150 k in his fastest spells.

 

Fastest recorded speed is 153.26 kph

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latestly.com/sports/cricket/jasprit-bumrah-fastest-ball-pacer-clocks-153kmph-during-ind-vs-aus-1st-test-at-the-adelaide-oval-beats-mitchell-starc-pat-cummins-others-526348.html/amp

 

 

 

Bumrah bowled 75 deliveries above 150 k in the year 2018 and bowled 46% of his deliveries above 140 k. Go through the Cricviz analysis below.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news18.com/cricketnext/amp/news/india-vs-australia-cricviz-analysis-what-makes-bumrah-so-good-1988923.html

 

 

"  Bumrah is considered one of the fastest Indian bowlers with an average speed of 142 km/h, his fastest being 153.26 km/h, which he bowled during the first Test match of India Tour of Australia 2018, at the Adelaide Oval, outpacing Mitchell Starc and Pat Cummins.^{[52][53]  "}

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasprit_Bumrah#:~:text=Bumrah is considered one of,Mitchell Starc and Pat Cummins.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Now you will argue that speed guns back then were inaccurate but hey we should take your eye-test instead to peddle the modernist biast agenda. 

 

 

I am not saying this. 

 

You are trying to predict what I may say and arguing with that prediction.

 

It is amazing even by your standards.   

Edited January 21, 2021 by express bowling

[rkt.india]

Agarkar faster than Bumrah.  that is some serious stuff @Muloghonto is smoking.

[NameGoesHere]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Your order is weird.

SRT at #3 and Dravi at #5 ? 

 

Also Kumble was way, way better bat than Bumrah or Bedi. 

Yes why?  Would you have it the other way around?

 

Now as for the bowlers, order doesn't matter.  I'm a firm believer in the radical theory that batsmen are there to bat and bowlers to bowl.  So again, I don't care much for order as far as bowlers are concerned.