India all time test XI

[Vancouver]

Gill

Gavaskar

Dravid

Tendulkar

Kohli 

Jadeja

Pant

Dev 

Ashwin

Shami

Bumrah

[express bowling]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I am not. You did the math wrong. 

Cummins debuted in winter 2011. That gives him 10 years of professional cricket ( not international cricket but professional cricket).

In that span hes played 96 T20s, 90 List As, 34 tests and an additional 13 FC matches.

 

That is (96 + 90 + 34*5 + 13*3)/10 = 39.5 days of cricket, MAXIMUM per annum.

 

I am talking about his workload in the last 4 years after he has become a regular in the Australian team.  He has played about 80 days of cricket per year in this period.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Walsh debuted in 1981, he retired in 2000. That is exactly 20 years. 

In that span he played 132 tests, 440 List-As and 297 FC matches - some of them being 4 day cricket, since England used to do ( and maybe still does- not sure) 4 day first class crickets. But lets go easy on the modern inferior fitness bowlers and not make them look too bad and just assume Walsh only played 3 day FC cricket)

That is ( 440+ 132*5+ 297*3)/20 = 99.55 days of cricket MAXIMUM per annum.

 

Ie, Walsh played twice as much cricket as Cummins does, for twice as long.  And unlike Cummins and modern players, Walsh didnt have the luxury of easy bowling days where one days work == maximum 24 balls bowled.  Those are the basic facts.

 

 

 

I did not talk about Walsh in my post. He had great fitness. I agree.  I don't know why you are debating this when I did not say otherwise. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

So slowing down of a bowler post injury is excuse. Okay then. Biology is an excuse.

 

 

All the really quick bowlers have come back from major injuries and still bowled fast after that.

 

I just gave you Bumrah's example. He had stress fracture of the back just 16 months back. But has bowled at full pace after return from injury.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Whats really an excuse is trying to justify the inferior fitness of the modern bowlers when being openly called out so by the experts and when data shows that they are LESS capable of playing as much. 

 

Irrelevant to the point that T20 is easier on the bowlers body than one day or first class cricket.

24 balls is easier on the body than 100+. Its just that simple.

 

Yes. 

And the ability of MODERN bowlers to be durable is , in general, inferior. There is hardly a bowler today who can meet the workload of the bowlers 20 years ago.

 

 

This kind of generalization does not make any sense.

 

1980s and 1990s had bowlers who were super fit and also has bowlers who were not so fit.

 

2010s also had bowlers who were super fit and had bowlers who were not so fit.

 

You are just picking the fittest bowlers of that era in a failed attempt to prove your case. 

 

For every Walsh there was a Bishop.

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Then act like it, instead of talking nonsense about how older pros were less professional coz you said so.

 

 

 

I don't have to learn how to behave from an immature person like you. 

 

I did not generalize about the professionalism of older pros. Some of them were highly professional and some others were not. And it is the same case in this era too. You are the one who is obsessed with generalization.

[NameGoesHere]

Sunny G

Sehwag

SRT

Kohli

Dravid

Dhoni

Jadeja

Kapil

Bumrah

Bedi (for now, scores over Ashwin)

Kumble

 

Edit:  I have heard of two Indian bowlers Amar Singh and Mohammed Nissar, but they were way back so can't comment.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by NameGoesHere

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

I am talking about his workload in the last 4 years after he has become a regular in the Australian team.  He has played about 80 days of cricket per year in this period.

 

So ? The workload of EVERY player increases when they get selected for national duty compared to when they make their professional debut and are selected only for non national club cricket. Same applies for Walsh too. And every damn player.

Selective cherry-picking wont help the case that virtually EVERY SINGLE MODERN BOWLER plays less cricket during the full duration of their professional careers than the older gen did.

 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

 

I did not talk about Walsh in my post. He had great fitness. I agree.  I don't know why you are debating this when I did not say otherwise. 

 

Ok. Walsh was known as insanely fit. IIRC he held the record for most balls bowled in cricket by a big margin when he retired- McGrath or Warne or Murali might have eventually gone past him.

So forget Walsh.

Take most bowlers of the 80s and 90s - they played way more cricket than the bowlers of post 2000 era do, particularly the post 2010 era does. 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

 

All the really quick bowlers have come back from major injuries and still bowled fast after that.

 

I just gave you Bumrah's example. He had stress fracture of the back just 16 months back. But has bowled at full pace after return from injury.

 

Sure. That was true for past bowlers too. Bishop came back from injury and was blazingly fast still. Same with Waqar and his first bout of injuries. However, Kapil and Willis dropped their pace because their injury was knee related- knee injuries often dont heal completely, especially if your profession requires you to torque your knee a lot. When you lose pop in the jump, you lose pop in the pace. 

Its assinine to think all type of injuries are the same. 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

This kind of generalization does not make any sense.

 

1980s and 1990s had bowlers who were super fit and also has bowlers who were not so fit.

 

2010s also had bowlers who were super fit and had bowlers who were not so fit.

 

You are just picking the fittest bowlers of that era in a failed attempt to prove your case. 

 

For every Walsh there was a Bishop.

Ok. Lets do Bishop.

First class & List-A span: 1986-1999 : 13 years. 

156 List-As, 43 tests, 116 additional FC matches : 55.3 days max cricket per annum. 

Even Bishop clocks in a higher career rate than Cummins so far. 

This is what i am saying, this has been said by bowling coaches and former fast bowlers : modern fast bowlers are less fit, more injury prone and less durable than the older ones on average. 
The data is absolutely conclusive on this. 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have to learn how to behave from an immature person like you. 

 

I did not generalize about the professionalism of older pros. Some of them were highly professional and some others were not. And it is the same case in this era too. You are the one who is obsessed with generalization.

 

The generalization i am making are all backed by decisive data trends and expert testimonial : modern fast bowlers are less fit than their older counterparts and some have even diagnosed the problem : too much gym work to 'look good naked' and not enough actual strengthening work to give performance. 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, NameGoesHere said:

Sunny G

Sehwag

SRT

Kohli

Dravid

Dhoni

Jadeja

Kapil

Bumrah

Bedi (for now, scores over Ashwin)

Kumble

 

 

Your order is weird.

SRT at #3 and Dravi at #5 ? 

 

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

[express bowling]

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

So ? The workload of EVERY player increases when they get selected for national duty compared to when they make their professional debut and are selected only for non national club cricket. Same applies for Walsh too. And every damn player.

Selective cherry-picking wont help the case that virtually EVERY SINGLE MODERN BOWLER plays less cricket during the full duration of their professional careers than the older gen did.

 

 

Ok. Walsh was known as insanely fit. IIRC he held the record for most balls bowled in cricket by a big margin when he retired- McGrath or Warne or Murali might have eventually gone past him.

So forget Walsh.

Take most bowlers of the 80s and 90s - they played way more cricket than the bowlers of post 2000 era do, particularly the post 2010 era does. 

Sure. That was true for past bowlers too. Bishop came back from injury and was blazingly fast still. Same with Waqar and his first bout of injuries. However, Kapil and Willis dropped their pace because their injury was knee related- knee injuries often dont heal completely, especially if your profession requires you to torque your knee a lot. When you lose pop in the jump, you lose pop in the pace. 

Its assinine to think all type of injuries are the same. 

Ok. Lets do Bishop.

First class & List-A span: 1986-1999 : 13 years. 

156 List-As, 43 tests, 116 additional FC matches : 55.3 days max cricket per annum. 

Even Bishop clocks in a higher career rate than Cummins so far. 

This is what i am saying, this has been said by bowling coaches and former fast bowlers : modern fast bowlers are less fit, more injury prone and less durable than the older ones on average. 
The data is absolutely conclusive on this. 

 

The generalization i am making are all backed by decisive data trends and expert testimonial : modern fast bowlers are less fit than their older counterparts and some have even diagnosed the problem : too much gym work to 'look good naked' and not enough actual strengthening work to give performance. 

 

 

The objective is to have low average and low SR pacers who can play as many important international matches as possible during their best years. 

 

The objective is neither to maximize playing days nor to play for a long time while your bowling average goes up.

 

 

P.s -- Lots of pacers have knee injuries and operations. It is very common. Shami has actually increased his pace after his knee operation. Starc retains his high pace too.

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[putrevus]

I am one of the biggest fan of Kapil. Bumrah is by far best fast bowler to emerge. But to be called great, he needs to play atleast 50 plus tests and take 200 plus test wickets.He needs to play for five more years atleast at this level.

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

IBumrah is by far best fast bowler to emerge. But to be called great, he needs to play atleast 50 plus tests and take 200 plus test wickets.He needs to play for five more years atleast at this level.

 

 

Obviously  !

 

I don't think these tags matter for young players anyway. 

 

The only thing that matters is whether he is doing his job well ... and Bumrah is doing it.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

The objective is to have low average and low SR pacers who can play as many important international matches as possible during their best years. 

 

The objective is neither to maximize playing days nor to play for a long time while your bowling average goes up.

The objective first and foremost, is to be amongst the top 4 bowlers available for your team, regardless of what your average or age is. 

 

The objective for ANY professional sportsman, first and foremost, is to maximise their playing days. Not minimise it. This is why no player likes being benched for the dead rubber. 

 

It doesnt change the fact that modern fast bowlers are inferior in fitness and it is decisively reflected in the less amount of cricket they are capable of playing, along with decisive comments about it by the older gen and the coaches. cricket has been a sport professionally for nearly 80-90 years and the last 10-15 years has been the first time ever where the fitness regime and work ethic of the bowlers have been openly questioned by their coaches and prior greats as a generalised criticism. Ask yourself why. 

Quote

 

P.s -- Lots of pacers have knee injuries and operations. It is very common. Shami has actually increased his pace after his knee operation. Starc retains his high pace too.

 

Yes, it is very common now. It wasnt 40 years ago. And knee injuries often dont heal/relapse easily. Look at Federer. The point is, if your knee doesnt heal fully, your legs lose their pop. Most noticable amongst fast bowlers or tennis players/soccer players etc - where heavy torquing of the knee is mandatory. Willis and Kapil lost pace due to this, not because they were lazy - a charge that has ACTUALLY been levelled at the modern generation of fast bowlers, not the older one, by their coaches & the prior generation.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Muloghonto

[putrevus]

11 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Obviously  !

 

I don't think these tags matter for young players anyway. 

 

The only thing that matters is whether he is doing his job well ... and Bumrah is doing it.

 

 

Who said tags don't matter for young players. It is always a motivation for any young player who has established himself in the team. Hope Bumrah inspires more kids to take fast bowling.

[express bowling]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The objective first and foremost, is to be amongst the top 4 bowlers available for your team, regardless of what your average or age is. 

 

The objective for ANY professional sportsman, first and foremost, is to maximise their playing days. Not minimise it. This is why no player likes being benched for the dead rubber. 

 

It doesnt change the fact that modern fast bowlers are inferior in fitness and it is decisively reflected in the less amount of cricket they are capable of playing, along with decisive comments about it by the older gen and the coaches. cricket has been a sport professionally for nearly 80-90 years and the last 10-15 years has been the first time ever where the fitness regime and work ethic of the bowlers have been openly questioned by their coaches and prior greats as a generalised criticism. Ask yourself why. 

 

Yes, it is very common now. It wasnt 40 years ago. And knee injuries often dont heal/relapse easily. Look at Federer. The point is, if your knee doesnt heal fully, your legs lose their pop. Most noticable amongst fast bowlers or tennis players/soccer players etc - where heavy torquing of the knee is mandatory. Willis and Kapil lost pace due to this, not because they were lazy - a charge that has ACTUALLY been levelled at the modern generation of fast bowlers, not the older one, by their coaches & the prior generation.

 

 

 

All the bowling coaches nowadays try to optimize playing days and do not want to maximize it for the players.

 

Fast bowlers are not allowed to play more than X number of matches and are deliberately rested although they are fit.

 

And looking at how well they are bowling these days ... the policy seems ok too. 

 

Every team is producing low average or low SR pacers who can bowl 140 k too. This was not the case in the 1980s. Only the more naturally gifted countries produced fast bowlers. 

[express bowling]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Who said tags don't matter for young players. It is always a motivation for any young player who has established himself in the team. Hope Bumrah inspires more kids to take fast bowling.

 

 

No young player, who has played a few matches, can be called great.

 

Motivation comes from being highly acclaimed.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

All the bowling coaches nowadays try to optimize playing days and do not want to maximize it for the players.

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

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Fast bowlers are not allowed to play more than X number of matches and are deliberately rested although they are fit.

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

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

And looking at how well they are bowling these days ... the policy seems ok too. 

 

Every team is producing low average or low SR pacers who can bowl 140 k too. This was not the case in the 1980s. Only the more naturally gifted countries produced fast bowlers. 

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.

 

 

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

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

 

 

Don't think you follow cricket these days.

 

 

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

 

Just in your mind.

 

 

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Indians are bowling much better and much faster by adopting modern methods. Old methods only produced medium pacers. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

 

Don't think you follow cricket these days.

 

Just in your mind.

They are inferior in fitness by actual data and by actual comment of the experts and coaches.  I will take that any day of the week over someone peddling a religious belief that newer == always better. 

Just now, express bowling said:

 

Indians are bowling much better and much faster by adopting modern methods. Old methods only produced medium pacers. 

 

and they are breaking down far easier and are less fit as a result. because modern methods are inferior to longetivity and durability, as noted by the experts and the past bowlers.

there is no evidence that we are bowling significantly faster now than 20 years ago. 

[express bowling]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

They are inferior in fitness by actual data and by actual comment of the experts and coaches.  I will take that any day of the week over someone peddling a religious belief that newer == always better. 

 

 

My comment was about coaches chalking the path regarding bowlers' workload and Indian selectors having little role to play these days on this issue.

 

 

Quote

and they are breaking down far easier and are less fit as a result. because modern methods are inferior to longetivity and durability,

 

 

This is the only series where our players  have broken down. And it is not restricted to pacers. Batsmen and spinners have been involved too.

 

Ashwin was saying that the main reason is ... Indian cricketers could not practice much cricket for almost 5 months. (  While Australians and NZ cricketers in lowly populated countries could practice )

 

 

 

 

Quote

there is no evidence that we are bowling significantly faster now than 20 years ago. 

 

 

This should be sent to the jokes section.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

My comment was about coaches chalking the path regarding bowlers' workload and Indian selectors having little role to play these days on this issue.

 

 

 

 

This is the only series where our players  have broken down. And it is not restricted to pacers. Batsmen and spinners have been involved too.

 

Ashwin was saying that the main reason is ... Indian cricketers could not practice much cricket for almost 5 months. (  While Australians and NZ cricketers in lowly populated countries could practice )

 

 

 

 

 

Doesnt change the fact that modern bowlers break down far more often than their older counterparts - spinners included- due to inferior fitness regimes. As stated explicitly by the experts.

 

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

This should be sent to the jokes section.

 

ok so provide evidence. 

What was the average pace of Srinath Prasad Agarkar Ankola etc compared to the likes of today. 

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Doesnt change the fact that modern bowlers break down far more often than their older counterparts - spinners included- due to inferior fitness regimes. As stated explicitly by the experts.

 

 

That  " expert "  is you. 

 

I have heard and read contrasting opinions on this from the actual experts.

 

If it was so unanimous that it is bad then the modern training methods woùld not be used.

 

 

Quote

ok so provide evidence. 

What was the average pace of Srinath Prasad Agarkar Ankola etc compared to the likes of today. 

 

 

Average Speed data was not available then.

 

Those who saw them bowl and saw the speeds, know that only Srinath was really quick in that era. 

 

Prasad was generally in the 120s.

 

Agarkar generally bowled at Siraj's pace ... And Siraj is one of our slower pacers now.

Edited January 20, 2021 by express bowling

[express bowling]

Anyway ... I have to go and sleep now.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

That  " expert "  is you. 

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

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

I have heard and read contrasting opinions on this from the actual experts.

 

If it was so unanimous that it is bad then the modern training methods woùld not be used.

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. 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

 

Average Speed data was not available then.

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

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

Those who saw them bowl and saw the speeds, know that only Srinath was really quick in that era. 

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

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

Prasad was generally in the 120s.

 

Agarkar generally bowled at Siraj's pace ... And Siraj is one of our slower pacers now.

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. 

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.