Huge credit to pacers for where Indian cricket is: Kohli

[Suhaan]

2 hours ago, anish2tweet said:

This even a child can say

Sent from my CPH1819 using Tapatalk
 

Then say it

[neel roy]

On 12/31/2021 at 4:19 PM, vvvslaxman said:

Definitely it improved our winning record overseas. Ishant played with more than 2 bowling units. But his performance improved only in the last 4 years with current unit.  Captains were reluctant to play that 4th pacer overseas. But little we realize how much difference it makes. Also Bharat Arun played a role in devising strategies. It tells you one thing. Better bowling unit wins you more matches than Better batting unit. We had a gun batting unit in the 2000s. But we never thought about playing  5 genuine bowling options.

A big counter argument here will be the 2000s team had 3 genuine part timers in sehwag ganguly and sachin who had scarcely believable 468 international wickets between them ( 118 in tests and 350 in odis).. if india had the same luxury of this would they still have played 5 bowlers? They would have played an extra batsmen maybe.. all ifs and buts but point to be noted mi lord..

[vvvslaxman]

2 minutes ago, neel roy said:

A big counter argument here will be the 2000s team had 3 genuine part timers in sehwag ganguly and sachin who had scarcely believable 468 international wickets between them ( 118 in tests and 350 in odis).. if india had the same luxury of this would they still have played 5 bowlers? They would have played an extra batsmen maybe.. all ifs and buts but point to be noted mi lord..

 

True. May be an extra seamer option would have been handy. But India failed to force the issue many times. In Pakistan after Irfan pathan's hatrick we should have steamrolled them. Pakistan was 39/6. We only had Kumble then as 4th bowler. 5th bowler was Ganguly. We let them off.  Capetown match where SA had to chase 210 runs. Zak bowled well. But he had no support. Since sreesanth went off the boil. India was left with Kumble and Munaf.  We could have forced for a win with a better bowling attack

[Vijy]

23 hours ago, neel roy said:

A big counter argument here will be the 2000s team had 3 genuine part timers in sehwag ganguly and sachin who had scarcely believable 468 international wickets between them ( 118 in tests and 350 in odis).. if india had the same luxury of this would they still have played 5 bowlers? They would have played an extra batsmen maybe.. all ifs and buts but point to be noted mi lord..

The ODI team had 4-5 in its peak: Sehwag, SRT, Raina, Yuvraj, and Ganguly (with some appearances from Dinesh Mongia).

[Adamant]

On 1/1/2022 at 6:52 PM, express bowling said:

Has Kohli revolutionized Indian Fast bowling  ?

 

" For " Arguments ....

 

1)  Shami, Umesh and Ishant were there for a long time but became good test match bowlers only during Kohli's reign.

 

2)  Kohli has kept playing 5 bowlers in test matches despite having a weak batting unit. This has helped more pacers play.

 

3)  Supported fitness culture in Team India in a strong way. This has helped the Indian fast bowlers definitely.

 

 

" Against " Arguments ....

 

1)  Has not been able to develop a single new and young fast bowler. Siraj's debut was delayed by 2 years and ultimately played tests only when multiple older quicks are injured simultaneously.

 

2)  In white ball cricket he has played trundlers mostly. Apart from Bumrah ( who any captain will pick anyway ) it has mostly been trundlers. Shami was dropped during the WC 2019 SF match despite being in red hot form. (  While we have seen trundler lover Dhoni play Shami and Umesh in tandem in WC 2015. )

 

3)  Shastri is a big supporter of Fast bowling in tests, along with B.Arun, and this must have had some influence on lots of Fast bowlers playing and doing well in test matches. It was probably not just Kohli's influence alone.

 

4)  His support has always been for older established pacers at the cost of young talent. I would not want Kohli to be the captain if I were a young and upcoming fast bowler knocking on the doors of Team India.

 

Whether Siraj's debut was delayed or not doesn't matter. 

He is playing under Kohli and Kohli is the one who picked him in the squad. 

Debuting a bowler against Afghanistan doesn't actually mean much for the bowler. 

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Adamant said:

Whether Siraj's debut was delayed or not doesn't matter. 

He is playing under Kohli and Kohli is the one who picked him in the squad. 

Debuting a bowler against Afghanistan doesn't actually mean much for the bowler. 

 

 

Sorry I genuinely can't understand any of the points that you have raised.

 

Fast bowlers have shorter shelf lives. And bowling pace past the age of 32 or 33 becomes very tough on the body. Delaying the debut of a ready fast bowler by 2 years and 3 months, who is performing superlatively at A-team level, does not make any sense to me. 

 

And Kohli did not pick him in the squad. The selectors did and have being continually doing so for 2.5 years before he got his chance.

 

The debut came under Rahane and not Kohli. Siraj got a 5-far at Brisbane under Rahane. Led the pace attack admirably. But was promptly dropped in the next test when Kohli made a comeback as captain. He was dropped again in the WTC Final despite performing admirably in the previous test at Ahmedabad.

 

Your 2nd point ... making a test debut against ANY opposition makes a lot of sense. Put yourself in Siraj's shoes ... would you prefer to debut again st Afghanistan or wait for 2 years for test debut ?

 

And ... his debut could have been against the West Indies in 2018 when Shardul was preferred ahead of him ... not Afghanistan.