The Indian Pace Bowling Pool need more Bounce Bowlers ... We suffered in South Africa because we could not use bounce as a weapon against ther top 6 batters

[Jaydev_Unadkat]

fast tall and dangerous Prasidh krishna will not take a wicket even if he is bowling to an open wicket 

Edited January 3 by Jaydev_Unadkat

[putrevus]

As Siraj and Mukesh have proved , you need weapons to get batsmen out, not just bounce .

Edited January 3 by putrevus

[rollingstoned]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

Have Team India ever dominated test cricket away from home ??

 

Have Team India ever had teams literally psyched out to play our team like WI of the 70s snd 80s or Australia of 90s and 00s  ?

 

That can come only if our pacers combine bounce, accuracy and seam movement, with atleast 2 pacers having genuine pace. 

 

Winning odd test matches here and there can be done with shorter medium pacers too. And people remember just those matches here.

 

Only in India do we see lots of people questioning the need for quite a few tall, hit the pacers with bounce.  Teams which have actually dominated cricket have made this their default choice. 

We have yet to cross that gap between being hard to beat and being very hard not to lose against which is allowing us to win some tests away from home now. A great bowling attack is the bedrock of such ATG teams.

[rollingstoned]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

As Siraj and Mukesh have proved , you need weapons to get batsmen out, not just bounce .

Bounce has been key today though and more importantly seam movement. Idea is not that everyone has to be a stereotypical hit the deck bowler but to use your resources in the most optimal way for the given conditions.

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

Have Team India ever dominated test cricket away from home ??

 

Have Team India ever had teams literally psyched out to play our team like WI of the 70s snd 80s or Australia of 90s and 00s  ?

 

That can come only if our pacers combine bounce, accuracy and seam movement, with atleast 2 pacers having genuine pace. 

 

Winning odd test matches here and there can be done with shorter medium pacers too. And people remember just those matches here.

 

Only in India do we see lots of people questioning the need for quite a few tall, hit the pacers with bounce.  Teams which have actually dominated cricket have made this their default choice. 

That is because those teams had good tall pacers, we don’t have them, how hard is it to understand?

 

Who in India has the potential to be the next Mcgrath, Garner, Holding, Roberts? Praisdh?

The above teams succeeded bcoz they had great pacers and not because they picked any andha tall pacer.

 

If you have pacy, tall bowlers who have skills and brain then sure pick them, byt in our history how many did we have? Lol

 

Quotiing great teams example in a manipulative way doesn’t mean you are right.

 

You are wrong, once again 

 

[Adamant]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

As Siraj and Mukesh have proved , you need weapons to get batsmen out, not just bounce .

They became bounce bowlers today, lol

[Adamant]

1 minute ago, rollingstoned said:

Bounce has been key today though and more importantly seam movement. Idea is not that everyone has to be a stereotypical hit the deck bowler but to use your resources in the most optimal way for the given conditions.

Yes, horses for courses

[express bowling]

Vernon Philander ....  " The learning that the Indian pacers have taken from the 1st test is to not look to swing the ball too much and hit the pitch hard in the back of a length and length area ".

 

This guy is the most observant among commentators as far as pace bowling analysis is concerned. 

[express bowling]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

As Siraj and Mukesh have proved , you need weapons to get batsmen out, not just bounce .

 

Both Siraj and Mukesh were getting consistent bounce today. Infact all 4 pacers. 

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Bounce has been key today though and more importantly seam movement. Idea is not that everyone has to be a stereotypical hit the deck bowler but to use your resources in the most optimal way for the given conditions.

You cannot have same bowlers, you don’t need genius to tell that, 

 

india did not lose first test due to lack of variety. Main bowlers did not show up and  support bowlers had no weapons to get batsmen out.

[Adamant]

4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Both Siraj and Mukesh were getting consistent bounce today. Infact all 4 pacers. 

Yes, but they are not your traditional “extra bounce” high release bowlers

[express bowling]

6 minutes ago, Adamant said:

That is because those teams had good tall pacers, we don’t have them, how hard is it to understand?

 

Who in India has the potential to be the next Mcgrath, Garner, Holding, Roberts? Praisdh?

The above teams succeeded bcoz they had great pacers and not because they picked any andha tall pacer.

 

If you have pacy, tall bowlers who have skills and brain then sure pick them, byt in our history how many did we have? Lol

 

Quotiing great teams example in a manipulative way doesn’t mean you are right.

 

You are wrong, once again 

 

 

You don't automatically have good pacers / players / batsmen / any other player type.

 

You have to develop them with objectivity and a vision in mind. 

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Both Siraj and Mukesh were getting consistent bounce today. Infact all 4 pacers. 

They did not lose first test due to their inability to get bounce either . 

[putrevus]

7 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Vernon Philander ....  " The learning that the Indian pacers have taken from the 1st test is to not look to swing the ball too much and hit the pitch hard in the back of a length and length area ".

 

This guy is the most observant among commentators as far as pace bowling analysis is concerned. 

They don’t need Vernon philander to tell them that that they have to hit the deck and not float the ball.

 

 

 

They are not touring SA for first time.

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, Adamant said:

Yes, but they are not your traditional “extra bounce” high release bowlers

 

Both have high arm actions. And hit the deck hard today. 

 

If someone is getting bounce then there is no reason to complain.

 

 

[Suhaan]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

They don’t need Vernon philander to tell them that that they have to hit the deck and not float the ball.

 

 

 

They are not touring SA for first time.

Wah wah wah wah taaliyaa

[express bowling]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

They did not lose first test due to their inability to get bounce either . 

 

They did. They went for swing in the 1st test. They went for bounce and seam movement today.

 

And it is not just about 1 test but about domination and consistent success is away tests and succeeding when the ball is not moving much.

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

They did. They went for swing in the 1st test. They went for bounce and seam movement today.

 

And it is not just about 1 test but about domination and consistent success is away tests and succeeding when the ball is not moving much.

Going for swing and hitting the deck hard are not mutually exclusive.

 

indian bowlers after 2018 have stopped floating the ball to large extent.

 

 

 

[express bowling]

32 minutes ago, Adamant said:

Bhuvi has done exceptionally well in conditions where the ball moves, there is no need of a pace demon or bounce based bowler.

 

Ishant Sharma was not a bounce based bowler, Shami is as good as he was back then.

 

We eere doing fine without your “bounce based bowler” and we will continue doing so if we pace horses for courses.

 

You are someone who wanted Umran to play in the last England tour, that is why I think you just look at pace without analysing how different conditions demand different bowlers.

 

Bhuvi has done exceptionally well in SEN, I was talking about his bowling in those countries and not his overall career.

 

Today again, we didn’t need any bounce based bowler.

 

 

Indians always did well or do well when there is swing on offer. 

 

And we look ordinary when there is no swing on offer. And this is the case 70% of the time. And this is our biggest obstacle to winning consistently away from home.

 

I want this aspect rectified and us dominating away from home too. While you are happy with Bhuvi type bowlers doing well in helpful conditions and us winning occasionally as underdogs. To each his own. 

 

P.S .. I have never wamted Umran to play tests before proper FC experience and performance. Applies to every player. I.wanted Umran in LOIs when he was in form after IPL 2022. 

 

 

Edited January 3 by express bowling

[R!TTER]

7 minutes ago, express bowling said:

And this is the case 70% of the time.

I'd say 90% of the time, the last 2 tours to Oz being extreme exceptions, we simply don't have bowlers who can stop leaking runs consistently when the pitch is flat - that is why we lose! It's cute that people think WI/Oz dominated at their peak just because they had tall bowlers

 

The biggest reason McGrath was part of the deadliest McWarne test combo was his control - of course it helped that Warne also had the best control of a genuine leggie in decades!