MAYANK YADAV .... EXPRESS and bouncy Indian pacer who is accurate too

[Kron]

53 minutes ago, New guy said:

With every post you just show you had no idea about cricket in the 90s. Zimbabwe had goats like streak and the flower brothers, they were way stronger than today's Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or west indies.

 

Sometimes it's better not to open your mouth if you have no idea about what you are talking about

 

You don't have even basic cricket knowledge for this discussion 

 

P.S. I know you will never adress the proof about batsmen technique being way worse which is why bowler figures look better. 90s batsmen would play out today's best bowlers easily, most of them don't even attack the stumps.

Streak is goat lmao News to me. He was an above average bowler. Olonga lol. Who else they had. Wow what a potent attack hey? 

 

Our batsmen struggled against average bowlers of Zimbabwe due to the rules at the time. Howlers by umpires who favoured home teams, no no ball umpiring etc. No drs. 

 

That made those 'bowlers' look better than they are. 

 

They weren't better sorry. 

 

Ok so defensive technique is bad now. But do you think those slow coaches of 90s era can chase 300 plus scores now?? With attacking stroke play. They will play boring defensive cricket and either choke or draw in a pitiful way. 

 

Attacking stroke play and attacking technique is far far far superior than 90s. 

 

Also batsmen dint have as much protection as they do now. So bowlers again would appear more dangerous than they truly are back in 90s. They would be exposed in modern era.

Edited April 25 by Kron

[Vijy]

9 hours ago, Kron said:

He does. In an interview with Ian healy he said would you believe india. India and Australia have the best bowling attack. He was disgusted by it but he did say it. Literally. 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjUuX3lx6NE&t=15

Hmm... maybe he was paid to do so. he certainly doesn't seem like he actually believes it (coz he doesn't)

[Vijy]

One interesting point. My contention is the Ind 90s spin attack was better than current one in home conditions for two reasons: (a) current attack almost exclusively plays on dust bowls, whereas 90s had many flatter tracks; (b) current batter techniques are worse than 90s batters; and (c) DRS does help spinners to an extent.

 

Kumble would have a 16-17 bowling avg if playing today, better than ashwin

Raju would have a bowling avg of less than jaddu (maybe 19-20). raju was a more talented SLA than both bedi & jaddu, just that he had some discipline issues and was also not backed properly.

 

3rd spinner is the only area where current lineup is better, but only if they play kuldeep, otherwise, 3rd spinner level is about the same, such as nadeem/jayant yadav vs chauhan/sanghvi/whoever.

[Kron]

35 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Hmm... maybe he was paid to do so. he certainly doesn't seem like he actually believes it (coz he doesn't)

Whether he believes it or not it's true. For the last 7 years india has had the best bowling attack in tests and even in odi. 

I mean pace bowling unit. 

 

Now once we get rid of siraj and blood in new youngsters we will be back again. We are in a bit of a transition currently. 

Edited April 25 by Kron

[Kron]

28 minutes ago, Vijy said:

One interesting point. My contention is the Ind 90s spin attack was better than current one in home conditions for two reasons: (a) current attack almost exclusively plays on dust bowls, whereas 90s had many flatter tracks; (b) current batter techniques are worse than 90s batters; and (c) DRS does help spinners to an extent.

 

Kumble would have a 16-17 bowling avg if playing today, better than ashwin

Raju would have a bowling avg of less than jaddu (maybe 19-20). raju was a more talented SLA than both bedi & jaddu, just that he had some discipline issues and was also not backed properly.

 

3rd spinner is the only area where current lineup is better, but only if they play kuldeep, otherwise, 3rd spinner level is about the same, such as nadeem/jayant yadav vs chauhan/sanghvi/whoever.

Batting unit of post 2004 to 2010 plus indian bowling unit post 2014 would be the best team of all time. 

[Vijy]

9 minutes ago, Kron said:

Batting unit of post 2004 to 2010 plus indian bowling unit post 2014 would be the best team of all time. 

I would even take Kumble on home pitches with DRS and poor opposition over Ash-Jaddu. so, that's one more player from that older period.

 

Heck, Azhar and Sidhu were far better at bashing spin than current crop, and both retired by 90s

[Muloghonto]

12 hours ago, Kron said:

He dint play spinners in drs era. Much tougher now against spin. One bad judgement and it's over. I agree he was affected by some rubbish decisions going against him which basically proves my point. Bowlers benefitted alot from such decisions.. 

No, it isnt much tougher. Spinners got wickets a LOT in caught behind that were not nicks, lbws where the ball turned too much, etc. DRS doesnt benefit the bowler, it also benefits the batsmen.  It doesnt prove your point, because if you admit he had a lot of rubbish decisions going against him, then he's likely to do better in the era where those rubbish decisions wont happen. 

12 hours ago, Kron said:

 

I dont agree australia or SA had better bowling attacks back then. Rules and home biased umpiring, no no ball umpiring all favour them.

That still does make it a better bowling attack. Why the attack is better, is irrelevant to the fact that they are. You keep bringing up chucking or no ball rule or such, when reality is, if that is true, then the job of the batsmen back then being harder is not negated. 

Also, biassed home umpiring is cancelled out by home and away tours. 

 

12 hours ago, Kron said:

 

Not to mention match fixing and other tampering woes. And no just cause on team tampers, doesn't mean other team tampered to the same extent. It's all conjecture. Some teams would do anything to win a game. Australia being one as they got exposed for sand paper gate. Pakistan certainly benefitte heaps from tampering

 

 

Give the same luxuries to modern quicks and they would mutilate the 90s batsmen just as well if not Better. That's my point. Bowlers weren't better at all back then. I don't agree with that for the top sides. 

Thats called modernism - thinking that everything new is better than everything old. Today's test bowlers lack the basic stamina to be able to be as good as the bowlers in the past. There isnt a pace bowler today who can routinely put in 9-10 overs per spell like McGrath,Srinath,Ambrose, Walsh, etc. could do. Back then, Shoaib Akhtar used to get panned for running outta gas after 4-5 overs and now every single pace bowler calls it quits after 5-6 overs. Bumrah is treated as a glass cannon by the team. 

So no, bowlers today are not better- they are a lot more fragile and against defensively tighter batsmen, will lose the plot much quicker in tests. 

 

12 hours ago, Kron said:

 

West indies sure. Sri Lanka cause or chucker yes. Vaas is a trundler. He would be swatted by modern batsmen. I don't rate him. 

Irrelevant whether you rate vaas or not, fact remains he is the best sri lankan pacer ever with no sri lankan pacer being even half as good in tests, ergo, a sri lankan attack with vaas is much, much better than a sri lankan attack without him.

 

12 hours ago, Kron said:

 

And tenda won't play pak. So he will be facing 4 strong bowling attacks. 1 weak one in w.indies. Sri Lanka for stat padding. 

Irrelevant. 

You are deliberately ignoring the point that SL,PAK and WI attacks were a LOT better than what you contend for AUS,ENG,RSA. 
If there are six variables and three are better by 10% and the other three are worse by 100%, then overall, your answer is still worse. 

 

Not to mention, Australia & South africa had actually better attacks back then.

 

12 hours ago, Kron said:

 

Back then he gets to smash mediocre England, nz (he dint do all that well vs any of the top Bowlers btw as stated before. 

Plus Zimbabwe where india failed too. Even at home it was a struggle against the mammoth Zimbabwe team. 

England and NZ were 90% as good as what they were post 2014. 

Zimbabwe of 90s would handily beat any team today that is not the big 4 of AUS-IND-RSA-ENG. 

Andy Flower today would straight up be in the top 3 batsmen of the era after Smith & Kohli 

 

[AKane]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Zimbabwe of 90s would handily beat any team today that is not the big 4 of AUS-IND-RSA-ENG. 

So is one of the big 4 - IND - going to win a test match never mind a series in  little NZ? Williamson and Jamieson want to know.

[Vijy]

35 minutes ago, AKane said:

So is one of the big 4 - IND - going to win a test match never mind a series in  little NZ? Williamson and Jamieson want to know.

we won a series in 2009.

[AKane]

37 minutes ago, Vijy said:

we won a series in 2009.

My apologies we won one in 1968 3-1 as well.

[Kron]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No, it isnt much tougher. Spinners got wickets a LOT in caught behind that were not nicks, lbws where the ball turned too much, etc. DRS doesnt benefit the bowler, it also benefits the batsmen.  It doesnt prove your point, because if you admit he had a lot of rubbish decisions going against him, then he's likely to do better in the era where those rubbish decisions wont happen. 

That still does make it a better bowling attack. Why the attack is better, is irrelevant to the fact that they are. You keep bringing up chucking or no ball rule or such, when reality is, if that is true, then the job of the batsmen back then being harder is not negated. 

Also, biassed home umpiring is cancelled out by home and away tours. 

 

Thats called modernism - thinking that everything new is better than everything old. Today's test bowlers lack the basic stamina to be able to be as good as the bowlers in the past. There isnt a pace bowler today who can routinely put in 9-10 overs per spell like McGrath,Srinath,Ambrose, Walsh, etc. could do. Back then, Shoaib Akhtar used to get panned for running outta gas after 4-5 overs and now every single pace bowler calls it quits after 5-6 overs. Bumrah is treated as a glass cannon by the team. 

So no, bowlers today are not better- they are a lot more fragile and against defensively tighter batsmen, will lose the plot much quicker in tests. 

 

Irrelevant whether you rate vaas or not, fact remains he is the best sri lankan pacer ever with no sri lankan pacer being even half as good in tests, ergo, a sri lankan attack with vaas is much, much better than a sri lankan attack without him.

 

Irrelevant. 

You are deliberately ignoring the point that SL,PAK and WI attacks were a LOT better than what you contend for AUS,ENG,RSA. 
If there are six variables and three are better by 10% and the other three are worse by 100%, then overall, your answer is still worse. 

 

Not to mention, Australia & South africa had actually better attacks back then.

 

England and NZ were 90% as good as what they were post 2014. 

Zimbabwe of 90s would handily beat any team today that is not the big 4 of AUS-IND-RSA-ENG. 

Andy Flower today would straight up be in the top 3 batsmen of the era after Smith & Kohli 

 

No Zimbabwe wouldn't even beat Bangladesh of today away from home. 

 

And no. They weren't better back them. I refute that. 

You can say Sri Lanka was better back then due to chucker and vaas. West indies were better but again you only play 1 to 2 scrappy opponents post 2014

 

Back then you got 3 average to mediocre teams to play in Zimbabwe weak nz and weak England sides.

 

And no aus attack and SA dint have. Better attack at the time. As I mentioned before batting does make a difference.

If a team scores 400 plus consistently even that Aussie bowling attack of 90s would be under the pump from the start and they will be playing catch up. Tired legs fatigue it all adds up

 

It's a team game. Have you played at a competitive level? 

 

Weak batting can make a strong bowling attacks look worse than they actually are. Like in SA case. Will give you are example. One ABD alone made it hard for us to win there in 2018. 

 

Just imagine if they are supported by multiple quality batsmen on treacherous pitches of 90s. They would whitewash tesms with the potent attack they have now. 

 

Sacchu struggled vs every premium bowler when he played. I don't see it any different in post 2014 era. He will still be the best player but I highly doubt he averages above what Smith did at his peak. He has a tendency to go missing but that could be down to the fact that he played for a weak team in 90s. 

 

Perhaps with this strong Indian side post 2014 it would be different. He is like kohli though. He plays for himself and I dislike such traits. 

[express bowling]

6 hours ago, AKane said:

So is one of the big 4 - IND - going to win a test match never mind a series in  little NZ? Williamson and Jamieson want to know.

 

India NZ test series in NZ reminds me of a dialogue from " Mei Khiladi tu Anari ". 

 

Saif Ali played the role of a film star who was about to do a film about a tough cop and decided to spend time with real life tough cop Akshay. And he started following Akshay everywhere. Akshay was going to the bathroom and asked Saif sarcastically, " Will you follow me to the loo too ? ".

 

Saif replied, " There is no.point in learning things which we can't show to the public ".

 

The NZ test series is like that. Starts at 3 a.m and is over by 10 a.m .

 

Our Sooperstars feel that there is no point in performing somewhere when they can't show it to the public. 

 

 

Edited April 26 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Kron said:

No Zimbabwe wouldn't even beat Bangladesh of today away from home. 

That means you didnt watch enough cricket of the 90s. Zimbabwe of the 90s troubled every team except Australia and South Africa. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

And no. They weren't better back them. I refute that. 

Your refutation is rejected on grounds of insufficient experience watching the 90s. 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

You can say Sri Lanka was better back then due to chucker and vaas. West indies were better but again you only play 1 to 2 scrappy opponents post 2014

 

Back then you got 3 average to mediocre teams to play in Zimbabwe weak nz and weak England sides.

NZ and Eng back then were 90% of what they are today. WI,PAK,SL were 200% of what they are today. Australia & South Africa were 110% of what they are today. So overall, they were better.

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

And no aus attack and SA dint have. Better attack at the time. As I mentioned before batting does make a difference.

They did have a better attack. McGrath,Warne,Gillespie,Fleming & Lee are better than Cummins,Lyon-Hazlewood & Starc and its not even close. 

Its closer between Donald-Pollock-deVilliers-Ntini-Kallis & Rabada-Ngidi and the rest, but still noticably better. 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

If a team scores 400 plus consistently even that Aussie bowling attack of 90s would be under the pump from the start and they will be playing catch up. Tired legs fatigue it all adds up

 

It's a team game. Have you played at a competitive level? 

THat is not relevant to how hard it is for batsmen to play and the objective evidence of that is Pakistani & West Indies bowling with their fragile batting lineup. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Weak batting can make a strong bowling attacks look worse than they actually are. Like in SA case. Will give you are example. One ABD alone made it hard for us to win there in 2018. 

Just imagine if they are supported by multiple quality batsmen on treacherous pitches of 90s. They would whitewash tesms with the potent attack they have now. 

Nope.They wouldn't. because the 90s attack was better and in the 90s RSA had better overall batting than they did since Amla retired. Cullinan-Kirsten-Kallis are better than ABDV +nobody. 

 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Sacchu struggled vs every premium bowler when he played.

 

Everyone struggles against premium bowlers, this is not an argument. Sachin played against the most # of great and good bowlers in history of the game and he still had the best stats for the 20 year period he was in his prime-which is longer than most careers, let alone prime. 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

I don't see it any different in post 2014 era. He will still be the best player but I highly doubt he averages above what Smith did at his peak. He has a tendency to go missing but that could be down to the fact that he played for a weak team in 90s. 

Smith can't even average 60 till he hits 10K runs, Sachin averaged 60 for 12K runs over a 19 year period. In a harder era to bat, as indicated by batting averages of the time. 

1 hour ago, Kron said:

 

Perhaps with this strong Indian side post 2014 it would be different. He is like kohli though. He plays for himself and I dislike such traits. 

Bullshit. 

You didnt watch enough games in the 90s if you think that. Sachin literally batted for the team the entire way through the 90s and first half of the 00s. 

You = ignorant without the experience to talk and simply repeating anglo propaganda to diminish the greatest batsman ever.

 

[AKane]

Already Irfan Pathan wants to keep out Mayank - as usual.... lack of experience at top level.

 

https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/ipl-2024-mayank-yadav-india-squad-t20-world-cup-irfan-pathan-2531307-2024-04-24

 

Shut up all you establishment toadies.

Edited April 26 by AKane

[Suhaan]

36 minutes ago, AKane said:

Already Irfan Pathan wants to keep out Mayank - as usual.... lack of experience at top level.

 

https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/ipl-2024-mayank-yadav-india-squad-t20-world-cup-irfan-pathan-2531307-2024-04-24

 

Shut up all you establishment toadies.

Why this fake narrative of Mohsin being an X factor ,is created?

Lol,what has he done

He is another Avesh in making

,he is one help of trash

Useless

Edited April 26 by Suhaan

[Vijy]

15 minutes ago, Suhaan said:

Why this fake narrative of Mohsin being an X factor ,is created?

Lol,what has he done

He is another Avesh in making

,he is one help of trash

Useless

He is Mohsin "Akram" Khan after all, so he must be selected

[Vijy]

12 hours ago, AKane said:

My apologies we won one in 1968 3-1 as well.

I wasn't referring to prehistoric series that nearly zero ICF posters have seen (I didn't see it either, though I was around as a lad)

[tapandrun]

18 minutes ago, Suhaan said:

Why this fake narrative of Mohsin being an X factor ,is created?

Lol,what has he done

He is another Avesh in making

,he is one help of trash

Useless

Avesh is v.average bowler even when he was in prime he was crossing 140s at times, but when he was picked on the back on 1 good IPL season with DC he had prime Rabada and Nortje all playing together.

 

Rabada was v.good and  Nortje was v.fast he looked good because of them he took wkts as batters would not take much chances on them. Again this season Avesh is looking okay is because of the bowling line-up he is part of. And at time Sen looked better than him and Sandeep a v.limited bowler who fits well in RR bowling set-up looks miles ahead of him.

 

When he was with LSG as asked to lead the bowling he was v.v.ordinary and in Ind too when he does not have good bowlers to surround him he looked ordinary.

 

Mohsin was good in his 1st season after injury he is not the same, atleast for t20 he was good and skillful, he may need time to recover. And which would depend upon

his work ethics. Need to get fitter, need to bring up the speeds. Rt now he does not look at top of his fitness.

 

Had he not picked the injury post IPL he was Ind first choice to be included into the team not Umraan not Singh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26 by tapandrun

[AKane]

12 minutes ago, Vijy said:

I wasn't referring to prehistoric series that nearly zero ICF posters have seen (I didn't see it either, though I was around as a lad)

2008-09 historic (not prehistoric) series too has zero current Indian test players playing - minus maybe Ishant or maybe Dinesh Karthik if they resurrect test career. But you had no problem quoting that did you? 

Edited April 26 by AKane

[raki05]

It’s Mayank Yadav thread..,,