Emerging Players tournament, 2011

[rkt.india]

I want them all to progress too. However' date=' i think they are probably still at least a year away from test cricket. From what i have seen of Yadav i'm not sure he will be international class. Do you genuinely think he can trouble international quality batsman? Can he swing the ball or move it off the seam? Pace is not enough.[/quote'] Yeah I have seen bowling outswingers at a good pace many a times in challenger trophy final and in IPL especially in the game against KKR. Aaron too bowls outswingers as his action allows him to bowl like that.

[msb1991]

I really disagree with India trying to push people on the basis of their speed for the 3 day game. 3-5 day cricket is based around bowling a consistently good line. Praveen got wickets at 120kph, as did Broad at 140kph and Anderson at 130kph when they bowled the right areas. The people who bowl the right areas will have the best FC records. There will be people in there like R Vinay Kumar who many will say would not make the step up but I have two issues with that. 1. We have not seen India select a pace bowler in recent times with an excellent FC record who has failed to make the step up completely. 2. Even if he cannot make the step up, it is never argued that a good FC record is a sufficient condition for Test success, but rather that is a necessary condition. A good FC bowler will not always do well at Test cricket, but a good Test bowler is extremely likely to have succeeded at FC level - it is a lower level after all. That being said, good luck to them because as a spectator, it would be good to see some 90mph stuff from India in Tests.

[rkt.india]

I really disagree with India trying to push people on the basis of their speed for the 3 day game. 3-5 day cricket is based around bowling a consistently good line. Praveen got wickets at 120kph' date= as did Broad at 140kph and Anderson at 130kph when they bowled the right areas. The people who bowl the right areas will have the best FC records. There will be people in there like R Vinay Kumar who many will say would not make the step up but I have two issues with that. 1. We have not seen India select a pace bowler in recent times with an excellent FC record who has failed to make the step up completely. 2. Even if he cannot make the step up, it is never argued that a good FC record is a sufficient condition for Test success, but rather that is a necessary condition. A good FC bowler will not always do well at Test cricket, but a good Test bowler is extremely likely to have succeeded at FC level - it is a lower level after all. That being said, good luck to them because as a spectator, it would be good to see some 90mph stuff from India in Tests.

You see PK, anderson and Broad took wickets, but you also need to see the impact of PK's wickets and Broad's wickets or Bresnan's wickets at the rate they came. PK bowler 25-30 overs gave over 100 runs then pick 4 and also used tow new balls, while Bresnan only in his 8th test did it in 10 odd overs. Same is with Broad. PK picked wickets in both tests but he cannot pick wickets like Ishant did in 2nd innings of lords, completely ratelled their batting. He is a just a steady bowler. He swings it but too slow as his pace goes down to 115K and highest only up to 128 which are few and far between. Even for a swing bowler 130-135 consistent speed is must at international level. Fast bowler doe snot need to bowl 145K every time. It is the accuracy and movement which makes a potent fast bowler along with decent speed. To me more than movement, accuracy is must if someone can bowl quick around 140, he must be accurate to use that pace. Ball always moves. People say ball does not move at pace, but look at Broad and Bresnan both swung at 140K which does not give batsmen the time to adjust. While a slower bowler like PK can swing it a mile but of no use as it will only miss the edges and batsman will be be beaten and then also batsman can play out of the crease to cover the swing and also adjust late because of lack of pace. A little deviation after pitching from a quick bowler is enough to take the edge, not miles of swing.

[deepak_sach]

Does anyone have any clips of Rahul Shukla...

[deepak_sach]

DAY 2 UPDATE: http://livescores.cricket.com.au/scoreboard_2639_2.html

[deepak_sach]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/emerging-players-tournament-2011/engine/current/match/516199.html

[nsareen]

DAY 2 UPDATE: http://livescores.cricket.com.au/scoreboard_2639_2.html

India not bowling well in 2nd innings. Umesh again amongst the wickets :two_thumbs_up: Hopefully Varun gets some wickets too. Dhawan playing the captains innings.

[msb1991]

You see PK' date=' anderson and Broad took wickets, but you also need to see the impact of PK's wickets and Broad's wickets or Bresnan's wickets at the rate they came. PK bowler 25-30 overs gave over 100 runs then pick 4 and also used tow new balls, while Bresnan only in his 8th test did it in 10 odd overs. Same is with Broad. PK picked wickets in both tests but he cannot pick wickets like Ishant did in 2nd innings of lords, completely ratelled their batting.[/quote'] That is highly dubious reasoning, to suggest that Praveen's lack of pace will result in a higher (worse) strike rate. For one, Praveen's strike rate is fine. Also, it took him so long because he had zero support whatsoever. If you apply pressure from the other end, then wickets will be quicker for the in form bowler. Moreover, if you saw Praveen bowl after dismissing Morgan, you'd see that he could have easily picked up four or five quick wickets if decisions had gone his way. You are being arbitrary. The minimum speed is the speed which takes wickets and Praveen has taken wickets with pretty much no pressure applied from Sree or Ishant.

[nsareen]

That is highly dubious reasoning, to suggest that Praveen's lack of pace will result in a higher (worse) strike rate. For one, Praveen's strike rate is fine. Also, it took him so long because he had zero support whatsoever. If you apply pressure from the other end, then wickets will be quicker for the in form bowler. Moreover, if you saw Praveen bowl after dismissing Morgan, you'd see that he could have easily picked up four or five quick wickets if decisions had gone his way. You are being arbitrary. The minimum speed is the speed which takes wickets and Praveen has taken wickets with pretty much no pressure applied from Sree or Ishant. Again, you are making things up. Praveen has taken wickets, that is the fact.

Simple Question : Would you prefer Praveen Kumar or Stuart Broad, Praveen Kumar vs Dale Steyn in your team????? It'll answer the question

[msb1991]

DAY 2 UPDATE: http://livescores.cricket.com.au/scoreboard_2639_2.html

Abdulla has a good batting record. With Bhajjis bad form, he could find himself in the Test team soon if he performs well throughout this tournament. We need a number eight spinner who can bat.

[msb1991]

Simple Question : Would you prefer Praveen Kumar or Stuart Broad, Praveen Kumar vs Dale Steyn in your team????? It'll answer the question

It'll answer what question? Do we have a Stuart Broad, do we have a Dale Steyn? Does a bowler clocking the same release speed out of the hand make them anything close to the level of Broad or Steyn? No.

[deepak_sach]

Let us boycott this tournament DHAWAN SCORED 146........

[rkt.india]

That is highly dubious reasoning' date=' to suggest that Praveen's lack of pace will result in a higher (worse) strike rate. For one, Praveen's strike rate is fine. Also, it took him so long because he had zero support whatsoever. If[b'] you apply pressure from the other end, then wickets will be quicker for the in form bowler. Moreover, if you saw Praveen bowl after dismissing Morgan, you'd see that he could have easily picked up four or five quick wickets if decisions had gone his way. You are being arbitrary. The minimum speed is the speed which takes wickets and Praveen has taken wickets with pretty much no pressure applied from Sree or Ishant. Again, you are making things up. Praveen has taken wickets, that is the fact.

PK did not even look threatening with the first new ball in the second England innings while Isahnt and Sreeshanth kept pressure, he and Bhajji released it. It took 80 odd overs with second new ball for him to take wickets. As he does not ball quick with his full effort, he was not tired till then, while Sreehanth and Ishant had already bowled a lot of overs and were tired. What taking wicket means, wicket taken with 120/4 does mean anything. Look at Ishant, who at lords second innings wrecked Engalnd middle order with 4 quick strike. Number one teams always need bowlers like this who can leave impact and also see Sreeshanth who i consider as mentally frail made an impact after lunch in second test while PK did not come into wickets until they were 4-5 down. OK is not going to give you these kind of spells. You talk about support from other ends. All bowlers wont have good days ion every game. That is why you need bowlers who can step if one has a bad day. Like Anderson had a bad day at Lords first innings, but Broad and Tremellet made up for it. PK is not one of them who give you that kind of spells. Even at Nottnigham second innings when he could not pick up wickets in first 80 overs, he was not even economical then. He went for over 3 then while Ishant and Sreeshanth both went for runs later in the last season after second new ball. Had PL taken 1-2 wickets before second new ball, when Bell and KP had partnership, match could have been something different. I am not saying Ishant and Sreeshanth bowled great and PK was worse, PK was good too, but he looked to make the impact that Ishant made at Lords 2nd innings and Sreehsanth made Nottingham Ist innings.

[msb1991]

PK did not even look threatening with the first new ball in the second England innings while Isahnt and Sreeshanth kept pressure' date=' he and Bhajji released it. It took 80 odd overs with second new ball for him to take wickets. As he does not ball quick with his full effort, he was not tired till then, while Sreehanth and Ishant had already bowled a lot of overs and were tired.[/quote'] He did not look threatening because he bowled badly. You can bowl badly at any pace.

[rkt.india]

He did not look threatening because he bowled badly. You can bowl badly at any pace. Wickets are wickets. With England, every wicket is vital. England bat all the way down. Of course initial wickets are better but to suggest Praveen is unlikely to get openers out because of his pace is just wrong. He has Strauss out before, for one. Sreesanth gifted England the game when he gave Broad his first 20 or so runs. I have no time for a bowler, who even after a great spell cannot follow through. Sreesanth was useless in the Test match. He undid any good work that he had previously done early in the innings. You note Ishant's spell, but c'mon, you must have watched the match. Praveen looked highly capable of taking out the lower on his own. Bresnan initially looked very shaky against him. You are being ridiculous to say that Praveen's lack of speed means he cannot take quick wickets. It is not as if he bores the batsman into submission - he bowls tremendously swinging deliveries. This is the precise trait of someone, who on their day can nip several quick wickets.

PK did not bowl badly. He is a trier and he tried his heart out. Problem was there was no real swing on offer at that time or help form the wicket as you can see later when India batted Bresnan hit the deck hard as the liveliness of the grass had gone and but because of grass patches he got extra bounce and he is a strong man can bowl at pace, he made use of the hardness of the pitch and remember Bresnan is not very tall just around 6. Show me one out and out swing bowler who bowled at PKs pace at 120K mostly and has had a great test career. I will take your words as you say.

[deepak_sach]

Show me one out and out swing bowler who bowled at PKs pace at 120K mostly and has had a great test career. I will take your words as you say.

Asif.

[msb1991]

Show me one out and out swing bowler who bowled at PKs pace at 120K mostly and has had a great test career. I will take your words as you say.

Stuart Clark would be the closest with 94 wickets at 23.86 but he was not a swing bowler. The fact is that people at Praveen's pace are not given a chance - Jon Lewis of England is very highly rated but was only given one Test, as an example. Heck, I would not have played him in the first Test, myself for the precise reason you mentioned. But he has taken his chance and done very well. Moreover, he is pretty unique in just how much he does swing the ball.

Asif.

Asif was at his slowest toward the end of his Test career and even then was around 125-130kph.

[rkt.india]

Asif.

Aasif is not a swing bowler. He is mostly bowls 80 mph plus, not 75 mph, and he is a tall bowler who gets good bounce from short of good length. Bounce is a huge factor for fast bowler. He is a seam bowler not a swing bowler.

[msb1991]

Aasif is not a swing bowler. He is mostly bowls 80 mph plus' date=' not 75 mph, and he is a tall bowler who gets good bounce from short of good length. Bounce is a huge factor for fast bowler. He is a seam bowler not a swing bowler.[/quote'] I must admit that there has not been a bowler of Praveen's pace to achieve success in Test cricket for a while. But you must admit that there has not been a bowler of Praveen's pace and FC credentials to have been given a prolonged opportunity in Test cricket, for a long time. EDIT: Except Darren Sammy, but look how well he has done!

[rkt.india]

Stuart Clark would be the closest with 94 wickets at 23.86 but he was not a swing bowler. The fact is that people at Praveen's pace are not given a chance - Jon Lewis of England is very highly rated but was only given one Test' date=' as an example. Heck, I would not have played him in the first Test, myself [b']for the precise reason you mentioned. But he has taken his chance and done very well. Moreover, he is pretty unique in just how much he does swing the ball. Asif was at his slowest toward the end of his Test career and even then was around 125-130kph.

Difference between Clark, Mcgrath, Aasif in comparison to PK is their height. PK is even shorter than Sreeshanth or may be equal. They all are tall bowlers. They do not let batsman play out side the crease or come to the front foot most often because of their bounce. There are many things to fast bowling which decides who much effective a bowler is going to be. I am not saying PK has not done well. He did well in suitable conditions and is a handy bowler, but not a long term prospect for me.