Forget IT boom, Welcome the Pace Boom.

[gator]

btw, i can bet, Chetan clocked over 133kph... he was the Aggy of the 80s.... he was short and very very nippy.... in the 87 series at home, he rapped quite a few times on the knuckles of Dessie, who is one of the better players of fast bowling...

[CC1981]

Bose is a lardball who bowls peashooters - he would be slaughtered at international level, because he just doesn't have the quality or the talent to bowl an unplayable delivery.

A talent found lacking in McGrath or Pollock as well. You dont have to bowl unplayable deliveries to succeed at international level.

I don't care what he does at FC level.

I do. If you cant take wickets at FC level, you have no business being in the test team.

Pathan and Sreesanth were averaging over 30 when they were fast-tracked into the Indian team, and both turned out to be successful.

Sorry but they both are nobodies and they both will be nobodies for a long time before the tag 'successful' can be attached to them. One decent series success does not make!

If you have noticeable talent, you will develop it quicker at international level by training and playing alongside world class cricketers who can bring the best out of you.

Learn from the Aussies. You develop your talent at home and then play them in tests- tests are for winning, playing the best 11 possible right here,today. Not to develop talent. The one with the better FC performance should get the break in test cricket first. Period. ----------

Lawson was a lovely fast bowler and to call him a 125kph bowler - BAh.....

Lawson himself would be embarassed to be called a 'fast' bowler. he was not fast, he was medium/medium fast who could SWING the ball a lot. Same with Kapil- he was military medium before his injury- after his knee injury in 85, he was pucca 125kph zone bowler.

[Predator_05]

A talent found lacking in McGrath or Pollock as well. You dont have to bowl unplayable deliveries to succeed at international level. I do. If you cant take wickets at FC level, you have no business being in the test team. Sorry but they both are nobodies and they both will be nobodies for a long time before the tag 'successful' can be attached to them. One decent series success does not make! Learn from the Aussies. You develop your talent at home and then play them in tests- tests are for winning, playing the best 11 possible right here,today. Not to develop talent. The one with the better FC performance should get the break in test cricket first. Period. .

You're just arguing for the sake of it now. McGrath and Pollock CAN bowl unplayable deliveries. An accurately pitched delivery outside off-stump is very difficult to hit. Bose can't do that. "One decent series" ? Pathan has been playing since '04 and took sh*tloads of wickets in both forms of the game. Sreesanth has been very successful since he made his debut vs SL, and is a fine test bowler. FC performance is not an accurate barometer for judging a players' quality - why do you think most Indian fast bowlers in recent years came through the u19's ? Because the selectors knew sh*tty trundlers like Bose couldn't do anything at international level.

[CC1981]

An accurately pitched delivery outside off-stump is very difficult to hit. Bose can't do that.

Despite the fact that everyone who saw Bose play says that he is a slowish bowler but quite an accurate bowler ?

Pathan has been playing since '04 and took sh*tloads of wickets in both forms of the game.

Yes, one decent series in Pakistan. Minus Bangladesh/Zimboks, Pathan averages over 40 runs per wicket against real opposition. thats not a success story.

why do you think most Indian fast bowlers in recent years came through the u19's ? Because the selectors knew sh*tty trundlers like Bose couldn't do anything at international level.

No, because our selectors know squat about how to build a fast bowler and are caught up in the 'discover a child superstar' mode.

[Predator_05]

Despite the fact that everyone who saw Bose play says that he is a slowish bowler but quite an accurate bowler ? Yes, one decent series in Pakistan. Minus Bangladesh/Zimboks, Pathan averages over 40 runs per wicket against real opposition. thats not a success story. No, because our selectors know squat about how to build a fast bowler and are caught up in the 'discover a child superstar' mode.

I have seen the guy play - he isn't that accurate and can only get a movement if there is something in the wicket for him. He will be cannon fodder on flat English pitches. Pathan has taken sh*tloads of wickets in ODI's - in fact it was his bowling which inspired India's winning streak last season. Sure, he hasn't done much in tests but compared to Zaheer, Nehra, etc. he isn't exactly poor. He has also done most of his test bowling in the subcontinent.

No' date=' because our selectors know squat about how to build a fast bowler and are caught up in the 'discover a child superstar' mode[/quote'] Yeah, i suppose we should have geniuses like you picking the team instead - picking useless 30 year old trundlers from FC and calling them phast bowlers. I suppose that is how you "build" a fast bowler, eh.

[CC1981]

picking useless 30 year old trundlers from FC and calling them phast bowlers.

If the greatest team of our times thought the same, Kaspa, Clark, Bichel, etc. wouldnt be playing test cricket. Look, when a guy takes 60 FC wickets @ 15 average with the ball, he is 100.00% fully deserving of a break to the test team. Denying that is denying sensibility- which is not a very common trait amongst indian selectors anyways. We always blood players too young and end up losing 99% of them to the pressures of the job.

Pathan has taken sh*tloads of wickets in ODI's - in fact it was his bowling which inspired India's winning streak last season. Sure, he hasn't done much in tests but compared to Zaheer, Nehra, etc. he isn't exactly poor. He has also done most of his test bowling in the subcontinent.

I dont care compared to whom or what- bottom line is, they are ALL poor/mediocre bowlers in absolute terms.

[Chandan]

CC, I think it is too naive to even think of comparing Australian domestic cricket with Indian domestic cricket. One has just 6 FC teams and matches are played are perfect bouncy track like Perth, seaming track like Brisbane, a pitch that breaks up later in a match like Adeleide, turnin g track like Sydney and fast track like hobard while the other has 27 FC teams with over 350 FC players, 90% of which are mediocre to bad, played on either extremely flat tracks or completely underprepared wickets, no bounce, no seam, slow where you just can't develop pace bowlers. And there is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gap between the standard of cricket in this system of Indian domestic cricket and international cricket. The route which you've stated is correct : cricketers have to be finished articles before they're chosen for international team. But the low and diluted standard of domestic cricket just won't produce any finished article in India. The domestic performance doesn't mean anything here. Why do we play it then? Well, we've been asking this question since ages and the FC teams are increasing instead of decreasing! So thats BCCI for you!