Umesh vs Aaron

[rkt.india]

I do not accept that argument. Second new ball wickets against the middle order show just as much ability as first new ball wickets against the openers. The former is more useful but there is no evidence that he is unable to remove openers with the new ball. He took a few early wickets against West Indies, for example. In the 1st Test against England, he took out Cook in the 11th over. Sharma didn't take either of the openers. In the 2nd Test, Sharma took out Cook early in both innings. In the 3rd Test, neither openers was dismissed early. Hardly a resounding show of first new ball brilliance from Sharma.

Neither from Praveen. and Remember the burst Ishant had at Lords 2nd innings. The impact bowling which PK does not have. Ishant's 4/55 could have certainly changed the match if we had a bowler taking wickets from the other end as well. PK is some one who will be 120/5, not 60/5.

[msb1991]

Neither from Praveen. and Remember the burst Ishant had at Lords 2nd innings. The impact bowling which PK does not have. Ishant's 4/55 could have certainly changed the match if we had a bowler taking wickets from the other end as well. PK is some one who will be 120/5' date=' not 60/5.[/quote'] Such a bizarre argument; Praveen has shown exceptional ability to strike in quick succession. Praveen took out Barath, Bravo and Nash between overs 36.6 and 42.2 in Test 1, innings 1, against West Indies. He took out Bravo at 38.3 and Chanderpaul at 40.5 in innings 2. He got Bell/Morgan out in the 92nd over and Prior/Broad in the 120th over in Test 1, innings 1. He got Strauss and Morgan out in the same over in Test 2, innings 1 against England. He took Morgan and Trott out in consecutive overs in Test 2, innings 2. Praveen has prowess against both settled and unsettled batsmen, it is what makes him such a useful bowler.

[rkt.india]

Such a bizarre argument; Praveen has shown exceptional ability to strike in quick succession. Praveen took out Barath, Bravo and Nash between overs 36.6 and 42.2 in Test 1, innings 1, against West Indies. He took out Bravo at 38.3 and Chanderpaul at 40.5 in innings 2. He got Bell/Morgan out in the 92nd over and Prior/Broad in the 120th over in Test 1, innings 1. He got Strauss and Morgan out in the same over in Test 2, innings 1 against England. He took Morgan and Trott out in consecutive overs in Test 2, innings 2. Praveen has prowess against both settled and unsettled batsmen, it is what makes him such a useful bowler.

I am talking about impact bowling spell where he could take 4-5/50-60 runs. I am not talking about 1-2 wickets. Even Ishant has not yet reached to the stage where we can talk about him everywhere as world class bowler, leave alone PK. But Ishant has all the ingredients to make it, and I am yet to found a bowler like Praveen bowling at 120K swing dollies having a long and successful test career.

[msb1991]

I am talking about impact bowling spell where he could take 4-5/50-60 runs. Ishant has done it even on dead Indian wickets in test matches. I am not talking about 1-2 wickets.

He has played 6 Tests and I have shown you numerous times that he can take 2 or 3 wickets in a quick burst. Are you honestly saying that the massive evidence that he can take 2 quick wickets is insufficient to show that he can take 4 quick wickets. C'mon, it is hardly a monumental leap to say that if he can take out 2 in quick succession, he can take 3 or 4, on his day. It is not as if he can only get out a batsman who is slogging after his century. Praveen is not as much of an impact player as Ishant, but that is irrelevant really. In a fully balanced attack, you will have a mix of impact players and consistent players. However, we should probably just stick to our most successful bowlers and Praveen is one of them. As for dead Indian wickets, it has been acknowledged several times that perhaps medium pace is the way to go on such a track and so the argument that Praveen will flounder in such conditions holds no water. Moreover, Praveen has a brilliant domestic record, part of which must have been earned on aforementioned dead pitches.

[express bowling]

Praveen picked up wickets against England bowling at mainly 120kph. England are the toughest opposition too! He did much better against West Indies. I also used to think there was a cut off speed of 130kph in Test cricket but Praveen seemed to show otherwise.

Many pacers bowling slow have succeeded in England because the ball swings there. Remember the 1986 tour of England where we won the series. Guys like Chetan Sharma, Roger Binny, Madan Lal and Balwinder Singh Sandhu succeeded. Mohinder Amarnath, who perhaps bowled around 115 k, was a big hit during the 1983 world cup in England. But look at their career record and you will see how successful they were overall. Anybody can succeed in a few series because of favourable conditions or supreme form. And they can be played for a short time due to that reason. But if we are thinking about building a formidable attack we should pick the types of bowlers who generally succeed over a long time and become strike bowlers. If you make a list of pacers who have an average of 26 or less in test matches or have taken 4 wickets or more per test match you will see that 90% or more are either genuine fast bowlers or are tall fast-medium bowlers who hit the deck hard and generate a lot of bounce. Marshall, Roberts, Holding. Garner, Waqar, Wasim, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Lillee etc all fall in the above mentioned 2 categories. I can't think of a slowish medium pacer ever succeeding in test cricket. So their is no point in loading the team with them. Maybe just one like PK who is in very good form.

[msb1991]

But Ishant has all the ingredients to make it' date=' and I am yet to found a bowler like Praveen bowling at 120K swing dollies having a long and successful test career.[/quote'] When he has taken wickets against the best team in the world (England), with next to no support at the other end, then you cannot call them 'dollies'. Furthermore, I initially thought that the lack of 120kph successful bowlers at Test level showed that they were no good. However, how many bowlers of that speed have been tried in recent times? The only time we see it is when a previous fast-medium bowler (Walsh, Mcgrath, Vaas, Pollock) comes toward the end of his career. The fact that you are yet to find a bowler at 120kph with a long and successful test career, in other words, arises because they are never tried (EDIT: In recent times). With the debuts of Praveen and Copeland, though, each with good FC credentials, I guess we will see how they get on, even though it is still a very limited sample size.

[msb1991]

Many pacers bowling slow have succeeded in England because the ball swings there. Remember the 1986 tour of England where we won the series. Guys like Chetan Sharma' date=' Roger Binny, Madan Lal and Balwinder Singh Sandhu succeeded. Mohinder Amarnath, who perhaps bowled around 115 k, was a big hit during the 1983 world cup in England.[/quote'] Well, he also succeeded in West Indies too. In recent times too, the phenomenon of slower medium pacers having great success in England and floundering abroad has faded away. Hence you needed an example from 25 years ago. 100% of the bowlers have exceptional FC records too. Unfortunately, we don't have any of them around, so we should probably pick the best bowlers we have. I'm not saying that Vinay is necessarily one of them, I don't speak with any certainty, but perhaps a more systematic approach should be used rather than the haphazard approach that gifted debuts to Mithun and Unadkat.

[rkt.india]

He has played 6 Tests and I have shown you numerous times that he can take 2 or 3 wickets in a quick burst. Are you honestly saying that the massive evidence that he can take 2 quick wickets is insufficient to show that he can take 4 quick wickets. C'mon, it is hardly a monumental leap to say that if he can take out 2 in quick succession, he can take 3 or 4, on his day. It is not as if he can only get out a batsman who is slogging after his century. Praveen is not as much of an impact player as Ishant, but that is irrelevant really. In a fully balanced attack, you will have a mix of impact players and consistent players. However, we should probably just stick to our most successful bowlers and Praveen is one of them. As for dead Indian wickets, it has been acknowledged several times that perhaps medium pace is the way to go on such a track and so the argument that Praveen will flounder in such conditions holds no water. Moreover, Praveen has a brilliant domestic record, part of which must have been earned on aforementioned dead pitches.

He is successful in Indian domestic because he swing the new ball more often than not at a pace of 115-120K and our batsmen mostly in domestic cricket are susceptible playing swing even at such a slow pace. This is not the case with International batsmen. Our bowling attack will go nowhere with him especially when we tour Aus with not much. His bowling style was perfect for English conditions, but not India and Aus.

[msb1991]

Our bowling attack will go nowhere with him especially when we tour Aus with not much. His bowling style was perfect for English conditions' date=' but not India and Aus.[/quote'] Disagree. I think he'll do fine in Australia just as Copeland has done in domestic cricket.

[rkt.india]

Well' date= he also succeeded in West Indies too. In recent times too, the phenomenon of slower medium pacers having great success in England and floundering abroad has faded away. Hence you needed an example from 25 years ago. 100% of the bowlers have exceptional FC records too. Unfortunately, we don't have any of them around, so we should probably pick the best bowlers we have. I'm not saying that Vinay is necessarily one of them, I don't speak with any certainty, but perhaps a more systematic approach should be used rather than the haphazard approach that gifted debuts to Mithun and Unadkat.

He was not very successful in England. He struggled a lot whenever it was not swinging and looked pedestrian some times. On the same WI tour, Ishant picked 22 wickets and You are talking about bowling against best. Ishant was MOS against Aus on Indian flat tracks in 2008 and Zak was very ordinary in that series, took wickets at 43 RPO. Aus was the best team at that time.

[rkt.india]

Well, he also succeeded in West Indies too. In recent times too, the phenomenon of slower medium pacers having great success in England and floundering abroad has faded away. Hence you needed an example from 25 years ago. 100% of the bowlers have exceptional FC records too. Unfortunately, we don't have any of them around, so we should probably pick the best bowlers we have. I'm not saying that Vinay is necessarily one of them, I don't speak with any certainty, but perhaps a more systematic approach should be used rather than the haphazard approach that gifted debuts to Mithun and Unadkat.

But Mithun was picked based on great FC record and is not even quick.

[msb1991]

He was picked based off one season. That is equally invalid as picking someone just because they bowl at 140kph. I also believe that the hype of speed did play a part in his debut too as we have not seen any sort of debut for the likes of Pankaj Singh or Chahar who managed similar feats last year. Do you have msn messenger? I would love to chat to you in more detail and come to some sort of consensus.

[rkt.india]

Disagree. I think he'll do fine in Australia just as Copeland has done in domestic cricket.

Copeland is a different bowler. Both cannot be compared in style. There speed matches. Copeland bowls uncertain length whilr strength it to bowl fuller and get swing while Copeland hits the deck and gets seam movement, dos swing in the air much. Copeland is our of Mcgrath style. PK Is different. PK does not have that immaculate line and length, whenever he does not get wickets, he goes for runs as well.

[msb1991]

He was not very successful in England. He struggled a lot whenever it was not swinging and looked pedestrian some times.

I'm not concerned with how he 'looked', I'm concerned with how he performed and he performed far better than Sreesanth and Ishant in the flatter conditions.

On the same WI tour' date=' Ishant picked 22 wickets and You are talking about bowling against best. Ishant was MOS against Aus on Indian flat tracks in 2008 and Zak was very ordinary in that series, took wickets at 43 RPO. Aus was the best team at that time.[/quote'] Why are you trying to say that just because Sharma has done well than Praveen is no good? That argument makes no sense. Can they not both be good?

[express bowling]

Well, he also succeeded in West Indies too. In recent times too, the phenomenon of slower medium pacers having great success in England and floundering abroad has faded away. Hence you needed an example from 25 years ago. 100% of the bowlers have exceptional FC records too. Unfortunately, we don't have any of them around, so we should probably pick the best bowlers we have. I'm not saying that Vinay is necessarily one of them, I don't speak with any certainty, but perhaps a more systematic approach should be used rather than the haphazard approach that gifted debuts to Mithun and Unadkat.

I have given an example of 25 years ago because that was one of the rare occasions when an essentially military medium attack has won an entire series dominantly although England cricket was going through very tough times at that time. I can't think of any other instantly. It is not true that 120 k medium pacers have not been tried by teams. India has supplied them by the dozens. Even Sri Lanka, Pakistan to some extent, England and NewZealand have played them. They have not shined in the long term. It is always possible that what has not happened in the past will happen in the future. That is why pacers like PK should be given a chance. But too many gentle paced bowlers should not be in the team and the tried and tested formula of quicker or bouncier pacers should be more in number.

[rkt.india]

I'm not concerned with how he 'looked', I'm concerned with how he performed and he performed far better than Sreesanth and Ishant in the flatter conditions. Why are you trying to say that just because Sharma has done well than Praveen is no good? That argument makes no sense. Can they not both be good?

both can be successful but I have my doubts over longevity of PK and his success in test cricket.

[msb1991]

PK does not have that immaculate line and length' date=' whenever he does not get wickets, he goes for runs as well.[/quote'] He has only gone for over 3 runs per over in 2 of the 11 innings in which he has bowled.

[msb1991]

It is not true that 120 k medium pacers have not been tried by teams. India has supplied them by the dozens. Even Sri Lanka' date=' Pakistan to some extent, England and NewZealand have played them. They have not shined in the long term.[/quote'] In recent times, there has been very few 125kph bowlers from any Test playing nation in Test cricket who are full time bowlers. All I remember is Mohammad Asif, toward the end of his career, being mainly at 125kph but we can both agree that his skill is unmatched and so he can hardly be used as an example, one way or the other.

[rkt.india]

He has only gone for over 3 runs per over in 2 of the 11 innings in which he has bowled.

BTW, I am not even saying to pick Aaron for tests yet. I want him to play this Ranji season at least first few matches and then he can be taken to Aus as 5th or 6th bowler as learning curve. He is very raw and needs to improve a lot. He has pace, but does not know how to use it and how to take wickets. Taking wicket is an art. Bowling without goal or plan does not solve any purpose. He looked confused in this match whether to go for pace or try to hit consistent line and length. Because he was better in EPT in Australia and highest wicket taker in 3-day matches. He needs to learn these things through FC matches.

[msb1991]

BTW, I am not even saying to pick Aaron for tests yet. I want him to play this Ranji season at least first few matches and then he can be taken to Aus as 5th or 6th bowler as learning curve. He is very raw and needs to improve a lot. He has pace, but does not know how to use it and how to take wickets. Taking wicket is an art. Bowling without goal or plan does not solve any purpose. He looked confused in this match whether to go for pace or try to hit consistent line and length. Because he was better in EPT in Australia and highest wicket taker in 3-day matches. He needs to learn these things through FC matches.

Agreed. But disagree that he should play 'first few matches'. He needs at least a whole season to prove both, his fitness and his ability to have sustained success in the format rather than success in one or two games. Taking him as fifth or sixth bowler is no guarantee that he won't be called up, as injuries can force the hand of selectors. We should always pick our best bowlers, never pick someone just for the experience - though I'm not sure that is what you were saying, it might have been.