Indian Trundlers take note

[rkt.india]

Where did i say Kasper or Gillespe were trundlers.I said they were not genuine quicks which is the truth.Gillespse even cut his pace to some extent after his return from that freak training ground injury in 99 IIRC.Incidently only after cutting his pace he blossomed into a world class bowler and became Aus 2nd best seamer.

It is not only about genuine pace. ANy bowler who can bowl in 140s in tests is genuine quick and GIllespie could do that add to his bounce and movement. Regarding, Lee was not regular, this is nonsense. Brett Lee was as regular as any in Aus side. In 2004, he was struggling with injuries and form so they brought Kasper to play SC as his bowling suited the conditions more and even Kasper had decent enough pace and bounce to trouble batsmen with his variations of cutters and abliity to generate reverse swing. Brett Lee played 76 tests n his career and 48 tests of them were by December 30, 2005, and in that 6 year period, he has been out because of injuries well, while after that he played 28 tests. So i do not understand why he was not regular. He did not play 1-2 series due to injuries or bad form does not mean he was not regular. IF he was not regular then who, Kasper who only played 38 tests in his long career. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/guru?caughthigh=;enddefault=2008-12-30;conchigh=;conclow=;wicketslow=;dismissal=0;runslow=;playerid=5966;bowposition=0;homeaway=0;dismissalslow=;scheduleddays=0;notopposition=0;stumpedhigh=;finals=0;dismissalshigh=;end=2005-12-30;viewtype=aro_list;groundid=0;daynight=0;captain=0;startdefault=1999-12-26;continent=0;notcountry=0;innings=0;class=testplayer;caughtlow=;team=0;result=0;season=0;start=1999-12-26;caughttype=0;bpof=0;seriesresult=0;opposition=0;submit=1;csearch=;ballshigh=;stumpedlow=;wicketshigh=;country=0;toss=0;overslow=;filter=advanced;sdb=player;tourneyid=0;runshigh=;scheduledovers=0;dnp=0;overshigh=;ballslow=;batposition=0;followon=0;recent=;keeper=0;.cgifields=viewtype

[rkt.india]

Where did i say Kasper or Gillespe were trundlers.I said they were not genuine quicks which is the truth.Gillespse even cut his pace to some extent after his return from that freak training ground injury in 99 IIRC.Incidently only after cutting his pace he blossomed into a world class bowler and became Aus 2nd best seamer. And lee wasnt a regular till 2005 Ashes after he was dropped from their tour of India.He was dropped Kasper's great series in Srilanka and Lee's poor form.And Kasper was picked ahead of Lee till the 2005 Ashes when Lee made a comeback on back of Kasper's poor form.Thats nearly 2 years and 16 tests. And if u check Lee's career u will note that after his spectacular start Lee completely of the boil and struggled in test cricket till he made his comeback in Ashes 2005 after which he cemented his spot in Aus as their 2nd best seamer. Aussies domination started after they knocked of the WI on their own turf in the 1995 series in west Indies.Till then West Indies where considered the best team but after that series marked the start Aussie domination. And i dont know which base u are saying SA where fighting with Aussies for domination.SA where never considered anywhere close to Aus or WI at that time.Aus even won the test series in SA.SA didnt win a series in Eng let alone WI or Aus during that time when Eng was an awful team and Aussies and WI where routinely thrashing them. SA were considered a major threat only in ODIS in test cricket it was btw Aus and WI.By winning the series in WI proved they are the best in world and never looked back since.Brett Lee was never a major part of Aus attack during most of their domination.

No Aus did not really start domination from 1995. They were beaten by India twice after that in 1996 and 1998. It was when they had their 16 consecutive wins, they started dominating teams since 1999 and that win process was broken by India in 2001 and after that they again started to winning and dominated teams. I would it was after WC 1999 that they started to dominate both in ODIs and then tests.

[express bowling]

Among bowlers who are not genuinely quick, I just hope that people can demarcate between 135 k to 140 k bowlers and 125 k to 134 k bowlers. The latter category finds it very difficult to pick wickets on a regular basis. Even Indian pacers who have taken 100 + wickets have all been either fast or fast medium ( Kapil, Srinath, Zaheer, Ishant ). Even otherwise talented trundlers have been much poorer in terms of long term wicket taking ability in tests, like Manoj Prabhakar.

[CSK Fan]

fast bowlers are starting to come through now umesh,aaron

Once we start rewarding fast bowlers by picking them in the Indian team on the basis of speed and giving them a longer rope even if they go for runs, even the ones in domestic cricket will automatically strive for pace. Currently in domestic, if any bowler bowls one bad over, he is immediately asked to bowl line and length. Where is the reward in bowling fast?

[Needforspeed]

Once we start rewardign fast bowlers by picking them on the basis of speed and giving them a longer rope even if they go for runs' date=' even the ones in domestic cricket will automatically strive for pace. Currently in domestic, if any bowler bowls one bad ball, he is immediately asked to bowl line and length. Where is the reward in bowling fast?[/quote'] +1

[rkt.india]

Once we start rewarding fast bowlers by picking them in the Indian team on the basis of speed and giving them a longer rope even if they go for runs' date=' even the ones in domestic cricket will automatically strive for pace. Currently in domestic, if any bowler bowls one bad over, he is immediately asked to bowl line and length. Where is the reward in bowling fast?[/quote'] Agree.

[MCcricket]

As class, temperament, technique, balance, time to play pace, are key elements that make a good test bastmen, the most essential quality for a test bowler or potential test bowler is pace, gimme a wild horse with speed then a trundler who has no hope to win any serious race.A bowler with pace in test rises above all as he can bowl with the new and old ball, first or last day and take wickets, also in Lanka or in Australia, even the best trundler we have PK is very reliant on conditions to get wickets, also depending on new ball, Steyn , Marshall, Zaheer,Umesh, bowlers in this category who can bowl 135 to 140+ are not reliant on conditions, they can get u 20 wickets at lower strike rate , it doesn't take a scientist to incur the importance of key element to be successful at test level , PACE, people who deny that are denying a fact.

[peterparker]

so yadav is getting chances..so is ishant..he is injured...and aaron for me is still raw and a bit immature..as he is only 22...he has time..even dinda is a good prospect..anyone who touches 139-140 mark regularly are good quicks..need bit of movement or bounce to take wickets

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Well pace is nothing about being Paki or non Paki.Good fast bowlers are needed by every team. Well Pakis flaunt their fast bowlers because thats the only place they are better than India.They had pathetic batsmen and lesser spinners. Regarding Pakistan's W/L ratio vis a vis India in test matches While Pakistan has better total W/L ratio againist the quality teams India has been by far the better team. India has much better record againist AUS and SA than Pakistan. India and Pakistan are tightly placed in W/L ratio versus ENgland.Pakistan leading slightly.India was leading till this summer's4-0 drubbing:facepalm: Againist WI Pakistan has a better record,but no series win in WI ever.While India has 2 or 3 series wins there. Ofcourse Pakistan has done better againist Bangladesh Zim and NZ. Also since the introduction of neutral umpires Pakistan's wins have come down drastically.

[BeautifulGame]

No Aus did not really start domination from 1995. They were beaten by India twice after that in 1996 and 1998. It was when they had their 16 consecutive wins' date=' they started dominating teams since 1999 and that win process was broken by India in 2001 and after that they again started to winning and dominated teams. I would it was after WC 1999 that they started to dominate both in ODIs and then tests.[/quote'] Australia since winning the series against West Indies won 12 of their 16 series before Lee's debut series against India.With just 3 lost series (2 against India and 1 against Srilanka ) That sequence included series wins in South Africa West Indies (Places where no one else won during that time) , England (Every Ashes series) .They also recorded their first series win in Pakistan in 50 years apart from winning every series at home.If this isnt domination of world cricket not sure what is. And according to ur logic Aus domination didnt start until 1999 world cup because they couldnt beat India in India.Well then based on ur logic they didnt beat India till 2004.Does that mean they didnt start dominating world cricket until 2004? Also the only 2 places Australia won which they couldnt before Bree Lee debut were in India and Sri Lanka.And both these series they dropped Brett Lee because he wasnt good enough.

[BeautifulGame]

Once we start rewarding fast bowlers by picking them in the Indian team on the basis of speed and giving them a longer rope even if they go for runs' date=' even the ones in domestic cricket will automatically strive for pace. Currently in domestic, if any bowler bowls one bad over, he is immediately asked to bowl line and length. Where is the reward in bowling fast?[/quote'] Agree.

[rkt.india]

Also the only 2 places Australia won which they couldnt before Bree Lee debut were in India and Sri Lanka.And both these series they dropped Brett Lee because he wasnt good enough.

What are you talking about? He was not dropped. He was there with the team. He did not play because he had just come back from injury and was going through bad from. Other than that, kasper suited to their strategy more than Lee in SC, because of his reverse swing and ability to bowl cutters at decent pace and bounce, otherwise, It was Lee who played more tests, even more than Gillespie and you are talking about he was not regular if he did not play in 1-2 series that too because he was struggling with injury.

[BeautifulGame]

What are you talking about? He was not dropped. He was there with the team. He did not play because he had just come back from injury and was going through bad from. Other than that' date=' kasper suited to their strategy more than Lee in SC, because of his reverse swing and ability to bowl cutters at decent pace and bounce, otherwise, It was Lee who played more tests, even more than Gillespie and you are talking about he was not regular if he did not play in 1-2 series that too because he was struggling with injury.[/quote'] Lee wasnt struggling with injury when Aus visited us in 2004.He was fit and part of the squad.But Kasper was preffered over him because he was better than Lee during that period.Just check Lee record for 2 years before his injury after world cup in test cricket.He was bowling poorly and was on the verge of being dropped even before the injury.And continued to preffered over Lee for nearly 2 years 7 series and 16 tests until Ashes. And either way Aussies were dominating test cricket from 1995 without any genuine quick bowler.

[Rightarmfast]

/\ Which brings us to the same point again that in around 95-99 season, they had Gillespie who had genuine pace. Mind you, it was only post 98 that the 'Shoaib Akhtar' kind of pace was demarcated as real pace ! Pre 98,bowlers like Donald, Gough , Gillespie were considered quick. Post 95, I would put Gillespie above these 2 pacewise.

[BeautifulGame]

/ Which brings us to the same point again that in around 95-99 season, they had Gillespie who had genuine pace. Mind you, it was only post 98 that the 'Shoaib Akhtar' kind of pace was demarcated as real pace ! Pre 98,bowlers like Donald, Gough , Gillespie were considered quick. Post 95, I would put Gillespie above these 2 pacewise.

And the point is that Gillespe wasnt a regular for Aus during those years.He only played 14 tests in those 5 years. However u want to look at it the great Aussie bowling attack was based on Macgrath and Warne not any genuine quick with Reifel as their main support bowler who had an excellent ave too. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;spanmax1=17+Dec+1999;spanmin1=1+Mar+1995;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=bowling

[rkt.india]

And the point is that Gillespe wasnt a regular for Aus during those years.He only played 14 tests in those 5 years. However u want to look at it the great Aussie bowling attack was based on Macgrath and Warne not any genuine quick with Reifel as their main support bowler who had an excellent ave too. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;spanmax1=17+Dec+1999;spanmin1=1+Mar+1995;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=bowling

But Mcgrath was genuine on those days. I saw his footage before that around 1994 Ashes in England he was certainly quick bowling easily over 140K. Genuine quick is who can bowl 140 and McGrath and Even Damien Flameing were able to do that. Even in WC 1999, McGrath was clocked 140K. We are not talking about 150-160K type of pace. There are only 3-4 bowlers in the history of cricket who could touch those speeds. Any bowler who can bowl 135k or more consistently and has other skills to go with it in test matches is certainly quick and can be useful, but less than that one needs to have extra ordinary skills to make a mark.

[CSK Fan]

You guys clearly dont understand the importance of line and length

[punjabi_khota]

Kapil had an overall average of 29.64 in tests. Real strike bowlers have always had averages of 26 or less. Kapil's career as a pacer had 2 distinct parts. Before he had his knee injury in the mid 1980s, Kapil was quite nippy, definitely fast-medium, and swung the ball at decent pace. He took around 300 wickets from 75 tests. That was great. After the operation Kapil became a trundler and from then on he took 134 wickets from 56 tests.

Lots of blah blah ...no real speed numbers. I am betting he wasn't much faster than VK/Mithun types. Mid 130s for most part and he did great on the pattas.

[BeautifulGame]

But Mcgrath was genuine on those days. I saw his footage before that around 1994 Ashes in England he was certainly quick bowling easily over 140K. Genuine quick is who can bowl 140 and McGrath and Even Damien Flameing were able to do that. Even in WC 1999, McGrath was clocked 140K. We are not talking about 150-160K type of pace. There are only 3-4 bowlers in the history of cricket who could touch those speeds. Any bowler who can bowl 135k or more consistently and has other skills to go with it in test matches is certainly quick and can be useful, but less than that one needs to have extra ordinary skills to make a mark.

I too watched Macgrath in mid 90s and he was never a genuine quick.I certainly dont remember him bowling consistently in 140ks. He was always a bowler who bowled in mid 130ks with occasionally touching early 140's at best.Same with Fleming and Reiffel was a touch slower.None of them were genuine quick or trundlers.But what made Aussie pace attack great was their ability to bowl consistently good line and length i.e. probe around 4th stump consistently.

[G_B_]

As class' date=' temperament, technique, balance, time to play pace, are key elements that make a good test bastmen, the most essential quality for a test bowler or potential test bowler is pace, gimme a wild horse with speed then a trundler who has no hope to win any serious race.A bowler with pace in test rises above all as he can bowl with the new and old ball, first or last day and take wickets, also in Lanka or in Australia, even the best trundler we have PK is very reliant on conditions to get wickets, also depending on new ball, Steyn , Marshall, Zaheer,Umesh, bowlers in this category who can bowl 135 to 140+ are not reliant on conditions, they can get u 20 wickets at lower strike rate , it doesn't take a scientist to incur the importance of key element to be successful at test level , PACE, people who deny that are denying a fact.[/quote'] so how long would you give somebody like Ishant sharma who bowls usually in the 130-140 zone in most games i have seen. Ie is a proper fast bowling even though not express pace like a Brett Lee or Actor. 41 tests averaging 36 with the ball and a lot more against established test nations. Now he is 23 at this moment and have played a lot more test cricket than anybody i can think of in international cricket at that age and if a fast bowler. How long will you give a person like Ishant to get his act together and starting putting in good performances in all formats? I ask cause I want to know your parameter for reward.