Sehwag1830 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 :hmmmm: If I am not wrong Ashwin played only 1 game in WC Took wicket of Watson in QF.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 I would take that SL team from 1996-98 over any Pak team of last 20 years. That team was bomb. Those days Jayasuriya was a nightmare for us. And their bowling rarely allowed us to score big runs. Just ignore their batsmen.. would you take those bowlers over Pakistan bowlers? Dharmasena, Murali, Vaas, over Akram, Younis, Mustaq?
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 :hmmmm: If I am not wrong Ashwin played only 1 game in WC When he did he made the difference He deliberately didn't play QF. :winky: Whatever the reason, Akram not playing hurt Pakis no end. At that time Akram was probably the best bowler in odis considering the fact Waqar never did much against India.
Number Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Took wicket of Watson in QF. And Pwnting in final overs.
akshayxyz Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 B'lore had one of the best batting lineup in this edition of IPL with batsmen like Gayle, AB De Villiers, Dilshan, Kohli etc. in the team but they couldn't even get to the knockouts, whereas all the teams with a decent bowling attack (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta) topped the table. Proves once again that in any format bowling wins you tournaments. An old saying in some of the games (especially footie, American football) is "Offense wins you games whereas Defense wins you championships". In cricket this translates to "Batting wins you games while Bowling wins you championships". Every good to great team had a good bowling attack whereas a good batting lineup looks good on paper but will seldom win anything. That's why a team with the likes of Malinga, Naraine, Morkel will most often than not trump a team with the likes of Gayle, ABDV, Sehwag etc. Who won the WC 2011?.. and how was their bowling lineup, compared to other competing teams.
Sehwag1830 Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Just ignore their batsmen.. would you take those bowlers over Pakistan bowlers? Dharmasena, Murali, Vaas, over Akram, Younis, Mustaq? And why are you ignoring Jayasuriya and desilva. They have 500 ODI wickets between them. Jayasuriya used to bowl at death then.
akshayxyz Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Also, can we re-open discussion on Ind-vs-Bangladesh Asia Cup 2012. :hmmm:
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 And why are you ignoring Jayasuriya and desilva. They have 500 ODI wickets between them. Jayasuriya used to bowl at death then. They are part timers at best. They are not like the kind of guys we are discussing here. Malinga, Steyn, Morkel, Gul. In every world cup some odd guy has done well . Steve waught also did well in 1987 world cup. So they have the best bowling line up. Just look at 1983 world cup It was absolutely no contest Marshall, Roberts, Holding, India had Kapil and bunch of trundlers.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 My point is RCB's ejection was not due to their bowling. Lot of teams have bowled worse than that.
Stuge Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Also' date=' can we re-open discussion on Ind-vs-Bangladesh Asia Cup 2012. :hmmm:[/quote'] kyon ? why woudl talk about soo sad matches which I don't want to remember all my life lol
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 Who won the WC 2011?.. and how was their bowling lineup' date=' compared to other competing teams.[/quote'] Refer post #59 earlier in the thread which addresses the same point. As regards to the bowling pray tell me which team had a better bowling lineup? Other than SA none of the teams were any better than India and SA have a mental block as they lost the 6th straight knockout game in ICC tourneys. Let's look at all the other teams in WC 2011... 1. England - Had pacers which don't do much in sub-continental conditions. Case in point Anderson who is a giant at home and a joke abroad, especially in sub-continent in shorter format. Swann was the only spinner they had but one decent conventional off-spinner wasn't likely to make the difference. 2. Aus - No spin attack at all. Same old up & down predictable pace attack with no variety whatsoever. Even likes of Warne & Hogg at 40 years would have been a better bet for them. 3. NZ - No match-winning bowlers there and they exceeded expectations reaching the semis. 4. WI - Other than Bishoo nothing much. Maybe they should have played Naraine. 5. Pak - They only had one decent bowler in Ajmal and that's about it. Gul is great in T20s but sucks in other formats. Afridi is a minnow basher averaging close to 60 against India in odis. Hafeez is unlikely to be the match-winner. In fact Pakis lucked out that Riaz was on song against India coz their Asia Cup performance against India is closer to their actual bowling strength. 6. SL - They were unfortunate to have lost Angelo Mathews to injury and Murali was only half fit. That left them with only one genuine threat - Malinga. If Murali had been fully fit and Mathews hadn't been injured they would have had the best bowling attack but it wasn't to be. India only had to worry about Malinga and rest was easy. 7. SA - They were by far the best bowling attack with good pacers (Steyn & Morkel) and decent spin attack (Tahir, Botha, Peterson) and underchieved due to 2 main reasons - i) they played too many bits & pieces players like Du Plessis. They should have played at least one more specialist batsmen. ii) They are not there yet mentally. Somehow they lose it as soon as they get to the knockouts in ICC tourneys and the failures are not due to cricketing reasons alone. They were the top 2 sides in the WC along with India and should have been in the finals but if you can't chase 220 against NZ you are unlikely to win much. India did not have a great bowling lineup but they had the best pacer in the tourney in Zak. Zaheer was at the top of his game. He didn't let batsmen get away in the opening overs and took wkts with the old ball. Other than in the slog overs in the final he was pretty good. Yuvraj was another reason why we did well. He consistently took wkts and curtailed run-scoring in the middle overs and on an average his figures were 2/40 and he was actually better than our main spinner in Harbhajan. Supporting these two were our other bowlers in Munaf, Nehra, Harbhajan & Ashwin who though not spectacular were tidy. At least they didn't let the batsmen get away from their end. To me Indian attack was suited to the sub-continental tracks and Indian bowling was one of the top 3 attacks after SA and to an extent SL (if fully fit). Once SA were out of the tourney India were the favorites.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 Also' date=' can we re-open discussion on Ind-vs-Bangladesh Asia Cup 2012. :hmmm:[/quote'] Can't understand your fixation with that match. No matter when you bring it up, it won't change people's opinions that the main reason for the defeat was SRT and his obsession with records/stats. He sacrificed the tourney so that he could get to his 100th 100 after failing in Eng and Aus.
CSK Fan Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Can't understand your fixation with that match. No matter when you bring it up' date=' it won't change people's opinions that the main reason for the defeat was SRT and his obsession with records/stats. He sacrificed the tourney so that he could get to his 100th 100 after failing in Eng and Aus.[/quote'] So bowling had nothing to do with India being unable to defend 290 against bangla. It was all Sachin's fault. Yet here bowling cost IPL teams? Ever wondered why people don't take you seriously?
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 So bowling had nothing to do with India being unable to defend 290 against bangla. It was all Sachin's fault. Yet here bowling cause IPL teams? Ever wondered why people don't take you seriously? SRT was the biggest reason given that our bowling consisted of Koomars & Dinda. On a pitch where 300 is almost an average score not to press on and in fact slowing down when the team is something like 220/1 has to be criticized. Now I will wait for BossBhai to swoop down on this thread :giggle:
CSK Fan Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 SRT was the biggest reason given that our bowling consisted of Koomars & Dinda. On a pitch where 300 is almost an average score not to press on and in fact slowing down when the team is something like 220/1 has to be criticized. Now I will wait for BossBhai to swoop down on this thread :giggle: Never mind, guess I am not good at this trolling stuff :((
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 Never mind' date=' guess I am not good at this trolling stuff :(([/quote'] Just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't mean it's trolling.
CSK Fan Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't mean it's trolling. I meant my post was trolling, not yours. I am trying hard to fit into this young generation T20 forum and failing
akshayxyz Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Can't understand your fixation with that match. No matter when you bring it up' date=' it won't change people's opinions that the main reason for the defeat was SRT and his obsession with records/stats. He sacrificed the tourney so that he could get to his 100th 100 after failing in Eng and Aus.[/quote'] Its is not about fixation, it is about your generalized comment/title. Different pitches, different conditions..different skills required... If you said - "this is why it is better to have ....." - then it should apply to all matches ( in your world though). 5 top class bowlers with 5 mediocre batsmen would suck equally as 5 top class batsmen with 5 mediocre bowlers.... esp when the conditions are not favorable for your 'top class' performers - be it batsmen or bowlers.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 Its is not about fixation, it is about your generalized comment/title. Different pitches, different conditions..different skills required... 5 top class bowlers with 5 mediocre batsmen would suck equally as 5 top class batsmen with 5 mediocre bowlers.... esp when the conditions are not favorable for your 'top class' performers - be it batsmen or bowlers. Not really no. Historically we have seen that a team with quality bowlers with mediocre batsmen have performed better than a team with quality batsmen with mediocre bowlers. Rationale for the same is simple - the bowlers are in the game much more than a batsman, i.e. a batsman can be dismissed 1st ball but the bowler will bowl all his overs no matter what. You would expect quality bowlers not to go for too many runs no matter what. But trundlers/sub-par bowlers will be taken for runs even by half-decent batsmen. Take India for example. India has historically under-achieved at intl level even though they always had the batting might. If India had just 1 or 2 world class bowlers in 2000s we would have achieved much more and most probably would have won a series in Aus & SA by now. We had the batsmen but never had the bowlers to do anything of note.
Recommended Posts