Ishwar Pandey Thread

[msb1991]

What you seem to overlook is that Philander has bowled mostly in the really pacer friendly conditions of SAF. Also' date=' he has had the great luck of bowling with the really quick Steyn and Morkel. How Philander would do if he had to combine with Ishant and old Zak while bowling in India...is not a tough guess.[/quote'] He picks up so many wickets immediately with the brand new ball, how do people credit Steyn and Morkel for this. He has picked up wickets in every domestic competition he has played and is unmatched in his prolific wicket-taking - how is this down to quick bowlers when they are not playing. Cricket isn't as simplistic as you paint it.

[mancalledsting]

Key point here is that bowlers have to hunt as a pack with pressure from both ends Shami's effectiveness was nullified in South Africa after Ishant/Zak were providing freebies at the other end forcing him to over try and search for a wicket rather than bowling patiently. I don't know of any world class seamer (except Richard Hadlee) who didn't have a quality bowler backing him up from the other end. McGrath had Gillespie, Warne, Lee etc, Wasim had Waqar/Shoaib, Ambrose had Walsh, Steyn has Morkel, Marshall had holding, Garner etc etc Obviously Ishant has to go immediately. I'd maybe give Zak a couple more chances to see if he can recapture the old spark. As said above, Dhonj should ideally be replaced with a batsmen-wk so that we can play an extra bowler/seaming all rounder.

[FischerTal]

same Ishwar took more wickets than Shami on SA A tour on dry surfaces :giggle:

[express bowling]

He picks up so many wickets immediately with the brand new ball' date=' how do people credit Steyn and Morkel for this. He has picked up wickets in every domestic competition he has played and is unmatched in his prolific wicket-taking - how is this down to quick bowlers when they are not playing. Cricket isn't as simplistic as you paint it.[/quote'] Domestic competitions are not the same as international cricket. Plus, he bowls in the super pacer friendly conditions in domestic competitions too. Also, chances are that every SAF province team has atleast one genuine quick to soften up batsmen. The effect of other good bowlers bowling in tandem or other quick bowlers softening up the opposition is an issue that all international cricket players are talking about all the time. You are the first person who I have actually seen challenging this. Finally, show me a couple of medium pacers who have taken 200 test wickets at an average of less than 26 or strike rate of less than 50 in tests OR A really great bowling attack in tests with multiple medium pacers and no fast bowlers and then I will debate the lack importance of pace with you.

[mancalledsting]

He picks up so many wickets immediately with the brand new ball' date=' how do people credit Steyn and Morkel for this. He has picked up wickets in every domestic competition he has played and is unmatched in his prolific wicket-taking - how is this down to quick bowlers when they are not playing. Cricket isn't as simplistic as you paint it.[/quote'] Are you honestly telling me that Philander would be the same prospect if he consistently bowled on India wickets with Ishant/Zak for backup? Heck - I even have doubts about Steyn in those circumstances. Bhuveneshwar Kumar also picks up wickets with the new ball. Quality of teammates makes a significant difference on individual performance. do you not think Rahane would have made more runs this series if he wasn't lumbered with no hopers at the other end? See how Ponting's performance declined when all his buddies left him.

[msb1991]

Domestic competitions are not the same as international cricket. Plus' date=' he bowls in the super pacer friendly conditions in domestic competitions too. Also, chances are that every SAF province team has atleast one genuine quick to soften up batsmen.[/quote'] The idea that Philander benefits from Steyn and Morkel is obviously true. The idea that he would be average without them is crazy. I don't think it is reasonable to say that any bowler owes a great deal of their success to bowlers who he is outperforming. I think that is intuitively poor reasoning. I think it can be true in the short term but I think Philander has out bowled (or bowled as least as well as) Steyn and Morkel for too long for it to still be true. I think this is uncontroversial. Absolutely not challenging this. I'm very careful about how I phrase things. Please do not read anything that I do not write but you think I mean. I mean what I say and nothing more. The effect of having good bowlers at both ends is obvious. Softening up the opposition is valuable too. However, I think Philander has earned wickets for Steyn and Morkel just as they have for him. You can soften up a batsman by hitting him on the head of by making him play and miss several times. Having batted before, they both unsettle you.

[msb1991]

Are you honestly telling me that Philander would be the same prospect if he consistently bowled on India wickets with Ishant/Zak for backup?

Absolutely not. Never wrote that. Never implied it. He'd still be very good though. All bowlers benefit from having great bowlers at the other end, over the long term.

[express bowling]

In the second innings of the first test, with Morkel injured... the SAF attack was looking almost innocuous by their standard and we scored 421. This inspite of SAF having 3 pacers. Only the composition was different. 1 quick and two medium pacers.

[msb1991]

In the second innings of the first test, with Morkel injured... the SAF attack was looking almost innocuous by their standard and we scored 421. This inspite of SAF having 3 pacers. Only the composition was different. 1 quick and two medium pacers.

I don't want to argue with you because we agree on a lot of things but that is a bad example. If a bowler gets injured, the team tends to struggle - that is a common trend. Part of the workload gets put on the other bowlers. Kallis is a very good bowler but he is not used to being one of four. If I recall, this is the Test that Tahir played and he was so poor that he barely bowled. So effectively you have two front-line bowlers. Any team will struggle in this situation. Again, not disputing that composition helps an attack, it does. Pace does help unsettle batsmen which earns wickets from the other end. That is also true. I think agonizing over whether someone bowls average speed of 132kph or 135kph or 137kph is not terribly important for this. 5kph will help a bowlers' success certainly, I do not dispute that - that is a separate issue. Look at this point, if you'd be so kind. A quick bowler rushed into the side before he is ready can leak runs very quickly. This can have a damaging effect on the other bowlers. This is a point to consider, no? Again., I'm not anti-pace - it is no coincidence that most of the great bowlers started with a good deal of speed. Speed is less time to react which is obviously harder to face, all other things being equal. My view is this and it is simple. I think that we should not rush people into teams because they are quick. I think their pace should mean they are rushed into teams because they are better than everyone else.

[express bowling]

The idea that Philander benefits from Steyn and Morkel is obviously true. The idea that he would be average without them is crazy. I don't think it is reasonable to say that any bowler owes a great deal of their success to bowlers who he is outperforming. I think that is intuitively poor reasoning. I think it can be true in the short term but I think Philander has out bowled (or bowled as least as well as) Steyn and Morkel for too long for it to still be true. I think this is uncontroversial. Absolutely not challenging this. I'm very careful about how I phrase things. Please do not read anything that I do not write but you think I mean. I mean what I say and nothing more. The effect of having good bowlers at both ends is obvious. Softening up the opposition is valuable too. However, I think Philander has earned wickets for Steyn and Morkel just as they have for him. You can soften up a batsman by hitting him on the head of by making him play and miss several times. Having batted before, they both unsettle you. Richard Hadlee and Glenn Mcgrath. I do not want to discuss whatever this point is more, it has nothing to do with anything I've said. Ambrose and Walsh in England in 2000 were very good and medium pace. However, I have never debated the importance of pace. Absolutely never ever. Ever EVER. Most good fast bowlers in Tests are quick, that is a fact. All good fast bowlers in Tests are of a standard which will dominate lower levels of cricket - that is another fact. No point wishing for something which you do not have...that is something I believe.

I don't want to sound offensive here but You are guilty of the same thing that you are accusing me of. You too are putting words in my mouth. Where have I said that Philander would be average without Steyn and co. ?? My point was about his reduced efficiency if he had to bowl with old Zak and Ishant in India. I don't think that is even debatable. McGrath was medium pace ? He bowled 130 to 140 k even when he was old. When the speed guns were regularly introduced in the 1999 world cup, he had a fastest of 88 mph and average of 86 mph. Plus he hit the deck hard and got a lot of pace and bounce off the deck. He hit many many batters on the body. Just because McGrath was not an out and out fast bowler like Lee and the speed guns were largely used when he was 30+ and had slowed down, many people think of him as medium pace. Actually, he was a bouncy fast-medium bowler during the first half of his career. Hadlee was thought to be genuinely quick by many batsmen when he was in his 20s. Because he played till 40 or there abouts , many people who have seen him at 35+ think of him as medium pace. Many pacers succeed at a reduced pace when they have a lot of experience to supplement pace. We are talking about newish pacers mainly when we discuss pace. Obviously, an all time great pacer, with all his skill and experience , do not have to rely on pace as much as a newish pacer. When talking about bowling attacks, I am not taking about one or two series but an era of good bowling attack by team or atleast a few years. Anyone can succeed for a short time.

[bulbul]

Too many mulugonto clones :nervous:

[express bowling]

I don't want to argue with you because we agree on a lot of things but that is a bad example. If a bowler gets injured, the team tends to struggle - that is a common trend. Part of the workload gets put on the other bowlers. Kallis is a very good bowler but he is not used to being one of four. If I recall, this is the Test that Tahir played and he was so poor that he barely bowled. So effectively you have two front-line bowlers. Any team will struggle in this situation. Again, not disputing that composition helps an attack, it does. Pace does help unsettle batsmen which earns wickets from the other end. That is also true. I think agonizing over whether someone bowls average speed of 132kph or 135kph or 137kph is not terribly important for this. 5kph will help a bowlers' success certainly, I do not dispute that - that is a separate issue. Look at this point, if you'd be so kind. A quick bowler rushed into the side before he is ready can leak runs very quickly. This can have a damaging effect on the other bowlers. This is a point to consider, no? Again., I'm not anti-pace - it is no coincidence that most of the great bowlers started with a good deal of speed. Speed is less time to react which is obviously harder to face, all other things being equal. My view is this and it is simple. I think that we should not rush people into teams because they are quick. I think their pace should mean they are rushed into teams because they are better than everyone else.

I agree that a bowler getting injured is not the ideal example. Thing is , it is not possible to find the best example while posting fast. But, the example drives home the point that I want to raise. Composition of a bowling attack, if not proper, can even reduce the potency of wicket takers like Philander and Steyn. That is my main point really in this thread. Pandey can be potent if combined with good or decent quick bowlers like Shami and Umesh. Not if he is bowling with old Zak and Bhuvi. I agree completely that a fast bowler, who is not ready yet, should not be rushed in the team. No two ways about it. I am just worried about too many medium pacers in our team. The problem is compounded by the fact that Umesh will not play in all probability and none of us are sure about Aaron's fitness and pace.

[Old guy]

I agree that a bowler getting injured is not the ideal example. Thing is ' date=' it is not possible to find the best example while posting fast. But, the example drives home the point that I want to raise. [b']Composition of a bowling attack, if not proper, can even reduce the potency of wicket takers like Philander and Steyn. That is my main point really in this thread. Pandey can be potent if combined with good or decent quick bowlers like Shami and Umesh. Not if he is bowling with old Zak and Bhuvi. I agree completely that a fast bowler, who is not ready yet, should not be rushed in the team. No two ways about it. I am just worried about too many medium pacers. The problem is compounded by the fact that Umesh will not play in all probability and none of us are sure about Aaron's fitness and pace.

Thing is dude we have 3 bowlers now touring who are brisk All can bowl around 140 Aaron,shami and yadav...yeah maybe they won't play together but for most part composition of attack selected is not bad at all

[King Tendulkar]

Yet, the wet dream of multiple highly skilled 130 k pacers or 127 k seamers winning us series after series of tests .... lives on among fans.

Bizzare isnt it. Plenty just dont learn and think a skilled 79 mph is the answer.

[King Tendulkar]

Richard Hadlee and Glenn Mcgrath. I do not want to discuss whatever this point is more, it has nothing to do with anything I've said. .

Why are people trying to potray mcgrath as trundler, as if this will make BK a legend!! Mcgrtah for most carrer had decent pace, operated in 85 to 88 range. Had very good pace. It seems many simply judge players at end of their carrer, maybe when first saw them and discount vast majority of it Hadlee was decent pace as well. Not express but quick in 85 plus range. Please do not compare 85 to 88mph bowlers with our trundlers at 78mph. And simply cherry pick last few years of their carrer to make an argument. Its like judging sachin on last 2 years of carrer and air brusing out the 90s

[King Tendulkar]

My view is this and it is simple. I think that we should not rush people into teams because they are quick. I think their pace should mean they are rushed into teams because they are better than everyone else.

Rushed!!! Yadav has ok test stas. In last test he played did well He has weapons to do well at international cricket. Needs grooming, games and development. Some others do not have weapons to do well, we are wasting our time with them and scarificying precious development games for others

[express bowling]

Thing is dude we have 3 bowlers now touring who are brisk All can bowl around 140 Aaron,shami and yadav...yeah maybe they won't play together but for most part composition of attack selected is not bad at all

Umesh and Aaron have not been selected together in the same team. The test team, where pace is more important, has only 2 out 6 pacers who can bowl quick. 66% slower pacers is not what I would call good composition as far as pace is concerned.

[rkt.india]

Umesh and Aaron have not been selected together in the same team. The test team' date=' where pace is more important, has only 2 out 6 pacers who can bowl quick. 66% slower pacers is not what I would call good composition as far as pace is concerned.[/quote'] We have just 5 fast bowlers in India who can hit 140 consistently.

[express bowling]

We have just 5 fast bowlers in India who can hit 140 consistently.

Dhoni will not play Umesh in tests, in all probability. So, it is basically just one fast bowler in the tests. Even if it is partially because of non availability of fast men ... I can't get excited about such a bowling attack. I will be worried about it. Also, as the test team pacers in the playing 11 are being choosen based on performances in ODIs, like Ishant chosen based on 4 wickets in a 50 over game, it would effectively be closing the door on Umesh in the test 11 by not choosing him in ODIs.

[Vijy]

Siddle did well for Oz in the Ashes. He took only 3.2 wickets per match but his avg was a very respectable 24. His ER of 2.46 demonstrates the benefits of having one bowler who can bowl "dry" - I feel that the bowler in question should be Pankaj or Pandey. The other two should be quick, ideally Shami and Yadav.