Shardul has the pace for top level: Zaheer Khan

[rkt.india]

B-> Ryan Harris proved he is not ordinary by the weight of his Test record. I don't care if the strile rate is 46 or 26. The objective of a strike bowler is to take wickets while conceding least possible amounts of runs, not taking wickets at least possible strike rate.An average of 28+ for a fast bowler hitting the deck on the bounciest of pitches on the planet against ordinary first class batsmen is pretty ordinary. An average of 28 with the ball while strike rate of 46 proves that he was smashed around at FC level, even by FC quality guys and since he has done NOTHING at test level, Shaun Tait = ordinary bowler in the longer format.

Strike rate of 46 tells you, he took wickets earlier than other bowlers and Australian FC tracks in those days used to be flatter. They were not like today's pitches. Gillespie averages 26 in FC and has better test record than FC record, Lee averages 28 and these both are two of the better Aussies fast bowlers of last decade. Tait at FC level was not great with average but not poor either like people make him to be. His SR tells you that batsmen were never really comfortable against him and high SR is a result of him being not having the greatest control.

[Muloghonto]

Strike rate of 46 tells you' date=' he took wickets earlier than other bowlers and Australian FC tracks in those days used to be flatter. They were not like today's pitches. Gillespie averages 26 in FC, Lee averages 28 and these both are two of the better Aussies fast bowlers of last decade.[/quote'] Gillespie and Lee bowled against several Aussie First class career batsmen who'd have walked into ANY middle order of the early 2000s bar India and Australia. Plus Aussie FC tracks, Hobart & Brisbane excepted, have been pretty flat for the last decade or so. They generally have good bounce and thats it. But Tait was not a mover of the ball by any stretch of imagination, so he was at his best venue in Australia. What strike rate of 46 and average of 28 tells me is that he was going for around 3.65 runs an over in FC cricket, which definitely qualifies for being 'smashed' at that level. 3.65 RPO defintely suggests that batsmen were dominating Tait more often than not, since that is a much higher than average FC economy rate.

[rkt.india]

Gillespie and Lee bowled against several Aussie First class career batsmen who'd have walked into ANY middle order of the early 2000s bar India and Australia. Plus Aussie FC tracks, Hobart & Brisbane excepted, have been pretty flat for the last decade or so.

So what do you think Tait has not bowled to those guys?. Tait made his FC debut in 2002 when most of those were still playing and played his last FC match in 2008 which tells you he has not played in this era of seaming tracks in Shaffiend Shield whcih started since 2009. He played in an era where pitches used to be flat and there were several batsmen who used to average 50 plus.

[Muloghonto]

So what do you think Tait has not bowled to those guys?. Tait made his FC debut in 2002 when most of those were still playing and played his last FC match in 2008 which tells you he has not played in this era of seaming tracks in Shaffiend Shield whcih started since 2009. He played in an era where pitches used to be flat and there were several batsmen who used to average 50 plus.

What are Lee and Gillespie's FC strike rates ? I havn't looked them up but i bet they wern't getting smashed around at 3.6+ RPO at FC level. A low strike rate without a correspondingly low average means that the bowler cannot build pressure and is usually smashed around by the batsmen in general.

[rkt.india]

What are Lee and Gillespie's FC strike rates ? I havn't looked them up but i bet they wern't getting smashed around at 3.6+ RPO at FC level. A low strike rate without a correspondingly low average means that the bowler cannot build pressure and is usually smashed around by the batsmen in general.

What rubbish? A low SR tells you he could leak runs but takes wickets which is what a team wants. Even Steyn has an ER on a higher side ER in test cricket. Low ER alone wont win you matches but wicket taking ability which low SR shows, average is as important but that can be compromised if a bowler is picking wickets regularly. Brett Lee SR 49, ER 3.40, Gillespie SR 57 but ER low at 2.80.

[NareshK]

Pace is more important for Indian seamers because we usually play on flat decks(for seamers) in India. Bowlers dont get much swing with the new SG ball. Even reverse swing is more potent with pace. Tell me the number of bowlers who bowled 130 and picked wickets regularly in India. Even Zaheer at his best used to be close to 140 when he picked wickets with the new ball and with reverse swing. Some domestic level bowlers with medium pace have good average in FC because quality of batsmen is not good. They struggle when they to go international level. When a seamer has pace, then the run up, wrist position etc. can be taught and then he will become a better bowler. Because pace comes naturally and cant be taught. Problem is we pick trundlers who pick wickets in FC and hope they will bowl quicker in future, which will not happen.

[express bowling]

How does it matter whether Tait is good or not ? All fast bowlers won't be good. But, almost all great pacers at test level are either fast or tall fast-medium bowlers who got steep bounce. They have the ability the extract pa e and bounce off the deck even when they are bowling in the 130s. So, we should look for such pacers instead of short height medium pacers who gently float the ball. Further, all great bowling attacks have or had atleast one, if not more, genuine quicks to soften batsmen. So, that too is a requirement.

[Muloghonto]

What rubbish? A low SR tells you he could leak runs but takes wickets which is what a team wants. Even Steyn has an ER on a higher side ER in test cricket. Low ER alone wont win you matches but wicket taking ability which low SR shows, average is as important but that can be compromised if a bowler is picking wickets regularly. Brett Lee SR 49, ER 3.40, Gillespie SR 57 but ER low at 2.80.

a team does NOT want a bowler to leak runs all over the place and take a few wickets. a 10-0-90-2 produces a strike rate of 30(low), an abysmal average of 45 and the allround conclusion that this bowler got absolutely hammered by the batsmen, low strike rate notwithstanding. As i said earlier, a low strike rate matters ONLY when you also have a low average. or to break it down further, a high ER is justifiable ONLY when you also have a low average. Steyn has a low average and higher than average ER. So did Waqar. An average is the first and foremost mark of a bowler, since the fundamental objective is to take wickets at less runs conceded by the opposition. Low strike rate is not worth ANYTHING unless you ALSO have a low average. Otherwise you are in the 10-0-90-2 category of uselessness. A low strike rate + high average = you got smashed and got lucky along the way with the batsmen overdoing the smashing. Still makes you utterly useless.

[express bowling]

Pace is more important for Indian seamers because we usually play on flat decks(for seamers) in India. Bowlers dont get much swing with the new SG ball. Even reverse swing is more potent with pace. Tell me the number of bowlers who bowled 130 and picked wickets regularly in India. Even Zaheer at his best used to be close to 140 when he picked wickets with the new ball and with reverse swing. Some domestic level bowlers with medium pace have good average in FC because quality of batsmen is not good. They struggle when they to go international level. When a seamer has pace, then the run up, wrist position etc. can be taught and then he will become a better bowler. Because pace comes naturally and cant be taught. Problem is we pick trundlers who pick wickets in FC and hope they will bowl quicker in future, which will not happen.

Excellent points, all of them. I especially agree with the bold part.

[NareshK]

You need to bowl 135-140k at least, move the ball and hit the right areas consistently for a period of time to be a good seamer. If you are tall, that's an advantage because you get bounce. If you bowl 145+, that's another advantage. Experience also matters a lot because with it comes the ability to setup batsman and learn how to bowl in different conditions and how to bowl to certain batsmen. When you dont have any of the above attributes, you will struggle in international cricket especially tests. In ODIs, you need to bowl the yorker consistently, the slower ball and have the ability to outguess the batsmen in the death overs. These should be the guidelines before any seamer is selected for national team.

[Vijy]

Saw Thakur bowl today. Perhaps he was rusty or something, but didn't look all that impressive despite picking up 6 wickets.