Where is our match winning bowler?

[Ram]

He still averaged 31.9 with the ball' date=' which isn't particularly impressive, with a best of 3/43. [/quote'] You just seem to keep forgetting. Performances are always relative. His 12 wickets at 31 in a tour in which our other "match-winning" bowlers got hammered is quite commendable. Yes , that didnt help us win any match , but that part of the post was more in response to you clubbing Agarkar along with a total non-entity in international cricket like Zahid.

There's a difference between playing a smaller role in helping win a match (Agarkar at Adelaide), and actually being a genuinely matchwinning cricketer - i.e. one who can almost single handedly influence the outcome with the ball and/or bat (Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting, McGrath, etc).

You dont often have bowlers taking 5-fors and 6-fors in one-dayers do you , for the simple fact that there isnt enough time to do that. And i can just imagine , during that period , many of 3-41 , or 2-37 or 3-48 that he got , bowling where he bowled ( at the beginning on an one-day match and the slog overs where the batsman are at their most dangerous) is as match-winning as a say first day century in a test match.

BTW, his 95 batting at number 3 came in this game. http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_ODI1_06NOV2002.html Was the Lord's hundred also in a winning cause then?

My bad , a memory slip. Accept unconditional apologies for listing that innings. My overall point is quite on a different theme. Agarkar isnt a one-hit wonder like Kantikar, Zahid or Massie.

Pray, don't include Agarkar in a discussion about bowlers who win matches. Save the likes of Kumble for that.

And please tell me 5 Indian bowlers in the last 15 years who have had a more instance of making a significant match-winning impact in India's victories in one-dayers and tests. We shall take the discussion from there.

[Mr. Wicket]

And please tell me 5 Indian bowlers in the last 15 years who have had a more instance of making a significant match-winning impact in India's victories in one-dayers and tests. We shall take the discussion from there.

The fact that Kumble/Harbhajan/Srinath are the only ones isn't a testament to Agarkar's prowess, it highlights just how bad Indian bowling has been in the last decade. Thankfully it seems to be changing with the way RP Singh, Zaheer and Sreesanth are coming along. The fact that Agarkar is a long, long way from the test team is highly encouraging.

[Ram]

The fact that Kumble/Harbhajan/Srinath are the only ones isn't a testament to Agarkar's prowess, it highlights just how bad Indian bowling has been in the last decade. Thankfully it seems to be changing with the way RP Singh, Zaheer and Sreesanth are coming along. The fact that Agarkar is a long, long way from the test team is highly encouraging.

So then , is this discussion about " I'm yet to hear what this matchwinning Aggy person has done. " or is it about general dearth of quality bowlers in India ? Either way is fine for me. :thumbs_up:

[Mr. Wicket]

Yes, I'm still curious to hear what exactly Agarkar has done to make him deserve the matchwinner tag. I'd still say there are just three real matchwinners in the Indian side - Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble. Ganguly could be debated for ODIs alone, Laxman PERHAPS for tests, but not much more. Back to Aag... So far we have: - some solid support performances in one dayers where he's taken wickets without regularly running through a side and dominating the match with a performance on his own - 6/41, already argued - his batting displays, all of which leave me very unconvinced that he deserves such a tag. And yes, Indian bowling's been rubbish for a while with Kumble the one saving grace. I take it we agree on that?

[Ram]

Yes, I'm still curious to hear what exactly Agarkar has done to make him deserve the matchwinner tag. I'd still say there are just three real matchwinners in the Indian side - Tendulkar, Dravid and Kumble. Ganguly could be debated for ODIs alone, Laxman PERHAPS for tests, but not much more. Back to Aag... So far we have: - some solid support performances in one dayers where he's taken wickets without regularly running through a side and dominating the match with a performance on his own - 6/41, already argued - his batting displays, all of which leave me very unconvinced that he deserves such a tag.

Fair points, but again as i keep saying - Performances are relative. Is Agarkar a match-winner by international standards - Mostly not. Is he a match-winner by Indian standards - Possibly yes. I think that is a fair/justifiable conclusion that we can draw.

And yes, Indian bowling's been rubbish for a while with Kumble the one saving grace. I take it we agree on that?

Yes you can.

[Mr. Wicket]

Fair points, but again as i keep saying - Performances are relative. Is Agarkar a match-winner by international standards - Mostly not. Is he a match-winner by Indian standards - Possibly yes. I think that is a fair/justifiable conclusion that we can draw.

I'd still argue there - India's produced some real matchwinners by any standards - Gavaskar, SRT, Kumble for starters and a bunch more. And at the end of it, if you're a match winner for India on any sort of consistent/reliable basis, you're a match winner by any standard. If you're not capable of winning matches at the highest level successfully, you're not a matchwinner - either an underperformer, a waste of great talent, a never-was, etc... But those three names and a bunch more would all rank alongside the top that the rest of the world offers. Agarkar wouldn't. No need to lower the levels just to consider Aag a match winner. Batsmen will disagree of course. :D