Speeds and Performances of Pacers and Spinners

[CG]

Batting first is a huge advantage most teams just cannot handle scoreboard pressure.Lets not kid ourselves we bowled poorly we were playing one bowler but the pitches in adelaide have been flat for years.Its scoreboard pressure.

[CG]

Lets wait for whole series then we will know where these guys stand.First tour for many.It was evident aus grounds took its toll on fitness of bowlers like ishant,shami today.

[bharat297]

Because that was the pressure of batting 2nd and last seeing huge total in front of you and still it was a draw. SA survived 148 overs in 4th innings tells you how track played. In one match' date=' Australia needed an x-factor like Johnson to turn the table. How many teams can have a bowler like Johnson. Another match of India series. It is better you do not talk about that. That series no bench mark to judge Adelaide pitch.[/quote'] What about England bowling first in Adelaide in 2010? I understand the pressure of batting second. But you can only have pressure if the opposition is bowling well, which is my point. If the opposition bowls wide rubbish, then short rubbish, then leg side rubbish ... there's no pressure in batting second. And yes, I get the impact of Johnson ... He bowls high 140s and at the batsman's head. Varun Aaron technically can do that. What was the difference? Johnson was incredibly accurate last summer. That's exactly my point. Also ... 3 out of the last 4 years of Tests in Adelaide, involved teams without Mitchell Johnson and teams still managed to bowl well. The draw was an interesting example. The deck was absolutely flat, no doubt. But the Aussie bowlers bowled quite accurately the whole day. Du Plessis and De Villiers batted brilliantly and it looked like they would bat all day. Australia kept plugging away, bowling accurately and eventually once De Villiers got out, wickets started to fall late in the game and suddenly Australia looked a chance towards the end. They kept themselves in the game, through accurate bowling. They were probably only another 20 mins away from winning that game. Ultimately my point is about accuracy. Six balls in the same spot. It doesn't matter how flat the wicket is. If you can't bowl six good balls in the right area, you won't win matches. I don't understand how you are arguing against that.

[Cricket_Hacker]

Varun bowled 100.1 mph :hmmm:

[rkt.india]

What about England bowling first in Adelaide in 2010? I understand the pressure of batting second. But you can only have pressure if the opposition is bowling well, which is my point. If the opposition bowls wide rubbish, then short rubbish, then leg side rubbish ... there's no pressure in batting second. And yes, I get the impact of Johnson ... He bowls high 140s and at the batsman's head. Varun Aaron technically can do that. What was the difference? Johnson was incredibly accurate last summer. That's exactly my point. Also ... 3 out of the last 4 years of Tests in Adelaide, involved teams without Mitchell Johnson and teams still managed to bowl well. The draw was an interesting example. The deck was absolutely flat, no doubt. But the Aussie bowlers bowled quite accurately the whole day. Du Plessis and De Villiers batted brilliantly and it looked like they would bat all day. Australia kept plugging away, bowling accurately and eventually once De Villiers got out, wickets started to fall late in the game and suddenly Australia looked a chance towards the end. They kept themselves in the game, through accurate bowling. They were probably only another 20 mins away from winning that game. Ultimately my point is about accuracy. Six balls in the same spot. It doesn't matter how flat the wicket is. If you can't bowl six good balls in the right area, you won't win matches. I don't understand how you are arguing against that.

There always can be exceptions. England bowlers did well in 2010 but Australia were at their worst in those days after their greats had retired. They found it difficult to fill those spots. I agree with everything you said that it is essential to consistently hit the right areas, consistency the key in test cricket to do well, but to expect it from from less than 10 test old bowlers is a bit too much. They will such days of inconsistencies. Only one was experienced on his third tour who was average, others were poor in executing their plans and this is the best we have, so no point moaning. We can only hope that they get better sooner than the time Zak and Ishant took.

[bharat297]

There always can be exceptions. England bowlers did well in 2010 but Australia were at their worst in those days after their greats had retired. They found it difficult to fill those spots. I agree with everything you said that it is essential to consistently hit the right areas' date=' consistency the key in test cricket to do well, but to expect it from from less than 10 test old bowlers is a bit too much. They will such days of inconsistencies. Only one was experienced on his third tour who was average, others were poor in executing their plans and this is the best we have, so no point moaning. We can only hope that they get better sooner than the time Zak and Ishant took.[/quote'] Fair enough. I just find it odd that bowlers who reach Test match level need to "learn" to be accurate and consistent. I feel like that should not be something you learn. That should be an assumption. A pre-requisite. I'm happy to give this lot a chance. I think sticking with Ishant, BK, Varun and Umesh for a few years is our best bet anyway. I just wish they would look at why the Aussies are bowling so well. Johnson is a factor but why is Johnson of 2013/14 better than Johnson of 2010/11.

[BlueBee]

Varun bowled 100.1 mph :hmmm:

What do you think ? :hmmm: A guy who bowled 20 odd overs and tired as hell will bowl 100mph ?

[Old guy]

Fair enough. I just find it odd that bowlers who reach Test match level need to "learn" to be accurate and consistent. I feel like that should not be something you learn. That should be an assumption. A pre-requisite. I'm happy to give this lot a chance. I think sticking with Ishant, BK, Varun and Umesh for a few years is our best bet anyway. I just wish they would look at why the Aussies are bowling so well. Johnson is a factor but why is Johnson of 2013/14 better than Johnson of 2010/11.

i think most of these bowlers know how to bowl at home and how to bowl with role where spinners will bowl majority of overs but its different when you have to bowl 30 overs in inning or bowl in totally different conditions and different role and it takes time ..our system should develop them for that but we cannot ignore what actually happens that most cricketers are picked on potential (even our batsmen ) and improve while playing for team...how many end products have we gotten from just domestic cricket ?

[rkt.india]

Fair enough. I just find it odd that bowlers who reach Test match level need to "learn" to be accurate and consistent. I feel like that should not be something you learn. That should be an assumption. A pre-requisite. .

That is because guys like Harris, Siddle are experienced FC bowlers. Even Siddle was wayward when he first started, same with Johnson even when they had a lot of FC experience behind them. Guys like Starc, Pattinson, Cummins all are young but wayward. None of them is really consistent. Most of our pacers are picked on promise with not much FC experience. Shami played 2 years of FC before being picked. Aaron has played just one full season that too last year after he came back from injury. His injuries have taken him back a lot. You will have to bowl more to learn and to make muscle memories. Need to train your muscle and action to bowl in right areas consistently by bowling more with methodical practice in the nets. Just cannot turns up start bowling whatever, you want. Whatever you practice comes in the match too.

[rkt.india]

Same Johnson, Siddle were thrashed by Pak in UAE.

[BlueBee]

Aaron is surely in the team for pace. Has played 25 FC matches only with SR of 60+ with only one 5 wicket haul

[Insidious]

Aaron is surely in the team for pace. Has played 25 FC matches only with SR of 60+ with only one 5 wicket haul

yes, I still remember when he played his 1st test against WI in mumbai, way back in 2011, His FC avg was around 45 or so. The only reason behind his selection was pace

[rkt.india]

Aaron is surely in the team for pace. Has played 25 FC matches only with SR of 60+ with only one 5 wicket haul

Because he has never been fit, always playing after coming back from injury. Only last season, he played handful of Ranji matches on the trot that too after 2 years and averaged 20 with SR in 40s. I guess only 15-16 of those 25 matches are Ranji trophy matches for Jharkhand. Rest are FC matches on tours with different teams like in EPT. He debuted for Jharkhand in 2008 and played only 10-11 matches for them till last season due to injuries and 6 matches last season.

[rkt.india]

yes' date=' I still remember when he played his 1st test against WI in mumbai, way back in 2011, His FC avg was around 45 or so. The only reason behind his selection was pace[/quote'] No. He was selected because he had done well in the Emerging Players trophy played in Aus just before that.

[express bowling]

That is not an excuse when he's been the most expensive bowler by faarr compared to the other 3!! He doesn't hit the stumps and bowls too many freebies!!

Aaron is erratic at times. I don't like it obviously. Thing is we have to see -- what our cricket team's objective is -- what resources do we have to achieve that objective -- in tests the objective of bowlers is firstly to take wickets and then to stop runs. There is no point in having a bowler who has an ER of 2.5 but simply cannot take enough wickets. Ideally I would like a bowler with a strike rate of 40 and ER of 1. Sadly, we don't have any. So, we have to use what we have. Aaron comes across as a wicket taker. Further, his extra pace and bounce can soften batsmen even when he is not taking wickets. I would want him in my side. In a nutshell, I would stick with Aaron and would want him to work hard with the coach to improve his control without losing pace. Teams require pacers who can bowl accurately at over 135 k atleast. We don't have a single such bowler. Either they are slow and accurate or fast and erratic. Neither is effective. I really don't know why it is so bad in this department. p.s - Umesh was bowling accurately at pace in the SL ODIs and , if he can stick to that, he might be our best option. He can bowl at 90mph and has a test strike rate of 46. I would want Umesh, Ishant and Shami to play in the next test.

[Insidious]

Same Johnson' date=' Siddle were thrashed by Pak in UAE.[/quote'] Wrong Johnson and siddle never got thrashed like this in UAE. They did bowl tight lines at the start of their spells. Infact pakistan was struggling 7/2 in 1st test. What pakistani batsmen (mainly Azhar ali, younis khan) did was brilliant. In both the test they see off their spell, and target australian spinners, and forced clarke to give majority of overs to their pacers. And then they later target their tired pacers. It was way different compared to ours. here the Australian batsmen never had to plan any strategy as our bowlers were gifting them boundaries. There is no doubt that the pitch is flat, but that doesn't mean our bowling wasn't rubbish and that is nothing to do with inexperience or anything else.

[bharat297]

That is because guys like Harris, Siddle are experienced FC bowlers. Even Siddle was wayward when he first started, same with Johnson even when they had a lot of FC experience behind them. Guys like Starc, Pattinson, Cummins all are young but wayward. None of them is really consistent. Most of our pacers are picked on promise with not much FC experience. Shami played 2 years of FC before being picked. Aaron has played just one full season that too last year after he came back from injury. His injuries have taken him back a lot. You will have to bowl more to learn and to make muscle memories. Need to train your muscle and action to bowl in right areas consistently by bowling more with methodical practice in the nets. Just cannot turns up start bowling whatever, you want. Whatever you practice comes in the match too.

Exactly!!! Now we are getting somewhere we agree. You hit the nail on the head when you said Indian bowlers are picked on promise whereas Aussie bowlers are picked on FC success and experience. The reason is that our FC system sucks. So our bowlers have to "learn" to bowl accurately at Test level. Instead of addressing the FC issue, our board focuses on IPL!!! And that's why we suck overseas!

[Insidious]

Exactly!!! Now we are getting somewhere we agree. You hit the nail on the head when you said Indian bowlers are picked on promise whereas Aussie bowlers are picked on FC success and experience. The reason is that our FC system sucks. So our bowlers have to "learn" to bowl accurately at Test level. Instead of addressing the FC issue, our board focuses on IPL!!! And that's why we suck overseas!

+1 This is exactly what is happening with Indian bowlers. Infact our top ranji wicket takers are RANK TRUNDLERS. Shows what is wrong with our FC system

[express bowling]

^ IPL is not going away and our board is not really interested in creating a top notch test side by strengthening our FC. Ideally, we require more zonal tournament where the competition is better.

[Insidious]

No. He was selected because he had done well in the Emerging Players trophy played in Aus just before that.

My bad, I forgot that. Yes he did really well in that tournament along with IIRC Ajinkya Rahane