Guess who gets dropped

[MCcricket]

21 hours ago, New guy said:

So when was the last time Shami had to bowl 8-10 overs at a stretch?. It is hilarious you talk about Bhuvi's lack of stamina, completely ignoring that bowlers bowl consistent pace when they get 4-5 over spells. If you bowl any bowler for 8-10 overs at a stretch his next spell will be slower. People start complaining with Yadv gets more than 5 overs saying he is underbowled but Bhuvi bowling 8-10 overs is ignored

It is a catch 22 n hampers the captains choice of bowling him as he is most effective first 10 to 12 overs only and he gets a 7 to 8 over spell which is too much for a fast bowler but a medium pacer it is ok, bowling at 145 n 127 is a huge huge diff n effort, fast bowlers should bowl max 5 or 6 overs at a stretch n medium bowlers can bowl about 8, PK used to bowl 10 at a trot n BK is medium pacer so captain is trying to use him when he is max effective.

After 15 overs initially even in seaming conditions what does the captain do with Bhuvi, he cannot attack with him, or cause a batsmen to make an unforced error as after 15 overs even on a seaming track he doesn't get seam, swing, bounce or even half decent pace, so he becomes redundant, and at his pace even keeping things tight is only thing he can try for n that is limited

[jusarrived]

On 12/16/2016 at 0:21 PM, New guy said:

averages 29 in India so you are full of horse shit. Yadav has sucked this year completely. If Bhuvi is very average, Yadav is clearly below average. In one of the worst pitches last match, Bhuvi still picked a wicket and Yadav didnt

 

And of course geniuses like you will ignore that any bowler's pace will drop if he bowls 8-9 overs on the trot. Yadav gets 3-4 over spells and long gaps. Bhuvi bowls 8 on the trot and you are surprised if pace drops?

I thot Yadav was bowling better under Virat ? Since we are talking about your favourite bowler he's sucked completely ?

[New guy]

On 12/17/2016 at 1:50 PM, MCcricket said:

It is a catch 22 n hampers the captains choice of bowling him as he is most effective first 10 to 12 overs only and he gets a 7 to 8 over spell which is too much for a fast bowler but a medium pacer it is ok, bowling at 145 n 127 is a huge huge diff n effort, fast bowlers should bowl max 5 or 6 overs at a stretch n medium bowlers can bowl about 8, PK used to bowl 10 at a trot n BK is medium pacer so captain is trying to use him when he is max effective.

After 15 overs initially even in seaming conditions what does the captain do with Bhuvi, he cannot attack with him, or cause a batsmen to make an unforced error as after 15 overs even on a seaming track he doesn't get seam, swing, bounce or even half decent pace, so he becomes redundant, and at his pace even keeping things tight is only thing he can try for n that is limited

Again all these is something from 2 years ago as since then Bhuvi has taken wickets with old ball, has reversed swung and even bounced out batsmen. After 15 overs thing is completely a myth and despite people pointing this out again and again people are still repeating this lie.Bhuvi has 3 5-fers recently and you dont take 5-fer in the fist 15 overs only or with new ball only

Edited December 18, 2016 by New guy

[New guy]

On 12/17/2016 at 0:12 PM, Unleashed said:

In this setup, there's only one pace bowler whose place is confirmed and that's Shami. Rest will be selected on the basis of the pitch, this pitch is ridiculously slow and has more or less nothing for pace bowlers. Selecting Umesh over Bhuvi for me has been the right choice so far. 

 

Stats wise Bhuvi is much better than Umesh agreed though. 

How on earth is selecting a bowler averaging 50 the right choice? Let me guess-  my speedguns...... Seriously some of you guys have taken leave all of your senses just based on speed gun readings. Even if Umesh averages 200 you will still insist he is the right choice thats how speed gun blind you people are

 

50 average is a failure even for Bangla or Zim bowler on any pitch against any county. You think picking a 50 averaging bowler over someone averging 15 is the right choice but cannot put forth a single sane argument which is not destroyed immediately. 

 

Your argument is that Bhuvi "might" fail but you completely ignore that Yadav HAS failed. It is a clear case of double standards and blind speed gun worship

Edited December 18, 2016 by New guy

[express bowling]

In this test match, Ishant has replaced Bhuvi and not Umesh Yadav.  

[Cricketics]

On 12/17/2016 at 3:20 AM, MCcricket said:

It is a catch 22 n hampers the captains choice of bowling him as he is most effective first 10 to 12 overs only and he gets a 7 to 8 over spell which is too much for a fast bowler but a medium pacer it is ok, bowling at 145 n 127 is a huge huge diff n effort, fast bowlers should bowl max 5 or 6 overs at a stretch n medium bowlers can bowl about 8, PK used to bowl 10 at a trot n BK is medium pacer so captain is trying to use him when he is max effective.

After 15 overs initially even in seaming conditions what does the captain do with Bhuvi, he cannot attack with him, or cause a batsmen to make an unforced error as after 15 overs even on a seaming track he doesn't get seam, swing, bounce or even half decent pace, so he becomes redundant, and at his pace even keeping things tight is only thing he can try for n that is limited

 

1 hour ago, New guy said:

How on earth is selecting a bowler averaging 50 the right choice? Let me guess-  my speedguns...... Seriously some of you guys have taken leave all of your senses just based on speed gun readings. Even if Umesh averages 200 you will still insist he is the right choice thats how speed gun blind you people are

 

50 average is a failure even for Bangla or Zim bowler on any pitch against any county. You think picking a 50 averaging bowler over someone averging 15 is the right choice but cannot put forth a single sane argument which is not destroyed immediately. 

 

Your argument is that Bhuvi "might" fail but you completely ignore that Yadav HAS failed. It is a clear case of double standards and blind speed gun worship

Looks like it has still not convinced people even after I shared both the players statistics at HOME.

 

So let me get right deep into this and  share some more stats which no one bothers to question.

Both players bowled a lot in Ranji. Their First class stats have to be compared which includes Ranji trophy stats as that is the one which includes most of their games played at home, and gives a more closer look at their home performance.

 

This shows a better picture since it covers more HOME games which were played in Ranji. Bhuv is clear winner on Home wickets. 

 

Bhuvi's First class record(includes Ranji)

Umesh's record including Ranji

[gattaca]

@Cricketics looks like they both have comparable records. Bhuvi has less average because of economy rate but umesh lower strike rate. Bhuvi is averaging little over 3 wickets per match and umesh 2.99 wickets per match. I would say they have very much comparable records with bhuvi slightly ahead.

[beetle]

10 minutes ago, gattaca said:

@Cricketics looks like they both have comparable records. Bhuvi has less average because of economy rate but umesh lower strike rate. Bhuvi is averaging little over 3 wickets per match and umesh 2.99 wickets per match. I would say they have very much comparable records with bhuvi slightly ahead.

But it does debunk the view that Bhuvi is not as good as Umesh in Indian conditions .

The guy has played 5 years of FC cricket in Indian conditions before he came into the team.If he was not good...he would not get selected for the Indian team .Period.

[New guy]

3 hours ago, gattaca said:

@Cricketics looks like they both have comparable records. Bhuvi has less average because of economy rate but umesh lower strike rate. Bhuvi is averaging little over 3 wickets per match and umesh 2.99 wickets per match. I would say they have very much comparable records with bhuvi slightly ahead.

Then after Yadav has failed in recent times, shouldn't Bhuvi get his chances? Recent records are always given more weightages than overall record by anyone

[velu]

2 hours ago, New guy said:

Then after Yadav has failed in recent times, shouldn't Bhuvi get his chances? Recent records are always given more weightages than overall record by anyone

but few players were allowed to play even after 2 or 3 years of the bad performance based on their overall record

 

[gattaca]

5 hours ago, New guy said:

Then after Yadav has failed in recent times, shouldn't Bhuvi get his chances? Recent records are always given more weightages than overall record by anyone

Yadav had a good series against England so far. Numbers don't do justice Lot of dropped catches.

[Tibarn]

In regards to Bhuvi, I guess the question is whether he is as good in India as his numbers indicate. Here is a list of all his innings bowled in India:

Filtered data from 2013:

Career averages

	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
unfiltered	16	27	404.3	92	1210	42	6/82	6/46	28.80	2.99	57.7	4	0	Profile
filtered	6	11	104.0	18	341	9	3/31	3/60	37.88	3.27	69.3	0	0

Filtered data from 2016:

Career averages

	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
unfiltered	16	27	404.3	92	1210	42	6/82	6/46	28.80	2.99	57.7	4	0	Profile
filtered	2	4	44.0	7	136	7	5/48	6/76	19.42	3.09	37.7	1	0

What can we see from this data? We see there are two portions of Bhuvi's bowling career in India: his debut year in 2013 and his recent comeback in 2016. Only 4 of his 15 innings are since his comeback, so it's hard to say if anything improved or not since 2013. 

 

 

 

From 2013

We can see that his economy rate was all over the place, sometimes hovering slightly below 5 and other times only slightly above 1. His wicket count is mostly binary numbers, 1s and 0s, but there are two 3 wicket hauls vs the Aussies: 1st innings in Hyderabad and 2nd Innings in Mohali

 

Hyderabad :

Pitch Report

Quote

Australia batted first on a pitch that had a few cracks but did not resemble Chennai's clay-like appearance. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, wicketless on debut, was a greater threat here, and his accurate, skiddy seamers produced three wickets in the first session.

Ashwin accounted for the hapless Hughes, and it was not until Clarke and Wade - who had fractured a cheekbone during throwdowns the day before the game - that Australia produced a partnership of substance. Their stand of 145 for the fifth wicket showed the conditions could be mastered with patience and common sense. But Wade's fortitude deserted him on 62: the ball after surviving a stumping chance, he thrashed Harbhajan Singh to backward point.

It references the Chennai pitch from the 1st test so let's see what that pitch was like:

Chennai

Pitch Report:

Quote

Ashwin and Jadeja, Harbhajan formed part of a three-man spin attack which shared all 20 wickets - testimony to the bowlers' skill and the ineptitude of Australia's batsmen against the turning ball.

... 

India's three spinners all posed different questions on an unpredictable surface: Hughes received a snorter from Jadeja which ripped to slip off his glove, while Clarke - who survived two near-adjacent lbw appeals, also from Jadeja - was eventually hit in front by one from Ashwin which barely got up

So we see that the Hyderabad pitch wasn't a raging turner, and was more similar to a standard Indian pitch. 

Now let's see Bhuvi's wickets in the 1st innings in Hyderabad where he got 3 for 53

Quote

2.2

Kumar to Warner, OUT, Bhuvneshwar you ripper, after that leg side rubbish last ball, he comes up with one that changes course sharply, it was going across the left-hander, short of a length, most would have decided to leave that, but then it jags back in, unfortunately for Warner, the line is bang on off, and Warner gets a fatal inside edge, that is Bhuvneshwar's first Test wicket

 

 

 

Quote

4.2

Kumar to Cowan, OUT, Bhuvneshwar on fire, incoming delivery to the left-hander once again, starts across with the angle, and moves in, Marais Erasmus thinks this is hitting the stumps, replays suggest it is, but they also show it pitched just outside leg stump, Cowan caught in front of middle on the defensive push, and done in by the umpire, I don't care how long you haggle over the intricacies of the DRS, get the third umpire to weed out these howlers, and you can carry on with your haggling

Quote

14.6

Kumar to Watson, OUT, uh oh, Watson's in trouble, he;s seen a rare short of a length delivery, and has immediately gone for the pull, the bounce in this wicket has been largely okay, but not extravagant, this one does not bounce as much as Watson expected, and swings in to knock him on the bent right leg, just above the pad, in front of off stump

So 2 wickets off in-swingers (1 bowled and 1 lbw) and 1 caught off a short-ball, on a pretty standard Indian pitch. The caveat is that all three of his wickets were inside the 20th over with the new to newish ball. 

 

On to Mohali:

Pitch Report:

Quote

The pitch is dry with dry grass, but there will be moisture from the rain yesterday. Matthew Hayden says this is a hard and a flat pitch, and opening batsmen will be delighted to see it. They are epxecting skiddly bounce, but it surely has less grass than a usual Mohali wicket. Toss in 15 minutes

"This is easily the flattest pitch that we've seen in this series. Good luck getting 20 wickets. Neither team has the firepower to do it.."

This pitch is flat, and the outfield quick

 

On to his wickets, 3 for 31 in the 2nd innings

Quote

0.3

Kumar to Warner, OUT, doesn't matter whether the previous edge carried or not. Warner has played a horrible shot next ball to make amends for India. Short, widish, he throws his arms at it, and edges it through to the keeper. No ffet there

 

Quote

7.5

Kumar to Cowan, OUT, Cowan has been given. Bhuvneshwar gets a second, but this one seems to have pitched outside leg, plus Cowan has got a big stride in. This is slightly harsh, I think. He walks down the track, misses a length ball, but it has pitched half-half - half on the mat, half outside - and it still has a long way to go. Kettleborough is the umpire

Quote

13.5

Kumar to Smith, OUT, that's a beauty. The off stump has been flattened. Smith plays for the inswinger, and it looks like an inswinger as it leaves the hand. Shaping in, it pitches in front of off, and then after pitching it holds its line to beat the outside edge and knocks the off pole over

3 different types of wickets taken: an edge caught by Dhoni, an lbw starting from outside leg, and bowled via an inswinger. Once again, all the wickets came within the 20th over. The pitch was flat and the Aussies batted 3rd, so keep in mind the expected deterioration on a 3rd-4th day pitch. 

 

As mentioned earlier, these were his two best bowling innings in terms of wickets in 2013, with the rest being 0s and 1s.  

 

Moving on to the 2016:

Bhuvi has bowled a total of 4 innings in 2016, so any conclusions that one would draw would be premature. Nevertheless:

 

At quick glance, it appears that Bhuvi 2016 has improved or at least stabilized his economy rate and control in India, with him not going at/or above a 4 economy rate in any of the 4 innings. However, one can argue stabilization instead, as there are none below 2 either.His wicket count reads as: 5, 1, 0, 1. The 5 wicket haul was in Kolkata against NZ during India's 1st bowling innings (days 2-3).

 

Let's thoroughly look through that test match: 

Pitch report:

Quote

In Bhuvneshwar Kumar, he also had the ideal weapon to exploit a pitch that offered seam, swing and variable bounce. On the fourth day, when conditions had become better for batting, India remained tenacious. They remained patient. They were a little petulant too, putting the umpire under needless pressure every time the ball hit pad or beat bat.

An interesting-looking pitch, then. Plenty of cracks on its surface, but also a healthy covering of grass to help hold it together.

Shikhar comes in for Rahul and Bhuvi comes in for Umesh, we feel he can give us more in this kind of pitch with new ball"-Kohli 

Swing: "Lovely bowling by the black caps. Can't remember the last time India had a greenish pitch"

this pitch hasn't been straightforward to bat on, with seam movement as well as inconsistent bounce. It'll probably get harder to bat on as this Test match progresses, and New Zealand, remember, do not have Kane Williamson.

Siva: "Similar to first Test, a lead of 50-60 could be very vital, B Kumar and Shami should make use of the pitch and get early wickets, not having KW is a bonus for us."

(Above were during India's first innings batting)

Saftar Haasmi: "When was the previous time Indian pacers bowled a stint of 13 odd overs in subcontinent pitches??? Very rare."

Saif : "Let's analyse the match situation before the play gets underway. I think India is looking good for a massive lead here, if 60 was so good in the last match, anything above 100 will be massive on this track."

VVS Laxman has had a look at the Eden Gardens pitch. He says the cracks on the surface have become loose at the edges, so variable bounce may become more frequent. He suggests batsmen put it out of their mind and bat as normally as possible, but that's definitely easier said than done.

Nes: "Can't remember the last time Indian pacers got 8 wickets in the sub-continent." -- SSC, Colombo, last year.

Sathya Narayana: "Happy to see fast bowlers bowling more overs than spinners in the subcontinent that and too in India."

Day three, 8.50am Morning, everyone. Day three has dawned bright and sunny in Kolkata, but New Zealand's mood probably won't be matching the weather. They're in quite a lot of trouble, trailing by 188 with only three wickets in hand. An early start today, 9.15am, to make up for the overs lost yesterday to rain. (Day 3 began on NZ's 35th over)

(Above are from NZ's 1st innings batting)

(The commentary above is in chronological order.)

Now Let's see Bhuvi's wickets in the 1st NZ innings where he went 5 for 48

Quote

2.4

Kumar to Guptill, OUT, bowled him! It's the line that does Guptill, so close to off stump that he's a little indecisive about playing or leaving. Lifts his bat a little late, it bounces a little more, and hits his elbow and ricochets onto the stumps

Quote

6.4

Kumar to Nicholls, OUT, another batsman plays on! Again Nicholls is shuffling across his crease to a back-of-a-length ball, and this time he jabs with an angled bat and inside-edges onto his stumps. He was still on the move as he played his shot

Quote

28.1

Kumar to Taylor, OUT, and he strikes immediately! Beautiful line, beautiful length, and Taylor jabs at it without really moving his feet, and nicks to first slip. Didn't do all that much, but the line put the doubt in Taylor's mind

Quote

32.1

Kumar to Santner, OUT, Angles into the stumps, keeps a little low from back of a length, and hits his back leg as he hurriedly tries to bring his bat down to defend. As plumb as it can get

Quote

32.2

Kumar to Henry, OUT, whoa, he's bowled him first ball, and Bhuveshwar has a five-for. Back of a length, angling in and nipping in a little more. Stays a little low again, Henry doesn't go forward or back, and it goes past his inside edge and hits off stump

3 bowled, 1 lbw, and 1 edge caught at 1st slip. Only 2 with the new ball this time. The pitch was green and pacer friendly, so much so that our pacers bowled more overs than our spinners. There was also rain and overcast conditions during NZ's batting  up until 34th over. The 35th over started on a sunny day with clear skies. From all this we can see that all 5 of Bhuvi's wickets came from absolutely ideal, perfect conditions for any pace bowler, let alone a swing bowler of Bhuvi's caliber. 

 

Let's see India's 2nd bowling innings where Bhuvi got 1 wicket for 28:

Day 4 Kolkata Pitch Report:

Quote

A lot still left to do, but the pitch isn't quite what it was on day three, and seems to have slowed down considerably.

...

BurceWayne: "Having a look at the control parameter of the batsman currently batting (90%,89%) looks as if the pitch has certainly eased a lot to play now.Hard work for Indian bowlers " -- True. Yesterday, when the pitch was doing all kinds of things, Kohli had a 94% control rate.

...

Piyush: "Since India being 106/6 in their second innings, 238 runs have been scored for the loss of only 5 wickets. This is certainly higher than the match average per wicket. Seems the pitch has eased out significantly."

..

Mk: "For all the talk about a indifferent pitch, it has turned out to be good so far. No one expected the pitch to ease out in the 4th day of a test even with good climate conditions. Clearly a different one from conventional pitches and a good eye-opener for both sides."

...

Ashok Datti: "Indian Pacers : 12(6+6) & Indian Spinners: 8 (4+4). NZ Pacers: 14 (5+6+3) & NZ Spinners : 6(4+2) Looks like a good pitch."

Quote

67.3

Kumar to Patel, OUT, now it's Bhuvneshwar's turn to hit top of off. This swings in from a good length, and Patel plays a poor shot, no footwork, looks to drive on the up away from his body, and leaves a big gate with a 'Welcome to Stumpsville' sign draped across it

Bhuvi's bowls the batsman, a tail-ender, with the old ball. When the conditions on the same pitch at Kolkata eased up, he didn't pick up as many wickets. 

 

What can we summarize from this data:

• We see that Bhuvi's career bowling in India is made of two extremes: a majority of low wicket hauls (0s and 1s) and 3 superior innings with two 3-wicket innings in 2013 vs Australia and one 5-wicket haul in 2016 vs NZ.   
• His two 3-wicket hauls were on standard Indian pitches in standard Indian conditions and were 3 years ago
• His best performance, where he took 5 wickets, was on a green track, under overcast conditions in Kolkata.
• In the same match as his 5 wicket haul in the 1st innings, in the 2nd innings when the pitch eased up and overcast conditions disappeared, he took 1 wicket.   
• Bhuvi created 3 dismissals by bowling the batsmen during the Kolkata 5-wicket haul, an unusually high number for him.
• We see that in his best performances Bhuvi usually takes top order wickets, but most of his wickets come from the new ball (8 out of 13 wickets with the new ball, which is roughly 61%)

What one can see from the data is that his Kolkata 5 wicket haul is a statistical outlier, one that doesn't represent his ability to bowl in India. What happens when we compare his stats in India vs his stats in India without the Kolkata outlier:

 

In India:

Average: 29.81, Strike Rate: 55.5 Economy: 3.22 

 

In India Minus Kolkata(1st innings):

 

	Total Ind	Kolkata 1st Innings	Rest of Ind
Runs	477	48	429
Wickets	16	5	11
Balls Bowled	888	90	796
Overs	148	15	133
Average	29.81	12.67	39
Strike Rate	55.5	27	72.4
Economy	3.22	3.2	3.22

 

We see that Bhuvi's average is 39, strike rate is 72.4, and economy rate is 3.22.

The average jumps up by almost 10 runs.

The strike rate shows that it takes him 17 more balls bowled to take a wicket. 

The economy rate implies that his control is pretty much the same regardless of conditions in India.

 

This leads to the question that needs to be answered: why does Bhuvi deserve to play matches in India? I hardly think that a 5-wicket haul on a green pitch in overcast conditions implies his ability to bowl in India. That innings was clearly an outlier. His true ability in Indian conditions is closer to his 2013 stats. In fact, when we see the 2013 stats, we can see:

 

His average 37.88 strike rate 69.3 from 2013 are actually better than what he has produced since his comeback, excluding the 1st innings in Kolkata, which has actually raised his average in India to 39 and strike rate to 72.4.

 

Let's let Bhuvi be what he is, a specialist bowler in swing friendly/green conditions. That would be best for him and our team. 

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Tibarn
Forgot something

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

This leads to the question that needs to be answered: why does Bhuvi deserve to play matches in India? I hardly think that a 5-wicket haul on a green pitch in overcast conditions implies his ability to bowl in India. That innings was clearly an outlier. His true ability in Indian conditions is closer to his 2013 stats. In fact, when we see the 2013 stats, we can see:

 

His average 37.88 strike rate 69.3 from 2013 are actually better than what he has produced since his comeback, excluding the 1st innings in Kolkata, which has actually raised his average in India to 39 and strike rate to 72.4.

 

Let's let Bhuvi be what he is, a specialist bowler in swing friendly/green conditions. That would be best for him and our team. 

 

 

Strawman argument, since nobody is saying Bhuvi should be the first choice pacer in India or a 'must bowl', aka Wasim Akram kinda guy.

 

The argument is, he deserves to play BEFORE Umesh Yadav. 

 

The answer to that, is simple:

 

1. Overall FC record : Bhuvi has 155 wickets (excluding Tests) from 49 matches @ 26.71, St/R : 58.3, Econ rate: 2.74

Umesh :  33 matches, 106 wickets @ 28.69, St/R: 54.4, econ rate : 3.16

 

So clearly, we can see that in India, over a long stretch, Bhuvi is a better bowler than Umesh in FC cricket.

 

2. @ home, Umesh has 32 wickets in 14 matches @ 34.40, str/R : 65.1  Econ: 3.16

    @ home, Bhuvi has  26 wickets in 8 matches @ 28.19, St/R: 59.1, Econ: 2.85

 

So again, Bhuvi has bowled better at home. 

Your argument of 'he exploited favourable conditions so his stats are inflated' is irrelevant, because he too had favorable conditions to bowl in : Eg, in Delhi last year, where 15 of 35 wickets fell to pacers in the test, Umesh took 5-41 over two innings. He also took 7-103 in Kolkata against west indies, where 14 of 26 wickets taken by bowlers (there was 1 run out) were captured by pacers. 

So its not like Bhuvi got the one rare green top in India and Umesh has not.

 

3. In the same matches played, Bhuvi has out-performed Umesh both times and both matches were played on wickets not friendly towards pacers.

Combined match stats for both:

1 (vs Australia) : Bhuvi : 44-5-168-1 , Umesh : 30-5-182-1

2. (vs England):  Bhuvi : 17-1-60-1, Umesh: 14-2-48-0

 

So we can see, though the sample is small, that Bhuvi has outperformed Umesh both time they've played together in Tests. Importantly, both the times were on non-friendly wickets to pacers, since we can safely establish that on wickets that favour pacers, Bhuvi >> Umesh.

 

Umesh simply isn't a good bowler. A bowler who cannot hold it together for more than 4-5 balls in a row, better be Ian Botham-esque in delivering a peach literally every 4-5 balls to make up for delivering utter crap every 4-5 balls. Which he doesn't. At most, Umesh bowlers 8-10 really good deliveries in 20-25 overs, which largely get neutralized due to him bowling crap every 4-5 balls. 

 

Umesh has had his chances and he has categorically demonstrated that he is not a frontline bowler - at best, he can be effective in company of bowlers like Shami/Ishant/Bhuvi being the 3rd/4th bowler, who will get wickets simply because the batsmen will go after him more than the others, as the others are much tighter bowlers. 
That is not the sort of bowler you want in a team that lacks world class pace-attack, coz Shami/Bhuvi/Ishant themselves are not good enough to make up for Umesh's release-balls against good teams.

 

[rkt.india]

12 hours ago, radhika said:

But it does debunk the view that Bhuvi is not as good as Umesh in Indian conditions .

The guy has played 5 years of FC cricket in Indian conditions before he came into the team.If he was not good...he would not get selected for the Indian team .Period.

Boobies record in India got inflated due to that 5-fer on a green pitch at Kolkata against NZ.

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Strawman argument, since nobody is saying Bhuvi should be the first choice pacer in India or a 'must bowl', aka Wasim Akram kinda guy.

 

The argument is, he deserves to play BEFORE Umesh Yadav. 

 

The answer to that, is simple:

 

1. Overall FC record : Bhuvi has 155 wickets (excluding Tests) from 49 matches @ 26.71, St/R : 58.3, Econ rate: 2.74

Umesh :  33 matches, 106 wickets @ 28.69, St/R: 54.4, econ rate : 3.16

 

So clearly, we can see that in India, over a long stretch, Bhuvi is a better bowler than Umesh in FC cricket.

 

2. @ home, Umesh has 32 wickets in 14 matches @ 34.40, str/R : 65.1  Econ: 3.16

    @ home, Bhuvi has  26 wickets in 8 matches @ 28.19, St/R: 59.1, Econ: 2.85

 

So again, Bhuvi has bowled better at home. 

Your argument of 'he exploited favourable conditions so his stats are inflated' is irrelevant, because he too had favorable conditions to bowl in : Eg, in Delhi last year, where 15 of 35 wickets fell to pacers in the test, Umesh took 5-41 over two innings. He also took 7-103 in Kolkata against west indies, where 14 of 26 wickets taken by bowlers (there was 1 run out) were captured by pacers. 

So its not like Bhuvi got the one rare green top in India and Umesh has not.

 

3. In the same matches played, Bhuvi has out-performed Umesh both times and both matches were played on wickets not friendly towards pacers.

Combined match stats for both:

1 (vs Australia) : Bhuvi : 44-5-168-1 , Umesh : 30-5-182-1

2. (vs England):  Bhuvi : 17-1-60-1, Umesh: 14-2-48-0

 

So we can see, though the sample is small, that Bhuvi has outperformed Umesh both time they've played together in Tests. Importantly, both the times were on non-friendly wickets to pacers, since we can safely establish that on wickets that favour pacers, Bhuvi >> Umesh.

 

Umesh simply isn't a good bowler. A bowler who cannot hold it together for more than 4-5 balls in a row, better be Ian Botham-esque in delivering a peach literally every 4-5 balls to make up for delivering utter crap every 4-5 balls. Which he doesn't. At most, Umesh bowlers 8-10 really good deliveries in 20-25 overs, which largely get neutralized due to him bowling crap every 4-5 balls. 

 

Umesh has had his chances and he has categorically demonstrated that he is not a frontline bowler - at best, he can be effective in company of bowlers like Shami/Ishant/Bhuvi being the 3rd/4th bowler, who will get wickets simply because the batsmen will go after him more than the others, as the others are much tighter bowlers. 
That is not the sort of bowler you want in a team that lacks world class pace-attack, coz Shami/Bhuvi/Ishant themselves are not good enough to make up for Umesh's release-balls against good teams.

 

Muloghonto why don't you context in mind. BK played for UP, a lot in North India in Winters where pitches have helped seamers. I would say his record isn't great despite playing on a lot of helpful pitches. Praveen Kumar who also played along with him on those same pitches has a better record than him. While Umesh plays fir Vidarbha at Nagpur, a pitch that has been either flat or spin friendly, barely has anything for pacers, despite that, he averages 28. You need to take everything into context and not compare just stats. Joginder Sharma averaged 22 in FC cricket, does that mean he is a better bowler than BK, no, he isn't. But the kind of pitches got in UP, he won't be getting those while playing for India.

[Texan]

19 hours ago, express bowling said:

In this test match, Ishant has replaced Bhuvi and not Umesh Yadav.  

There are two pacers picked and Bhuv is not one of them. Who replaced whom is irrelevant and does not alter the argument in any manner. 

[Tibarn]

 For an argument to be a strawman, it must misrepresent another argument. Where exactly in that post is there a quotation of another poster's argument? 

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Strawman argument, since nobody is saying Bhuvi should be the first choice pacer in India or a 'must bowl', aka Wasim Akram kinda guy.

The argument is, he deserves to play BEFORE Umesh Yadav. 

For an argument to be a strawman, it must misrepresent another argument. Where exactly in my post is there a quotation of another poster's argument?  The only thing that is addressed by my post is my own question from literally my first sentence: 

Quote

In regards to Bhuvi, I guess the question is whether he is as good in India as his numbers indicate. Here is a list of all his innings bowled in India:

The whole post investigates if Bhuvi is actually as good in India as his numbers indicate. Where is there a mention of first choice pacer in India or Umesh vs Bhuvi by my post. The only time in thread that I mentioned Umesh is a post starting with this first sentence:

Quote

Not really interested in the Bhuvi vs Umesh stuff...

The entire Umesh variable was left out of the post you quoted. It is actually you who is creating a strawman, by misrepresenting and misapplying my entire post in order to funnel it to a different question, one that I didn't address. 

 

I actually agree with @express bowling 's earlier post, the question for the selectors was Bhuvi or Ishant.  Umesh vs Bhuvi is a false choice relying on the false assumption that Ishant was the first choice pacer over Umesh. The fact is that Shami and Umesh were the first choice pacers the entire series, with Ishant not playing any of the 1st 3 tests, being released from the squad for the 4th(wedding), and finally playing in this match with Shami out. The think tank clearly chose Umesh as the 2nd seamer to Shami this series.

 

 

Quote

1. Overall FC record : Bhuvi has 155 wickets (excluding Tests) from 49 matches @ 26.71, St/R : 58.3, Econ rate: 2.74

Umesh :  33 matches, 106 wickets @ 28.69, St/R: 54.4, econ rate : 3.16

 

So clearly, we can see that in India, over a long stretch, Bhuvi is a better bowler than Umesh in FC cricket.

 This argument is problematic in a number of ways, IMO. The claim that Bhuvi is a better bowler in FC is not clear.

 

We see that Bhuvi has a 26.71 vs 28.69 for Umesh. However Umesh has a 54.4 strike rate vs Bhuvi's 58.3. 

As bowling strike rate is defined as the number of balls bowled before a wicket is taken, there is a legitimate argument that it is a better measure of a bowler's quality in Test cricket, as wicket-taking is arguably more valuable than run-saving in this format. Just from the FC record, Umesh is the superior wicket-taker and Bhuvi the superior bowler in terms of economy. I have not seen, or done, any statistical analysis of which is more important, so this comes down to one's preference. The caveat to this is that Kumble implied that bowling strike rate is something that he looks at. If the coach of India values it as a statistic, normal fans should maybe also give it proper weight when evaluating bowlers.   

 

The second problem and third problems are what rkt.india said:  

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

context in mind. BK played for UP, a lot in North India in Winters where pitches have helped seamers. I would say his record isn't great despite playing on a lot of helpful pitches. Praveen Kumar who also played along with him on those same pitches has a better record than him. While Umesh plays fir Vidarbha at Nagpur, a pitch that has been either flat or spin friendly, barely has anything for pacers, despite that, he averages 28. You need to take everything into context and not compare just stats. Joginder Sharma averaged 22 in FC cricket, does that mean he is a better bowler than BK, no, he isn't. But the kind of pitches got in UP, he won't be getting those while playing for India.

I don't watch Ranji trophy, so someone else can better argue the point about differences in FC pitches, but I do remember that Nagpur tends to be in favor of spin. 

 

FC stats as the basis of selection would lead to a number of issues. This would be bowler rankings based off FC numbers

1) Vinay Kumar 23.5 average and 49.2 strike rate

2) Bhuvi    26.71 average and 58.3 strike rate

3)  Zaheer 27.97 average 51.0 strike rate

 

From FC stats, rather than continuing the false choice of Bhuvi vs Umesh, one should go after our FC Dale Steyn, Vinay, who has only played 1 Test match.

 

Quote

2. @ home, Umesh has 32 wickets in 14 matches @ 34.40, str/R : 65.1  Econ: 3.16

    @ home, Bhuvi has  26 wickets in 8 matches @ 28.19, St/R: 59.1, Econ: 2.85

 

So again, Bhuvi has bowled better at home. 

Your argument of 'he exploited favourable conditions so his stats are inflated' is irrelevant, because he too had favorable conditions to bowl in : Eg, in Delhi last year, where 15 of 35 wickets fell to pacers in the test, Umesh took 5-41 over two innings. He also took 7-103 in Kolkata against west indies, where 14 of 26 wickets taken by bowlers (there was 1 run out) were captured by pacers. 

So its not like Bhuvi got the one rare green top in India and Umesh has not.

The continued strawman and false choice fallacies aside, the first 2 sets of numbers do indeed support the idea that Bhuvi is better than Umesh at home, but I never claimed otherwise. 

 

Regarding the bolded part: 

1) Claiming data is irrelevant is not an argument: It is simple statistics that one looks for outliers in a data set. The list of all of Bhuvi's innings in India were presented. If it is your argument that he is a good bowler in Indian conditions and deserves to play over Umesh/Ishant/Vinay"Dale Steyn" Kumar, based on a single innings on a green-top, under overcast conditions, feel free to make the argument. I think the data is clear in regards to Bhuvi. 

2) Strawman of "no green-tops for Umesh": Once again, nothing was argued related to Umesh vs Bhuvi. A high percentage of wickets taken by pacers is not indicative of being a green-top.Umesh has always been a skilled proponent of reverse swing as well. If you want to go through the pitch reports for the innings you quoted to show that Umesh has also played on green-tops, and despite that, he is still inferior to Bhuvi, feel free.  I'm not really interested in an argument that I didn't make.

 

I have already seen Umesh's bowling innings list before. Instead of any particular outlier innings, his statistical distribution bowling at home is skewed based on who is the captain he is bowling under, which also conveniently includes a gap of 3 years between being in the test team: 

*MS Dhoni	2011-2012	5	10	129.3	13	489	18	4/80	7/103	27.16	3.77	43.1	0	0
*V Kohli	2015-2016	9	17	217.5	53	612	14	3/9	5/41	43.71	2.80	93.3	0	0

Under Dhoni's captaincy, Umesh had numbers comparable to Steyn and Waqar, but under Kohli's he has the stats of a club level bowler. Why is this, I don't really know(although I have some theories), but I am not really interested in analyzing this, as I am not making a Umesh vs Bhuvi argument. 

 

I won't address the rest of your post, as it relies on attacking an argument that I didn't make. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rkt.india]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Your argument of 'he exploited favourable conditions so his stats are inflated' is irrelevant, because he too had favorable conditions to bowl in : Eg, in Delhi last year, where 15 of 35 wickets fell to pacers in the test, Umesh took 5-41 over two innings. He also took 7-103 in Kolkata against west indies, where 14 of 26 wickets taken by bowlers (there was 1 run out) were captured by pacers. 

So its not like Bhuvi got the one rare green top in India and Umesh has not.

 

Mulo bhai, stop doing pootiyappa like this and start watching games. None of the Delhi and that Kolkata pitch against WI were green pitches. All of those wickets taken by Umesh were with old ball using reverse.  He played a huge role us winning both those games. Delhi pitch was as dead as a dodo before Umesh bowled a magical spell of reverse swing that took India to win. Otherwise, it was heading towards a draw.

Edited December 19, 2016 by rkt.india

[rkt.india]

.

Edited December 19, 2016 by rkt.india

[Texan]

6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

In regards to Bhuvi, I guess the question is whether he is as good in India as his numbers indicate. Here is a list of all his innings bowled in India:

Filtered data from 2013:

Career averages

	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
unfiltered	16	27	404.3	92	1210	42	6/82	6/46	28.80	2.99	57.7	4	0	Profile
filtered	6	11	104.0	18	341	9	3/31	3/60	37.88	3.27	69.3	0	0

Filtered data from 2016:

Career averages

	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
unfiltered	16	27	404.3	92	1210	42	6/82	6/46	28.80	2.99	57.7	4	0	Profile
filtered	2	4	44.0	7	136	7	5/48	6/76	19.42	3.09	37.7	1	0

What can we see from this data? We see there are two portions of Bhuvi's bowling career in India: his debut year in 2013 and his recent comeback in 2016. Only 4 of his 15 innings are since his comeback, so it's hard to say if anything improved or not since 2013. 

 

 

 

From 2013

We can see that his economy rate was all over the place, sometimes hovering slightly below 5 and other times only slightly above 1. His wicket count is mostly binary numbers, 1s and 0s, but there are two 3 wicket hauls vs the Aussies: 1st innings in Hyderabad and 2nd Innings in Mohali

 

Hyderabad :

Pitch Report

It references the Chennai pitch from the 1st test so let's see what that pitch was like:

Chennai

Pitch Report:

So we see that the Hyderabad pitch wasn't a raging turner, and was more similar to a standard Indian pitch. 

Now let's see Bhuvi's wickets in the 1st innings in Hyderabad where he got 3 for 53

So 2 wickets off in-swingers (1 bowled and 1 lbw) and 1 caught off a short-ball, on a pretty standard Indian pitch. The caveat is that all three of his wickets were inside the 20th over with the new to newish ball. 

 

On to Mohali:

Pitch Report:

On to his wickets, 3 for 31 in the 2nd innings

3 different types of wickets taken: an edge caught by Dhoni, an lbw starting from outside leg, and bowled via an inswinger. Once again, all the wickets came within the 20th over. The pitch was flat and the Aussies batted 3rd, so keep in mind the expected deterioration on a 3rd-4th day pitch. 

 

As mentioned earlier, these were his two best bowling innings in terms of wickets in 2013, with the rest being 0s and 1s.  

 

Moving on to the 2016:

Bhuvi has bowled a total of 4 innings in 2016, so any conclusions that one would draw would be premature. Nevertheless:

 

At quick glance, it appears that Bhuvi 2016 has improved or at least stabilized his economy rate and control in India, with him not going at/or above a 4 economy rate in any of the 4 innings. However, one can argue stabilization instead, as there are none below 2 either.His wicket count reads as: 5, 1, 0, 1. The 5 wicket haul was in Kolkata against NZ during India's 1st bowling innings (days 2-3).

 

Let's thoroughly look through that test match: 

Pitch report:

Now Let's see Bhuvi's wickets in the 1st NZ innings where he went 5 for 48

3 bowled, 1 lbw, and 1 edge caught at 1st slip. Only 2 with the new ball this time. The pitch was green and pacer friendly, so much so that our pacers bowled more overs than our spinners. There was also rain and overcast conditions during NZ's batting  up until 34th over. The 35th over started on a sunny day with clear skies. From all this we can see that all 5 of Bhuvi's wickets came from absolutely ideal, perfect conditions for any pace bowler, let alone a swing bowler of Bhuvi's caliber. 

 

Let's see India's 2nd bowling innings where Bhuvi got 1 wicket for 28:

Day 4 Kolkata Pitch Report:

Bhuvi's bowls the batsman, a tail-ender, with the old ball. When the conditions on the same pitch at Kolkata eased up, he didn't pick up as many wickets. 

 

What can we summarize from this data:

• We see that Bhuvi's career bowling in India is made of two extremes: a majority of low wicket hauls (0s and 1s) and 3 superior innings with two 3-wicket innings in 2013 vs Australia and one 5-wicket haul in 2016 vs NZ.   
• His two 3-wicket hauls were on standard Indian pitches in standard Indian conditions and were 3 years ago
• His best performance, where he took 5 wickets, was on a green track, under overcast conditions in Kolkata.
• In the same match as his 5 wicket haul in the 1st innings, in the 2nd innings when the pitch eased up and overcast conditions disappeared, he took 1 wicket.   
• Bhuvi created 3 dismissals by bowling the batsmen during the Kolkata 5-wicket haul, an unusually high number for him.
• We see that in his best performances Bhuvi usually takes top order wickets, but most of his wickets come from the new ball (8 out of 13 wickets with the new ball, which is roughly 61%)

What one can see from the data is that his Kolkata 5 wicket haul is a statistical outlier, one that doesn't represent his ability to bowl in India. What happens when we compare his stats in India vs his stats in India without the Kolkata outlier:

 

In India:

Average: 29.81, Strike Rate: 55.5 Economy: 3.22 

 

In India Minus Kolkata(1st innings):

 

	Total Ind	Kolkata 1st Innings	Rest of Ind
Runs	477	48	429
Wickets	16	5	11
Balls Bowled	888	90	796
Overs	148	15	133
Average	29.81	12.67	39
Strike Rate	55.5	27	72.4
Economy	3.22	3.2	3.22

 

We see that Bhuvi's average is 39, strike rate is 72.4, and economy rate is 3.22.

The average jumps up by almost 10 runs.

The strike rate shows that it takes him 17 more balls bowled to take a wicket. 

The economy rate implies that his control is pretty much the same regardless of conditions in India.

 

This leads to the question that needs to be answered: why does Bhuvi deserve to play matches in India? I hardly think that a 5-wicket haul on a green pitch in overcast conditions implies his ability to bowl in India. That innings was clearly an outlier. His true ability in Indian conditions is closer to his 2013 stats. In fact, when we see the 2013 stats, we can see:

 

His average 37.88 strike rate 69.3 from 2013 are actually better than what he has produced since his comeback, excluding the 1st innings in Kolkata, which has actually raised his average in India to 39 and strike rate to 72.4.

 

Let's let Bhuvi be what he is, a specialist bowler in swing friendly/green conditions. That would be best for him and our team. 

 

You don't post an attempt at an analytical post when you have already drawn a conclusion. When you do such, you have to be objective. Question is not whether he is a World beater in India or not. Question is whether he is better than the two other pacers picked. That is what you should be analyzing and that is what is completely missing in your post. How does he compare with Umesh and Ishant? Would like to see that analysis. And yes, excluding a player's best performance implies that you are penalizing him for doing well. That is pretty ridiculous. Cherry picking at its best.