Hey England, guess what ? Umesh-Shami Out played your seamers

[sourab10forever]

Hats off to these guys. Shami-Umesh combination was a revelation this series.

Anderson+Stokes+Barbie+Woakes+Ball looked pale in front of them on the same pitches.

Really well played. True phaaaaast bowling

 

[vvvslaxman]

Broad is the only one who has it in him to bowl on these types of pitches. Even he was outbowled by Shami.

[Tibarn]

Shami and Umesh had 10 combined catches dropped off their bowling in the series! 

[Mosher]

Broad was England's best pacer. Stokes bowled well too.

[G_B_]

I worry about shami

 

dont think he is going to last for long

[Vilander]

thwy were 5-10 k faster 

[Riju23]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Shami and Umesh had 10 combined catches dropped off their bowling in the series! 

This is still concerning - they'd be so much more dangerous if we caught the way Eng/SA/Aus do

[Tibarn]

12 minutes ago, Riju23 said:

This is still concerning - they'd be so much more dangerous if we caught the way Eng/SA/Aus do

I agree. Since we are in India, the spinners can eventually make up the wickets, as our pitches favor them, but in the countries you mentioned, we need to catch every chance created. Our spinners can't save us there. 

[tweaker]

Very impressed by Shami Umesh combo ....speed,aggression, variations,.

[cowboysfan]

2 hours ago, G_B_ said:

I worry about shami

 

dont think he is going to last for long

He can rest for 2 months for the Aussie series.

[fineleg]

Ishant Sharma? ok-ish support bowler?

[putrevus]

Yes they outdid England's seamers in this series but you have to credit spinners for their success too, their relentless pressure allows seamers to bowl fresh and attack,They still have long way to go Broad still has the best bowling figures for a fast bowler in this series. This is where Umesh and Co need to improve a lot  they need to take more wickets .

[express bowling]

For the first time I am seeing the opposition camp  genuinely appreciative of our opening bowling pair in a test series.  Previously, it was praise for just  Kapil or Srinath or Zaheer.

 

The English commentators could not stop praising Shami and  Umesh.   Talked about their pace, aggression and accuracy...as well as their skiddy nature which gave the batsmen little time to adjust.

[sandeep]

21-6-42-2

 

10-2-17-1

 

 

Very quietly, Ishant stacked together 2 innings of decent bowling stats.  Unfortunately I was away and did not get to watch much of this game.  But the numbers look extremely good, particularly in a high scoring game on a flat track.  

 

I still stick by my words, that Ishant is a wonderful 3rd seamer to have away from home.  With a fit Shami, it will always boil down to a competition between Bhuvi and Umesh for that other seamer spot, unless we play 4 quicks - which I believe we shouldn't.  

 

Really unfortunate that we have to wait such a long time before this team tests itself in Oz/Eng/SA.    

 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

For the first time I am seeing the opposition camp  genuinely appreciative of our opening bowling pair in a test series.  Previously, it was praise for just  Kapil or Srinath or Zaheer.

 

The English commentators could not stop praising Shami and  Umesh.   Talked about their pace, aggression and accuracy...as well as their skiddy nature which gave the batsmen little time to adjust.

I dont know about you bu I dont like that word. When Eng/Aus bowlers bowls a stock ball at 138 thats pace, when an indian bowler bowls a 142 thats skiddy ?.  indian commentators should remind them its not skidding its basically pace on the ball.

[sandeep]

Skiddy because the Umesh has a low-slung action that doesn't bounce as much.  Dude, don't get over-defensive.  I know the English can be very patronizing and issue all sorts of qualifiers and half-compliments, but this isn't one to get worked up over.  Its been acknowledged repeatedly that Indian pacers have out-bowled their English counterparts in pace and effectiveness.  

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Skiddy because the Umesh has a low-slung action that doesn't bounce as much.  Dude, don't get over-defensive.  I know the English can be very patronizing and issue all sorts of qualifiers and half-compliments, but this isn't one to get worked up over.  Its been acknowledged repeatedly that Indian pacers have out-bowled their English counterparts in pace and effectiveness.  

yeah yeah Um and Shami are shorter so they skidd on...etc but they do have bouncers and effective ones like how Moeen bhai found out...so its a lot of BS from the English..basically, someone around them can happily remind them.

[Vilander]

low slung action ?, umesh has a more classical action, he is just short so may be the bounce in his stock ball is lesser. 

[express bowling]

2 minutes ago, Vilander said:

I dont know about you bu I dont like that word. When Eng/Aus bowlers bowls a stock ball at 138 thats pace, when an indian bowler bowls a 142 thats skiddy ?.  indian commentators should remind them its not skidding its basically pace on the ball.

Skiddy nature of bowlers has to do with the behaviour of the ball after pitching and the trajectory of the ball due to the height and release point of the  pacer.  It is a bowling type and not a derogatory term.  The ball has to travel a shorter distance due to the low release point and hence the batsmen have less time to play it, even if the release speed is same.

 

Some of the greatest quicks in history are skiddy...like Steyn, Marshall, Waqar, Johnson,

 

The other type is bouncy, which is usually found among the tall quicks with high arm action...like Ambrose, Walsh, Broad, Garner.

 

Ishant is not a skiddy pacer and no one calls him that.  Umesh and Shami are skiddy pacers.

 

We see a lot of tall and non-skiddy pacers from England, Australia, SA etc.  and hence they are not called skiddy.

 

Mark Wood, the quickest English seamer, is a skiddy bowler and Hussain was pointing out that he would have been more effective in India as he was a skiddy quick like Shami and Umesh.

[G_B_]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

21-6-42-2

 

10-2-17-1

 

 

Very quietly, Ishant stacked together 2 innings of decent bowling stats.  Unfortunately I was away and did not get to watch much of this game.  But the numbers look extremely good, particularly in a high scoring game on a flat track.  

 

I still stick by my words, that Ishant is a wonderful 3rd seamer to have away from home.  With a fit Shami, it will always boil down to a competition between Bhuvi and Umesh for that other seamer spot, unless we play 4 quicks - which I believe we shouldn't.  

 

Really unfortunate that we have to wait such a long time before this team tests itself in Oz/Eng/SA.    

 

 

To be honest i thought Ishant was more effective than Umesh

 

The problem with Ishant is he needs to be challenged. So long as you rotate these pacers, it will bring the best out of them