Kumble announces ODI retirement

[silentstriker]

It is also interesting to note that wickets with uneven bounce help him (like they do other bowlers) but turning wickets with relatively even bounce don't help him to nearly the same degree.

Example: First two Tests in SA, he was effective due to bounce, but the pitch had almost no turn. The third test was a turner, where a SAffie finger-spinner owned the Indian line up (it feels weird every time I say that), but Kumble was largely ineffective.

 

[Richard]

I think I've had this argument with you before, but I think I'm up for it again.

Kumble relies very much on bounce. He relies in the variation in bounce he gets with the different deliveries he has at his disposal, and the fact that he generally gets more bounce than batsmen in the first place.

He relies on topspin and underspin. That, IMO, is different from relying on bounce. That's why he's been effective on surfaces receptive to spin and not on non-receptive ones.

 

[Richard]

It is also interesting to note that wickets with uneven bounce help him (like they do other bowlers) but turning wickets with relatively even bounce don't help him to nearly the same degree.

I still seem to recall a couple of Tests in the recentish India-England series where he turned it appreciably. And caused problems in doing so.

 

[silentstriker]

I still seem to recall a couple of Tests in the recentish India-England series where he turned it appreciably. And caused problems in doing so.

No one is denying that turn helps him a little bit. But only turn without uneven bounce makes him much less effective than uneven bounce with less turn.

Obviously, ideally as any bowler, you'd want both. But Kumble needs more uneven bounce than spin.

 

[Richard]

Maybe. But receptiveness-to-spin > unrecepetivenes-to-spin for him. That's all I'm saying.

Uneven bounce, as I say, is pretty well always better for a bowler than even bounce.

 

[silentstriker]

Uneven bounce, as I say, is pretty well always better for a bowler than even bounce.

Undoubtedly, but he relies on it more than other spinners.

Maybe. But receptiveness-to-spin > unrecepetivenes-to-spin for him. That's all I'm saying.

Well, it would be hard to disagree with that. I would just say though that the difference, if not minimal, is still small.

 

[shankar]

No one is denying that turn helps him a little bit. But only turn without uneven bounce makes him much less effective than uneven bounce with less turn.

Obviously, ideally as any bowler, you'd want both. But Kumble needs more uneven bounce than spin.

If that were true, then you'd expect him to be merely decent on the first 3 days of tests in India and really come into his own only on the 4th and 5th days when the uneven bounce kicks in. But there have been so many occasions when Kumble has single-handedly run through sides on the first day (in India). He's rarely produced performances on 5th day pitches abroad (when you'd expect there to be some uneven bounce) that he produces regularly on the first day in India. That would indicate to me a greater reliance on turn.

Even though he doesn't turn the ball much he relies on turning wickets because he can then occasionally slip in the odd flighted delivery that turns a fair bit and prevent the batsman from playing him like a medium pacer.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, there was a period in the nineties when they were able to play him as a medium pacer and render him ineffective. But he came back from it by introducing more variations, and not necessarily ones that involve that much more turn.

 

[shankar]

It is also interesting to note that wickets with uneven bounce help him (like they do other bowlers) but turning wickets with relatively even bounce don't help him to nearly the same degree.

Example: First two Tests in SA, he was effective due to bounce, but the pitch had almost no turn. The third test was a turner, where a SAffie finger-spinner owned the Indian line up (it feels weird every time I say that), but Kumble was largely ineffective.

The first two tests his average was low because he got a bunch of tail-ender wickets. In the last test the pitch only had slow turn (which isn't conducive to his bowling) and even that was only from a region of rough well outside the right-hander's leg-stump. Hence he wasn't able to exploit it.

 

[Richard]

Actually, there was a period in the nineties when they were able to play him as a medium pacer and render him ineffective. But he came back from it by introducing more variations, and not necessarily ones that involve that much more turn.

Graham Gooch was the man who devised that tactic (and Michael Atherton talked about it a lot during that Nagpur Test played on as unhelpful - to a bowler - a surface you're likely to see), in fact upon facing him for the first time in 1990. He also mentioned during the Mohali Test (of the same tour as the just-mentioned Nagpur one) how that doesn't work when his Leg-Break turns, as it did in said Test.

 

[haroon510]

i have always enjoyed when he was trashed by pakistani batsmans like shahid afridi, saeed anwar, inzi around the park. he is a good test bowler though. i would like to watch him bowle in test matches but one day i would go with h. singh.

 

[adharcric]

i have always enjoyed when he was trashed by pakistani batsmans like shahid afridi, saeed anwar, inzi around the park.

Say what?

 

[haroon510]

i said he is a good test bowler now stop posting score cards lol. still i enjoyed when he was hit for 6 fours in one over by saeed anwer. that is what happend i am not sure but close to that lol

 

[Richard]

Say what?

What a terrific game - to prove that, with requistite conditions, excellent spinners like Saqlain Mushtaq can still take ten-fors against a team containing some of the best players of spin of the modern era in Dravid, Tendulkar, Azhar, Ganguly and Mongia.

EDIT: 16 no-balls in 24 overs! Srinath really could be ridiculous on that front of times. Afridi's strike-rates are crazily low, too.

 

[adharcric]

What a terrific game - to prove that, with requistite conditions, excellent spinners like Saqlain Mushtaq can still take ten-fors against a team containing some of the best players of spin of the modern era in Dravid, Tendulkar, Azhar, Ganguly and Mongia.

EDIT: 16 no-balls in 24 overs! Srinath really could be ridiculous on that front of times. Afridi's strike-rates are crazily low, too.

 

[honestbharani]

Haha, well... it's a pretty crazy suggestion for the most part, but still... there has been a time when it's been true.

Hogg in ODIs only was a better bowler 11\1\2003-current day than Kumble was in said time.

yeah, but the generalization was what bugged me.

 

[Richard]

?

 

[pup11]

IMO, taking him to the WC ahead of Powar was always a crazy move, he hadn't played any serious odi cricket for last two years so basically in a way he retired from odi cricket a long time ago itself.


Kumble seems to be in record chase-down mode now it test cricket it seems otherwise can't see i reason behind him continuing in test cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

Kumble seems to be in record chase-down mode now it test cricket it seems otherwise can't see i reason behind him continuing in test cricket.

Yea, I mean the only reason to continue would be is if he were still good. Like you know, if he averaged less than his career average and took something like 53 wickets in his last 10 matches.

So unless you actually watch him play tests, or look at his stats, or read the match reports, or know that the heck is going on in the game of Test cricket, you really wouldn't see a reason behind him continuing in Test cricket.

 

[Richard]

How anyone can seriously question Kumble's Test place is beyond me.

So was how he didn't retire from ODIs at least 2 years ago.