When will India become Number Uno?

[Goughy]

Not all of it, just a lot. They still get a lot more out of their players than the Indians do out of their own. The Indians seem to be missing more than a few tricks each time.

Im just thinking of guys like Bond and Cairns (amongst others) from recent years who were not the limited and hard working pros but special talents.

Due to a far shallower talent pool there is a space for the industrious cricketer but they have produced their fair share of players that are a bit special. I cant think that these guys could be classed in the inferior bracket when one, or possibly both, could walk into an Indian alltime XI.

Obviously India has been clearly stronger in the batting department but NZ has also produced explosive players as well.

NZs problem isnt that they produce 'inferior' players. They produce some amazing players. I believe that is is a depth issue. They cannot get XI good players on the field at one time. Its a numbers game and their talent levels drop off after the top few.

EDIT- Im just putting XIs together in my mind and maybe neither would make an Indian Alltime XI but it would raise intersting selection issues.

 

[silentstriker]

Bond would make it. Easily.

 

[Goughy]

Bond would make it. Easily.

If Cairns was included then 3 seamers (Kapil, Cairns and Srinath maybe) could be played, 2 spinners and bat all the way down.

Would be an interesting selection

 

[Richard]

Bond would make it. Easily.

In Tests? I've said all his career that Bond's Test achievements are hopelessly overrated. He was undoubtedly a bowler of huge potential but in the end he accomplished less than Frank Tyson.

 

[Uppercut]

It depends whether you pick on achievements or on who was actually the better bowler.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, with Bond we can only say he was probably a good bowler. Not much more than that.

For all we know he might've turned-out relatively moderate as a Test bowler. It's pretty unlikely, but it's far from impossible and I'd not want to be taking things for granted.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't think you do his bowling in the tests he did play justice tbh, but okay.

 

[silentstriker]

If Cairns was included then 3 seamers (Kapil, Cairns and Srinath maybe) could be played, 2 spinners and bat all the way down.

Would be an interesting selection

No Srinath. Amar Singh/Momd. Nissar would probably play.

In Tests? I've said all his career that Bond's Test achievements are hopelessly overrated. He was undoubtedly a bowler of huge potential but in the end he accomplished less than Frank Tyson.

Yea, but this is the Indian XI.

 

[Richard]

Even so, you could make no case IMO for Bond playing in a home Test.

Away (or, more accurately, outside the subcontinent) yeah, sure. But in a home Test I'd happily have three spinners Gupte, Bedi and Chandra, plus Kapil and one of Nissar \ Amar Singh.

 

[DaRick]

To the OP, it's not a matter of when, but if. Losing four of the Stand-out Six (Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Kumble and Sehwag), as may happen, would hurt any team's chances at doing so.

Or are you referring to the ODI and T20 formats?

 

[Richard]

Don't think you do his bowling in the tests he did play justice tbh, but okay.

Well let's look:

2 Tests in Australia producing 3 for 289. Now, sure, it's a Test debut series, but even so that's poor.

2 Tests in West Indies producing 7-112 and 5-104. The first playing a crucial part in a victory, the second doing a good job on a flat pitch.

2 Tests at home to India producing 12-196. Excellent figures, sure, but trust me, any half-decent seamer should have done (and did do) well on the pitches that series.

2 Tests in Sri Lanka producing 3-97 and 2-97. I'm assured that in the first of these he actually bowled quite superbly and didn't get the figures he deserved, but the second is still a poor performance.

2 Tests at home to West Indies in 2005/06, producing 1 excellent performance (7-126) and 1 poor one (1-87). Again the good performance was on a deck that offered plenty to bowlers (the top score of the game was 275), of both types incidentally.

2 Tests at home to Sri Lanka in 2006/07, with similar results - 7-106 and 3-152. Both these pitches offered something to the seamers and the second was a poor performance not to take advantage of it.

1 Test in South Africa in 2007/08 again on a deck offering plenty to seam, on which 5-133 was actually a pretty poor effort.

Now as you can see, certainly not a poor career by any stretch. 13 Tests, average of 27.25. But given that nearly half (6) of these games were on seaming decks (a rarity for his career period) I don't think it's actually particularly impressive either. Bond's ODI superlativeness often makes people think he was better in Tests than he really was.

 

[Lambu]

To the OP, it's not a matter of when, but if. Losing four of the Stand-out Six (Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Kumble and Sehwag), as may happen, would hurt any team's chances at doing so.

Or are you referring to the ODI and T20 formats?

Sehwag is only 29!! Aus will lose the like of ponting,hayden,hussey much before India lose sehwag.

To answer the question..i don't think its set in stone that India will occupy the top spot...yet.However there are encouraging signs.Either way,we'll know in about 3 years, i reckon.

 

[Uppercut]

Now as you can see, certainly not a poor career by any stretch. 13 Tests, average of 27.25. But given that nearly half (6) of these games were on seaming decks (a rarity for his career period) I don't think it's actually particularly impressive either. Bond's ODI superlativeness often makes people think he was better in Tests than he really was.

Few things to say in response, firstly that his ODI bowling suggested, strongly, that he was an excellent test bowler. If you can, as he did in ODIs, consistently bowl very fast, take wickets quickly, not go for many runs and bowl very accurately and with some movement, it's extremely unusual to fail as a test player. Secondly, out of the first fifteen (out of 17) tests he played, NZ didn't lose a single one. Bond was a talisman, his ability to force a wicket when needed complimenting the honest performers the NZ team tends to be full of. As with Flintoff, the improvement Bond brought to the team was more than just that of his ability. Finally, his ability was obvious to anyone who watched him playing in tests. I'm sure you'll agree that while one can't be sure, it certainly looked in no way a fluke when he skittled teams.

 

[Richard]

Few things to say in response, firstly that his ODI bowling suggested, strongly, that he was an excellent test bowler. If you can, as he did in ODIs, consistently bowl very fast, take wickets quickly, not go for many runs and bowl very accurately and with some movement, it's extremely unusual to fail as a test player.

Undoubtedly, which is why I say I doubt many would have questioned his potential as a Test bowler. However, fact of the matter is, he didn't play much and when he did he was no more than pretty good. This is different to being a proven performer who no-one doubts the capabilties of. Very occasionally, people simply inexplicably fail to produce the goods at a certain level or game-form.

Secondly, out of the first fifteen (out of 17) tests he played, NZ didn't lose a single one. Bond was a talisman, his ability to force a wicket when needed complimenting the honest performers the NZ team tends to be full of. As with Flintoff, the improvement Bond brought to the team was more than just that of his ability.

I'm not entirely sure about that TBH. They were obviously always going to beat Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, so 4 of those 15 aren't of the remotest relevance. On at least 2 occasions of the other 11, they were saved by lost play and would almost certainly have lost had time been made-up (Second Test in Aus and Second Test in SL). And although not losing a single game is a decent performance, you'd expect anyone to beat India and SL away, and beat West Indies. I think it's more a case of Bond happening to be fit when NZ were playing series they'd expect to win than his performance inspiring team-mates. On the second home-SL instance, even the expected didn't happen.

Finally, his ability was obvious to anyone who watched him playing in tests. I'm sure you'll agree that while one can't be sure, it certainly looked in no way a fluke when he skittled teams.

Of course it didn't. As I say, I'm not for one second questioning his ability, merely his performance. I have always maintained that people have overstated the calibre of his actual performance.

 

[Precambrian]

Even so, you could make no case IMO for Bond playing in a home Test.

Away (or, more accurately, outside the subcontinent) yeah, sure. But in a home Test I'd happily have three spinners Gupte, Bedi and Chandra, plus Kapil and one of Nissar \ Amar Singh.

Must be kidding to prefer Gupte to Kumble.

 

[Precambrian]

Sehwag is only 29!! Aus will lose the like of ponting,hayden,hussey much before India lose sehwag.

To answer the question..i don't think its set in stone that India will occupy the top spot...yet.However there are encouraging signs.Either way,we'll know in about 3 years, i reckon.

Sehwag is 29, Laxman is 33. And Tendulkar if injuries do not happen, will play for another 2 years. Loss of Ganguly and Dravid (of today) and Kumble should not be much of a problem.

 

[Richard]

Must be kidding to prefer Gupte to Kumble.

To give Kumble the gig (in the subcontinent, never outside) would not be completely unreasonable but Gupte has a very strong case for being India's best spinner and one of the first names on the mythical XI sheet - presuming, that is, he had a good catching cordon in this mythical game(s) in question.

 

[Precambrian]

To give Kumble the gig (in the subcontinent, never outside) would not be completely unreasonable but Gupte has a very strong case for being India's best spinner and one of the first names on the mythical XI sheet - presuming, that is, he had a good catching cordon in this mythical game(s) in question.

Same applies to Kumble too.

What is this "strong case" that makes him preferred over Kumble?

 

[Richard]

Same applies to Kumble too.

Clearly, it applies to any bowler - the point I was making, in a by-the-by way, is that Gupte did not have such a thing in his day and suffered liberally from dropped catches; Kumble has obviously suffered like any bowler has because unfortunately no fielder is completely faultless, but there've been several outstanding catchers in his day who've missed notably less than those in Gupte's day did.

What is this "strong case" that makes him preferred over Kumble?

You've read of Subhash Gupte I presume? If not, read some more.

It wouldn't be difficult. Our own SJS will surely, as he always is, be only too happy to provide.

 

[Precambrian]

Clearly, it applies to any bowler - the point I was making, in a by-the-by way, is that Gupte did not have such a thing in his day and suffered liberally from dropped catches; Kumble has obviously suffered like any bowler has because unfortunately no fielder is completely faultless, but there've been several outstanding catchers in his day who've missed notably less than those in Gupte's day did.

You've read of Subhash Gupte I presume? If not, read some more.

It wouldn't be difficult. Our own SJS will surely, as he always is, be only too happy to provide.

I have reasonably. But not too well. Glad if SJS or someone can give me more. I've looked at his statistics and he's played well against NZ and Pak, while his records against England and Aus are pretty mediocre. That too in an age when spin bowling was much easier than today. However, am intrigued, and my opinion could be revised if I know more about this bowler.