India: Deserved of No. 1?

[tooextracool]

Who cares we have:

I have a lot of time for Sreesanth, I've rated him since I saw him against England in 2006, but Id like to see how he goes for another series before I can form a concrete opinion about him.

 

[tooextracool]

Never understand why people rate Pakistans seam attack. Sure it has Asif, sometimes, but apart from that it is pretty toothless and there is no depth at all. Id take Indias fast bowling resources right now. Guess that is just my opinion.

Seamers that have played Tests in the last 2 years that have more than 10 career Test wickets at less than 40

Eng = 7

Aus = 7

NZ = 9

SA = 7

Ind = 6

Pak = 2

WI = 5

Even with such loose criteria a three man attack cant be made.

I think its important to note that Pakistan have played something like 4 test series in the last 2 years. This has many implications in that a) they have been short of test match practice. b) the samples used are not really accurate because they have gone through fewer bowlers than other countries.

Anyways, AFAIC, I understand that their pace attack revolves largely around Asif, but the same can be made about India which revolves entirely around Zaheer. Personally, I dont think there is too much doubt that Asif is considerably better than Zaheer, and the records back that up. I think in Aamer and Gul they have the makings of a very good pace bowling attack and as long as they refrain from picking the likes of Arafat, Rana Naved, Rauf, Tanvir, Anjum they will be fine.

 

[tooextracool]

Pakistan has jus one good consistent fast bowler in Asif. It is too early to rate Aamir now. He is having a great season just like Ishant had a year or two back. Zaheer and Sreesanth are two good quality test bowlers. Ishant is having an off season but the talent is there and he surely will be back. Our pace bowlers are underrated purely based on their statistics which does not take into account the terrible pitches they've had to play on in our country. I don't think many if not any visiting fast bowler has really performed in India since 07 barring perhaps Steyn and Watson which says it all.

I am not sure if Sreesanth can be counted as a quality bowler. I like him, but one good inning on return doesnt prove anything and as far as I understand, his performance since the tour to SA 4 years ago is poor.

Ishant I think is one of several overrated players going around and I would much rather have Munaf and Sreesanth in my side ahead of him on any given day.

Zaheer Khan is a good bowler, but as I have mentioned before, his action is a hindrance to his accuracy and his waywardness is a reason why his ER is usually high and also why his series averages are higher than they perhaps should be. Nonetheless hes always a constant threat with the ball.

 

[Cruxdude]

I am not sure if Sreesanth can be counted as a quality bowler. I like him, but one good inning on return doesnt prove anything and as far as I understand, his performance since the tour to SA 4 years ago is poor.

Ishant I think is one of several overrated players going around and I would much rather have Munaf and Sreesanth in my side ahead of him on any given day.

Zaheer Khan is a good bowler, but as I have mentioned before, his action is a hindrance to his accuracy and his waywardness is a reason why his ER is usually high and also why his series averages are higher than they perhaps should be. Nonetheless hes always a constant threat with the ball.

I beg to differ. I think Ishant has the potential to be the best Indian fast bowler ever. Not that that is such a tough job. He is very young and will surely learn from the tough times.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Manoj Prabhakar was interviewed a few days back. Apparently he was involved in coaching Ishant at an earlier point in time. He doesn't hold out much hope for Ishant if he carries on the way he is. Prabhakar mentioned how he himself started out as a 120 kph bowler, and improved to 130+ by the age of 30. He's convinced Ishant will end up in the Irfan Pathan category of Indian bowlers who go the other way unless he radically sorts out the basics of his game.

 

[morgieb]

I beg to differ. I think Ishant has the potential to be the best Indian fast bowler ever. Not that that is such a tough job. He is very young and will surely learn from the tough times.

Kapil Dev says 'hi'.

That said, dunno what the hell happened to Ishant Sharma. Could've been a great bowler for them.

 

[DaRick]

It's hard to say, really. If they really are the #1 Test side, it is by a margin small enough that the loss of form of one significant Indian player (i.e - Tendulkar) could see that title wrested from them.

I also feel that their #1 ranking may be a fairly short-term affair, especially in Tests. Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman are all getting old and would surely be either about to retire or already retired by 2012 or so, if not before. You will see your batting stocks decline - India have been remarkably lucky to have all three in their ranks at the same time. Sehwag and Gambhir may be forced to carry the batting lineup (although people like Vijay have fairly good FC records). I'm also assuming that Sehwag's hand-eye coordination hasn't been reduced by then (he relies a lot on it).

Zaheer Khan, their most accomplished quick, will be a fair bit creakier by then and may struggle more with injury. There is a heap of potential in their pace stocks after Khan, with the likes of Sreesanth and Sharma, but whether that will be fulfilled remains a mystery. For instance, I am truly amazed at how far Sharma has fallen over the past year or so. Harbhajan will do the job as a spinner at home, but whilst Mishra is promising, he's no Kumble, so don't expect him to turn in Kumble's latter-day performances. Their fielding may improve with infusion of youth, but that's relative. Other things, like possible cronyism/corruption (picking people from certain districts) may prove a hindrance.

Their ODI team looks in better shape due to the infusion of youth, but they have few quality ODI bowlers and still view Tendulkar as a talismanic figure.

In summary, both Indian teams (but especially the Test teams) are likely to face tough times ahead.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

India deserve their number 1 status as they have got the results to get there.Whether they stay there long term is up for debate as they have an old batting line up that needs replacing and i also think that the top 5 have very little between them at present as has been shown by the results in the recent England,Australia and South Africa series in which they have competed against each other.

We may well see a lot of chopping and changing at the top over the next few years as no side has a pair of outstanding bowlers like the Aussies did during the 90's and most of the noughties.It all makes for some interesting cricket and some heated debate in the coming months/years.

 

[Ikki]

'India not a long-term No. 1' | Time Out | Cricinfo Talk | Cricinfo.com
Ian Chappell and Sanjay Manjrekar guest on the first episode of Time Out, a new fortnightly show

 

[Cruxdude]

Predictions don't make the future, performances will make it. Let us wait and see.

 

[Sir Alex]

Kapil Dev says 'hi'.

That said, dunno what the hell happened to Ishant Sharma. Could've been a great bowler for them.

He is only 20 for god's sake.

 

[Pratters]

'India not a long-term No. 1' | Time Out | Cricinfo Talk | Cricinfo.com
Ian Chappell and Sanjay Manjrekar guest on the first episode of Time Out, a new fortnightly show

Isn't Chappell the same person who said Tendulkar should retire when he was going through a rut. Heh. He has some thing against India IMO.

Regarding bowlers, on paper, SA is a stronger team because of the bowlers they possess, however consistency gets you to number 1, not what you have on paper.

 

[Ikki]

Isn't Chappell the same person who said Tendulkar should retire when he was going through a rut. Heh. He has some thing against India IMO.

I am not a Chappell apologist or anything of the sort, but that one example has been used ad nauseam. At the time many people thought he should retire; he looked nothing like his best; pretending like it was a biased opinion based on nothing is just revisionism.

 

[Cruxdude]

I still believe an attack of Zaheer, Ishant, Sreesanth, and Harbhajan would be more than a handful on non subcontinent pitches.

 

[Pratters]

I am not a Chappell apologist or anything of the sort, but that one example has been used ad nauseam. At the time many people thought he should retire; he looked nothing like his best; pretending like it was a biased opinion based on nothing is just revisionism.

Well I for one thought he had a lot of cricket left in him as shown by my constant backing of Tendulkar at the time.

In any case, it is harsh to write a player off like Chappell had done.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well I for one thought he had a lot of cricket left in him as shown by my constant backing of Tendulkar at the time.

In any case, it is harsh to write a player off like Chappell had done.

Yeah it was, but lots of people on this forum were saying the same thing. I don't think it suggests he has anything against India - he hasn't said anything completely outrageous in either case. I disagreed with him about Tendulkar but it wasn't a position that proves a bias by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Pratters]

Yes I see what you and ikki are saying but this is not the only time Chappell has said some thing against India or an Indian which makes me conclude he is slightly biased against India. I can't point at specifics but my opinion is not formed by only this.

And I must add I do rate Chappell's comments and analysis on the game apart from what he has to say about India as I believe he has a very sharp cricketing mind.

 

[pasag]

The continuous knocking of India's title is ridiculous. Yes they're no Aus or WI, but so what? As was said before you don't have to be the dominant side to be a number 1, you just have to be better than everyone else and India at the moment are.

 

[pasag]

Yes I see what you and ikki are saying but this is not the only time Chappell has said some thing against India or an Indian which makes me conclude he is slightly biased against India. I can't point at specifics but my opinion is not formed by only this.

And I must add I do rate Chappell's comments and analysis on the game apart from what he has to say about India as I believe he has a very sharp cricketing mind.

Nah, he's one of the least biased non-English comms going around these days.

 

[Sir Alex]

I am not a Chappell apologist or anything of the sort, but that one example has been used ad nauseam. At the time many people thought he should retire; he looked nothing like his best; pretending like it was a biased opinion based on nothing is just revisionism.

There is something called out of form and Chappell surprisingly for a cricketer of his astute observation and experience didn't even discount that with the injury he was sporting then.