Current Most indispensable cricketer in the world

[smash84]

Zaheer is as indispensable now as a pair of used condoms.

.

Your analogies are hilarious

 

[Cabinet96]

Shakib for me simply because of how much better he is than the rest of the team. Kallis as well because without him SA would have to change their balance. There is a case for Steyn but SA have other capable bowlers. Generally it's quite likely to be an allrounder.

 

[Cevno]

Zaheer.

People have recently gone into a habit of exaggerating his injury problems. He has just missed one home test in the last 2 and a half years almost and played more tests in the past 2 years than Gambhir. He is really very very crucial for India on strong Away tours specially.

 

[Cevno]

I'd be suprised if Zaheer plays Test cricket again, so he's hardly indispensible.

Why would you be surprised?

And still speculation doesn't mean he becomes dispensable.

 

[Furball]

Why would you be surprised?

And still speculation doesn't mean he becomes dispensable.

Because he is 33 and coming off the back of a serious injury that will rule him out for at least 4 months. Serious injuries aren't the sort of thing that gives longevity to a career already in its closing stages, particularly when you have an injury history that's as chequered as Zaheer's. You might think it's overplayed, but in the last year India have played 18 Tests. Zaheer has missed 11 of those through various little niggles.

His bowling ability might make him indispensable but his injury status and recent history make him extremely dispensable. India need to forget about the idea that Zaheer is the leader of their attack - if they can get him fit and bowling, fantastic, but it's not something they should be banking their future on.

 

[Cevno]

Because he is 33 and coming off the back of a serious injury that will rule him out for at least 4 months. Serious injuries aren't the sort of thing that gives longevity to a career already in its closing stages, particularly when you have an injury history that's as chequered as Zaheer's. You might think it's overplayed, but in the last year India have played 18 Tests. Zaheer has missed 11 of those through various little niggles.

His bowling ability might make him indispensable but his injury status and recent history make him extremely dispensable. India need to forget about the idea that Zaheer is the leader of their attack - if they can get him fit and bowling, fantastic, but it's not something they should be banking their future on.

Bowlers have come back previously from injuries at 30 plus before, so won't be surprised at all if he comes back tbh. And it's not like it was a injury which was something new but a injury like Sehwag's shoulder problem he was carrying for a while and required surgery which he had been delaying. For all we know it could mean that now he can come back cured from it.

Time will tell though and till then it is all speculation.

And the srilanka series was more than a year ago, while he was rested precautionally against the Windies more than anything. Since then he played the whole of the World Cup,IPL and some other ODI series too.

 

[Furball]

Zaheer.

People have recently gone into a habit of exaggerating his injury problems. He has just missed one home test in the last 2 and a half years almost and played more tests in the past 2 years than Gambhir. He is really very very crucial for India on strong Away tours specially.

How very selective and intellectually dishonest of you.

 

[Cevno]

How very selective and intellectually dishonest of you.

Care to elaborate?

Or have we started now speculating on future injury problems instead of injury problems of player in the past?

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

I voted for Shakib but all four are pretty good options.

The fact that England are such a great side right now is further highlighted by this fact - none of their players can be called truly indispensable. There is enough depth and bench strength to take care even if one or two (or more) key players are missing from action.

To me, that's the trait of a very high quality team. That's also the reason why I believe that this English team is destined to go places in the near future.

 

[Furball]

Bowlers have come back previously from injuries at 30 plus before, so won't be surprised at all if he comes back tbh. And it's not like it was a injury which was something new but a injury like Sehwag's shoulder problem he was carrying for a while and required surgery which he had been delaying. For all we know it could mean that now he can come back cured from it.

Time will tell though and till then it is all speculation.

The fact that it seems to be a recurrent ankle problem only strengthens my argument.

Remember Andrew Flintoff? Kept breaking down with various ankle problems? We were all constantly reassured that Flintoff's prognosis was good and that he would comeback from injury better than ever. Two things happened - Flintoff was a lesser bowler when he did manage to get himself fit enough to play, and he kept getting injured. And it wasn't unlucky injuries like a side strain that would have been frustrating - he kept getting the same injury problems again and again.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the third time in the last year that Zaheer has been unable to play thanks to an ankle problem. For injuries to keep recurring like that, it's not down to bad luck; there is a fundamental problem either with Zaheer's body or in his action which will make him prone to continually picking up ankle injuries. And it's not like he's some young buck like Ishant who you can book in for surgery, rehab him properly and then hopefully he'll never be troubled by it again. Zaheer is 33. Even if he was fully fit, he'd still probably only have 2-3 years maximum left in him. When you've only got a short time left, and you were in Zaheer's shoes, would you risk breaking down again to get fit for the hardest, most arduous form of the game (and given the shape Zaheer was in when he arrived in England, I think it's safe to say he's not a fan of doing hard work in the gym) or do you take the Brett Lee route and take it easy with 50 and 20 over cricket?

I'd be extremely surpised to see Zaheer in the side when England tour India next year.

 

[Furball]

Care to elaborate?

Or have we started now speculating on future injury problems instead of injury problems of player in the past?

"He's only missed one home Test in the last 2 and a half years" - you've ignored or glossed over the fact that in roughly the last year, Zaheer has:

Missed the entire series in Sri Lanka
Missed the opening Test in South Africa
Missed the entire series in West Indies
Played one Test out of four in England (in which he failed to last 14 overs before hobbling off injured.)

So Zaheer might very well have played a lot of Tests at home. But in the last 13 months he's played just 3 out of 13 Tests away from home.

 

[Furball]

I voted for Shakib but all four are pretty good options.

The fact that England are such a great side right now is further highlighted by this fact - none of their players can be called truly indispensable. There is enough depth and bench strength to take care even if one or two (or more) key players are missing from action.

To me, that's the trait of a very high quality team. That's also the reason why I believe that this English team is destined to go places in the near future.

James Anderson is as close as you'll get to indispensible.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Obviously no-one's literally indispensable, Sri Lanka are playing tests without Murali still, after all, but India with a fit Zaheer are a world class test side and without him, well we've all seen the summer.

In the spirit the thread was intended I'd say he's the most indispensable cricketer in that he's by far and away the single most vital player to any team's chances.

 

[Xuhaib]

James Anderson is as close as you'll get to indispensible.

no not really if he gets injured you don't say "**** how are we going to pick 20 wickets" however with Steyn and Zaheer thats the first thing that comes to your mind

 

[BoyBrumby]

no not really if he gets injured you don't say "**** how are we going to pick 20 wickets" however with Steyn and Zaheer thats the first thing that comes to your mind

Disagree with Steyn.

He's the best bowler in the world currently, but I think SA would still be a very competitive unit without him. In fact they won here in 2008 with minimal input from him.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

James Anderson is as close as you'll get to indispensible.

Which proves my point. England shot out Lanka for under 100 in Wales without him.

Even in the Indian series, guys like Bresnan and Broad have assumed greater roles despite Jimmy's presence in the team.

In a perfect team, no guy would be indispensable. Whatever nasty surprises come their way, such a team would be able to field a winning eleven any day of the week in any conditions. This English team ain't perfect, but a bloody good one.

 

[Furball]

no not really if he gets injured you don't say "**** how are we going to pick 20 wickets" however with Steyn and Zaheer thats the first thing that comes to your mind

Which is why I said "as close as you'll get" in this England team. He's by far England's most important player.

Disagree with Steyn.

He's the best bowler in the world currently, but I think SA would still be a very competitive unit without him. In fact they won here in 2008 with minimal input from him.

South Africa's win was as much built on their batsmen as their bowlers, and they still had a 3 years younger Kallis bowling nippy outswingers, Andre Nel and Makhaya Ntini as servicable Test options. If Steyn went down now you'd have Morne Morkel carrying an otherwise inexperienced attack.

 

[Cevno]

The fact that it seems to be a recurrent ankle problem only strengthens my argument.

Remember Andrew Flintoff? Kept breaking down with various ankle problems? We were all constantly reassured that Flintoff's prognosis was good and that he would comeback from injury better than ever. Two things happened - Flintoff was a lesser bowler when he did manage to get himself fit enough to play, and he kept getting injured. And it wasn't unlucky injuries like a side strain that would have been frustrating - he kept getting the same injury problems again and again.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the third time in the last year that Zaheer has been unable to play thanks to an ankle problem. For injuries to keep recurring like that, it's not down to bad luck; there is a fundamental problem either with Zaheer's body or in his action which will make him prone to continually picking up ankle injuries. And it's not like he's some young buck like Ishant who you can book in for surgery, rehab him properly and then hopefully he'll never be troubled by it again. Zaheer is 33. Even if he was fully fit, he'd still probably only have 2-3 years maximum left in him. When you've only got a short time left, and you were in Zaheer's shoes, would you risk breaking down again to get fit for the hardest, most arduous form of the game (and given the shape Zaheer was in when he arrived in England, I think it's safe to say he's not a fan of doing hard work in the gym) or do you take the Brett Lee route and take it easy with 50 and 20 over cricket?

First of all he hasn't missed 3 times in the last year with a ankle problem so from where you are getting that from.

Secondly, his situation is more similar to Sehwag's than Flintoff's because like Sehwag's Shoulder he has been delaying a ankle surgery for a while now. While Flintoff had surgery and his problem was recurring and same with Simon Jones who has had many surgeries if i am right.

If you see the last year and a half both Sehwag and Zaheer were fit for all the crucial series before this one(ODI and tests), but missed some less important ones. This was because they didn't want to risk aggravating the problem. Sehwag missed the ODI's in SA and NZ for example but played through the Whole World cup and the tests at home against AUS and also the South Africa tour tests. Same with ZAK who missed WI tour, and many ODI's too but then was fit for the World cup,SA tour and the home test against AUS.

Sehwag couldn't bowl for all this while or throw like he used to, and Zaheer was playing with a niggle so it would resurface now and then. This was done because surgery would rule them out for months and there wasn't sufficient break between 2 tours to do that without missing the next crucial competition. Sehwag ultimately had his surgery during the IPL so famously if you recall.

Now see Ishant Sharma is delaying his surgery after the Australia tour similarly -

Cricket | Ishant delays surgery until next year | ESPNSTAR.com

I think Zaheer 2 had he not done his hamstring could have played in this series even with his ankle problem and it wasn't a problem that was a major hindrance, but with a decent gap between now and the next big tour and already in flak for injury management they sent him for surgery immediately. So he has as much chance of returning better as he has of returning more crocked if not more.

I'd be extremely surpised to see Zaheer in the side when England tour India next year.

I think he will make a comeback for sure for before then. Won't be anything surprising if he plays that series for me tbh.

As for the Brett Lee comparison that is all speculation, and secondly unlike Lee he isn't reliant on pace and is needed more by India than Lee was by Australia. And also he is having his best spell of his test career right now and is a guaranteed starter unlike Lee who was at a different stage of his career and performance in both the formats.
Don't think we need him for ODI's that much either, that he can assume he will get selected for the ODI setup necessarily and the selectors/management will allow him to retire from tests even if he could play them. Not that he would want to do that.

Besides he is not as key in India where we play with 2 spinners and Ishant gets a lot better. Though obviously he will be a big miss.

 

[Cevno]

"He's only missed one home Test in the last 2 and a half years" - you've ignored or glossed over the fact that in roughly the last year, Zaheer has:

Missed the entire series in Sri Lanka
Missed the opening Test in South Africa
Missed the entire series in West Indies
Played one Test out of four in England (in which he failed to last 14 overs before hobbling off injured.)

So Zaheer might very well have played a lot of Tests at home. But in the last 13 months he's played just 3 out of 13 Tests away from home.

See the context of how he missed those tours and why explaine abpove tbh. And still that statement i made was correct.

 

[BoyBrumby]

South Africa's win was as much built on their batsmen as their bowlers, and they still had a 3 years younger Kallis bowling nippy outswingers, Andre Nel and Makhaya Ntini as servicable Test options. If Steyn went down now you'd have Morne Morkel carrying an otherwise inexperienced attack.

Well, true but Morkel was their leading wicket taker back then and is three years further on as a player now.

SA would miss him, no doubt, but have some decent options to bring in.