*Official* Road to India in Australia 2011/12

[Cruxdude]

He'll be back, I am sure of it!

The last time I saw him was in the IPL and he was getting good shape in it. Would e great if he is back in full flow.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

India have a lots of expriance play in Australia. So the most candidate of winner is India.

I hear their opposition have lots of experience playing in Australia too though.

 

[karan316]

Firstly, While I agree with you that Agarkar was an underrated and fantastic ODI bowler, In this context, ODI abilities are completely irrelevant in knowing how good a test cricketer is. Same applies to Pathan.

Secondly, Irfan Pathan does have 100 test wickets in 29 matches @ 32.26. However that includes 39 wickets in 4 games @ 11.5 against Zimbabwe and B'desh. Excluding that in his 25 remaining matches, i.e., about 90% of his test career, He has 61 wickets @ 45.5.

and what about his batting? Irfan made 6 fifties and 1 century in 40 innings( was not out 5 times), so i guess overall as a test cricketer its a decent all round contribution. His 100 wickets are also ok considering that he also made useful contributions with the bat.

 

[Turbinator]

I hear their opposition have lots of experience playing in Australia too though.

 

[Furball]

and what about his batting? Irfan made 6 fifties and 1 century in 40 innings( was not out 5 times), so i guess overall as a test cricketer its a decent all round contribution. His 100 wickets are also ok considering that he also made useful contributions with the bat.

Because his batting ability is irrelevant when considering his merits as a bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

and what about his batting? Irfan made 6 fifties and 1 century in 40 innings( was not out 5 times), so i guess overall as a test cricketer its a decent all round contribution. His 100 wickets are also ok considering that he also made useful contributions with the bat.

A man who averages 32 with the bat and 45 with the ball against competitive opposition is not making a good overall contribution, particularly when he's employed as an opening bowler who bats eight for the vast majority of his career. Pathan's Test career so far has indeed been crap. Agarkar's was even worse.

 

[karan316]

How well Agarkar and Pathan have done in ODIs isn't relevant in the slightest to my point.

You said that they are 'crap', but they are not, thats my point, overall, as cricketers, they were decent enough.

 

[Teja.]

and what about his batting? Irfan made 6 fifties and 1 century in 40 innings( was not out 5 times), so i guess overall as a test cricketer its a decent all round contribution. His 100 wickets are also ok considering that he also made useful contributions with the bat.

Do you think averaging 45 with the ball at about 2 wickets-per-game and averaging 30 with the bat scoring 1000 runs at 30 in 25 games as a number 8 is a mark of a quality test cricketer?

 

[Furball]

You said that they are 'crap', but they are not, thats my point, overall, as cricketers, they were decent enough.

They are crap Test bowlers. I don't care how they've done in ODIs, nor is it relevant.

 

[Teja.]

A man who averages 32 with the bat and 45 with the ball against competitive opposition is not making a good overall contribution, particularly when he's employed as an opening bowler who bats eight for the vast majority of his career. Pathan's Test career so far has indeed been crap. Agarkar's was even worse.

WAC.

z

 

[karan316]

They are crap Test bowlers. I don't care how they've done in ODIs, nor is it relevant.

Why are you changing you statement?
First you said 'they are crap', and now you are saying that they are 'crap test bowlers' and ODIs are not relevant, why are ODIs not relevant? because they are proving your point wrong?

 

[Prince EWS]

why are ODIs not relevant?

Welcome to CricketWeb.

 

[Furball]

Why are you changing you statement?
First you said 'they are crap', and now you are saying that they are 'crap test bowlers' and ODIs are not relevant, why are ODIs not relevant? because they are proving your point wrong?

Because I was quite obviously referring to the Test series in my original statement that you got all whiny about.

 

[karan316]

Welcome to CricketWeb.

So Michael Bevan is not a great player just because he doesn't have a great test record?

 

[Prince EWS]

So Michael Bevan is not a great player just because he doesn't have a great test record?

Pretty much. He was an all-time great ODI player and he was an all-time great Sheffield Shield player for NSW and then Tasmania but in Tests he was a wasted talent (or figured out, depending on where you stand on his technique). He was certainly not a great cricketer, although I believe he could have been if things worked out a little differently.

 

[Cevno]

He'll be back, I am sure of it!

AWTA.

I certainly seem to rate him slightly higher than most here, it seems. Just had faded away by the time he was dropped and lost his way completely after the start, trying to do many things at one time. While playing too many ODI's also contributed.

But now seems to have got his swing back and improved his fitness too.

 

[karan316]

A man who averages 32 with the bat and 45 with the ball against competitive opposition is not making a good overall contribution, particularly when he's employed as an opening bowler who bats eight for the vast majority of his career. Pathan's Test career so far has indeed been crap. Agarkar's was even worse.

His poor bowling average is due to the 14 tests he has played on Indian wickets(which are spin friendly), his away record isn't bad even if you don't consider the 4 tests vs Ban and Zim. And you cannot underestimate his contributions with the bat, he has also batted higher in the batting order at times and has made useful contributions. The problem with him was that he wasn't utilised properly, the team management didn't handle him well and made him play too much cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

I certainly seem to rate him slightly higher than most here, it seems.

Don't worry - the longer he spends out of the national side and the less he bowls, the less everyone remembers how bad he became and the more everyone rates him. I noticed more and more people rating him the longer he went without playing a First Class match. Now he's gone one better and started succeeding at a low level of cricket without fans actually being able to watch his mediocre bowling skills, so it's only a matter of time until you're regarded a Pathan hater.

 

[karan316]

Pretty much. He was an all-time great ODI player and he was an all-time great Sheffield Shield player for NSW and then Tasmania but in Tests he was a wasted talent (or figured out, depending on where you stand on his technique). He was certainly not a great cricketer, although I believe he could have been if things worked out a little differently.

This is not fair, nothing can come close to test cricket, but ODIs have their challenges too, why can't great ODI players be termed as great cricketers?

 

[Prince EWS]

This is not fair, nothing can come close to test cricket, but ODIs have their challenges too, why can't great ODI players be termed as great cricketers?

The same reasons why great players of Stick Cricket or Codemasters Ricky Ponting Cricket 07 aren't termed as great cricketers, really.