***Official*** India in England 2014

[Daemon]

He's pretty much Bhuvi without the batting

 

[Blocky]

We do. He is called Shami.

Very early in his career, if I recall rightly, Ishant averaged just under 30 in his first ten tests too. Shami is good, no doubt - but you need three quality seamers. So name me two more that are available that are better than Ishant?

I again reiterate, I fully expect Ishant to be India's best bowler this series.

 

[hendrix]

Very early in his career, if I recall rightly, Ishant averaged just under 30 in his first ten tests too. Shami is good, no doubt - but you need three quality seamers. So name me two more that are available that are better than Ishant?

We don't yet know if they're better, because they haven't been given the opportunity. But it's not much of a risk to play them ahead of a guy who's averaged 50 over the last 4 years at an economy of 3.3 and a strike rate of 90. They could be worse. But there's a significant chance that they'll be better.

 

[Blocky]

Coming off the back of a series in NZ where he took 15 wickets (more than any other bowler) at an average of 25. Next best performer was the named Shami - who took wickets at 35. Then there is daylight and guys averaging 44 through to 87.

And England and NZ aren't similar at all in bowling conditions are they? Oh wait, they are.

So, let's drop our most experienced bowler, who is coming off one of his best series with the ball against a batting line up that took all of the other tried bowlers apart, in conditions that are similar to the ones he just did well in, because he averages 35 over his career.

 

[hendrix]

Coming off the back of a series in NZ where he took 15 wickets (more than any other bowler) at an average of 25.

Look, I agree, you shouldn't drop a player after a performance like that. But it's going to be worse for India in the long run than giving their other promising players a shot.

 

[Blocky]

Ever seen any side be successful taking an absolutely green bowling attack into a series against one of the top nations? Shami is the next most experienced bowler with just six tests.

I just don't agree with that whole "OK, well, someone has to do better in their career, so lets pick them now" - pick the most likely 11 for any test. It's why I hate the idea of a Sodhi selection.

 

[hendrix]

Ever seen any side be successful taking an absolutely green bowling attack into a series against one of the top nations? Shami is the next most experienced bowler with just six tests.

I just don't agree with that whole "OK, well, someone has to do better in their career, so lets pick them now" - pick the most likely 11 for any test. It's why I hate the idea of a Sodhi selection.

Is a guy who's averaged 50 over 4 years more likely to play better than debutant bowlers who've been taking wickets efficiently at first class level? No, IMO.

It's possible that Pankaj and Pandey could be crap, but I think they're likely to do better than Ishant.

 

[Blocky]

Ishant has taken 98 wickets at 40 in the last 4 years. 26 June 2010 to 26 June 2014.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So the only guys that are out performing him statistically are Shami (who is selected) - Khan, who is unavailable, Praveen Kumar and Yadav who have such a small sample and haven't had to play against Australia, Sri Lanka or South Africa.

The reality is, the Indian bowling cupboard is pretty bare - Sharma isn't world class, but he is in the top three seamers currently available for India by any metric - be his last 4 years, be his last 4 series. He's not helped by the fact that most of the wickets are taken by spin bowlers for India and that he's never really had a consistent bowling partner in that time frame - as seen by the fact that the next best pace bowler only has 32 wickets to his 98. So you can assume that other guys might do better than him, but the reality is - short of a few exceptions, he'd probably make most Indian sides over the years as the third seamer. Do you think Venkatesh Prasad would've played ahead of him?

Also in the case of Kumar and Yadav - the teams they've done well against ( West Indies ) - Sharma averages better than them against. Sharma's average is inflated by poor performances against those three top batting sides containing most of the worlds world class players. At the same time, no other seam bowler for India has done well against those nations, with exception being Yadav who performed OK against England - in 1 match and Kumar who had a golden summer in England but hasn't even been selected for IPL teams until injuries recently put him in the running.

 

[the big bambino]

There's not much separating the Indian and the Sri Lankan attacks at the moment, to be honest. India's soi-dissant leader of the attack has a 40+ average and a strike rate tending to infinity. While the other two quicks have played only a handful of test matches.

Bhuvi in tests has been nowhere near to success he has enjoyed in ODIs though it could be argued that most of his tests have been home tests where not much can be asked out of a fast bowler.

Atleast on paper, Bhuvi and Shami are no different from Eranga and Pradeep. Probably only a tad better, but that's it. And Nuwan Kulasekara is a 100x better bowler for English conditions, than Ishant Sharma

Sri Lanka also had the dibbly-dobbly cutters friom Angelo to fall back on when their pacers got tired. India have only one such bowler in the squad who'll, in all probability, not do much on the tour apart from carrying bottles and changing bat grips.

My opinion is India's pace attack is actually very very good and would be better still if they didn't inexplicably leave out Yadav. I'm anticipating a very good series for both bowling units.

 

[hendrix]

Ishant has taken 98 wickets at 40 in the last 4 years. 26 June 2010 to 26 June 2014.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So the only guys that are out performing him statistically are Shami (who is selected) - Khan, who is unavailable, Praveen Kumar and Yadav who have such a small sample and haven't had to play against Australia, Sri Lanka or South Africa.

The reality is, the Indian bowling cupboard is pretty bare - Sharma isn't world class, but he is in the top three seamers currently available for India by any metric - be his last 4 years, be his last 4 series. He's not helped by the fact that most of the wickets are taken by spin bowlers for India and that he's never really had a consistent bowling partner in that time frame - as seen by the fact that the next best pace bowler only has 32 wickets to his 98. So you can assume that other guys might do better than him, but the reality is - short of a few exceptions, he'd probably make most Indian sides over the years as the third seamer. Do you think Venkatesh Prasad would've played ahead of him?

Also in the case of Kumar and Yadav - the teams they've done well against ( West Indies ) - Sharma averages better than them against. Sharma's average is inflated by poor performances against those three top batting sides containing most of the worlds world class players. At the same time, no other seam bowler for India has done well against those nations, with exception being Yadav who performed OK against England - in 1 match and Kumar who had a golden summer in England but hasn't even been selected for IPL teams until injuries recently put him in the running.

I realise you're taking a pragmatic approach here, and there are reasons to justify his inclusion from a consistency of selection point of view. Certainly he's been the mainstay of the Indian attack in the past few years.

It's just very clear to me that his performances over a long period have been below par. And watching other bowlers, I think it's worth the gamble to give them a shot. Basically, I don't think Ishant is in the top 3 Indian pace bowlers available. Even in the cases when he did perform (e.g. NZ), I didn't think he bowled particularly well. Shami bowled better than him in NZ for fewer rewards. Zaheer was mostly better than him too IMO and that was as a 35yo bowling at 120kph.

 

[Blocky]

"Shami bowled better for fewer rewards" - I can accept that over the course of an innings, but a three test series? He took more wickets than any other bowler playing and took a majority of wickets caught behind - hardly "gifted dismissals"

Sharma is one of those guys who I've seen bowl beautiful spells and get guys like Ponting in his prime under pressure not always get the rewards he probably deserved. I even said prior to the NZ series I expected him to perform better than the other Indian seamers and he did. So as pragmatic as this seams, Sharma, with his height, his pace (which is inconsistent, I'll give you that) and ability to trouble good batsmen as is good as India have. And I'm willing to back that before the series by saying I expect he'll out perform the other bowlers for India in this series.

 

[Daemon]

Ishant has taken 98 wickets at 40 in the last 4 years. 26 June 2010 to 26 June 2014.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So the only guys that are out performing him statistically are Shami (who is selected) - Khan, who is unavailable, Praveen Kumar and Yadav who have such a small sample and haven't had to play against Australia, Sri Lanka or South Africa

Yadav has wickets in Australia, including a pretty decent quality 5-fer.

 

[Flem274*]

Shami and Yadav are pretty clearly the two best quicks India have imo. Boggles the mind to see them leave Yadav out so often. I suspect they're worried about his ER but India aren't blessed with a lot of options who can run through test teams.

I see blocky's point here - Ishant bowled better than his career record in NZ and SA and deserves to be in the team on merit right now. He deserved to be dropped for a billion tests before that and is arguably the worst bowler to play 50 or more tests but players are allowed to have a purple patch sometimes, which I think a lot of people forget.

If I were Indian I'd be mad he's in the team too because I don't think this purple patch will last but he deserves the opportunity to prove otherwise. He's well and truly used up all his credit and grace periods though imo so if he reverts to type against England then bin him (but not for Binny).

 

[GIMH]

He was in mint form last time he came to England wasn't he?

 

[Jono]

Shami and Yadav are pretty clearly the two best quicks India have imo. Boggles the mind to see them leave Yadav out so often. I suspect they're worried about his ER but India aren't blessed with a lot of options who can run through test teams.

I see blocky's point here - Ishant bowled better than his career record in NZ and SA and deserves to be in the team on merit right now. He deserved to be dropped for a billion tests before that and is arguably the worst bowler to play 50 or more tests but players are allowed to have a purple patch sometimes, which I think a lot of people forget.

If I were Indian I'd be mad he's in the team too because I don't think this purple patch will last but he deserves the opportunity to prove otherwise. He's well and truly used up all his credit and grace periods though imo so if he reverts to type against England then bin him (but not for Binny).

Such a good post in every way, including the Binny pun.

 

[harsh.ag]

If we had this bowling unit right now - Shami, Pankaj, Umesh, Mishra/Ojha, I would go to the extent of being confident in our chances to do well.

 

[Daemon]

He was in mint form last time he came to England wasn't he?

Yeah, had just returned from the Windies with really impressive figures.

 

[hendrix]

If we had this bowling unit right now - Shami, Pankaj, Umesh, Mishra/Ojha, I would go to the extent of being confident in our chances to do well.

I really badly want Pankaj Singh to be awesome.

 

[harsh.ag]

People like him rarely disappoint when finally given the chance

 

[Daemon]

Is it weird that India A doing well against Aus A is somehow making me quietly confident about this series?

Typical India. Had Australia by the balls at 6-99, let them score 522 in the end.