It's not the same boring stereotype. You're making this some sort of Indian agenda, and it isn't. It's a horses for courses caveat. It's worlds apart from any slight, let's say, against Ravi Ashwin - who has 500 Test wickets all round the world. What I'm saying is that it's not mindblowing when a guy averages 21 but has played very little cricket outside the subcontinent. Of course the sub-continent matters. But why do teams never, and I mean never, win there? Because it's different. A difference that allows certain types of bowlers to thrive, which is what I'm saying (and I don't include Ashwin in that).
It's not mind-blowing, for example, that Axar Patel averages 19. If it were, why isn't he picked to play anywhere else? Why has he just been dropped, in home conditions? Clearly there is a different set of judgements to be made over the 2nd spinner for India, who plays in the right sort of conditions, or doesn't play at all.
Kuldeep is a very good bowler, England play spin incredibly poorly, he took 19 wickets at 20s, which is great - but as I said, it isn't mind-blowing, in favourable home conditions. Not sure why you'd think it's relevant to compare him to two debutants in Hartley and Bashir, who are pretty average. Nor why it'd be relevant how many runs a debutant scored against that attack.
You can read through the NZ-Australia thread, where a lot of us pointed out that Henry averages 80 when he bowls first change, and averaged over 40 for the first few years of his career. A poster (think it was Moss) said that for all Henry's greatness at home, he's yet to prove himself in Asia. So that's not a good example.
