Is Bumrah the best cricketer India has ever produced?

[OverratedSanity]

the last time i was active on this forum everyone was fellating pacers as the alpha species of cricket and cooking up hypothetical atg showdowns that would be low scoring and feature bowlers rawdogging every batsmen because bowlers are more valuable especially pacers

wtf happened in the short span i wasnt active that this post has taken so long to come up???

I don't think anyone argued against that. It's more about the fact that he has a grand total of ~150 wickets

 

[ma1978]

It's not about Tendulkar. I am the biggest Tendulkar fanboy on this forum.

But he was a batsman. Do you know how many Tests India won in the 90s (1 jan 1990-31 dec 1999), away from home? One - in Sri Lanka. Their record was 1-15 and 23 draws. Won zero Tests outside of Asia. With arguably the best batsman since Bradman. That's not Tendulkar's fault - it's just that batsmen don't win matches consistently, especially away from home; fast bowlers do. That's why, until recently, Pakistan had a much better away record than India.

Pakistan's record during the same period 17 wins, 14 losses and 10 draws. That included wins in England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India, Australia, and South Africa. Fast bowling. It's just more critical than batsmen.


And that's why Bumrah is the best.

and you think Bumrah would have changed those results? The whole Indian team was terrible. The only two players pre 1996 who would have played in a Pakistan XI were Tendulkar and Kimble. Post 1996, Dravid and maybe Ganguly too.

Right now there is quality bowling on most teams. It’s batting that makes a difference. No evidence that one is more important than the other.

 

[reyrey]

you were the one randomly crying about his longevity issues despite him having been the 2nd most active Indian pacer in tests with only 1 test less than the 1st on that list since his debut

all i did was point out that due to the nature of modern cricket he isnt likely to play as many tests as cricketers in the past and that the same applies for most cricketers today that didnt debut ages ago and hence if we keep that as consideration for rating players overall then it’ll devolve into just comparing old player vs old player which is a clear thing that commonly occurs on this forum, out of the last 10 comparison threads by recent activity 6 have two old players being compared for the nth time and in the remaining 4 three of them feature the same dude who is in the limelight now

somehow you have turned that into me saying that tests = t20s

Here's a revolutionary concept for you. Longevity in cricket can also be measured in years and not just in the number of games played.

 

[silentstriker]

and you think Bumrah would have changed those results?

Yes, if Bumrah was bowling overseas instead of Manoj Prabhakar or Venketash Prasad, India would have won more than one Test overseas.


I do not think this is a controversial statement.

 

[Coronis]

It's not about Tendulkar. I am the biggest Tendulkar fanboy on this forum.

But he was a batsman. Do you know how many Tests India won in the 90s (1 jan 1990-31 dec 1999), away from home? One - in Sri Lanka. Their record was 1-15 and 23 draws. Won zero Tests outside of Asia. With arguably the best batsman since Bradman. That's not Tendulkar's fault - it's just that batsmen don't win matches consistently, especially away from home; fast bowlers do. That's why, until recently, Pakistan had a much better away record than India.

Pakistan's record during the same period 17 wins, 14 losses and 10 draws. That included wins in England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India, Australia, and South Africa. Fast bowling. It's just more critical than batsmen.


And that's why Bumrah is the best.

I think a single fast bowler is more likely to win a match than a single batsman yes. But at this point Bumrah isn’t even considered a top 20 pacer around here in tests, whilst Tendulkar is consistently in a battle for 2nd greatest batsman of all time. Lets not also forget, Bumrah has had excellent support throughout his career, not downplaying him at all, no doubt he has been by far the standout, especially away, but its not like he’s singlehandedly carrying that team.

 

[Socerer 01]

Here's a revolutionary concept for you. Longevity in cricket can also be measured in years and not just in the number of games played.

here is another revolutionary concept for you; this aint reddit you dont have to be a passive aggressive wisecrack since there aint any upvotes here to farm

Bumrah if he retired today would be India’s greatest pace bowler and nothing changes that, its perfectly valid to have him in this discussion

I don't think anyone argued against that. It's more about the fact that he has a grand total of ~150 wickets

~ in tests which is the whole point, limiting the discussion of the greatest cricketer from India to just tests is myopic af even if they form the major basis

 

[ma1978]

Yes, if Bumrah was bowling overseas instead of Manoj Prabhakar or Venketash Prasad, India would have won more than one Test overseas.


I do not think this is a controversial statement.

Which one? Maybe one or two but it would have hardly changed the fortunes of that team.

 

[silentstriker]

Which one? Maybe one or two but it would have hardly changed the fortunes of that team.

Winning two additional Test matches over the course of a decade would have tripled their wins.

And he would have won more than that if you go and look at some of those scorecards.

 

[ma1978]

Winning two additional Test matches over the course of a decade would have tripled their wins.

And he would have won more than that if you go and look at some of those scorecards.

If Bumrah were on the team and not Tendulkar they would have been lucky to end up at one

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

He's smarter and less ****y version of Ashwin.

His gracefulness is what sucks me in.

 

[nightprowler10]

On the thread title, I don't think so yet, but if he stays healthy he will retire as the Indian

 

[Socerer 01]

If Bumrah were on the team and not Tendulkar they would have been lucky to end up at one

if WI can win a test in Australia of all places missing a few players who should have been there and that horrid batting lineup in this decade on the back of 1 debutant fast bowler then 90s India can definitely equalise that if not do better

 

[Gavaskar]

I think he is. If you had to pick a team without knowing the format or conditions you have to pick Bumrah ahead of any other Indian cricketer without any hesitation. The only thing missing in his resume is stat padding at home and bashing minnow teams more.

 

[silentstriker]

If Bumrah were on the team and not Tendulkar they would have been lucky to end up at one

Look at those scorecards again my friend. You are wrong about that.

 

[ma1978]

Look at those scorecards again my friend. You are wrong about that.

There is no way you are going to convince me that 90s India would be better off with Bumrah and not Tendulkar

 

[ma1978]

And to answer your question, there are two matches in England where he could have made a difference (where Tendulkar tonned up in both) and one match in SA

 

[silentstriker]

There is no way you are going to convince me that 90s India would be better off with Bumrah and not Tendulkar

All right, then. We will have to disagree there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Judging by the options I assumed this thread was a joke, was I wrong

 

[Shri]

But at this point Bumrah isn’t even considered a top 20 pacer around here in tests

this is because "here" is full of morons

 

[ankitj]

Judging by the options I assumed this thread was a joke, was I wrong

Your face is a joke

And your posts