Jasprit Bumrah vs Bill O’Reilly

[ankitj]

My eyes bleed everytime I read "goated". It's bad enough that my 8 year old uses that word every day. Can we be adults here

 

[capt_Luffy]

Directly related to the comment you made to me. And it's true, you don't think the skill is important.

There's a reason why wicket-keeping the skill itself was of greater value back then. Uncovered pitches and more and quicker spinners.

Modern guys likely wouldn't have been good keeping to O'Reilly or even Deadly.

Logical fallacy. Warne was a much bigger turner than Billy, so was MacGill. And the pitches O'Reilly played in were anything but livelier than those of the 90s.
Another logical fallacy, I definitely value keepers. That's why I rate Knott over Stewart. But you can't act like an AT game is played in the 50s England either. As I said, in the modern game, no team is taking Oldfield ahead of Pant.

 

[capt_Luffy]

My eyes bleed everytime I read "goated". It's bad enough that my 8 year old uses that word every day. Can we be adults here

#notocensorship #freedomofspeech

 

[kyear2]

Logical fallacy. Warne was a much bigger turner than Billy, so was MacGill. And the pitches O'Reilly played in were anything but livelier than those of the 90s.
Another logical fallacy, I definitely value keepers. That's why I rate Knott over Stewart. But you can't act like an AT game is played in the 50s England either. As I said, in the modern game, no team is taking Oldfield ahead of Pant.

I wasn't taking about the turn, it was the pace and bounce. Someone posted some vids of him earlier in the thread.

Stewart was a opening batsman and had no business keeping before Russell. Think everyone in and watching international cricket knew that. It took away a very good opener and gave a worse keeper all in one move.

I never said it was played in the 50, I'm saying that's why it was more important back then. That being said, I don't see any of the modern batsmen keepers standing up efficiently to O'Reilly.

And you are using extremes, and I've acknowledged that keepers are all rounders too, but still think it's keepers first. And while not Oldfield, definely Knott over Pant and Flower.

But do you believe Pant or Flower could hold O'Reilly or Underwood?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I wasn't taking about the turn, it was the pace and bounce. Someone posted some vids of him earlier in the thread.

Stewart was a opening batsman and had no business keeping before Russell. Think everyone in and watching international cricket knew that. It took away a very good opener and gave a worse keeper all in one move.

I never said it was played in the 50, I'm saying that's why it was more important back then. That being said, I don't see any of the modern batsmen keepers standing up efficiently to O'Reilly.

And you are using extremes, and I've acknowledged that keepers are all rounders too, but still think it's keepers first. And while not Oldfield, definely Knott over Pant and Flower.

But do you believe Pant or Flower could hold O'Reilly or Underwood?

Pace and bounce is easier to handle than turn, as the former is closer to a medium pacer. I think most keepers will agree.

I don't know what you mean by efficiency, but I can't see Rizwan struggling really.

Again, definitely Flower over Knott in any team. A borderline ATG batsman is too good to pass up for 30 runs less. You can disagree, but the difference in Knott's and Flower's batting is bigger than that of Oldfield's and Pant's.

Depends what you mean by hold. Pant have kept to Ashwin, Jadeja and Kuldeep on a daily basis. He is nothing splendid, but far from bad also. Don't think O'Reilly or Underwood will be much tougher.

 

[kyear2]

Pace and bounce is easier to handle than turn, as the former is closer to a medium pacer. I think most keepers will agree.

I don't know what you mean by efficiency, but I can't see Rizwan struggling really.

Again, definitely Flower over Knott in any team. A borderline ATG batsman is too good to pass up for 30 runs less. You can disagree, but the difference in Knott's and Flower's batting is bigger than that of Oldfield's and Pant's.

Depends what you mean by hold. Pant have kept to Ashwin, Jadeja and Kuldeep on a daily basis. He is nothing splendid, but far from bad also. Don't think O'Reilly or Underwood will be much tougher.

Pace, spin, variety and bounce.

So for the record you don't think that O'Reilly or Underwood was more difficult to keep to than the current Indian spinners.

Ok

And I've seen Pant look pedestrian to the Indian spinners.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Pace, spin, variety and bounce.

So for the record you don't think that O'Reilly or Underwood was more difficult to keep to than the current Indian spinners.

Ok

And I've seen Pant look pedestrian to the Indian spinners.

I have seen Pant keep to our spinners sufficiently more than you. I can safely say, you have a very low definition for pedestrian (unless you mean pre 2020, when he was bad).Heck, Indian team prefers him to keep when he and Jurel both plays.

 

[kyear2]

I have seen Pant keep to our spinners sufficiently more than you. I can safely say, you have a very low definition for pedestrian (unless you mean pre 2020, when he was bad).Heck, Indian team prefers him to keep when he and Jurel both plays.

I literally mean the last home series.

And again, from watching what clips we have of O'Reilly, he was definitely a handful to standup to.

My only point.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I literally mean the last home series.

And again, from watching what clips we have of O'Reilly, he was definitely a handful to standup to.

My only point.

You literally meant a single game actually, were Ashwin was bowling utter filth down the leg on a bad pitch.

Most great spinners are, as are spinners who turns it big without good control. Ashwin is not an easy bowler to keep standing up, as isn't Kuldeep really.

 

[kyear2]

You literally meant a single game actually, were Ashwin was bowling utter filth down the leg on a bad pitch.

Most great spinners are, as are spinners who turns it big without good control. Ashwin is not an easy bowler to keep standing up, as isn't Kuldeep really.

It was not one game, but I'll stop derailing the thread.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It was not one game, but I'll stop derailing the thread.

I will just say you seemed to take Jurel's keeping rather fondly. The management decided to give Pant the gloves when they both played together.

 

[centurymaker]

Jurel is a worse keeper than Pant even 'right now' with Pant making more errors than expected.

 

[Thala_0710]

Jurel is a worse keeper than Pant even 'right now' with Pant making more errors than expected.

This is obviously not true. I feel that the management just gave Pant the gloves because he is a certified starter and Jurel's place in the side isn't sure. So the decision imo is for more practice and confidence for pant since his return from injury rather than the management saying he is a better keeper than Jurel, which he is not. However I disagree with Kyear on the fact that a fully fit Pant couldn't have kept to Underwood etc. Before the injury, Pant had improved his keeping quite well but since the injury I feel he isn't fully able to/confident in his knees which shows both when he doesn't get forward properly to defend the ball and while keeping as well which is leading to many more errors than usual. Recently, Pant has looked much worse while keeping than his actual level is imo.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

The main reasons I don't is Warne's batting, and he is also my gully. But just as importantly, if it's O'Reilly the keeper had to be Knott and that removes Gilly's batting then Imran also has to come in for Wasim.

So lot of domino effect for one change.

I'll confess to not have given consideration to that beyond "Gilly kept fine to Warne so I trust he'll be able to figure out keeping to Tiger." even though they were different styles of leggies.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is obviously not true. I feel that the management just gave Pant the gloves because he is a certified starter and Jurel's place in the side isn't sure. So the decision imo is for more practice and confidence for pant since his return from injury rather than the management saying he is a better keeper than Jurel, which he is not. However I disagree with Kyear on the fact that a fully fit Pant couldn't have kept to Underwood etc. Before the injury, Pant had improved his keeping quite well but since the injury I feel he isn't fully able to/confident in his knees which shows both when he doesn't get forward properly to defend the ball and while keeping as well which is leading to many more errors than usual. Recently, Pant has looked much worse while keeping than his actual level is imo.

Do you remember a Starc boundary (iirc) in the 1st Test which was a possible catch had he drove?? I felt Pant isn't as mobile as he was before. Again, he is not a Great keeper, wasn't one even at his best; but he is no KAkmal either.

 

[centurymaker]

I have seen Jurel keep against the swinging ball, he is not good.

 

[sayon basak]

A better all rounder than Ashwin

Very bold claim. I clearly don't agree with it.

 

[Coronis]

But you can't act like an AT game is played in the 50s England either.

Why not?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why not?

I mean, you can but he specifically doesn't. Also, time travelling cricket is a managerial nightmare in this regards. What kind of bat they get? What laws? Is there DRS?? And should games be played in 1870s? What about a few games even older?

 

[kyear2]

I mean, you can but he specifically doesn't. Also, time travelling cricket is a managerial nightmare in this regards. What kind of bat they get? What laws? Is there DRS?? And should games be played in 1870s? What about a few games even older?

I always just figure present conditions and equipment. Old Sabina and Kensington though, from when men were men.