Ajit Bhalchandra Agarkar

[Salamuddin]

Simply put, how do people on this forum really rate Agarkar's batting and bowling abilities ?

I've always thought of Agarkar as a fine ODI cricketer.
In tests, well I'm not so sure.

He certainly bowled superbly in the 2nd innings in Adelaide -- the amount of swing he got was surprising given that none of the Aussies got anywhere near that amount.
But whether he can reproduce that form on a consistent basis remains to be seen.

As for his batting, . Peter Roebuck (formerly of Somerset)
and now with the Sydney Morning Herald is one who has confidence in this department saying that Agarkar could actually score quite a few runs if he wasn't prone to the frequent rushes of blood to his head.

 

[luckyeddie]

Ajit Agarkar is quite possibly the greatest cricketer who ever lived.

*click* Amits mode off

He's an icon - nothing else is necessary.

 

[Richard]

He's a constant disappointment, for most of his ODI career he's been doing just enough to keep himself in the side but hardly ever fully justifying what I see as a huge talent. As for the Tests, that Adelaide second-innings spell was surely the greatest performance of his career (even though it contained just 2 top-order wickets, one a very poor stroke anyway), but I wait with baited breath to see what next.

 

[nibbs]

During that spell all he was bowl a good line and length and BINGO. It was brilliant. I've never cheered so much fro an Indian team. AA I'm beginning to Appreciate you more and more. Keep up the good work.

 

[Craig]

The pick of the indian bowlers and with Gillespie with the two best bowlers in this series. Zaheer hasnt been bad.

AA is finally starting to get some confidence.

 

[Richard]

It's just so strange that it should happen against a batting-line-up that has beaten far more proven commodities to a pulp.

 

[Craig]

It may seem a silly answer, but cricket is a complicated game.

 

[nibbs]

It's just so strange that it should happen against a batting-line-up that has beaten far more proven commodities to a pulp.

I think its fair to say Australia weren't in the right mind set. Their arogance became too much. They just attacked, when they should not have. Some batsmen went out to some ridiculous shots. This, as well as, some brilliant bowling from the Indians saw them out cheaply.

 

[Salamuddin]

yes it is a little strange.

Agarkar has had some success against the Aussies before though. 11 wickets at 31 in 1999-2000 was a reasonable return given that Shaun Pollock proved virtually ineffective on his trip in 2001-2002.

 

[krkode]

I too agree that he's a fine ODI cricketer. Somewhat of a Lance Klusner, if you ask me. To a lesser extent, obviously. He'll score quick runs when you need them, and he can bowl the mean delivery when asked.

In test cricket - we'll just have to wait and see, but last game's performance, coupled with the century in England, just boost my opinion of him. :P

 

[Langeveldt]

He is a good alround international cricketer, talented but not outstanding

 

[Richard]

yes it is a little strange.

Agarkar has had some success against the Aussies before though. 11 wickets at 31 in 1999-2000 was a reasonable return given that Shaun Pollock proved virtually ineffective on his trip in 2001-2002.

In the first two Tests of that series he was outstanding.
11 at 31 is OK, but The Third Test was very poor and after the first 2 Tests it was even better than it ended-up.
Very, very strange that he should perform in cricket's hottest cauldron - twice - and almost never anywhere else.

 

[Richard]

I think its fair to say Australia weren't in the right mind set. Their arogance became too much. They just attacked, when they should not have. Some batsmen went out to some ridiculous shots. This, as well as, some brilliant bowling from the Indians saw them out cheaply.

It's always a tricky question - the difference between aggressive and suicidal.
For me the line is so thin as to be almost non-existent. Sometimes poor shots bring runs; sometimes they give chances. Sometimes these chances are missed.
Australia are now at the stage where scoring at less than 4-an-over is a rarity. They will always try to do that, and sometimes they will pay for it. However, as we have seen, not very often. On this occasions they paid for it and it cost them the game.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

Agarkar started his ODI career with a bang. He was the fastest to reach 50 wickets (in his 23rd game I think it was). And then began a huge form slump. Probably nobody in the history of cricket got as many chances as Agarkar did to stay in the team. He kept getting chance after chance after chance to prove himself.

Obviously, his bowling has improved now and he is getting wickets at crucial times even if his economy rate is above 5.

Many ppl call him an all rounder. But I beg to differ. Maybe in the One day game, he can pass as an allrounder by getting some useful runs in the lower order. But in tests, he's not really an all rounder. That "glorious" century he got at Lords against England more than doubled his test average.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Team Mt Balls Runs Wkts BB Av
AB Agarkar India 23 1242 1067 50 4/35 21.34 1997/98 to 1998/99


pretty big bang, in his first couple of years

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes, alot of talent, never seems to fulfill it though

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, alot of talent, never seems to fulfill it though

Not never, but sometimes.

Fastest ever to 50 wickets in ODIs, Century at Lord's, match-winning performance against Australia to name but three

 

[masterblaster]

He is simply enigmatic. A real engima of a player. Loads and loads of talent, loads of failures, loads of success.

'Inconsistently Brilliant' are the two words that sum him up in my books.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not never, but sometimes.

Fastest ever to 50 wickets in ODIs, Century at Lord's, match-winning performance against Australia to name but three

Fine, I will rephrase it. A lot of talent, but too inconsistant recently