Indian bowlers

[shortpitched713]

Out of the most recent batch of Indian bowlers (RP, Sreesanth, Munaf), I'd say that Munaf is the best in Tests, slightly ahead of Sreesanth. And hes the only one of the three that I'd have in my side.

I think that an attack of Pathan, Khan, Munaf, Kumble, and Harbajhan would be ideal if they're all fully fit. Whats left for the Indian selectors to do would be to actually give these pacers an extended run in the side for once, instead of just rotating them around at random times. Their policy in this regard is mindboggling.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd debate that - I'd say Kapil is ahead of him.

Yeah, Kapil in my mind is easilly ahead of Streak, both as a bowler and an allrounder.

 

[marc71178]

I wouldn't class either as all rounders personally but I have a traditional view on that.

 

[aussie]

Yea thats the problem with Zaheer...he is never 100% fit. If he gets fit hes going to become a regular for the team again.

well the bloke has played out a full season in county cricket without much worries.

 

[Anil]

I wouldn't class either as all rounders personally but I have a traditional view on that.

you wouldn't class kapil as an allrounder? would be interested to know your traditional view on that...

 

[silentstriker]

IMO an all rounder should ideally be someone who can make the side with either his bowling or batting.

Kapil couldn't make it in with his batting, but neither could most others. Imran could, if you take the batting towards the end of his career, and Sobers obviously could.

I'm not sure of too many others. Could Beefy? Hadlee couldn't make it in with his batting either.

 

[adharcric]

If that were truly the case, all-rounders would be considered Gods compared to pure batsmen and bowlers because they could do the job of both fully. I think it's more reasonable to say an all-rounder is someone who can be counted upon to make valuable innings and take valuable wickets on a regular basis, say a top-7 quality batsman and a top-5 quality bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

If that were truly the case, all-rounders would be considered Gods compared to pure batsmen and bowlers because they could do the job of both fully. I think it's more reasonable to say an all-rounder is someone who can be counted upon to make valuable innings and take valuable wickets on a regular basis, say a top-7 quality batsman and a top-5 quality bowler.

I simply class an allrounder as someone of which two disciplines influence selection. They don't have to be able to make the side based on both batting and bowling alone - they simply have to influence selection. Often this involves the selection of other players in the team due to balance, or even a case of the player himself not making the side if he couldn't perform either one of his disciplines, but not making the side based on either alone (Abdul Razzaq for example).

Take Kallis for example. If Kallis could not bowl, would the South African side be any different? Probably not. In the past, quite possibly, but at the moment he is picked as a batsman.

 

[Jono]

IMO an all rounder should ideally be someone who can make the side with either his bowling or batting.

Kapil couldn't make it in with his batting, but neither could most others. Imran could, if you take the batting towards the end of his career, and Sobers obviously could.

I'm not sure of too many others. Could Beefy? Hadlee couldn't make it in with his batting either.

You just showed why your definition is off.

 

[adharcric]

You just showed why your definition is off.

 

[Turbinator]

SS is a pakistani is disguise.

 

[Anil]

IMO an all rounder should ideally be someone who can make the side with either his bowling or batting.

Kapil couldn't make it in with his batting, but neither could most others. Imran could, if you take the batting towards the end of his career, and Sobers obviously could.

I'm not sure of too many others. Could Beefy? Hadlee couldn't make it in with his batting either.

kapil was a very competent middle order batsman for india throughout most of his career, so was botham for england....imran was, towards the latter part of his career, not the first half....

 

[silentstriker]

You just showed why your definition is off.

Hehe, probably. I prefer to think of them as bowlers who can contribute with the bat. Or vice versa. The term 'all rounder' has lofty expections in my mind.

 

[silentstriker]

SS is a pakistani is disguise.

Is that supposed to be an insult? And no, I'm probably the biggest India fan here. I only critisize those I love. And I hate their bowling.

 

[Turbinator]

Is that supposed to be an insult? And no, I'm probably the biggest India fan here. I only critisize those I love. And I hate their bowling.

No, what makes you think that?

 

[marc71178]

Hehe, probably. I prefer to think of them as bowlers who can contribute with the bat. Or vice versa. The term 'all rounder' has lofty expections in my mind.

Posted all I needed to to be honest.

 

[Pratters]

2 players who both proved themselves in the International game before getting plaudits you mean?

umm not related to the point.

 

[marc71178]

Erm actually that is completely the point.

Those 2 were rated as good players after they showed some ability at International level.

 

[Pratters]

Well, I don't see why you can't get what I had said. Read back the conversation I had with aussie maybe. I don't see any thing wrong with analysing players regardless of whether they have performed at the international level yet. Maybe you don't share my view. No problem.

 

[Shabash Tapash]

They all suck, India should pick 11 batsmen. Munaf Patel looks about 70, lacks energy and is malnourished. Sreesanth is a schizophrenic (self calming and breathing exercises followed by fist pumping before each delivery). That guy with the hat is alright though.