No, it says nothing about the Indian FC situation. FYI, India has perhaps the best batting talent pool than anywhere in the world.
It says everything about the Indian FC structure during the 90s. Look at ENG for example. England haven't produced a top-class spinner since Underwood. Thats because all the options that have played since have been worked out at test level due to the fact that they usually bowl to batsmen in CC, who are poor againts spin generally.
India from 1930 to the 70s. Had Gupte, Mankad, Patel, Nadkarni, Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra, Venkat, Mainder Singh, Dillip Doshi. Generally always having a strong spin bowling attack to suppliment their lack of pace-bowling options.
The fact that IND had Raju, Kapoor, Chauhan, Kulkarni, Bahutule, Joshi, Sanghvi as back-up to Kumble in the 90s unitl the turbanator stepped up in 01. Clearly showed a decline in spin talent during the 90s.
India has perhaps the best batting talent pool than anywhere in the world.
Slightly ahead of AUS yea. But that doesn't mean much when it comes to test cricket. If you have poor a FC competition you wont be converting that talent, to test match performances. Yuvraj is the perfect example ATM..
Rubbish. Mishra is not even comparable to Swann. Mishra is 25, Swann is 31+. Mishra is a result of his own personal effort with the FC exposure he got.
I'm not comparing them as bowler. I am comparing their rise respective rise to test cricket. Both toiled away in FC cricket for years before getting to tests.
Given ENG have dont produce quality off-spinner & haven't since Jim Laker. Swann for a few years yet is likely to be a strong servicable option for ENG. So he beat the odds in poor English county system for spinner.
Mishra after all the poor spinner outside Kumble/Harbhajan to play for IND over the last 15 years. Has proven to be test quality.
Another rubbish argument. Even the best FC structures throws up guys are not test standard. More of selection issue rather than inherent fault of FC cricket.
What?. India in over 75 years of test cricket have produces ONE great fast-bowler. Solely depending on spin, with hardly any bowler bowling fast in anger. Except for Srinath.
Since the MRF foundation you have seen the likes of Zaheer, Nehra, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Ishant, Patel etc come through this decade. So clearly the pace bowling academy had aided in being a suppliment of some sort, to the poor FC structure (the flat pitches). That is condusive for producing fast bowlers in general.
Anyway, I don't care really. You started the argument stating that India selects its players from ODIs which is rubbish. Stick to the topic.
It is related i just to argument. Those teams would tend to pick players based on ODI form BECAUSE of the poor structure of their domestic competitions. Simple.
Isn't that true for other countries as well?
Not really. AUS, WI (during the glory days), SA, ENG. Haven't struggled to find openers like how IND, PAK, SRI, NZ have generally in their test history.
NO.. You are just being stupid without suggesting a batch of players who were selected on ODI form than FC form.
Ha. Isn't that what i have been doing?. Lets go again. I shall devide it up into players who got picked based on ODI form & ones who got picked on natural talent.
ODI FORM:
- Again with IND, every opener since Gavaskar, excpet for Shastri & Sidhu has struggled to find a quality opening pair. They ended up picking Sehwag based on ODI batting as an opener, instead of FC form.
- Currently with Yuvraj/Badrinath debate. It seems its pretty obvious that the reason IND selectors have so much faith in IND & are consistently backing him in the test XI. Is because they think that fabulous ODI & T20 batting must be translated for tests.
- Thus they probably are unsure whether Badrinath although he is doing well domestically can translate that form into tests.
- Roger Twose earned a recall to the NZ middle-order during the 99 tour of ENG, basically on brilliant batting during the 99 WC. But he failed.
- AUS with the selection of Watson to open in the Ashes is basically based on what he did in ODIs as an opener. Since he failed in his limited FC experience for QSL as an opener. This is very unsual in AUS cricket of course.
- Ross Taylor was propelled into the NZ team. Based on the early ODI success instead of strong FC batting.
Plus im sure many more..
NATURAL TALENT:
- NZs greatest batsman Martin Crowe, was picked on natural talent. Instead of FC form, he ended up learning on the job.
- Every WI cricketer this 2000s era since Gayle & Sarwan. Has been picked on RAW natural talent instead of FC form. Most crazily Fidel Edwards who was picked in 2003, after bowling to Brian Lara in the nets.
Plus given their poor FC strucuture. Even those who have tended to do well have not translated it to test. For eg Rawl Lewis & Stuart Williams.
- Daniel Vettori, Chris Cairns, Shane were all picked on raw talent instead of strong FC form. This wiki article quote about Bond proves this:
wiki said:
Bond made his first-class debut for Canterbury on 20 January 1997, in a match against Central Districts.[11] He was relatively old when he made his first-class debut, at 21 years and 7 months old, and for the first few years of his career he played relatively little first-class cricket, playing only 12 matches for Canterbury in his first three seasons. His bowling figures in his first three seasons were solid but unspectacular.[12] Bond stopped playing cricket professionally for one year after he joined the New Zealand Police in November 1999, which left him no time to pursue his cricket career.[13] He returned to play several games for Canterbury in the 2000/01 season and had reasonable success despite his year off.[14] He was handed his first international opportunity early in the 2001/02 season, and from then, due to injuries and international commitments he was mainly unavailable to play for Canterbury, and only appeared in eight State Championship[15] and ten State Shield games[16] in seven seasons.
- We all know the fairytale stories with how Akram, Inzamam & Waqar where picked up by Imran Khan. (Although i have heard there is a lot of nepotism in PAK FC cricket, which sort of exaggerates these fairly tale stories).
- Razzaq & Mahmood where picked based on mixture of natural talent & ODI form. They showed it initially but obviously declined massively.
- Vinod Kambli picked on natural talent. But unlike Tendy didn't fullfill that talent since he was worked out in tests.
- PAK recently opening with Alam in test. Is basically a natural talent backing. If he comes good brilliant for Pak, he could be a make-shift option like Shoaib Malik was. But such a selection clearly shows given the lack of openers in PAK for years now, how bad the FC competition has failed them.
Plus im sure a few more..
Load of crap. Suggest examples mate or you are making yourself look abysmally stupid.
Haa. Are you blind?. I just gave the examples of Ajay Sharma, Kaif, Jadeja, Bhardwaj, Amre, Yurvraj (currently - although im backing him to come good in tests).
No, Law, Cox, Siddon, Love etc were all as good as the backup batsmen for India during the period. Till they play test cricket, there is no way they can be compared to others who did not play test cricket.
Haa. Are you serious.
How can Ajay Sharma, Kaif, Jadeja, Bhardwaj, Amre, Yurvraj. Compare with Law, Siddons, Love, Hodge as middle order batsmen?.
Which Indian opener in Gandi, Jaffer, Ramesh, Rathour, Das was better than Cox?.
Check yourself.
England has not produced a SINGLE world class batsman since Gooch. (criteria - ability to average > 50). Does that mean England's FC structure is terrible? Oh and don't give me the Pietersen argument. The groundwork in that lad's case was done in SA.
You need to understand the dynamics of the English FC system. The standard of cricket is quite poor indeed - division 2. But the catch is, that its arguably the best structured domestic competition is the games history.
When England where the best team in the world during the 1950s, producing some of its best players in history. The standard of cricket was superb. As well as during the 1970s.
Even if English players who get to test cricket end up being garbage. You never see ENG picking a teenager to play test or picking based on ODI form.
Dude, they are ranked NO.3 in test cricket right now. I agree that they don't possess the gunpower to shine abroad, but give credit when it's due. They are damn damn good at home.
Mainly because of Vaas & Murali. Now that will be gone soon, we shall see if Malinga & Mendis etc can maintain that standard.
Says nothing. FC structure does not throw up world champions anywhere. They just produce test standard cricketers. They convert themselves into world class by performing at the top stage.
The players become WC generally on the highest level are those who come through solid FC structures, whose standard of cricket are close to that of test matches.
Why else do you think PAK & IND struggled to produce quality openers in tests.
Monty?
Had he been an Indian, he wouldn't have made even the second XIs of major Indian FC teams. Give me a break.
Thats besides the point. Monty like Kaneria was picked on bit of natural talent. Instead of strong FC performances.
Yeah, blame the Eng FC structure for lack of competition then.
I always have.
Exactly. Now what's a solid FC structure?
A structure which is a strong breeding ground for bastmen, bowlers. So that by the time they get to test cricket, they would not be learning on the job.
It is NOT a fact. The only good teams during that period were WI and Aus. To be the no. 1 among 3 good teams for 5 years is like suggesting --->
Go check your stats. A winning ratio of l
ess than 50% does not qualify a team as world champs.
Clearly you are off on your cricket history. If you think WI were a better than ENG in the 50s haha my goodness. Plus in the period i showed you, ENG won two of the most famous Ashes series in 53 & 54/55.
Questioning whether ENG where the best team in the world during the 50s shows utter disrespect of the legacy of English cricket & lack of cricket knowledge.
Without them playing even half of the test world, you qualify them as World Champs??
They beat ENG & AUS. Plus given that the WI where in decline that made SA unoffically the best. You cannot seriously tell regardless of the political reasons which prevented SA from playing IND & PAK, that they weren't a better team.
No. There is a HUGE difference between Might have been and Was. Go figure.
Yes it is all hypotetical what the greatest era of SA cricketers could have done. But what is fact is that they beat AUS in 69/70 - the best team in the world before they where banned. Plus given WI where not a force until 1976, its clear SA of that period where the best team in history not to play test cricket.
Yeah. I agree. That means the Eng FC structure is as flawed as any other structure in the world.
No, it certain areas it is as bad as IND, PAK, SRI, NZ, WI. But overall its way better.
Sorry mate. He won't make it to the test teams of SL, Pak, Ind or SA. Perhaps would make it to NZ, WI, Ban, and Eng.
Am did i not say he wont make the SA & IND team (but could battle for Yuvraj's spot)?.
Why wont he make PAK. Esepcially with Malik & an aging/inconsistent Misbah in that middle-order?
He is yet to face a good spin attack in such conditions, so he can never be considered test class without having done so. Nor he is exceptionally brilliant in other conditions to warrant his spot in the team. (Like Ponting being dire in India, but is exceptionally great otherwise and hence is a sure test champ)
Whats the relevance here. Like other AUS batsman like Katich, Hodge, Lehmann who got their chances late he has a fantastic FC average in the best FC competition in the world. Of course until he plays test cricket (or IF he ever plays which seems unlikely), we will not know whats could can do.
But its nonsense to compare D Hussey to Hick & Ramps.
