Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Excuse me! What 'supporting wickets'? Australia's pitches have been notoriously flat for God knows how long now. Its time cricket fans realise that some extra bounce doesn't = minefield.
Ummm, no.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ishant Sharma...overcoached?!
- Thread starter Lambu
- Start date
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
I can't remember totally. But i doubt whether the aussie selectors ATT held much againts MacGill for missing that ZIM tour. I do remember White getting a lot of hype at the time & was selected being touted as a Kumble like spinner and all was more likely to play if AUS needed a second spinner of if Warne got injured, while Hauritz went more for the experience.
I guess the selectors probably realised from some of the net session that he wasn't as good as they thought haha..
All true, but if you got at attitude problem as it was claimed it doesn't. Either way Australia being able to axe Bevan so quickly was surely down to Australia great depth that selectorial incompetense?. Come on the team weren't affected at all.
It was a risk the selectors could have taken which was never going to affect the overall balance of the side tremendoulsy going into that second test given the strenght of the batting line-up. If Symonds had blossomed as a test batsman immediately in that series it could have very well and turned out to have been an inspired selection even though it would have been harsh on Katich. By no means a selection error, again due to AUS strenght they could have taken those risks, doesn't make the selectors bad.
Sure Kasper was doing well for QSL & here for Glamorgan at the time (although i may have to check his FC stats for season after he played in IND 01). I'm not so sure that he really was demanding selection back again until during that 03/04 AUS domestic season.
Bichel was surely ahead of him, Bracken was & Williams had done fairly well for WA in FC cricket before selected for ODI's too. Kasper also wouldn't have been in that high regard by selectors of fans given his inconsistent past. What he did in 04 suprised everyone.
No way was Bracken when he was first selected reckoned to be a bad move come on. Although looking back probably a bit over-hyped given he was left-armer his performers in ODI cricket for 2 years especially in the TVS Cup in India had all excited. But he got some flat decks and was humbled. Almost any selector would have picked Bracken for the test side at the time.
Probably a bit harsh i guess no doubt given what he was doing in FC cricket for a while. But i guess the reason he was dropped going into the 03/04 summer was that given Ponting/Martyn/S Waugh/Lehmann had positions covered. With Lehmann injured intially it was felt Love wasn't totally suited to bat @ 6 thus the equally impressive Katich was given a go. Again Tecy thats how harsh things have proven to be for some really talented bats for AUS, doesn't make the selectors dickheads.
The only really big selection blunders AUS have made in test for me would be Martyn's axing after the Ashes & MacGill being left out of the 04 tour to IND. All the rest you have highlighted a over-exaggerations.
On the bolded part where did you get that from?. Ha, the only time McGraths career was in question was in 04 after he came back from some injury he really did look pedestrian & yes i remember the selectors suggesting that he could be dropped if he stepped up soon, since not many fast bowlers post 30+ have been able to maintain their loftly standards & McGrath was looking that way, but in the coming years was when he sealed his legacy.
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
Mate,just use your brain
He has played on placid tracks in pakistan and still was the,pick of the fast bowlers
bolwed at genuine pace {remember the speed guns used by espn show the speed from
the ground not hand} got great bounce,he bowled one at 158km
the ball does seam in australia so coming wide of the crease is helpful but in these conditions coming close to the picth is helpful,he would have learnt a lot by bowling on
dead tracks and he has developed variations
and one thing judge bowlers in test cricket,and he has bowled well there even in the last series in south africa so this topic is baseless
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
yeah i know because they show speed when the ball hits the pitch so they get it seriously wrong,espn star should do something with their speed gun they always show the wrong speeds,
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
but who knows it may have been actually he bowled fast the whole series
I guessed as much.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said that pace bowling = reverse swing. Idiotic generalisation on my part. I do often find that pacier bowlers generate it more frequently than bowlers of lesser pace, though, assuming that both have the correct wrist position and grip. There's no point being fast and attempting to bowl reverse swing if you lack the wrist position and grip necessary. For instance, I've found that Mitchell Johnson generates more of it than RP Singh - or at least, he did throughout the summer.
I did. However, it was most noteworthy during that little passage in Melbourne.
It can if the bowler doesn't generate a great deal of conventional swing.
Indeed.
RP's economy rate was also infinitely higher than Sharma's. While Sharma demanded respect several times, RP did not seem to. If the Australian batsmen had paid him the respect they showed Sharma (or even Pathan), he would've taken less wickets. Like I said, Sharma was also unfortunate with umpiring decisions and deliveries beating the bat; RP Singh was not.
He wasn't a superstar, but he was pretty damn unlucky. A mid-30's average would've been more reminiscent of how well he bowled.
OK, but he didn't bowl well often enough (I can only recall him bowling two impressive/effective spells, early on in Sydney and Perth). A lot of the time, he was more or less cannon fodder, on the Anderson level.
OK, but SR is lowered as economy rate rises. A good SR means little by itself. I mean, look at Patterson Thompson's SR!
Fair point, but I thought that we were discussing his performances during the Aus/Ind test series in question (which I felt were often acceptable, at the very least).
His pace and bounce may cause problems once in a while, but not often enough to really make him a Test force.
If we denigrate Johnson's performances based on the 'poor strokes' argument, we should also do the same to RP Singh, as he was often treated with reckless contempt by the Australian batsmen (explaining quite a few of his wickets).
Really? I personally felt that the selection was inexplicable (and I'm a Symonds fan).
He barely played domestic cricket during 2006/07, AFAIK.
Possibly, yeah. I don't know who could've come in at #6 in 2005/06 - I'd have to consult the domestic averages.
Truth be told, I did sense that Mike Hussey had something special - even from the lone 2003/04 ODI that he played in. There was just a poise with which he chased down those runs at his home ground that got me more interested in him. I wasn't as surprised as most when he carved up in New Zealand in 2004/05.
Why?
I reckon he'd be in contention in swing-friendly conditions (like Brisbane 2005/06), but nowhere else. He simply lacks the pace to trouble the batsmen, who can simply leave his more guileful deliveries (like his cutters) if they don't happen to be hitting the stumps.
I question the bold statement, given his raising on the 1990's WACA pitch (a far different beast from the 2000's version). Indeed, some questioned his natural ability against spin. I, too, often get the feeling that it was acquired.
Was he the pick of the Lords batsmen? I would've thought that Michael Clarke's innings was more pivotal than Martyn's. Martyn's was pretty good, but probably not the best.
A lack of confidence wouldn't have helped, but that would've exaggerated his technical deficiences; in other words, his disintegration was caused by two factors, not just one.
You mean like Mohammad Sami has?
(Of course, Sami isn't good enough to do it regularly)Fair call.
They were correct over the context of that series (I should've clarified this earlier). I didn't like the Hodge>Hussey decision, either, nor the 'Katich as opener' thing, but both worked. They may not work in India (and I still disagree with both calls in general) but it just shows that theory doesn't always work out in practice.
No, it doesn't, but it is just about impossible to prove otherwise in that event. Again, theoretical outcomes do not always work in practice. It's a salient point.
This is little more than conjecture, really. Moreso, conjecture which is impossible to prove or disprove. Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah, as I said, Jaques would have been the better prospect, given Katich's mixed ODI record during that summer and Jaques 94*...a quite different situation to the Hodge/Hussey affair above.
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Wow.
Anyone want to summarise that for me?
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
Mate,I guessed as much.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said that pace bowling = reverse swing. Idiotic generalisation on my part. I do often find that pacier bowlers generate it more frequently than bowlers of lesser pace, though, assuming that both have the correct wrist position and grip. There's no point being fast and attempting to bowl reverse swing if you lack the wrist position and grip necessary. For instance, I've found that Mitchell Johnson generates more of it than RP Singh - or at least, he did throughout the summer.
I did. However, it was most noteworthy during that little passage in Melbourne.
It can if the bowler doesn't generate a great deal of conventional swing.
Indeed.
RP's economy rate was also infinitely higher than Sharma's. While Sharma demanded respect several times, RP did not seem to. If the Australian batsmen had paid him the respect they showed Sharma (or even Pathan), he would've taken less wickets. Like I said, Sharma was also unfortunate with umpiring decisions and deliveries beating the bat; RP Singh was not.
He wasn't a superstar, but he was pretty damn unlucky. A mid-30's average would've been more reminiscent of how well he bowled.
OK, but he didn't bowl well often enough (I can only recall him bowling two impressive/effective spells, early on in Sydney and Perth). A lot of the time, he was more or less cannon fodder, on the Anderson level.
OK, but SR is lowered as economy rate rises. A good SR means little by itself. I mean, look at Patterson Thompson's SR!
Fair point, but I thought that we were discussing his performances during the Aus/Ind test series in question (which I felt were often acceptable, at the very least).
His pace and bounce may cause problems once in a while, but not often enough to really make him a Test force.
If we denigrate Johnson's performances based on the 'poor strokes' argument, we should also do the same to RP Singh, as he was often treated with reckless contempt by the Australian batsmen (explaining quite a few of his wickets).
Really? I personally felt that the selection was inexplicable (and I'm a Symonds fan).
He barely played domestic cricket during 2006/07, AFAIK.
Possibly, yeah. I don't know who could've come in at #6 in 2005/06 - I'd have to consult the domestic averages.
Truth be told, I did sense that Mike Hussey had something special - even from the lone 2003/04 ODI that he played in. There was just a poise with which he chased down those runs at his home ground that got me more interested in him. I wasn't as surprised as most when he carved up in New Zealand in 2004/05.
Why?
I reckon he'd be in contention in swing-friendly conditions (like Brisbane 2005/06), but nowhere else. He simply lacks the pace to trouble the batsmen, who can simply leave his more guileful deliveries (like his cutters) if they don't happen to be hitting the stumps.
I question the bold statement, given his raising on the 1990's WACA pitch (a far different beast from the 2000's version). Indeed, some questioned his natural ability against spin. I, too, often get the feeling that it was acquired.
Was he the pick of the Lords batsmen? I would've thought that Michael Clarke's innings was more pivotal than Martyn's. Martyn's was pretty good, but probably not the best.
A lack of confidence wouldn't have helped, but that would've exaggerated his technical deficiences; in other words, his disintegration was caused by two factors, not just one.
You mean like Mohammad Sami has?
Fair call.
They were correct over the context of that series (I should've clarified this earlier). I didn't like the Hodge>Hussey decision, either, nor the 'Katich as opener' thing, but both worked. They may not work in India (and I still disagree with both calls in general) but it just shows that theory doesn't always work out in practice.
No, it doesn't, but it is just about impossible to prove otherwise in that event. Again, theoretical outcomes do not always work in practice. It's a salient point.
This is little more than conjecture, really. Moreso, conjecture which is impossible to prove or disprove. Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah, as I said, Jaques would have been the better prospect, given Katich's mixed ODI record during that summer and Jaques 94*...a quite different situation to the Hodge/Hussey affair above.
Pace does help in reverse swing as it moves late when bowled at 90mph,
R.P Singh and johnson are more so of the same pace,R.P Singh has clocked speeds
up to 149kph.
What do you expect a 22 year old leftarm fastbolwer to do when he has the pressue of leading the attack after their main bowler who gets injured after playing 1 test and sreesanth is injured,
he lead the attack in sydeny,perth very well and i bet if he was present in adelaide we
could have won the match
he did well in sydney,perth and bowled well against lefthanders and that what matters
other bowling attacks struggle against lefthanders so having him against lefthanders helped
india
i have my doubts that you watched the series most of r.p wickets were of good bowling
not reckless strokes,man use your head.
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
In T20 (in South Africa no less, where the readings are notoriously high due to the atmospheric conditions), he does not go anywhere near there in ODIs or Tests.
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Indeed. I also feel that his action underutilises his hyperextention to generate consistent pace, like Akhtar does, without the effort that can only be fully sustained in T20.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I reckon he'd be a far worse bowler if he went for pace over anything else. His swing at 130km/h is brilliant when he gets it right and I love watching Apu do well.
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
go and watch the ind australia odi series in india he got up to 149km,
he bowls in the 140s in the odis and also in the tests,its just that the speed guns used by
espn are faulty,look at his bowling speed through the channel 9 speedometer you will
notice the difference
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
atleast he doesnot bend it like akhtar
he bowls at 135-145 so as longa s he swings the ball as he has got a action
that can generate bounce also he is a greta prospect,i thing he will be the best left
arm fast bowler in the years to come
Did you read what I wrote above? I made the mistake of saying that you needed pace to bowl reverse swing earlier, then rectified that by saying that it merely aided it, with the correct wrist position.
I don't believe this. During the test series versus Australia, RP Singh bowled at around 130-135 km/h on average (maybe up to 137-138 km/h). During the test series versus South Africa, he was even slower. He is certainly not 'Johnson-quick'. At any rate, Johnson has gone 150 km/h+ in the one-dayers. Even at his flattest, I haven't seen Johnson bowl slower than around 135 km/h.
NOTE: Oh, so that's in T20's huh? South African ones, no less. Brett Lee has also been extraordinarily quick in South Africa. Besides, I notice that bowlers tend to bowl more quickly with the white ball than with the red ball. Shaun Tait and Brett Lee have reached 160 km/h with the white ball, but not (to my knowledge) with the red ball.
NOTE #2: I failed to see a serious difference between the Channel 9 and ESPN speedometers, from what little of RP Singh's performances I could find (and revisit) on YouTube.
Leading the attack does give RP Singh some leeway, but not enough for me to state that he bowled well consistently throughout the series. Consultation of his average and economy rate is more than enough to indicate this.
Nah, I don't think that he would've made much of a difference in Adelaide. Not bowling in Adelaide would have helped him, actually.
Nobody else generated a great deal of reverse swing, from memory...certainly not enough to avoid the inflation of figures for everybody bar Mitchell Johnson and Ishant Sharma (who both had poor averages at the start).
Stuart Clark, who generates less reverse swing due to his relative lack of pace, had diabolical figures. It's not that hard to ascertain, then, that there wasn't lots of reverse swing on offer for the bowlers. In fact, there wasn't a lot of anything, really. It epitomised a dead track.
He led the attack pretty well early on in Sydney, but certainly not after that. Andrew Symonds, in particular, took him to the cleaners. I don't remember him leaving much of an impression on me in the second innings, although he could've gotten Hussey's scalp.
As for Perth, he leaked runs pretty quickly. That being said, he did take plenty of wickets in the first innings, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He wasn't nearly as effective later, though.
Yes, he did bowl better against Australia's left-handed batsmen than he did against the right-handed batsmen. The fact that he got more conventional swing than reverse swing over the series (and bowled better with the new ball) helped him, too, as did some of the reckless strokes.
I certainly did watch the series. Occassionally, I had to go out, so I didn't watch 100% of it, but I watched more than enough (and through Cricinfo, too).
As for RP Singh's wickets coming primarily from good bowling, I beg to differ. Let's do a breakdown:
1) Michael Clarke: Full, wide one which Clarke awkwardly cut to Laxman. Not great bowling.
2) Michael Hussey: Full, wide one which Hussey went after outside the off, managed to edge it behind. Not great bowling.
3) Phil Jaques: Short and wide one which Jaques (possibly underestimating the bounce) edged behind. A reckless shot, moreso than good bowling.
4) Matthew Hayden: Good delivery, squared Hayden up outside offstump
5) Michael Hussey: Good delivery, surprised Hussey with the bounce
6) Adam Gilchrist: Decent delivery, got Gilchrist to drive one which moved away slightly
7) Andrew Symonds: Reckless shot, trying to smash a full and wide one, not great bowling
8) Michael Hussey: Full and wide, Hussey threw the bat outside off, not great bowling
9) Adam Gilchrist: Lifter outside off, squared Gilchrist up, good delivery
10) Brett Lee: Decent delivery, with Lee pushing away from his body
11) Stuart Clark: Short and wide, under-edge, not great bowling
12) Michael Hussey: Apparently a poor decision, but not a bad delivery from what I saw
13) Shaun Tait: Missed a swinging half-volley, don't know whether that counts
6-7/13 were caused by reckless shots, more than good bowling. Your argument doesn't hold up. Mine isn't as solid as I thought that it was, admittedly, but that's still a significant portion.
Besides, it still doesn't change the fact that he was often cannon fodder on James Anderson's level, bar early on in Sydney and Perth.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Very harsh. Ignores all the good bowling he did between the wickets which more than likely caused a lot of the poor shots. The above reminds me very strongly of when Richard was claiming Glenn McGrath got a succession of poor shots in the early 00's so doesn't deserve credit for the wickets he took. Wickets are rarely down to the wicket-taking ball alone. As Shaun Tait and others have found, bowlers who rely purely on bowling jaffas to take wickets won't take many. Not to mention that the balls he got Hussey, Haydos, etc. with her pretty good anyway, full and swinging away. Yeah they weren't great shots but at that level, you're not going to get batsmen nicking on the defensive all the time. A large part of good swing bowling is drawing the poor shot too. Doesn't mean it's poor bowling at all.
Certainly there were times Singh was ordinary in the series but credit where credit is due his spells with the new cherry in Sydney were outstanding and he deserved every wicket in my view. He bowled relatively well at other times too. Was moving the ball around more than any swing bowler has done in Australia for years.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Very harsh. Ignores all the good bowling he did between the wickets which more than likely caused a lot of the poor shots. The above reminds me very strongly of when Richard was claiming Glenn McGrath got a succession of poor shots in the early 00's so doesn't deserve credit for the wickets he took. Wickets are rarely down to the wicket-taking ball alone. As Shaun Tait and others have found, bowlers who rely purely on bowling jaffas to take wickets won't take many. Not to mention that the balls he got Hussey, Haydos, etc. with her pretty good anyway, full and swinging away. Yeah they weren't great shots but at that level, you're not going to get batsmen nicking on the defensive all the time. A large part of good swing bowling is drawing the poor shot too. Doesn't mean it's poor bowling at all.
Certainly there were times Singh was ordinary in the series but credit where credit is due his spells with the new cherry in Sydney were outstanding and he deserved every wicket in my view. He bowled relatively well at other times too. Was moving the ball around more than any swing bowler has done in Australia for years.