Jasprit Bumrah vs Ray Lindwall

[sayon basak]

I meant I want Bumrah to do well against NZ because NZ has always been India’s Achilles heel but it’s no more or less meaningful than any other match to his legacy

NZ matters for me, but obviously not more than, let's say, his ATG BGT series, and nowhere did I say otherwise. And I'm pretty sure Bumrah will perform decently against NZ if he were to play them in his current form.
As I said, if I have to rate any bowler from this era alongside Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee, I need him to do something special, and maintaining a near perfect record is one of them. Whether you call it checklisting or not, I don't care.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Where did I do "analysis by checklist"? And if you don't give a **** about NZ, that's your choice, and your choice can suck my ass.

Fk off.

Lol triggered

 

[sayon basak]

Lol triggered

I'm triggered as when others do analysis by checklist, they don't say a thing.

 

[ataraxia]

And where did I say that? If I'm gonna rate a bowler from this era in the tier one, he needs to do something special; and having a near perfect record is one of them. Don't know how that's controversial in any way.

Lol everything about this post couldn't be further from the truth

 

[sayon basak]

Lol everything about this post couldn't be further from the truth

How?

 

[ataraxia]

How?

Aiming for a "near perfect record" is not even a dogwhistle for "analysis by checklist": it's the definition of it.

 

[ankitj]

I'm triggered as when others do analysis by checklist, they don't say a thing.

You need to be subtle about it. Read more posts from @subshakerz and @kyear2

 

[sayon basak]

You need to be subtle about it. Read more posts from @subshakerz and @kyear2

Makes sense.


I thought having a near perfect record helps. Guess I was wrong.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

who gaf about New Zealand?

@Fuller Pilch

 

[capt_Luffy]

Seriously though, India lost a home series and a WTC Final against NZ and Bumrah sucked in those matches...... I really can't see why it's wrong to expect him to pick a few great performances against the team that beat them at home after 12 years when he wasn't much effective.

 

[Spark]

That Bumrah vs NZ series is going to be the inverse of that Rabada in Aus series a few years back: people will look at his series average and assume he was just way off the pace for some reason and bowled poorly, when in actuality he was absolutely ****ing terrifying and could have demolished NZ's top order on multiple occasions as he has done to Aus here with just a little bit of fortune.

 

[Spark]

Like I'm still kind of convinced that had Conway nicked one of like three dozen balls that he very easily could have on that final morning of the first Test, he could have taken five in as many overs and India could have won that game. He was that scary. It really goes to show just how random and high-variance cricket can be that it goes down as a "poor series" for him when that was some of the most threatening fast bowling I'd seen in years.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Seriously though, India lost a home series and a WTC Final against NZ and Bumrah sucked in those matches...... I really can't see why it's wrong to expect him to pick a few great performances against the team that beat them at home after 12 years when he wasn't much effective.

It'd be fine to think Bumrah should've done better in those games in particular. The idea that he needs to do well against NZ specifically in the future to make up for those series and make his record "vs NZ" look better is what's dubious. All individual series are their own little thing.

If India are struggling in a home series vs SA for example and are under threat of losing at home again and Bumrah produces some magical spells to turn it around, it doesn't make it any less significant just because he's already done well vs SA before in his career. And a checklist indirectly does exactly that. Giving it undue importance downplays great performances vs certain other teams just because you've already done well vs them in the past . And hence are now "allowed" to be crap vs them for a few series since your overall average vs them is already great. It makes very little sense.

 

[honestbharani]

Checklists only make sense if you consider them from a match-winning and series-winning perspective. If you think a checklists covers "conditions" it shows you have no idea of how climate and cricket pitches work.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It'd be fine to think Bumrah should've done better in those games in particular. The idea that he needs to do well against NZ specifically in the future to make up for those series and make his record "vs NZ" look better is what's dubious. All individual series are their own little thing.

If India are struggling in a home series vs SA for example and are under threat of losing at home again and Bumrah produces some magical spells to turn it around, it doesn't make it any less significant just because he's already done well vs SA before in his career. And a checklist indirectly does exactly that. Giving it undue importance downplays great performances vs certain other teams just because you've already done well vs them in the past . And hence are now "allowed" to be crap vs them for a few series since your overall average vs them is already great. It makes very little sense.

Can understand the logic, but a little bit of revenge never hurt anyone. Bumrah does seem to bring out his worst vs NZ, I think mostly due to crappy luck and timings. Ofcourse I would prefer him to win that SA match or a similar Australia one over any taking a 5-fer in a decided match vs NZ; but I simultaneously want him to atleast have one standout series against the opposition that won the WTC and a home series against us, the latter which no team has managed; and Bumrah underperformed in them. I want it if for nothing but revenge, a sense that they didn't got the upper hand completely here, not because Bumrah is susceptible in NZ conditions (actually, he has a good record in NZ, doing there great in 1 of his 2 matches), but to show that he had a showing against the team he was ineffective before.

 

[kyear2]

I think Bumrah has already surpassed Lindwall by having a much better average and strike rate.

Different era, people knew how to bat and build innings back then.

 

[kyear2]

Lindwall was a ATG. What Bumrah is doing is phenomenal and his this years performance has been one of the best ever by a bowler. 2-3 more years and he surpass Lindwall imho.

But,I am quite certain in saying that Lindwall in today’s date would be the premier quick for Australia and with a proper career no WW2 and not came out of retirement etc. would have a legit shot on being a top 5-6 quick ever. I swear to god I saw 3 ish delivery of Lindwall from footage all Yorkers where he swang the Yorkers pretty much Waqar Younis ish. Can’t find the footage but from my memory first one was bit wide of leg side which swang a lot and other two were basically like the one that Waqar bowled to Lara which the batsman barely survived.

Also to add Lindwall got I think 42 ish percent wicket bowled. That’s the record ever.

I can get behind this overall.

3 plus years and he's ahead of these guys and in that top 6 pacer category, if he keeps this up of course.

I do believe he's ATG calibre already though.

 

[kyear2]

Lindwall at Bumrah’s age

124 @ 20.4

Wonder if Bumrah plays til he’s 38.

And excellent point.

 

[sayon basak]

I can get behind this overall.

3 plus years and he's ahead of these guys and in that top 6 pacer category, if he keeps this up of course.

I do believe he's ATG calibre already though.

I could argue even higher.

 

[Wanna_Be_AB]

I could argue even higher.

Isn't Boom the only bowler to take 200 wickets at an average lower than 20?