Okay, so who's gonna win?

[adharcric]

I have to doubt extremely whether Pathan, Sreesanth, VRV Singh or RP Singh will be ODI-class bowlers - and certainly not in a year's time.
Never heard of Nabi.

Pathan ~ in the 05-06 season, averaging 20 overall, 23 against non-minnows
RP Singh ~ in the 05-06 season, averaging 21 overall, 20 against non-minnows
Sreesanth ~ the figures are deceptive, anyone will tell you he's been impressive thus far
VRV Singh ~ have you even seen him bowl? i'll admit i havent either, but the way they've been picking out top bowlers lately, i wouldnt be surprised if he's impressive as well, especially considering the selectors preferred him to munaf for the 1st test
Munaf Patel ~ 7 wickets on debut say enough about his potential
Abid Nabi ~ Lillee praised him and Laxman was impressed by him in the nets, has hit 148 kph

Are they world-class right now? No. Will they be world-class by the end of the year? Maybe not. Will they be a potent unit by the end of the year? Most likely yes.

 

[Richard]

No, it would not.

Yes, it would.
Good bowlers in the modern era have economy-rates of absolutely no more than 4.5-an-over - and even that's stretching it.
If every bowler concedes 4.81-an-over you'll lose most games.

 

[Richard]

Pathan ~ in the 05-06 season, averaging 20 overall, 23 against non-minnows
RP Singh ~ in the 05-06 season, averaging 21 overall, 20 against non-minnows
Sreesanth ~ the figures are deceptive, anyone will tell you he's been impressive thus far
VRV Singh ~ have you even seen him bowl? i'll admit i havent either, but the way they've been picking out top bowlers lately, i wouldnt be surprised if he's impressive as well, especially considering the selectors preferred him to munaf for the 1st test
Munaf Patel ~ 7 wickets on debut say enough about his potential
Abid Nabi ~ Lillee praised him and Laxman was impressed by him in the nets, has hit 148 kph

Are they world-class right now? No. Will they be world-class by the end of the year? Maybe not. Will they be a potent unit by the end of the year? Most likely yes.

We've seen Indian seam-bowlers built-up way beyond their ability before (saw it plenty with Khan, Nehra, etc.) and I'll not be remotely surprised if we see it again. You'll notice I did not include Patel in the list of I-doubt-its because he actually bowled extremely well on Test debut and has a very good First-Class record. Still, one-day cricket and the First-Class game are a different kettle-of-fish.
We've seen seamers in the RP Singh mould come in and get wickets early on plenty of times (Khan is a good Indian example), then become ineffective. If RP Singh was really that good, he'd have a better List-A record than he does.
As for Lillee praising Abid Nabi - you'll forgive me for being reluctant on that as Lillee has praised many young seamers, Harmison and Mitchell Johnson among them and so far little has come of those 2.
As for Sreesanth, I was wholly unimpressed by what I saw of him, and not that surprised at being so. Sreesanth has a moderate domestic record and clearly lacks accuracy. Reminds me very much of a Leicestershire bowler called Scott Boswell who attained notoriety for which anyone watching the 2001 C&G final will tell you of.
I have to doubt very much whether any of the young Indian seamers listed will become much, aside from Patel and possibly Abid Nabi, because I've never heard of him before. Even if they do, the way ODIs are going bowlers are going to be virtually pointless before long anyway.

 

[Nate]

You can be so hopeless. As if 4.81 isn`t good?!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, it would.
Good bowlers in the modern era have economy-rates of absolutely no more than 4.5-an-over - and even that's stretching it.
If every bowler concedes 4.81-an-over you'll lose most games.

Hogg's career economy rate is 4.5. In his recent career when it has gone up, he has been taking more wickets. Suits me.

And Brett Lee is quite obviously a "good" ODI bowler and goes for 4.7. Ntini goes for about 4.5, and is obviously good. Shoaib is also good, and goes for 4.6.

The fact is, 240 is a below par score in the modern ODI era. That means that if every bowler goes for 4.81 and you have decent batsmen you'll do fine. Consider Australia - do you imagine that Australia would lose most games if the opposition score 240? Look at recent history and check, if you like. How many of the better batsmen in world cricket have ODI strike rates significantly under 80, for that matter, since that's what we are talking about with 4.8?

4.8 might have been a poor economy rate in the 90s, but today it's par. Providing you are taking wickets and thus facilitating other bowlers keeping the runs down, going at anything under 5 is perfectly acceptable. It's only if you aren't taking wickets that you really need to go at 4 or so to be good.

 

[Richard]

Hogg's career economy rate is 4.5. In his recent career when it has gone up, he has been taking more wickets. Suits me.

And Brett Lee is quite obviously a "good" ODI bowler and goes for 4.7. Ntini goes for about 4.5, and is obviously good. Shoaib is also good, and goes for 4.6.

Saying "he goes for X" is exceptionally simplistic. I've already mentioned how Hogg's career can be divided clearly into 3 parts, and even if an economy-rate is such-and-such over a long period, it doesn't mean bowlers go for that same amount every game. Lee and Shoaib have both played plenty of ODIs and usually they either take wickets and bowl pretty economically (during the time wickets are being taken - ie an opening spell of 6-20-3 then a later spell of 4-28-0) or get absolutely hammered and take few wickets. Of course there are exceptions to that rule where they've been going for runs and taking wickets at the same time, but they're unusual.
By-and-large, economy and wicket-taking go hand-in-hand in the one-day game.
However, a good economy-rate is much easier damaged than a good average.

The fact is, 240 is a below par score in the modern ODI era. That means that if every bowler goes for 4.81 and you have decent batsmen you'll do fine. Consider Australia - do you imagine that Australia would lose most games if the opposition score 240? Look at recent history and check, if you like. How many of the better batsmen in world cricket have ODI strike rates significantly under 80, for that matter, since that's what we are talking about with 4.8?

4.8 might have been a poor economy rate in the 90s, but today it's par. Providing you are taking wickets and thus facilitating other bowlers keeping the runs down, going at anything under 5 is perfectly acceptable. It's only if you aren't taking wickets that you really need to go at 4 or so to be good.

You know the reason most teams can chase 240, don't you? Yes, that's right - it's because most bowlers aren't good enough to keep the rate down below 4.8-an-over over 50 overs. If the bowling-attacks were as good as they were in the 1990s, chasing 240 would become tough again.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You know the reason most teams can chase 240, don't you? Yes, that's right - it's because most bowlers aren't good enough to keep the rate down below 4.8-an-over over 50 overs. If the bowling-attacks were as good as they were in the 1990s, chasing 240 would become tough again.

Most teams chase 240 because with modern ODI tactics it's pretty easy to score at 5 an over, even if the bowling is good. Basically, if you score 239 in the first innings, you need to take wickets to win the game in the second. Nobody is going to fail to score 5 an over for 50 overs (except obviously on a difficult pitch) if they aren't getting bowled out or at least losing a clump of wickets and having to rebuild. Most ODI pitches are flat, the field is up for 20 overs now, and no matter how accurately you bowl the opposition will still score runs off you.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish - bowl accurately (with the keeper standing-up to most bowlers) and run-scoring, on whatever type of pitch and with whatever field-restrictions (ain't like 20 overs is a massive period) is not easy. Certainly chasing 240 with 5 bowlers capable of bowling accurately is always going to be difficult. On a slow pitch it's going to be very, very difficult.
Of course, it'll always be easier than setting 240 ITFP against an attack of said quality.

 

[marc71178]

If every bowler concedes 4.81-an-over you'll lose most games.

Utter codswallop.

 

[aussie]

I have to doubt extremely whether Pathan, Sreesanth, VRV Singh or RP Singh will be ODI-class bowlers - and certainly not in a year's time.
Never heard of Nabi.

nah from what i have seen of RP Singh, Patel & Sreenath plus Pathan i don't see why they cant..

 

[aussie]

Rubbish - bowl accurately (with the keeper standing-up to most bowlers) and run-scoring, on whatever type of pitch and with whatever field-restrictions (ain't like 20 overs is a massive period) is not easy. Certainly chasing 240 with 5 bowlers capable of bowling accurately is always going to be difficult. On a slow pitch it's going to be very, very difficult.
Of course, it'll always be easier than setting 240 ITFP against an attack of said quality.

that 20 over restriction in the context of 50 over cricket is very massive come on?. 240 runs in modern OD cricket is a cake walk for most teams, even if you have 5 bowlers capable of bowling accurately just doing that wont be able to restrict a team today in OD cricket they would have to bowl them out.

 

[Nate]

Since when do sides have five outstanding bowlers anyhow?

 

[aussie]

Since when do sides have five outstanding bowlers anyhow?

lol, good point Nath

 

[Richard]

Utter codswallop.

No, it's not - bowlers with economy-rates of said won't be picked for long (barring outstanding strike-rates) and that tells you why.

 

[Richard]

nah from what i have seen of RP Singh, Patel & Sreenath plus Pathan i don't see why they cant..

What's so special about Singh, Sreesanth and Pathan I ask?
They seem typical Indian seamers in that they lack accuracy and often seem to lose their swing.
Patel looks like he might be a different case but still - well as he bowled at Mohali, it's only 1 game so far.

 

[Richard]

that 20 over restriction in the context of 50 over cricket is very massive come on?. 240 runs in modern OD cricket is a cake walk for most teams, even if you have 5 bowlers capable of bowling accurately just doing that wont be able to restrict a team today in OD cricket they would have to bowl them out.

And if you restrict teams you will bowl them out, too.
Restricting the run-rate pretty much invariably leads to wickets, because batsmen know they can't afford to keep tiptoeing along at 3.6-an-over or whatever.

 

[Richard]

Since when do sides have five outstanding bowlers anyhow?

Pretty much never in the current age.
Sides have often had 2 or 3 outstanding bowlers and a couple of good ones in the past, though, and there's no real reason to assume that won't be the case again in the future... we just can't know when.

 

[Dick Rockett]

McMillan is a decent ODI player as far as I'm concerned, and I somehow doubt Fulton, How or anyone of that ilk is as good.

Actually pretty much anyone is a better bet than Craig McMillan. I was a big supporter of his for a very long time but he's wasted even my patience.

Peter Fulton is a very very classy player - has all the shots, finds the gaps, and has boundless patience and talent. In years to come I reckon he'll be our Andrew Jones to Ross Taylor's Martin Crowe.

Perhaps you should take the time to watch someone play before making such a call.

 

[Richard]

What's Fulton's List-A-OD average again?

 

[Blaze]

Richard - Why do you rate McMillan? His ODI average is something like 26, his strike rate isn't that high and he is mentally weak. You, especially, should be able to acknowledge that natural ability can mean nothing in international cricket.