The Indian selectors are the best in the world

[marc71178]

Its funny isn't it -- when Jimmy Anderson ran through Pakistan, the week before Nehra ran through England, it was great bowling according to you pommies.

Actually, I'll think you'll find it was generally agreed on here that it was the conditions more than the bowling, but don't let the facts cloud your judgement!

 

[aussie_beater]

Actually, I'll think you'll find it was generally agreed on here that it was the conditions more than the bowling, but don't let the facts cloud your judgement!

Yeah conditions aided both Nehra's and Anderson's performance.Every bowler thrives in favourable conditions....except maybe the West Indian quicks of the 80s..... so what's the beef ?

 

[marc71178]

Yeah conditions aided both Nehra's and Anderson's performance.Every bowler thrives in favourable conditions....except maybe the West Indian quicks of the 80s..... so what's the beef ?

I believe the problem is I exposed Nehra's so-called fantastic Tournament as not actually being that good, and Mr ryfler didn't like it so resorted to trying to belittle other players achievements, except he selected a performance that had already been attributed to conditions.

 

[Salamuddin]

No it's nothing like!

This is 2 good performances (1 very much conditions-aided and the other dismissing one of the weaker tails in World Cricket) plus 7 pretty ordinary efforts.

That is not a fantastic Tournament.

Ashish Nehra

0-35 V Zimb
6-21 v England
2-74 v Pak
0-30 v Ken
4-35 v SL
1-24 v NZ
2-11 v Ken
0-57 v AUS

Seems to me like had 5 pretty good performances there -- one so-so (v Zimb) and two poor (v Aus and Pak).
Certainly rubbishes your claim of 7 ordinary efforts.
Ok maybe not a fantastic tournament -- a very good one then.

As for the 4-35 v Sri Lanka, I don't see what the fuss is -- he got Sangakkara (who is not a tail ender) and Vaas, Murali and Nissanka (who are). Its not his fault he didn't have a crack at the top order -- the top order was cleaned up in the space of 4 overs by Srinath and Zaheer. Someone has to clean up the tail and he did so efficiently -- so kudos to him.

Yes the conditions were suitable for his style of bowling at Durban but you still have to bowl well -- it is quite pathetic that English supporters like you trot out the excuse that they lost because of the conditions given the week before they were happy to take advantage of the swinging ball to beat Pakistan.
The English press and supporters were going gaga over Anderson and his spell of swing bowling -- which was indeed good, no arguments there. Yet you won't give Nehra any credit for his performance.
Run chases have been accomplished at Durban before and England weren't facing a huge total. They were done in by quality bowling and poor application on the part of the batsmen.

 

[Salamuddin]

Actually, I'll think you'll find it was generally agreed on here that it was the conditions more than the bowling, but don't let the facts cloud your judgement!

That's funny because most of the commentators in the India-Eng game felt that it was pretty damn good bowling.

Indeed even Nasser Hussain said after the game, that England were done in by a superior bowling performance and that India's total was definitely gettable.

 

[marc71178]

That's funny because most of the commentators in the India-Eng game felt that it was pretty damn good bowling.

Most people on here agreed both performances were aided greatly by conditions, obviously the ball still needed to be put in the right place, but we didn't go overboard about the quality of bowling for either match.

 

[Richard]

It is surely beyond question, whatever spontaneous commentators said at the time, that to make a white ball - especially a new one - swing at night in South Africa is not the hardest task.
Both have struggled to swing the ball at times in different circumstances, and both have struggled with control on plenty of occasions.
The fact is, both bowlers took advantage of the conditions but, like the New Zealand-India Tests, the conditions helped the bowlers so much that the achievements must be taken in context. And that context is that you are unlikely to find better conditions for swing than at night in England\South Africa\New Zealand, and you are unlikely to find better conditions for seam than those pitches for the New Zealand-India Tests in 2002\03. It is similar to achievements against Bangladesh being taken in the context that most of Bangladesh's batsmen are nowhere near Test-class and hence they play poor strokes with regularity.
And as for Nehra cleaning-up the Sri Lanka tail, no, it's not his fault that he didn't get the chance to bowl at the top-order, but nor are the poor shots the tail did play to his credit. And given that he gained, not lost, it is credit, not fault, that matters.
But I do agree that he had 3 other good performances in WC2003 - in one-day-cricket, you don't have to take wickets to have good figures.

 

[scud101]

As Dilip Vengsarkar once said, "The selectors are a joke". They really are. Mohinder Amarnath was dropped a handful of times for being a quality player. Robin Singh was picked on the tour of the West Indies in 1989 and was dreadfully overlooked until he made his ODI comeback in 1996 at the age of 33! VVS Laxman was treated shoddily all through his career until recently and his World Cup 2003 snub will go down as one of the greatest selection gaffes of all time. Debashish Mohanty, if I recall correctly, he was pretty good in swinging conditions. Why has he been overlooked for...what...3, 4 years?Indian selectors work in mysterious ways! :P

 

[Arjun]

VVS Laxman was treated shoddily all through his career until recently and his World Cup 2003 snub will go down as one of the greatest selection gaffes of all time.

That was a debatable point at that time, since VVS Laxman was a weak link on the field, a bad runner between wickets and a slow scorer incapable of hitting the big shots needed. Luckily, he's improved on all 3 fronts now. But his replacement was a shocker- he was a REALLY slow scorer, an average fielder and one who did not believe in running between wickets much. Not to mention, he could not last long- after a long and laboured 10-20 runs, he'd play a silly shot and get out. He was also picked since 'he could bowl', which was something of hardly any use.

Debashish Mohanty, if I recall correctly, he was pretty good in swinging conditions. Why has he been overlooked for...what...3, 4 years?

The same Debashish Mohanty was a target on flat pitches, where he was needed. Inability to adapt may have been the reason why he was out of action for so long.