Which Test team is better ? Smith's South Africa Or Kohli's India ?

[Pippen94]

Pant is a much better batsman than Wade though, even if his keeping doesn't improve, he can purely play as a batsman for India like Sanga who gave up keeping for Sri Lanka and played only as a batsman.

Why don't India play both him & saha??

 

[PhatBoy]

Wade was selected for batting with hope keeping would improve - never did

Wade was older when he debuted than pant is now and when he was bought back he was brought back he was 8 years older than pant is now.

 

[PhatBoy]

Why don't India play both him & saha??

Because if his keeping is at least passable and with Jadeja and Ashwin both capable with the bat it immediately adds to their bowling depth. Jadeja is if anything a better batsman than Saha so they don’t lose a thing at 7

 

[Gethelred]

Oof. Massive oversight. Who would you replace in that top 6 to accommodate Kallis? It's tempting to sub out Boucher & have AB take the gloves, but I believe the best wicketkeeper should get the spot on merit.

Pujara. Kallis did what he does faster, and can open the bowling.

 

[PhatBoy]

If you really wanted to slot pujara in you could open with him - though Elgar opens in the hardest new ball conditions on the planet and has done a decent job so he warrants discussion at least

 

[Gethelred]

If you really wanted to slot pujara in you could open with him - though Elgar opens in the hardest new ball conditions on the planet and has done a decent job so he warrants discussion at least

It could be because every Australian special commentator with an opinion wanted it, but I can't stand the idea of opening with him. All ******* summer, 'let's swap Gill in, he's a natural no.3'; never ******* mind that Gill and Rohit actually look like they complement each other in terms of their styles and the lines they attack/defend.

You've arguably got the defensive opener already in Smith, and Elgar has probably the hardest task in the world at present; you'd either be shoehorning Rohit in to fit him in ahead of him. Pujara is damn close the the perfect no.3, and it isn't his fault that he's pitted against the greatest modern all rounder if not the best all rounder ever statistically.

It'll be an interesting conversation in 6 months, if the Gill-Rohit pairing start producing frequently.

 

[jle101]

Since we're discussing combined RSA/India lineups I thought I might have a go at extending it to an all-time selection.

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Graeme Pollock*
Rahul Dravid
Jacques Kallis (on a spinning wicket Jadeja or possibly Vinoo Mankad would come in)
MS Dhoni+
Mike Procter (Kapil Dev & Shaun Pollock also in the discussion)
Anil Kumble (though I'd be happy with any of Ashwin, Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna or Tayfield instead)
Dale Steyn (Neil Adcock also worth a shout)
Allan Donald

 

[Gethelred]

Since we're discussing combined RSA/India lineups I thought I might have a go at extending it to an all-time selection.

Barry Richards
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Graeme Pollock*
Rahul Dravid
Jacques Kallis (on a spinning wicket Jadeja or possibly Vinoo Mankad would come in)
MS Dhoni+
Mike Procter (Kapil Dev & Shaun Pollock also in the discussion)
Anil Kumble (though I'd be happy with any of Ashwin, Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna or Tayfield instead)
Dale Steyn (Neil Adcock also worth a shout)
Allan Donald

Ashwin over Kumble for me. Average of 24 at a strike rate of 52 compared to Kumble's 29.65 at 66; Ashwin mightn't have the wickets yet, but he's by far the more dangerous bowler.

 

[jle101]

Ashwin over Kumble for me. Average of 24 at a strike rate of 52 compared to Kumble's 29.65 at 66; Ashwin mightn't have the wickets yet, but he's by far the more dangerous bowler.

Definitely hard to argue with those numbers. Though many Indian cricket fans I've spoken to still regard Kumble as the greatest spinner their country has produced. Perhaps the fact Kumble had a lesser supporting cast back then might be a reason why they still choose Kumble over Ashwin.

Then again, a fair few of the older gen would probably swear by Chandra being the GOAT Indian spinner. As an aside, Tony Greig often said that Bishan Bedi was the finest he's seen from India. It's probably the toughest selection out of the lot.

 

[Gethelred]

Definitely hard to argue with those numbers. Though many Indian cricket fans I've spoken to still regard Kumble as the greatest spinner their country has produced. Perhaps the fact Kumble had a lesser supporting cast back then might be a reason why they still choose Kumble over Ashwin.

Then again, a fair few of the older gen would probably swear by Chandra being the GOAT Indian spinner. As an aside, Tony Greig often said that Bishan Bedi was the finest he's seen from India. It's probably the toughest selection out of the lot.

Chandrasekhar: Average of 29.75, strike rate of 65.96
Bedi: Average of 28.71, strike rate of 80.32.

That 'lesser supporting cast' thing cuts both ways; it means that Kumble was more likely to pick up big bags of wickets, where Ashwin has been outbowled by Bumrah and Jadeja rather often. For him to compete, he has to be better and more threatening.

Admittedly, never got to watch either of Chandrasekhar or Bedi; before my time. Both could be superior bowlers, but against the best at present Ashwin is producing better figures.

 

[jle101]

Chandrasekhar: Average of 29.75, strike rate of 65.96
Bedi: Average of 28.71, strike rate of 80.32.

That 'lesser supporting cast' thing cuts both ways; it means that Kumble was more likely to pick up big bags of wickets, where Ashwin has been outbowled by Bumrah and Jadeja rather often. For him to compete, he has to be better and more threatening.

Admittedly, never got to watch either of Chandrasekhar or Bedi; before my time. Both could be superior bowlers, but against the best at present Ashwin is producing better figures.

Agreed, it does cut it both ways. Though a quality bowling attack creates more pressure from both ends & can lead to wickets falling faster, thus inflating stats to an extent. All in all, I guess it kinda cancels itself out, as you said, certain bowlers can get out-bowled by their team mates on a regular basis if they are of high quality.

From what I've seen I'd probably say that Ashwin was the more aggressive bowler who spun the ball a lot more, whereas Kumble was an accuracy king. Both had plenty of variations too. I'm kinda starting to agree that Ash has surpassed Kumble. Ashwin has a greater legacy outside of India, so I suppose that should count for a lot.

Same here, the famous spin-quartet of the 70's was way before my time. Apart from reading about them & watching highlights on them it's hard to make a definitive call there.

 

[jle101]

Probably should also be mentioned that India don't play Pakistan in Tests any more, something which may benefit Ashwin.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ashwin has fantastic numbers, No argument there. I do think he's benefitted a bit from the lack of genuinely good players of spin over the last 6-7 years of international cricket. At present outside the Indian team and Pakistan who they never play (and even they don't have a HUGE array of gun players of spin), I would say only Root, Smith and oddly enough as I alluded to in the 'team to beat India in India' thread, Darren Bravo, would be considered experts at playing spin. In the past there have been players like Cook, Lara, Martyn, Clarke, Amla, ABDV, Chanderpaul, the Sri Lankans who were all fairly expertised at handling slow bowling in difficult conditions.

 

[jle101]

Could even include Younis, Jayawardene, Sangakkara & Lara in amongst that lot.

 

[PhatBoy]

Could even include Younis, Jayawardene, Sangakkara & Lara in amongst that lot.

Covered Lara and grouped the Lankans together (Samaraweera was another very good in spinning conditions) but yeah Younis and Yousuf actually played against India and were very good, so too Inzamam

 

[jle101]

Missed Lara in your post! Was just trying to think of more 90's players.

Come to think of it Jimmy Adams probably deserves a mention due to his series-saving (yawn inducing) digs in India in 1994. Earned him the nickname "Jimmy Padams" due to his excessive use of the pads when defending. Some classic stonewall stuff.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Could even include Younis, Jayawardene, Sangakkara & Lara in amongst that lot.

Misbah deserves a mention too, was a great player of spin bowling.

 

[Gethelred]

Ashwin has fantastic numbers, No argument there. I do think he's benefitted a bit from the lack of genuinely good players of spin over the last 6-7 years of international cricket. At present outside the Indian team and Pakistan who they never play (and even they don't have a HUGE array of gun players of spin), I would say only Root, Smith and oddly enough as I alluded to in the 'team to beat India in India' thread, Darren Bravo, would be considered experts at playing spin. In the past there have been players like Cook, Lara, Martyn, Clarke, Amla, ABDV, Chanderpaul, the Sri Lankans who were all fairly expertised at handling slow bowling in difficult conditions.

Can only play who you're against. Also, it's a bit tricky to quantify the difference between eras, given the pitch doctoring that was understated before and is now completely open, so back then were those players better against spin or were the conditions more friendly for batting?

Which also works as an argument against Ashwin, for getting to play on doctored surfaces, and so the merry-go-round starts again.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Can only play who you're against. Also, it's a bit tricky to quantify the difference between eras, given the pitch doctoring that was understated before and is now completely open, so back then were those players better against spin or were the conditions more friendly for batting?

Which also works as an argument against Ashwin, for getting to play on doctored surfaces, and so the merry-go-round starts again.

I think in the past batsmen used to play spin well, while nowadays their techniques against spin are shoddy to say the least. While this argument works against Ashwin, its also important to remember that past spinners also benefitted from pitch doctoring. Ashwin certainly isn't the lone spinner in the world who has benefitted from pitch doctoring,lol

 

[Gethelred]

I think in the past batsmen used to play spin well, while nowadays their techniques against spin are shoddy to say the least. While this argument works against Ashwin, its also important to remember that past spinners also benefitted from pitch doctoring. Ashwin certainly isn't the lone spinner in the world who has benefitted from pitch doctoring,lol

While it's true that past spinners benefited from pitch doctoring, if you think about it India's skill with the bat eclipsed their skill with the ball, especially when Harbhajan and Kumble were running round. Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and the best hits of the rest probably lends towards pitches that while they favour you with the ball (a turning surface) they're going to favour batting too. After all, if travelling techniques are decent to middling playing spin and your players are better, on a batting deck that takes turn you're going to make 600+ and your bowlers will still be effective where theirs won't.

Essentially, the same situation we had here under Michael Clarke; bouncy, Australian batting decks which suited our bowlers and our batsman. Warner, Clarke, Watson, Haddin would get a ton, and their opposition would have to face Siddle, Harris, Hilfenhaus, Johnson on a bouncy deck.

I mean, I agree with the point being made, that techniques to spin have gone downhill. But I put that down to the proliferation of short form cricket decreasing and disincentivizing patient play, thicker edges meaning greater margin for error and mishit boundaries, and a lack of time for tour games or real preparation prior to a test series. But Ashwin ties batsman into knots in any format; he's just as effective bowling 4 overs in the IPL as he is 28 overs with a red ball.

I suppose my point is that comparing between eras is fraught, but that's a rather obvious point to make.

 

[jle101]

It's an interesting thought. You could almost these days divide players between those of the tour match-era, & those of the current era. Not even sure if an Ashes tour contains many tour games anymore.