Why is Ravichandran Ashwin under-appreciated as a bowler?

[Ab Fan]

As a test bowler, he averages 25 with about 370 test wickets and 27 fi-fers to his name at an away average of 31. He has total seven player of the series award which is the highest by any Indian. Yet, he is nowhere near seen as India's best ever spin bowler let alone one of the world's best.

Additionally, he has four test hundreds with bat also.

Why is he so under-appreciated and undermined even though he was one of the pivotal and integral figures for Kohli-Shastri team India who went on to attain the no.1 ranking for as long as three years? If India maintaining no.1 rank for so many years was an art, Ravichandran Ashwin was the real artist in that. But why is this artist less appreciated and more undermined?

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Deep down everyone knows his action is suspicious. Yet he might never get tested, same as Harbhajan Singh.

Both Ajmal/Hafeez were tested multiple times. Even that SL offie Senanayake was tested.

By law, the bowler is suspended when reported the first time, but no umpire will ever report Ashwin. A sad state of affairs.

 

[Last Monetarist]

His away record is clearly not as bad as some of the hyperbole from his detractors, but I do reckon that this is the worst era in the history of cricket when it comes to judging a player's worth based on his record playing at home.

I suspect part of it has to do with his combative personality too, he perhaps does not possess the stature of someone like Kohli to be able to pull off the faux bravado without attracting criticism.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Deep down everyone knows his action is suspicious. Yet he might never get tested, same as Harbhajan Singh.

Both Ajmal/Hafeez were tested multiple times. Even that SL offie Senanayake was tested.

By law, the bowler is suspended when reported the first time, but no umpire will ever report Ashwin. A sad state of affairs.

Really man? I think his action is one of the cleanest in the sport, never bowls doosra as well. No comparison with Ajmal, Hafeez, Harbhajan. Bhajji should have been reported when someone like Ojha was banned, very lucky to escape IMO. He chucks even in IPL but probably the MI lobby protects him.

On topic Ashwin is rated fairly, as an elite match-winner in Asia and WI like pitches but just an economical, support cast in SENA. His stats in Aus took a hit on some of the flattest pitches in 2011-12 and 2014-15, has been robbed off a few 5fers because of our poor catching. In one of the tests in SA I think he should have got a 12fer but we dropped almost a dozen catches that match, main culprit was Parthiv IIRC. Since our number one ranking was because of home dominance he should get his due, not an ATG but he is the bowling equivalent of Sehwag, or at worst Mahela. In ODIs and T20s he was clutch in ICC events till the 2015 WCup, did much better in his 2 WCs than many others including the highly celebrated Kulcha, almost won us a T20 WC in Bangladesh, his white ball exploits are a bit underrated because people give too much emphasis to meaningless bilateral matches.

 

[Swashbuckler]

* Harbhajan was in MI, now CSK, both powerful franchises, no wonder he is never reported.

Was going through some of the scorecards in Aus when they were racking up 500+ scores on highways. One thing to notice was Ashwin almost always provided control to the skipper to stop run flow, in fact he even had some marathon spells with <2 rpo which is rare in this era !!!! Though he picked mostly 2-3 wickets in those innings he didn't allow the well set batsmen to up the ante against him, our quicks were rubbish then and it wasn't unheard of to see them leak at 5-6 rpo. He can't run through sides in those conditions but I think this trait of his is underappreciated.

Wish he didn't suffer that chronic hernia condition and had taken his batting more seriously. May be an unpopular opinion but he isn't particularly lucky, gets many marginal decisions against him (maybe his annoying face and demeanor), bowls so many unplayable balls which don't fetch wickets and our fielders drop so many catches, even someone like Rahane dropped 5 consecutive catches off his bowling last year in our home season.

 

[andy0204]

He should be there at upcoming World Cup.

 

[pillionrider]

Deep down everyone knows his action is suspicious. Yet he might never get tested, same as Harbhajan Singh.

Both Ajmal/Hafeez were tested multiple times. Even that SL offie Senanayake was tested.

By law, the bowler is suspended when reported the first time, but no umpire will ever report Ashwin. A sad state of affairs.

If you said that about Harbhajan Singh, it would have some merit. But Ashwin on the basis of a few games where he mimicked Narine and Ajmal

I think deep down, Pakistanis know that Ashwin was responsible for starting the process leading up to Ajmal being banned. That's where the problem lies

India suffered some collateral damage from this by losing Ojha for home games, but Jadeja well made up for him.

 

[tyron_woodley]

greater than any English or Pakistani spinners that ever existed. fodders from amateur era pre 80s don't count.
Ofcourse he will be underrated because he isn't a shooperstar like shoaib bhai.

 

[Ab Fan]

Deep down everyone knows his action is suspicious. Yet he might never get tested, same as Harbhajan Singh.

Both Ajmal/Hafeez were tested multiple times. Even that SL offie Senanayake was tested.

By law, the bowler is suspended when reported the first time, but no umpire will ever report Ashwin. A sad state of affairs.

He hardly chucks, far from it. He has a very clean action. In this era, he doesn't stand a chance if he chucks. Harbhajan is a debatable case though. That action was a bit suspicious.

 

[HitWicket]

greater than any English or Pakistani spinners that ever existed. fodders from amateur era pre 80s don't count.
Ofcourse he will be underrated because he isn't a shooperstar like shoaib bhai.

Not even better than Swann before we get on to your ridiculous exclusionary rules.

 

[Ab Fan]

His away record is clearly not as bad as some of the hyperbole from his detractors, but I do reckon that this is the worst era in the history of cricket when it comes to judging a player's worth based on his record playing at home.

I suspect part of it has to do with his combative personality too, he perhaps does not possess the stature of someone like Kohli to be able to pull off the faux bravado without attracting criticism.

Why Ashwin can't take a 5-fer in SENA? Even Jadeja has 1, Harbhajan has 3, Kumble has 5-6.

 

[Buffet]

Why Ashwin can't take a 5-fer in SENA? Even Jadeja has 1, Harbhajan has 3, Kumble has 5-6.

How many tests Tests vs Ashwin?

 

[therealAB]

greater than any English or Pakistani spinners that ever existed. fodders from amateur era pre 80s don't count.
Ofcourse he will be underrated because he isn't a shooperstar like shoaib bhai.

Didn't we agree that they count earlier. Not 'fodders'

 

[therealAB]

Because he is a home track bulky who is in general rubbish outside Asia

 

[Ab Fan]

How many tests Tests vs Ashwin?

In S.E.N.A,

Kumble 35 tests, 141 wickets @ Avg 37, 5 5-fers

Harbhajan 17 tests, 62 wickets @Avg 39.9, 3 5-fers

Ashwin 17 tests, 51 wickets @Avg 42.7, 0 5-fer

Jadeja 11 tests, 34 wickets @Avg 39.2, 1 5-fer

 

[Ab Fan]

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...=wickets;team=6;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Buffet]

In S.E.N.A,

Kumble 35 tests, 141 wickets @ Avg 37, 5 5-fers

Harbhajan 17 tests, 62 wickets @Avg 39.9, 3 5-fers

Ashwin 17 tests, 51 wickets @Avg 42.7, 0 5-fer

Jadeja 11 tests, 34 wickets @Avg 39.2, 1 5-fer

Unless pitch is turning, spinners are fine without taking 5-fers, but they do need to still do well. Lower avg with few more 5-fers will Indian team.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Ashwin as a bowler is to this generation what Kallis and Sangakkara have been as batsmen.

The stats overall are very, rather ATG level but the players are ayt nothing special about any of them.

Local legends for sure

 

[Ab Fan]

Ashwin as a bowler is to this generation what Kallis and Sangakkara have been as batsmen.

The stats overall are very, rather ATG level but the players are ayt nothing special about any of them.

Local legends for sure

Disrespectful to legends like Sanga and Kallis. Remember, Kallis won SA a test series in India and Pakistan.

 

[Titan24]

Ashwin as a bowler is to this generation what Kallis and Sangakkara have been as batsmen.

The stats overall are very, rather ATG level but the players are ayt nothing special about any of them.

Local legends for sure

Kallis and Sangakkara are just local legends? I dont think so.

Kallis averages more than 50 in every single country he played in except Eng and Srilanka (Considering more than 2 tests) and has close to 300 test wickets.

While Sangakkara averages 60+ in 7 out of 11 countries he played tests in.

Both are ATGs in my opinion and can easily be part of many all time XIs.

On the other hand Ashwin averages 33 or + with ball oustside sub continent except WI. He is a really good player and one of the best spinners in recent times but cant be compared with Kallis and Sanga who have extraordinary stats almost every where.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Why Ashwin can't take a 5-fer in SENA? Even Jadeja has 1, Harbhajan has 3, Kumble has 5-6.

Obvious answer is that he plays in a team with strong depth in fast bowling, which wasn't the case for Kumble. He has underachieved abroad certainly, but on the occasions I have seen him bowl, he hasn't been woeful as the detractors suggest. His performances in the recent away cycle were an improvement on how he fared in his first few years of test cricket. Conversely, his home record is laughably skewed as well and I won't rate him even as an Indian all-time great.

 

[therealAB]

Ashwin as a bowler is to this generation what Kallis and Sangakkara have been as batsmen.

The stats overall are very, rather ATG level but the players are ayt nothing special about any of them.

Local legends for sure

shocking post. I would argue that Kallis and Sanga were more influential than any subcontinental spin bowler ever bar Murali, and I would be right

 

[Bhaijaan]

These are hard hitting comments i know. Ashwin is a phenom in sub continent. He is a bigger threat in his comfort zone than peak Warne or Murali anywhere ever, one could even argue he's a bigger match winner than the great Anil Kumble!

But all said and done, these are mostly local legends we are talking about, Ashwin/Kallis/Sanga and co.

As time passes, their stock drops exponentially, not by few places.

There is always a reason why things are the way they are. Fans are not unfair. They are us and we are them.

There are icons and legends, kids and sheilas out there drool for, men look up to them for inspiration and aspire to be like them and if. It they wish their kids to be like them. It takes qualities far more than statistics to be a hero of that level local legends cannot be

 

[Ab Fan]

In S.E.N.A,

Kumble 35 tests, 141 wickets @ Avg 37, 5 5-fers

Harbhajan 17 tests, 62 wickets @Avg 39.9, 3 5-fers

Ashwin 17 tests, 51 wickets @Avg 42.7, 0 5-fer

Jadeja 11 tests, 34 wickets @Avg 39.2, 1 5-fer

To put things further into perspective, IN SENA again,

Muralitharan 22 tests,120 wickets@ Avg 26.5, 10 5-fers

Herath 21 tests, 57 wickets @Avg 42, 2 5-fers

Kaneria 17 tests, 69 wickets, @Avg 38.86, 4 5-fers

Saqlain 11 tests, 40 wickets, @Avg 34.5, 1 5-fer

Yasir 12 tests, 32 wickets @Avg 63.5, 2 5-fers

Clearly, Murali was the standout test bowler from Asia by a margin. Peak Saqlain was probably second but when you consider his Windies stats, his 'outside Asia' stats hurts more. I will rate Kumble a distant second followed by Saqlain because former had almost thrice times wickets than latter and at overall same average. These three to be followed by Ashwin and Herath in about same league.

Jadeja's stats are misleading because only now is he playing more tests in SENA but as a cricketer, he too is up there. Yasir is even behind.

Post 90s in tests,

1. Murali
2. Kumble
3. Saqlain
4. Ashwin
5. Herath

 

[ads101]

The reason is simple. Touring teams are unhappy with the pitches India prepare these days. Too much turners, and believe they give too much of an advantage to India. And of course Ashwin is the main beneficiary of this, and it doesn't help his record in the SENA countries is bad. Most touring spinners don't do well there and wouldn't be made a big thing he didn't do well there, if people didn't complain about India pitches.

The argument could be said that SENA countries have produced wickets which were extremely unfavourable for asian countries for decades. It would be within India's right to do the same. The problem is now SENA is producing flatter pitches (particularly Australia) for better competition and assume India will do the same. It's just a bad time for India to do it. It's similar to the situation where countries attack china for pollution and carbon emissions when they feel it's their turn to advance just like others did in the past e.g. USA, UK etc. There's also arguments that some countries are just over exaggerating, India aren't tailoring their pitches much at all, it's just an excuse. But wherever the truth lies, I've no doubt this issue affects how people see Ashwin.

Ashwin's a great cricketer regardless, and I'm sure would do well on any subcontinent pitch. He's just unfortunate to be involved in this dispute. There needs to be better rules and guidelines set out on the preparation of pitches.

 

[Robert]

I rate him. Dunno why he hasn’t done much with the ball in England.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

He is still a bit of a home-track bully. Unlike Kumble, who delivered on many foreign tours, Ashwin has not been able to do the same. As a result he has often found himself making way for Jadeja during key matches abroad in England, Australia. Essentially being replaced as India's No. 1 spinner.

Ashwin is a great spinner but anyone who has seen him bowl would agree that he lacks versatility. Discipline is good but sometimes you need a little something more when the ball is not turning square.

 

[Mamoon]

He is a world class spinner but not even the best in India. Jadeja is magnificent.

 

[Bhaijaan]

There is an aspect of spin bowling that is mostly overlooked and it is that all spinners bowl better when they have the pressure of scoreboard in their favour.

This is primarily the reason why spinners are mostly home bullies and the few spinners who have an exceptional away record mostly belong to champion teams whose batsmen pile on the runs even away from home to aid their spinners.

Even in Ashwin's case, few foreign nations where he actually has good stats haooen to be West Indies and Sri Lanka where Indian batsmen dominated the home team.

Kumble had a good run in Australia in 2004 and that is when we were hitting 500, 600,700 runs.

On the contrary, even GOAT level spinners struggled in India on our spinning tracks. Why? Not enough runs by visiting batsmen.

When visiting batsmen scored runs, even Monty Panesar was a pain for Indian batsmen

 

[CricketCartoons]

In fact he is over rated. Inflated numbers by easy wickets in home conditions. Very un-athletic and boring personality.

 

[ManFan]

He is a world class spinner but not even the best in India. Jadeja is magnificent.

Actually Ashwin averages better in 4 out of the 7 countries the two have played in.

Ashwin: WI, SL, NZ, ENG

Jadeja: SA, AUS, IND

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Actually Ashwin averages better in 4 out of the 7 countries the two have played in.

Ashwin: WI, SL, NZ, ENG

Jadeja: SA, AUS, IND

Yes but Jadeja has played far lesser matches in West Indies and Sri Lanka while also maintaining very good average under 30 in both these countries. Furthermore, Ashwin has bowled in only one innings in New Zealand, not even a full test match. Which is not really a good enough reason to say he is a better bowler in New Zealand conditions than Jadeja.

Furthermore, Jadeja is a more effective batsman and a better fielder and therefore, brings more to the side as a cricketer.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

There is an aspect of spin bowling that is mostly overlooked and it is that all spinners bowl better when they have the pressure of scoreboard in their favour.

This is primarily the reason why spinners are mostly home bullies and the few spinners who have an exceptional away record mostly belong to champion teams whose batsmen pile on the runs even away from home to aid their spinners.

Even in Ashwin's case, few foreign nations where he actually has good stats haooen to be West Indies and Sri Lanka where Indian batsmen dominated the home team.

Kumble had a good run in Australia in 2004 and that is when we were hitting 500, 600,700 runs.

On the contrary, even GOAT level spinners struggled in India on our spinning tracks. Why? Not enough runs by visiting batsmen.

When visiting batsmen scored runs, even Monty Panesar was a pain for Indian batsmen

Your theory is valid to an extent. It ignores the impact of conditions.

West Indies and Sri Lanka both provided perfect spinning conditions on the two tours where Ashwin ran riot wickets-wise. One would argue that both were not exactly the best sides in the world and didn't match India in any department.

Whereas, Kumble on the 2004 tour was bowling on flat-wickets against the best batting line-up in the world on their home turf. So to take 24 wickets in that series was a massive achievement since even someone like Murali has failed badly in Australia.

 

[ManFan]

Yes but Jadeja has played far lesser matches in West Indies and Sri Lanka while also maintaining very good average under 30 in both these countries. Furthermore, Ashwin has bowled in only one innings in New Zealand, not even a full test match. Which is not really a good enough reason to say he is a better bowler in New Zealand conditions than Jadeja.

Furthermore, Jadeja is a more effective batsman and a better fielder and therefore, brings more to the side as a cricketer.

Thanks for the clarification.

I would like to add however, that strictly as a spinner, they are pretty even but Jadeja performs much better in unfriendly conditions.

 

[tyron_woodley]

The reason is simple. Touring teams are unhappy with the pitches India prepare these days. Too much turners, and believe they give too much of an advantage to India. And of course Ashwin is the main beneficiary of this, and it doesn't help his record in the SENA countries is bad. Most touring spinners don't do well there and wouldn't be made a big thing he didn't do well there, if people didn't complain about India pitches.

The argument could be said that SENA countries have produced wickets which were extremely unfavourable for asian countries for decades. It would be within India's right to do the same. The problem is now SENA is producing flatter pitches (particularly Australia) for better competition and assume India will do the same. It's just a bad time for India to do it. It's similar to the situation where countries attack china for pollution and carbon emissions when they feel it's their turn to advance just like others did in the past e.g. USA, UK etc. There's also arguments that some countries are just over exaggerating, India aren't tailoring their pitches much at all, it's just an excuse. But wherever the truth lies, I've no doubt this issue affects how people see Ashwin.

Ashwin's a great cricketer regardless, and I'm sure would do well on any subcontinent pitch. He's just unfortunate to be involved in this dispute. There needs to be better rules and guidelines set out on the preparation of pitches.

that is absolute rubbish. India produces the fairest pitches in Asia by far. We don't use designer pitches like australia and south africa who use synthetic turfs to generate extra bounce that suits their bowlers. Bowlers who always get outbowled in india when they tour.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Didn't we agree that they count earlier. Not 'fodders'

I never said they counted earlier. I said the rules were different and cricket was an elitist white privileged sport at the time. You can only be a great of your era. Past greats are just that. Past greats of their era. Ofcourse you will always get a few greats in every era who could transcend legends from any era but that generally doesn't apply to players who played under different rule sets, as was the case with pre 80s greats.
Post 90s saw more changes in the rules and should be rated accordingly.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Your theory is valid to an extent. It ignores the impact of conditions.

West Indies and Sri Lanka both provided perfect spinning conditions on the two tours where Ashwin ran riot wickets-wise. One would argue that both were not exactly the best sides in the world and didn't match India in any department.

Whereas, Kumble on the 2004 tour was bowling on flat-wickets against the best batting line-up in the world on their home turf. So to take 24 wickets in that series was a massive achievement since even someone like Murali has failed badly in Australia.

Kumble had a lot of wickets bowling millions of overs down under in that tour. If one has to be brutally honest none of his spells help us win. Kumble was supposed to win us the final 4th test with all the scoreboard pressure behind him to work with. He failed

Even at Adelaide, when Aussies had a partnership going it was Tendulkar whose part time helped get couple of wickets.

But you've already agreed to my point to an extent so we are pretty much on the same page.

Touring spinners bowl better when their own batsmen pile on the runs and have scoreboard pressure behind them.

Yasir, Ashwin, and many more belong in the same class.

To be honest there are hardly any great touring spinners from average cricket nations

 

[HitWicket]

that is absolute rubbish. India produces the fairest pitches in Asia by far. We don't use designer pitches like australia and south africa who use synthetic turfs to generate extra bounce that suits their bowlers. Bowlers who always get outbowled in india when they tour.

Synthetic turf isn't permitted for international pitches...

 

[therealAB]

I never said they counted earlier. I said the rules were different and cricket was an elitist white privileged sport at the time. You can only be a great of your era. Past greats are just that. Past greats of their era. Ofcourse you will always get a few greats in every era who could transcend legends from any era but that generally doesn't apply to players who played under different rule sets, as was the case with pre 80s greats.
Post 90s saw more changes in the rules and should be rated accordingly.

What tests rules changed?

How about the players who careers spanned multiple generations and were consistently good

 

[tyron_woodley]

Synthetic turf isn't permitted for international pitches...

Australia and south africa are the pioneers of rigging pitches to suit their bowling attack. Whatever turf the use, it's tailor made for bouncy conditions which suit their players. That's the whole point.

 

[tyron_woodley]

What tests rules changed?

How about the players who careers spanned multiple generations and were consistently good

really? what rules changed?

think about it. 80s vs post 2000.

unlimited bouncers vs 2 per over. that's a start.

 

[HitWicket]

unlimited bouncers vs 2 per over. that's a start.

Yes, this had a drastic effect on the performance of spinners...

 

[therealAB]

really? what rules changed?

think about it. 80s vs post 2000.

unlimited bouncers vs 2 per over. that's a start.

And how does that impact an off spinner. What an argument.

I am going to quote this if you ever say it has got harder for batsmen as well

 

[tyron_woodley]

And how does that impact an off spinner. What an argument.

I am going to quote this if you ever say it has got harder for batsmen as well

lo9l. You serious. I was just pointing out rules changes in general. You dint specify about the impact of rules changes for spinners.

Anyway as for rules and regulations;
how about this?
DRS?
match tapes to watch and analyze
data analytics (advanced technolgy to create gameplans vs specific bowlers
unbiased umpires?
no no ball umpires?
thicker bats/blades
gear/protection advancement
shortened break times
different innings structures. Games are played to get a result in modern era unlike the past.
result oriented era?
Today, Test matches are scheduled to be played across five consecutive days. However, in the early days of Test cricket, matches were played for three or four days.

.....

 

[therealAB]

lo9l. You serious. I was just pointing out rules changes in general. You dint specify about the impact of rules changes for spinners.

Anyway as for rules and regulations;
how about this?
DRS?
match tapes to watch and analyze
data analytics (advanced technolgy to create gameplans vs specific bowlers
unbiased umpires?
no no ball umpires?
thicker bats/blades
gear/protection advancement
shortened break times
different innings structures. Games are played to get a result in modern era unlike the past.
result oriented era?
Today, Test matches are scheduled to be played across five consecutive days. However, in the early days of Test cricket, matches were played for three or four days.

.....

Given it is a spinner thread I thought that was obvious were were talking about spinners.

Umpires work both ways. DRS works both ways. No net change
No balls were called significantly more often, now they only get called on wickets. Before they would cost bowlers runs

Shortened break times haha. Batsmen need this just as much (or more) than bowlers so there is no net change.

Different game structure doesn't impact averages. The aim is still to score as much as possible

Analytics work both ways, as the batsmen can analyse the bowler and the bowler can analyse the batsmen. No net change

How does length of match change anything?

The only one I will give you is bat technology and gear. However, in the past you have refused to acknowledge this to mark up older players so I do not know what your point is. From now I will quote you whenever you dismiss older batsmen

 

[tyron_woodley]

Given it is a spinner thread I thought that was obvious were were talking about spinners.

Umpires work both ways. DRS works both ways. No net change
No balls were called significantly more often, now they only get called on wickets. Before they would cost bowlers runs

Shortened break times haha. Batsmen need this just as much (or more) than bowlers so there is no net change.

Different game structure doesn't impact averages. The aim is still to score as much as possible

Analytics work both ways, as the batsmen can analyse the bowler and the bowler can analyse the batsmen. No net change

How does length of match change anything?

The only one I will give you is bat technology and gear. However, in the past you have refused to acknowledge this to mark up older players so I do not know what your point is. From now I will quote you whenever you dismiss older batsmen

umpires work both ways lol ok. Still there were no unbiased umpires and unfortunately there was no technology to save the batsmen from getting out to the spinners. So you feel like a lot of decisions were given against the bowler lol? There is significant net change.

Shortened break times matter. Shortened breaks means less rest and players will be more fatigued easily. duh?

shorter break times mean there won't be enough time to recuperate particularly if the side is trailing.

Analytics work both ways? yes. What's your point? Fact is past greats dint play in an era where their abilities would be scrutinized in detail.

length of the match lol? You serious? it affects your power, speed, endurance and possibly technique as well. Your technique falters when you are down in stamina. Have you even played cricket?

I will continue to dismiss all pre 80s greats. I don't care. They played under different circumstances. It's not comparable.

Bat technology, gear is a huge change btw. You make it sound like it's a minor negligible factor.

Don't forget the result friendly era. We don't play for draws like in the past. It's geared towards obtaining a result.

Different game structure matters because it affects a player's endurance ability. The fitness standards are far higher now.

Pre 80s lacked the power game as they weren't proper athletes.

 

[HitWicket]

umpires work both ways lol ok. Still there were no unbiased umpires and unfortunately there was no technology to save the batsmen from getting out to the spinners. So you feel like a lot of decisions were given against the bowler lol? There is significant net change.

So what about the times when batsmen who were out weren't given because of biased umpires disadvantaging the spinners...?

Shortened break times matter. Shortened breaks means less rest and players will be more fatigued easily. duh?

So batsmen in the past were benefited by extended breaks allowing them to regain concentration and be less fatigued when playing the spinners?

Analytics work both ways? yes. What's your point? Fact is past greats dint play in an era where their abilities would be scrutinized in detail.

So spinners didn't have the chance to scrutinise the technique of the batsmen they were playing against?

length of the match lol? You serious? it affects your power, speed, endurance and possibly technique as well. Your technique falters when you are down in stamina. Have you even played cricket?

So the batsmens techniques would've faltered less back then making it more difficult for the spinners to take their wicket?

Bat technology, gear is a huge change btw. You make it sound like it's a minor negligible factor.

How has gear changed in a way that's disadvantaged spinners?

Don't forget the result friendly era. We don't play for draws like in the past. It's geared towards obtaining a result.

So batsmen would have played more defensively in the past meaning it would've been harder for the spinners to take their wickets?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Ashwin is a fantastic spinner in helpful conditions. Add a super clean action and some decent batting ability and you have a fantastic all round cricketer. Unfortunately that chronic sports hernia has reduced his effectiveness overall. Despite that, he has performed better away than some rank useless spinners He atleast managed to keep the run rates down on his last two tours of Australia and was pretty decent in England last time.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Kumble had a lot of wickets bowling millions of overs down under in that tour. If one has to be brutally honest none of his spells help us win. Kumble was supposed to win us the final 4th test with all the scoreboard pressure behind him to work with. He failed

Even at Adelaide, when Aussies had a partnership going it was Tendulkar whose part time helped get couple of wickets.

But you've already agreed to my point to an extent so we are pretty much on the same page.

Touring spinners bowl better when their own batsmen pile on the runs and have scoreboard pressure behind them.

Yasir, Ashwin, and many more belong in the same class.

To be honest there are hardly any great touring spinners from average cricket nations

Kumble took 12 wickets in that match including 8 in the first innings. Surely it was up to the rest of the bowlers aswell to pick up some of the slack.

Problem with Ashwin is that he is just not that good. We've seen him fail multiple times in foreign conditions when the ball is not turning. India has a very good batting line-up unlike Pakistan and I'm sure there are many cases where Indian batsmen piled up the runs in the first or second innings but Ashwin failed to deliver. I would put that failure down to lack of versatility more than anything else.

Scoreboard pressure allows you bowl with less pressure but it doesn't mean you can get away with bowling rubbish. If you don't know what areas to bowl you will get punished even if your side has 700 on the board. Here Yasir Shah in the 2016 Boxing Day test comes to mind, who put up an absolutely abject performance along with the rest of the Pakistani bowlers after Pakistan had amassed a pretty good 443.

 

[therealAB]

umpires work both ways lol ok. Still there were no unbiased umpires and unfortunately there was no technology to save the batsmen from getting out to the spinners. So you feel like a lot of decisions were given against the bowler lol? There is significant net change.

Shortened break times matter. Shortened breaks means less rest and players will be more fatigued easily. duh?

shorter break times mean there won't be enough time to recuperate particularly if the side is trailing.

Analytics work both ways? yes. What's your point? Fact is past greats dint play in an era where their abilities would be scrutinized in detail.

length of the match lol? You serious? it affects your power, speed, endurance and possibly technique as well. Your technique falters when you are down in stamina. Have you even played cricket?

I will continue to dismiss all pre 80s greats. I don't care. They played under different circumstances. It's not comparable.

Bat technology, gear is a huge change btw. You make it sound like it's a minor negligible factor.

Don't forget the result friendly era. We don't play for draws like in the past. It's geared towards obtaining a result.

Different game structure matters because it affects a player's endurance ability. The fitness standards are far higher now.

Pre 80s lacked the power game as they weren't proper athletes.

Some time the batsmen were out and they were given not out, sometimes they were given not out and they were out, especially with spinners when the moment a batsmen went down the pitch they couldn't get given LBW. The umpires is the same thing.

Shortened breaks times work both ways

Analytics work both ways, either side can analyse each other

Bat technology is a change, but you have been unable to admit that so far when you say older batsmen were horrible.

How does result-focused matter. The test average has been in the low 30's for the past 80 years. While the run rate is faster, the ratio of wickets to runs conceded, the ultimate bowling stat, has not changed. Laker >> Ashwin due to this, he has a better average in most countries

Do not tell me they lacked the power game because they were not proper athletes. Lindwall played rugby for St Georges, Sir Garfield could have done anything he wanted. Less six-hitting is a result of bats and nothing else, but you never seem to mark up past batsmen for the bat point.

I am tired of you saying they are bad because they played in the 70's or earlier. My main argument is that players had long, consistent careers over many decades. I am putting it in bold because you have not once responded to it. Please do

 

[tyron_woodley]

Some time the batsmen were out and they were given not out, sometimes they were given not out and they were out, especially with spinners when the moment a batsmen went down the pitch they couldn't get given LBW. The umpires is the same thing.

Shortened breaks times work both ways

Analytics work both ways, either side can analyse each other

Bat technology is a change, but you have been unable to admit that so far when you say older batsmen were horrible.

How does result-focused matter. The test average has been in the low 30's for the past 80 years. While the run rate is faster, the ratio of wickets to runs conceded, the ultimate bowling stat, has not changed. Laker >> Ashwin due to this, he has a better average in most countries

Do not tell me they lacked the power game because they were not proper athletes. Lindwall played rugby for St Georges, Sir Garfield could have done anything he wanted. Less six-hitting is a result of bats and nothing else, but you never seem to mark up past batsmen for the bat point.

I am tired of you saying they are bad because they played in the 70's or earlier. My main argument is that players had long, consistent careers over many decades. I am putting it in bold because you have not once responded to it. Please do

laker is not better than ashwin in any way. there is no way of comparing the two. It's absolutely absurd. They played under totally different circumstances.

sometimes batsmen were given out and sometimes they weren't. Doesn't change the fact that he played under different circumstances in a weak amateur era when cricket wasn't a globalised sport.
What about the bouncer rule which affects Batman. The pace bowlers would be able to bully and intimidate the batsmen with the bouncer barrage, which conversely makes it easier for spinners to clean the batsmen up. Spinners will find it much easier to dismantle a weakened mentally fragile batsman due to the pressure built up by the pace bowlers.

Shortened break times doesn't favour both teams. It Always favours the team that bats.

 

[therealAB]

laker is not better than ashwin in any way. there is no way of comparing the two. It's absolutely absurd. They played under totally different circumstances.

sometimes batsmen were given out and sometimes they weren't. Doesn't change the fact that he played under different circumstances in a weak amateur era when cricket wasn't a globalised sport.
What about the bouncer rule which affects Batman. The pace bowlers would be able to bully and intimidate the batsmen with the bouncer barrage, which conversely makes it easier for spinners to clean the batsmen up. Spinners will find it much easier to dismantle a weakened mentally fragile batsman due to the pressure built up by the pace bowlers.

Shortened break times doesn't favour both teams. It Always favours the team that bats.

I am not going to reply to anything you say until you respond to the thing I put in bold

 

[tyron_woodley]

I am not going to reply to anything you say until you respond to the thing I put in bold

who? sobers? and who else?

strength of opposition matters too. Every era is different. You can only be a great of your era under the same rule set. .

if you are able to dominate over two era's than you are one of the best ever like sobers. Still doesn't mean he would dominate in the modern era under different rules. Sobers had a great bowling attack to support him, thereeby making the task of batting much easier since they often outbowl opposition for low scores.

Warne made a career by living off mcgrath's ability to dominate batsmen. McGrath paced the way for him by building up pressure and intimidating batsmen. Warne picked up the scraps Not saying he wasn't talent but it's questionable if he would have what the same impact playing behind a mediocre frontline bowler.

All tthese things matter.

 

[therealAB]

who? sobers? and who else?

strength of opposition matters too. Every era is different. You can only be a great of your era under the same rule set. .

if you are able to dominate over two era's than you are one of the best ever like sobers. Still doesn't mean he would dominate in the modern era under different rules. Sobers had a great bowling attack to support him, thereeby making the task of batting much easier since they often outbowl opposition for low scores.

Warne made a career by living off mcgrath's ability to dominate batsmen. McGrath paced the way for him by building up pressure and intimidating batsmen. Warne picked up the scraps Not saying he wasn't talent but it's questionable if he would have what the same impact playing behind a mediocre frontline bowler.

All tthese things matter.

Sobers, Trueman, Snow, Ian Chappell, Kanhai, Simpson who came back after 10 years and topped the averages. I could name 20 more. You do not have to be a top tier ATG to have a consistent career over 15+ years, spanning generations. Sobers did not have a great attack. Wes Hall was good, but Griffith only played 28 tests, and Sobers' career was after Ramahdin and Valentine. Sobers was a leading bowler for a while

Warne was at his best from 1993-97 when McGrath wasn't as good as he would turn out to be so that argument is rubbish

 

[ads101]

that is absolute rubbish. India produces the fairest pitches in Asia by far. We don't use designer pitches like australia and south africa who use synthetic turfs to generate extra bounce that suits their bowlers. Bowlers who always get outbowled in india when they tour.

Never said that India do. Just other countries complain that India do. Kohli's been defending this in the media, articles been written, foreign players complaining. The fact that most other asian teams are weak/don't play in India means that they can get away with the criticism as there's no standard been put in place.

I'm very sure this is one of the reasons Ashwin's underrated. People attribute his success to the pitches rather than his skill as a result.

 

[Ab Fan]

Never said that India do. Just other countries complain that India do. Kohli's been defending this in the media, articles been written, foreign players complaining. The fact that most other asian teams are weak/don't play in India means that they can get away with the criticism as there's no standard been put in place.

I'm very sure this is one of the reasons Ashwin's underrated. People attribute his success to the pitches rather than his skill as a result.

Agreed completely. The fact that he has never run through any strong team away from India goes against him. He did it in Sri Lanka time and again out-bowling Herath but that is clearly not enough because he has nothing to show up in SENA atleast till now.

He does it time and again in India but when he travels overseas, he struggles and then he does it again in India, Sri Lanka and Windies but continues to struggles in SENA.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Sobers, Trueman, Snow, Ian Chappell, Kanhai, Simpson who came back after 10 years and topped the averages. I could name 20 more. You do not have to be a top tier ATG to have a consistent career over 15+ years, spanning generations. Sobers did not have a great attack. Wes Hall was good, but Griffith only played 28 tests, and Sobers' career was after Ramahdin and Valentine. Sobers was a leading bowler for a while

Warne was at his best from 1993-97 when McGrath wasn't as good as he would turn out to be so that argument is rubbish

warne in 1993 -97 played vs who? he could win in india without mcgrath. Ever.

sobers was helped by his teammates as he had a world class bowling attack. That makes a huge difference.
Not to mention he had a brutal batting lineup alongside him.

Richard hadlee could be regarded as the greatest all rounder as he carried a weak team to the top single handedly. However, he could be the type that excels when he has weaker players around him. Some players struggle to have the same impact when they play alongside great players. Such players often get overshadowed by their contemporaries despite being of similar skill level.

I am just saying you can only be a great of your era and it has to be under a similar rule set.

 

[therealAB]

warne in 1993 -97 played vs who? he could win in india without mcgrath. Ever.

sobers was helped by his teammates as he had a world class bowling attack. That makes a huge difference.
Not to mention he had a brutal batting lineup alongside him.

Richard hadlee could be regarded as the greatest all rounder as he carried a weak team to the top single handedly. However, he could be the type that excels when he has weaker players around him. Some players struggle to have the same impact when they play alongside great players. Such players often get overshadowed by their contemporaries despite being of similar skill level.

I am just saying you can only be a great of your era and it has to be under a similar rule set.

Anyone who knows anything about Warne knows that he was at his most destructive between the tour of England and his first shoulder issues

 

[tyron_woodley]

Anyone who knows anything about Warne knows that he was at his most destructive between the tour of England and his first shoulder issues

yea vs a weak English side.Sure. He still dint do jack squat vs india in India without mcgrath. He looked destructive because he faced weak era teams in the 90s. The most corrupted scandalous era of all time riddled with match fixers etc.

 

[Hasan123]

He is a class bowler. Gets disrespected too much on PP. Lots of people love ICC tournament stats look at his performances in the 2013 CT , 2015 WC , and 2016 World T20. He was excellent in those tournaments.

Remember that the WC in 2015 was in Australia and New Zealand, CT in 2013 was in England. His performances in those tournaments dispell the myth that he is FTB and isn't a good LO bowler.

I rate him higher than Jadeja. Also India should give him a chance instead of Jadeja if they want to play a off spinner alongside a leggie. He would do better than Jadeja with the ball.

 

[King_Kohli]

Today In 2010

Ravichandran Ashwin made his Intl debut against SL

Most Wickets Since Ashwin's Debut

Ashwin - 567
Anderson - 527
Broad - 515
Southee - 474
Boult - 470
Starc - 465

 

[King_Kohli]

Ravichandran Ashwin only Indian bowler with 3 10 Wicket Hauls in a calendar year (2016)

13/140 vs NZ
12/167 vs Eng
10/225 vs NZ

 

[Ab Fan]

Ashwin is definitely a great bowler not that I have picked him in my team

 

[MenInG]

Happy Birthday to Ashwin

Born: September 17, 1986 (age 37 years), Chennai, India

What a performer!

 

[Bhaijaan]

Happy Birthday to Ashwin

Born: September 17, 1986 (age 37 years), Chennai, India

What a performer!

Happy Birthday bro.

I hope Ashwin retires with 608 test wickets, just one shy of Bharat’s greatest spinner of all time.

 

[kron]

He is overrated because his stats are poor in nz and south africa. Average in England. Only recently he has somewhat corrected his average vs Australia but it still is high.

Murali and Warne have better away averages hence they are a class above. Ashwin is more in the kumble class. Just a tier below.