This has been discussed in every forum starting from newbie fans right up to former players of the game and I'd like to add my tuppence worth here.
This is how I feel about it at present and I may add points/reasons later on as well.
Let me state the question clearly:
Why has India not produced world-class fast bowlers of note on a consistent basis?
1
India hasn't produced great bowlers of any kind on a consistent basis.
Let's not kid ourselves that India is some conveyor belt for spinners.
India did field a world-class quartet of spinners much like the WI quartet of pacemen.
But if you look at India's history of spinners, there aren't many names over a period of almost 80 years of cricket.
Gupte, Bedi, Prasanna, Venkatraghavan, Chandrasekhar, Kumble, Harbhajan
Please fill me up on any other great Indian spinner's name worthy of inclusion into that list.
I don't know of anybody else.
That's 7 great spinners in 80 years- not even one spinner every decade.
What about fast bowlers?
Kapil Dev, Srinath, Zaheer
Please fill me up on names that I have missed out on.
So India boasts a total of 12-15 world-class bowlers (of any kind, I have left out medium-pacers like Vinoo Mankad) over a period of 80 years of cricket.
If you look at the same for countries like West Indies, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan etc. they will boast more bowlers.
However, if you look at the batsmen India has forged- the list will be pretty long, undoubtedly longer than West Indies or Pakistan or South Africa (with Aus and Eng might have a longer list purely because they have played for a longer period of time)
So simply put, India has never been a conveyor belt of fast bowlers or spinners- ONLY BATSMEN.
So this begs the question- why?
I'll come to it after the following point.
2
We have had atleast 4 or 5 world class spinners, 3 of whom will easily enter any World XI yet the only fast bowler of note is Kapil Dev and even he would be part of a World XI purely because he was an all-rounder.
Srinath and Zaheer are world class, but Zaheer isn't world-Xi material yet.
Why is this so?
First of all, from the start of cricket in India, sport wasn't a viable profession by any means. In fact, those who played too much of sports were frowned upon as irresponsible wastrels and bums who had no professional skill nor the inclination to learn one.
Those with the athletic ability to bowl fast thereby took up academic professions mostly.
Spin does not emphasize on fitness so those less athletically gifted can also bowl that but if you wanted to bowl fast you must spend time on fitness.
So those who bowled spin could also pursue academic professions in the sideline but fast bowlers didn't have that luxury- in the olden days.
What's more, a slight injury could mean the end of the career.
That is not so if you are a spinner.
Kapil Dev was a natural athlete and he was home-schooled in cricket- he learnt most by himself. He became a fast bowler because he had no academic qualifications or talent and he was the fittest fast bowler of all time.
So fast bowling has nothing to do with diets or religion or culture- it merely has everything to do with attracting the right talent.
But of course, with the rise of the IPL and endorsements for the Indian cricket team, cricket is now a viable profession and will attract the budding fast bowlers and will take care of them.
3.
Why more batsmen than bowlers?
Once again, like I said before, batting is not the most physically demanding profession compared to fast bowling.
It is more a matter of skill and reflexes and although some fitness is required, you don't need to be as fit as a fast bowler.
So it gave you the pleasure of playing cricket and also gave you enough time to pursue an academic career.
So in conclusion, India hasn't produced many fast bowlers until now not because Indians are lazy or their diets aren't suitable to athletic development or their pitches do not encourage fast bowling or any other reason.
It's simply because fast bowling is a highly demanding athletic profession and requires inordinate amount of time which means you can't concentrate on school/college.
That is also the reason why so many other sports are not so popular in India.
Chess has a massive following here- and that is also a sport which doesn't require too much time to learn or play or have any fear of injury.
But with lots of money in cricket and some other sports too, India will soon become a "sporting nation"
Why India didn't produce fast bowlers?
posted on 16/7/11
Why are India's fast bowling (or for that matter any bowling) stocks at their lowest point right now?
One can speculate endlessly on the cultural, atmospheric, historical, administrative and metaphysical factors that have contributed to it. Those will be just that - speculation.
Bowlers develop their skills - surprise, surprise! - by bowling lots of overs. Indian bowlers do not play enough FC cricket. Limited overs or T20 is no substitute; once a bowler just tries to contain the flow of runs and stops looking for wickets, he stultifies his development as a test bowler.
Here are the career overs bowled (tests,FC) for the current Indian pace bowlers, except Zaheer who has a lot of overs under his belt:
Srishant - 792, 1894
Ishant - 1065, 1759
Praveen - 110, 1530
Munaf - 443, 1611
Compare that with the good bowlers from other countries:
Anderson - 2091, 3880
Tremlett - 382, 3325
Steyn - 1586, 2828
And with some of the past greats:
Marshall - 2931, 12441
Walsh - 5003, 14241
Botham - 3636, 10591
Donald - 2587, 9800
Ambrose - 3684, 8133
McGrath - 4875, 6960
The conclusion is inescapable - Indian bowlers other than Zaheer have not played enough FC cricket, they have not bowled enough overs, to evolve into good test bowlers. As long as that remains so, the Indian bowling attack would remain an impoverished one.
posted on 16/7/11
Borges I didn't make that posting to denigrate Bedi but to remind Rex form whom apparently no Indian cricketer can do wrong, that even greats have days to forget.
If you are going to continue to throw insults around about someone's character, you should know them first.
posted on 17/7/11
hopefor:
I'm glad someone saved me the trouble of reading Borges comment about my character.
Like I have said before in another thread- folks in this 606 as well as the old one have this curious trait of trying to judge my life and character of which they know nothing about.
You too are guilty of that crime in the latest comment:
"but to remind Rex form whom apparently no Indian cricketer can do wrong, that even greats have days to forget."
"If you are going to continue to throw insults around about someone's character, you should know them first."
So what gives the impression that I believe that Indian cricketers can do no wrong?
I only responded to the blatantly biased view that Laker, Underwood and Verity were better spinners than Kumble.
And this he based on mere numbers- the overall Test averages with utter disregard to the quality of batsmen, pitch conditions, lbw rules and various other factors that differ vastly from the time of Laker and Co. in comparison to Kumble and Harbhajan.
All greats have poor days- even Steyn has been smashed by Sehwag and even Mcgrath has been demolished by Lara, Pietersen among others.
________________________________________
Borges:
Do you really understand what you're typing or do you merely type whatever random thought comes to mind?
Sreesanth and Munaf made their Test debut in 2006 but have been struggling with various injuries that prevented them from playing FC or Test cricket.
Praveen has just made his a month ago.
Ishant made his debut in 2007 and has played more Tests and less ODIs than all the other three.
All of them have played 45-60 ODIs.
Anderson has been around for years- since 2003 and its natural that he has bowled more Test overs than the Indian attack which is rather young.
Tremlett is almost 30 and has been playing lots of County Cricket (and rarely has been selected for the national team) so its natural that he has more FC overs under his belt than the young Indian seamers.
If the Indian attack today seems green that is because they are truly that- young! They will grow into better bowlers in due course, just like how Anderson became more than merely a swing bowler who could be smashed once the ball got old.
Why don't you do a comparison between Ishant and Finn or Ishant and Bresnan?
posted on 17/7/11
> I'm glad someone saved me the trouble of reading Borges comment about my character.
Rex, let me state most emphatically that I did not repeat *did not* make a comment about either you or your character - in fact did not directly or indirectly refer to either you or any of your posts - in the comment that was deleted.
This hopeforthebest, who is apparently a moderator here, deleted that comment because it questioned the validity of his asinine belittlement of the Indian spin attack based on the sole evidence of one whole game. I had given an example of even the best bowlers in the world would get mauled in odd games, and pointed out that judging a career on the sole basis of one game or even a few games is laughable.
My comment is gone now; presumably deleted by hopeforthebest because it exposed the hollowness and absurdity of his thesis. So you just have to choose to believe either him or me now.
posted on 17/7/11
Borges:
I'm quite happy with your reply and will take your word for it. I don't know much about you or hopefor for that matter, but from what I have seen on this website, hopefor isn't up for a good debate and is mostly abrasive when he knows he's not getting his way. And personal attacks are quite his line too.
But then again- I haven't had much opportunity to discuss anything with him on here except listen to his jibes on my character.
It's too sad that someone like him is in a position of moderator in this website and can delete comments in my article without my permission. Ridiculous and hilarious!
__________________________________________________
And yes - his "reasoning" was quite absurd. All great bowlers have had poor days.
Michael Holding was smashed around by Greg Chappell once, Steyn by Sehwag, Warne by Tendulkar, Mcgrath by Lara etc.
That does not denigrate their greatness one bit. Just like Bradman's last duck, it merely shows they are human.
posted on 17/7/11
> If you are going to continue to throw insults around about someone's character, you should know them first.
First of all, pointing out the absurdity of a post is not an insult, even if the post was made by a moderator. I have as much right to debate a point as you have. You have deleted a post which contained absolutely no insults at all, but merely questioned the validity of your stance. On top of that, you have followed up by making a post which misrepresented what I said, and has resulted in needlessly sowing the seeds of disaffection between me and Rex.
On the internet you are known and judged by the quality of posts that you make; not by personal intimacy. If you say something stupid, it will be challenged. Like it or lump it.
posted on 17/7/11
I simply take exception to being called a bigot. That accusation seems to trip off the tongue too easily from some posters.
posted on 17/7/11
hopefor:
If you are strongly biased towards one side while being intolerant to any other point of view, you will be called a bigot.
There's no surprise in that and no need to be offended by it. It's like calling someone stubborn.
posted on 17/7/11
> I'm quite happy with your reply and will take your word for it.
Thank you.
> I simply take exception to being called a bigot.
I did not call you a bigot. If you care to put my earlier post back in an unedited form, people would be able to make up their own minds about whether it was personally insulting to anyone or not.
posted on 17/7/11
I dis not remove your post, if you have a problem contact the site moderators.