India are considered by many to be a strong chance of winning the World Cup. Yet their feeble bowling attack means India’s batsmen will have to run amok for them to triumph.
India do not have a single world-class bowler – someone capable of turning a game in a matter of overs with their brilliance.
The two main contenders for the World Cup have at least two such bowlers. Australia boast Mitchell Johnson and Mitch Starc. South Africa have Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel.
Even New Zealand, who most people have on equal pegging with India, have Mitchell McClenaghan and Tim Southee who, while not in the class of that aforementioned quartet, are still capable of scything through sides.
England might be considered far less likely to win the World Cup than India, but in Australian conditions they are as well placed as India to make waves at the tournament.
They may not possess the same level of batting firepower but in James Anderson and Stuart Broad they have a pair of accomplished and highly-skilled quicks who on their day can shame even the strongest of batting line-ups.
These players can shift momentum when all seems lost or can help you defend a low total. Who can India turn to in such situations?
They have two players in the top 10 of the ICC’s ODI player rankings – left-arm spinner Ravindra Jadeja and medium pacer Bhuvneshwar Kumar. The problem for India is that both Jadeja and Kumar require conditions to be in their favour to trouble batsmen.
If the pitch is dusty and offering turn and bounce Jadeja is a handful. If the ball is swinging significantly, so too is Kumar.
But Jadeja doesn’t possess the skill and variety of a Saeed Ajmal or Sunil Narine to test opponents in all conditions. Neither does Kumar have the pace or bounce of Johnson, Starc, Steyn or Morkel to remain potent when the ball is not swinging.
The Indian who may have the potential to bowl them to victories is seamer Mohammed Shami. While horrendously expensive throughout the recent Tests against Australia, he did display an ability to make breakthroughs on Australian pitches.
As India’s leading wicket taker in ODIs last year, he could be their most important player at the World Cup. Capable of swinging the ball at 140kmh-plus when in good rhythm, Shami will need to have a big tournament to paper over the cracks in India’s attack.
For them to win the tournament, it seems they will have to set or chase massive totals consistently.
Their bowling attack is not effective enough either to confidently defend less than 300 or to limit powerful batting line-ups like Australia or South Africa to less than that.
This places enormous pressure on India’s three key batsmen – Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma and MS Dhoni. So talented are that trio that if they all flourish in the World Cup India will be a massive threat. On the flipside, if even one of them struggles it is hard to see India even making the final, let alone lifting the cup.
Kohli is arguably the best ODI batsman in the world, alongside AB de Villiers, while a case can be made that Dhoni is the best ODI player of all time.
Rohit made a wonderful 138 against Australia recently but still has a lot to prove outside of the ridiculously-flat pitches of the subcontinent. In ODIs in India he averages 66, compared to 29 in away matches.
Kohli, Dhoni, Rohit and Shami – this quartet hold India’s hopes. Their lack of other potential match winners, particularly with the ball, leaves them poorly placed to knock off heavyweights Australia and South Africa.
raz
Guest
So far they definitely seemed to have risen to the the occasion, another CT 2013 repeat anyone??
ozinsa
Guest
Chris you've hit the nail on the head. You compare what the Kiwis did from 5/93 after 19 overs in Dunedin and what the Indians did from 4/185 after 35 overs recently (360 and 267 respectively) and you see their problem. I know they're isolated games and I can choose examples to suit my argument but it was clear Dhoni felt he needed to be heedful of the quality of batters to come at 4 down whereas the Kiwis kept going hard at 5 down. In the end, Dhoni delayed his takeoff and then failed but that he felt the need to bat time for a while indicates the weakness of 8/9/10/11. If you can get early wickets then they're in trouble and that has be happening often away from home base. They're gone.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Dunc... McLenaghan had a phenomenal start to his career (first 15-20 games) but has been very patchy for 12 months now - he has averaged 35 with the ball over 14 ODIs during that year. He's not in the class of Steyn/Johnson/Starc/Morkel. As for NZ, they are confident and have a well-balanced side but they also have a very poor record against the top teams, having won just 18 of their past 53 ODIs against Australia, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka and England.
Bobbo7
Guest
I agree Ronan. Unlike India they have bowling and if they turn up they can beat the anyone on the day. Not a side I would want to face in a semi or final
DMC
Guest
So who has the best strike rate then mate? ;0 McClenaghan... And he is two thirds of the way to being the quickest to 100 wickets in ODI history (in games) So is he world-class? Probably not... stats/smats you can use them however you want to support your argument. For mine, I have South Africa as the top side, and then Aus and NZ equal pegging. Haven't played you lot in 4 years so who knows? Find out soon enough, can't wait.
ChrisT
Guest
Yep, would agree with England having no chance of stringing together a series currently - but if they're on fire on enough fronts they have the personnel to beat any side. They're gonna be someone's banana skin if underestimated.
Peter
Roar Rookie
I do worry about our spin options though. Doherty is not too bad at this form of the game. But if he's not selected, relying on Maxwell as a spinner who can bowl more than maybe 3 overs seems a bit of a stretch at this level.
The Bush
Roar Guru
"…who knows?" The bookies.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Pakistan are a dark horse given their level of talent - they have a nice mix of pace and spin and several good batsmen - but its impossible to ever know what to expect from them. They could take the comp by storm and make the final or they could lose to minnows and not even make the quarters...who knows?
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
The kiwis are ranked 6th for this world cup are they .. seems an awfully low ranking given their recent performances and the fact they're playing all their matches on home pitches - must climb onboard at the TAB ...
Targa
Guest
Yeah, his name is Matt Henry but the selectors didn't even pick him in the squad.
BrumbyJack
Guest
Cantab I tend to agree regarding Pakistan being a dark horse for the tournament. Ronan do you rate Pakistan? With so much depth it is very hard seeing the Australians losing this tournament. But of course Sth Africa with Amla, De Villiers, Steyn and Morkel are a big threat. The only problem with Sth Africa is they simply do not have Australia's depth.
jameswm
Guest
Wow - big call by Darwin Stubbie to say a Kiwi who can't make their starting XI is a better bowler than Aussie spearhead Mitchell Starc.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Boult has played 15 games, half as many as Starc, with a quarter of the success. Boult is a wonderful Test bowler but has made no impact in ODIs yet, whereas Starc is one of the elite limited overs bowlers in the world. Starc is almost the first player picked in the number one ODI side whereas Boult is a fringe player in the sixth-ranked side.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
how many ODI games has he played ? .. NZC has purposely kept him out of the 1 day game to concentrate on his test career ... a pure stats comparison is about as useful as switching it around and comparing their respective test stats
Jake
Guest
"the kiwis actually have a better left armer in Boult " ha ha. Better than who? You do know that in bowling terms, a high average and strike rate (ie Boult) is not considered a good thing.
Noel
Roar Rookie
Agreed. India are notoriously extrinsically motivated. Though I can't argue, and wouldn't argue, with the article in the main, I do get the feeling that once the media in India start to take an interest, so will the side. It just seems to me that India play best when under that scrutiny. And like Dizzy says, this one, they care about.
spruce moose
Guest
Ah, yes there is subjectivity. The umpire when he gives it out or not out is making a call based purely on subjective speculation that he believes on the evidence put forward that the ball is going to hit the stumps. He CANNOT possibly know that, so it is a subjective, albeit highly considered opinion. The players (the batsman or the fielders) are also making decisions based on pure subjective information. While the technology, by virtue of it being a computer, applies its craft objectively, the entirely process is still highly subjective. It's not black and white like tennis. Umpires call in cricket has added an enormous grey area that makes you think twice about your want to review and how that may affect the rest of your team mates....yet another consideration that is irrelevant in an individual sport like cricket.
Cantab
Guest
Yeah Starc is without a doubt a better ODI bowler than Boult. That said I don't expect Boult to make the starting 11 if everyone is fit.
Anth
Guest
Just assume every time he didn't produce was because he was on the take and would have otherwise scored a ton/bagged a five-fer. Then he becomes a great cricketer and a bad human, and we should only remember the second bit because that's all that really matters.