Subroto Banerjee and Srinath
rkusenet
Subroto Banerjee. Some opportunist take it as
a chance to flame srinath. Basically trying
to prove that JS was lucky and SB was aiyo
pavam unlucky.
This is what Cricinfo page on Banerjee has to say
about him. Pay attention to the line I have underlined.
rk-
========================
One of the earliest products of the MRF Pace foundation,
Banerjee was included in the Indian team admist high
expectations. He went on the tour of Australia in 1991-92,
where it was thought he would succeed given the hard and
bouncy tracks `Down Under.' He played in the third Test
at Sydney as the fourth seamer when India took the field
without a specialist spinner. Banerjee who bowled only in
the first innings picking up three wickets for 47 - those
of Mark Waugh, Taylor and Marsh. He then figured in the Benson
& Hedges World Series that followed without any conspicuous
success. Banerjee was also selected for the tour of South
Africa the next season but did not play a single Test and
met with only modest success in the one dayers and the
first class games and was a forgotten man after that.
The fact that he bowled short and wide and
could not bowl long spells were perhaps the reasons for his
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
international career being brief.
Kamesh
"rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:icwL9.2695$pS6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> One of the earliest products of the MRF Pace foundation,
> Banerjee was included in the Indian team admist high
> expectations. He went on the tour of Australia in 1991-92,
> where it was thought he would succeed given the hard and
> bouncy tracks `Down Under.' He played in the third Test
> at Sydney as the fourth seamer when India took the field
> without a specialist spinner. Banerjee who bowled only in
> the first innings picking up three wickets for 47 - those
> of Mark Waugh, Taylor and Marsh. He then figured in the Benson
> & Hedges World Series that followed without any conspicuous
> success. Banerjee was also selected for the tour of South
> Africa the next season but did not play a single Test and
> met with only modest success in the one dayers and the
> first class games and was a forgotten man after that.
> The fact that he bowled short and wide and
> could not bowl long spells were perhaps the reasons for his
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> international career being brief.
Yeah..that's well known.....but in light of the fact that people quickly
jump on things like such and such was not given enough chances to prove
himself, this was relevant. There was room for improvement. He did not do
very badly in the test he played in. Maybe some physical conditioning and
guidance could have seen him through.
The fact of the matter is that this was Subroto's own fault for not working
on those weaknesses. Adding to it was that we had Kapil, Prabhakar still in.
It was between Srinath and Subroto and Srinath proved his mettle. Srinath
was definitely faster and did not derail after 18 overs.
Later, Prasad came on and he had some dream tests 95 onwards. Subroto was
formally out of contention by then.
0.02
Kamesh
jai
> Subroto Banerjee. Some opportunist take it as
> a chance to flame srinath. Basically trying
> to prove that JS was lucky and SB was aiyo
> pavam unlucky.
RK
it doesn't have to be zero sum i.e. one at expense of other .We needed as
many decent guys as we could and Subrata didn't blot his copybook badly (I
recall another good game in the triangular too)
That said, you should know better than to justify JS ahead of anyone on
grounds of *stamina* of all things !
jai
Piyush
"rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:icwL9.2695$pS6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Narayanan
"jai" <vp...@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_DwL9.436$_a6.41...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
JS for what it is worth was not bad either in stamina or fitness
till 1996. In any case, we had no business to be playing medium
fast(rather military medium ) bowlers in the early 1990s.
Raghu Jetley
> The fact that he bowled short and wide and
> could not bowl long spells were perhaps the reasons for his
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> international career being brief.
Author - Natarajan Sriram.
Augustus Fink-Nottle
>The fact that he bowled short and wide and
>could not bowl long spells were perhaps the reasons for his
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>international career being brief.
Can anyone name an Indian pace bowler who did not bowl
short and wide and could bowl long spells?
- Gussie
rkusenet
> RK
> it doesn't have to be zero sum i.e. one at expense of other .We needed as
> many decent guys as we could and Subrata didn't blot his copybook badly (I
> recall another good game in the triangular too)
>
> That said, you should know better than to justify JS ahead of anyone on
> grounds of *stamina* of all things !
what is this suppose to be. a joke???
JS never derailed after bowling 18 overs in an inngs. SB
vanished from the field after 18 overs.
rk-
rkusenet
"Augustus Fink-Nottle" <brain_sal...@elp.com> wrote :-
> >The fact that he bowled short and wide and
> >could not bowl long spells were perhaps the reasons for his
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >international career being brief.
>
>
> Can anyone name an Indian pace bowler who did not bowl
> short and wide and could bowl long spells?
I think, bad or horrible, indian bowlers at least have
stamina to last on the field after bowling a strenuous
spell of 18 overs.
rk-
Andrew Dunford
"Kamesh" <kamesh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:atnack$rif8$1...@ID-154916.news.dfncis.de...> news:jUCL9.2320$iQ3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
bowl,
> even he would collapse after such an effort.
Matthew Hoggard bowled an opening spell of 20 overs at Christchurch earlier
in the year, and I doubt he takes half as many 'supplements' as cyclists.
Still, Hoggard did leave the field for a time afterwards, whatever that
proves.
Andrew
Shripathi Kamath
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:6SNL9.1846$j94.3...@news02.tsnz.net...
All except for Lance. Always tested negative, and he is tested more often
than most.
> Still, Hoggard did leave the field for a time afterwards, whatever that
> proves.
>
Ganguly does not want to lose Agarkar as a fielder, by overbowling him?
> Andrew
>
>
Amol Cricketwallah
Heh :-) Its amusing how this works. For so many years, people always
said that it was Azhar who actually ill-treated Bannerjee - that he
was on the field for large parts of the 5th day, but was never given
the ball by Azhar. Some speculated that he wasnt given the ball due
to some sort of injury. This is the first time Ive ever heard that
he was not given the ball because of lack of stamina going back to
the first innings :-)
There is not even a question about lenght of spells - he didnt get
any shorter spells than anyone else on first innings either.
Basically Kapil and Prabhakar were the first 2 pacemen on that tour,
and Srinath was 3rd paceman. Usually we only played 3 pacemen and
1 spinner - Raju was that spinner (since Shastri was hardly bowling
at all in those days, he had turned into a complete opening batsman,
and had lost his action and really felt like he couldnt bowl - almost
the "yips", to some extent. In the previous 3 tests, he had bowled
a grand total of 10 overs).
But then for the Sydney test we decided it was a good pace track, and
picked 4 pacemen - Bannerjee was clearly the 4th paceman of the side
(he was picked in Raju's spot). On the first day, Kapil and Prabhakar
opened the bowling as usual, and bowled the usual 6-over spells. And
then Srinath and Bannerjee took over, and also bowled the usual
6-over spells (this was Azhar captaining, in those days imagination
wasnt exactly a strong suit :-)
Bannerjee picked up Marsh in his first spell - a straight ball missed
and bowled - 22/1. After 6-over spells from everyone, Kapil and
Prabhakar came back and bowled till lunch (with 1 over by Shastri
right before lunch).
After lunch Srinath and Kapil bowled in tandem. And then Kapil was
replaced by Prabhakar, and soon after Srinath was replaced by
Bannerjee, before drinks (at 98/1). After drinks Prabhakar and
Bannerjee continued - and in the 49th over Taylor was caught behind
off Bannerjee (117/2). Waugh came in, Prabhakar and Bannerjee
continued. Soon after Waugh thick-edged Bannerjee to Pkar in the
gully - 127/3. With 15 minutes to tea, Kapil replaced Prabhakar
and bowled in tandem with Bannerjee - and they bowled together
till tea. At tea it was 139/3 in 56 overs - with Bannerjee 3/30.
After tea it was Srinath and Kapil in tandem (remember, Bannerjee
had been bowling for over an hour from one end before tea). After
half an hour's bowling, Srinath was replaced by Shastri, and
Kapil was replaced by Prabhakar. At drinks it was 192/3.
After drinks Prabhakar and Shastri continued. They bowled together
till the score reached 210 - and then Jones was runout for 35.
Then Bannerjee replaced Prabhakar while Shastri kept bowling - the
new ball was almost due, so they were filling up time till then.
Kapil replaced Bannerjee when the new-ball was due, and bowled 1
over to warm up with the old ball. And then the new ball was
taken - and shared between Kapil and Srinath.
The day ended at 234/4, with 3 Bannerjee wickets and 1 runout.
Dont have figures for the day's bowling, but as can be seen,
it wasnt like Bannerjee was being protected, or bowled in especially
short spells or anything.
Second morning, it was overcast and the ball was still new-ish. So
Kapil and Prabhakar opened the bowling, and bowled together for
the entire first hour. Kapil struck earlyish - Border caught behind,
248/5. Then Healy was out in Pkar's next over - 251/6. Couple overs
later Hughes fell to Pkar - 259/7. Two Pkar overs later he got
Mcdermott bowled - 269/8. This was the end of the first hour, and
drinks were taken.
After drinks Srinath came on for Kapil - but Prabhakar had been
very successful swinging the ball in overcast conditions, so he was
kept on at the other end. He bowled another 3 overs or so with Srinath
at the other end (Boon and Warne batting, Warne on debut). After
this, the light got bad so they went off for 15 minutes.
When they came back, there were only 10 minutes to lunch - but
Prabhakar kept bowling at one end (he had now had a 15 minute
break, and had been very effective in the morning). Srinath, OTOH,
was replaced by Bannerjee after having bowled only half an hour
or so. Bannerjee was hit for a couple of shots, and nobody got
a wicket - and then it was lunch. Taken at 292/8, Pkar 3/69,
Bannerjee 3/40 (but Pkar all 3 wickets this morning, bowling
almost all morning with a break for weather).
After the lunch rest, Azhar kept Prabhakar on, and brought on Kapil
from the other end- the 2 senior bowlers. Kapil then got both
Warne and Reid, and Australia were 313 allout. Bowling figures:
O M W R Nb W
Kapil Dev 33 9 3 60 9 0
Prabhakar 40 12 3 83 2 0
Banerjee 17 4 3 40 4 0
Srinath 21 5 0 76 6 1
Shastri 13 1 0 37 0 0
As can be seen, Bannerjee was clearly seen as the 4th paceman in
the lineup - but he bowled only 4 overs less than Srinath. The
2 senior bowlers, however, bowled much more than the 2 junior
bowlers - Prabhakar bowled almost twice as much as Srinath did.
Note also the fact that Srinath was seen as 3rd paceman could be
guaged from the fact that he was given the 2nd new ball ahead of
Prabhakar - he shared it with Kapil (mostly he was given the new
ball because he was clearly the quickest of the Indian bowlers in
this series).
I dont see where any "hiding" of bowlers due to insufficient stamina
is taking place here. And as for the 2nd innings - as you will see
below, India didnt get to bowl again until the *fifth day*! That is,
3 full days of rest! Is anyone going to seriously suggest that lack
of bowling on that final day for any bowler was because he was "tired
from the first innings" ? I mean, come on :-)
Aussies allout, just after lunch 2nd day. India then came in and batted.
There were weather interruptions on several occasions over the next
few days. Sidhu fell early and it was 7/1, but Shastri batted
brilliantly, had a bit of a partnership with Manjrekar to start with,
until late in the day - 86/2. Then Shastri and Vengsarkar had a
partnership - 103/2 at the end of the day (responding to 313).
Hardly any play until tea on the 3rd day - Shastri and Vengsarkar
taking it to 108/2. More interruptions after tea, shortened session,
Shastri and Vengsarkar still hang in there - 178/2 at the end of
the day (RSJ 95*, DBV 43*), and India in control.
Day 4 morning, overcast still. Vengsarkar fell for 54 - 197/3.
Azhar immediately fell for 4 - 201/4, and Tendulkar joined Shastri,
and took it to 240/4 by drinks (Shastri 130*, Tendulkar 10*).
Still together at lunch - 285/4 - Shastri 163*, Tendulkar 22*. Now
looking for a lead.
One hour after lunch, India solidly in the lead - 359/4, Shastri 194*,
Tendulkar 63*. Accelerating all the time to try and force a win
(74 scored in the hour after lunch, as seen above - now lead by
46 on the 4th afternoon).
Shastri fell before tea, after completing his double century - out
for 206, India 397/5 and in command. Went to tea at 405/5, Tendulkar
94*, Prabhakar 3* . 120 runs in the session, and India in command -
but more bad weather seemingly building up. Prabhakar had come in
ahead of Kapil (despite acceleration needed) only because Kapil
was feeling ill, apparently.
Prabhakar fell after tea for 14 - 434/6. Kapil came in, and pushed
the first ball to gully where he was caught low - 434/7. Pandit
came in - and soon the rain came down again. Rain at 437/7,
Tendulkar 116*, Pandit 0*.
They came back after that, but the weather was still horrible.
Tendulakr went on to 120*, Pandit 3* - but there was light rain and
bad light. They offered the light to the batsmen who refused it,
but it was too dark for the fielding side and the day ended.
Last morning, India came in and swung their bats, trying to get as
much of a lead as possible. Pandit runout for 9, Bannerjee 3,
Srinath runout for 1. But Tendulkar hit well at the other end,
and carried India to 483 allout - 148* at the end. India had batted
only 35 minutes in the morning, and had a lead of 170.
Prabhakar and Kapil opened the bowling. Kapil soon got Marsh caught
behind - 9/1. Prabhakar was taken off after only 3 overs, and
Srinath given the ball instead. Srinath got Boon in his 4th over,
31/2. Srinath was then kept on till lunch. Meanwhile Kapil went off
after 7 overs, and Prabhakar came on for a couple of overs before
lunch (since he had bowled only 3 to start with). 38/2 at lunch.
Srinath and Prabhakar continued after lunch - Prabhakar got Waugh,
55/3. After 45 minutes Kapil replaced Srinath, and Shastri replaced
Prabhakar. Shastri got Jones - 85/4. Then Kapil was replaced by
Prabhakar again, and Shastri and Prabhakar bowled in tandem till
tea - Shastri got Taylor before tea. So at tea it was 109/5, with
Border and Healy batting.
After tea Shastri bowled with Prabhakar - and then soon Prabhakar
was replaced by Kapil, while Shastri plugged away at his end. Shastri
got Healy - 114/6. Kapil was bowling mostly to Border, and Shastri
to Merv Hughes now. This continued till the end of the hour -
1 hour left, 143/6.
After drinks Kapil went off again, and Prabhakar came back on -
and Shastri continued. Pitch was helping spin, but there was no
spinner available except Shastri (who had not been bowling regularly
for a while anyway).
Australia got to 150/6 in the last hour, and Kapil came on and bowled
1 over of off-spin, to enable Shastri to change ends! Shastri changed
ends, and Prabhakar came back from the other end - and Prabhakar was
bowling off-spin too! This continued for a couple of overs.
Then Shastri changed ends again - and this time Tendulkar was brought
on to enable him to change ends. And, in his "changing ends" over,
Tendulkar got Hughes out with a leg-break caught at slip :-) 164/7.
But, despite the wicket, Tendulkar was immediately taken off right
away - Shastri had accomplished his end-change, and Tendulkar was
taken off for Prabhakar, who now came back bowling pace.
Then Shastri got Mcdermott - 171/8.
Warne came in, and Shastri and Prabhakar got another over or so each
at them - and then the game was called off as a draw, at 173/8,
with only 10 minutes left to play.
------
Basically, they bowled the senior bowlers. Srinath was given the
ball after only 3 overs of the innings - because he was quick, and it
was hoped he would take bunches of wickets and win the game. He got
1, but no more after that.
He came back after lunch, and bowled 45 minutes from one end. But then
he was off, and never came back. For the last 3 hours and 15 minutes,
*only* the seniors were bowled - no Srinath, no Bannerjee. The pitch
was desparately calling for a spinner - Shastri was made to bowl the
entire time from one end, and he picked up 4/47. Meanwhile at the
other end Prabhakar and Kapil were reduced to bowling off-spin to
try and get help from the wicket. Tendulkar was tried for only
1 over of spin - and he got 1 wicket in that over itself, but he
was taken off immediately!
Bannerjee was hardly not bowled here due to "lack of stamina" or
any such thing. He was not bowled mostly because he was not a spinner,
and there was desparate need for a spinner. At least some reporters
still claim that Azhar "forgot about Bannerjee" on that day. But,
of course, that was probably not the biggest sin - the biggest
mistake was IMHO to not bowl Tendulkar more as a spinner, rather
than have Prabhakar and Kapil try spin. Or even try Azhar himself
for an over or two - he used to be a good spinner in his younger
days. Who knows, a vital wicket or two could have been picked up
that way. And we might have gotten only our 2nd "real" win in
Australia :-)
Sadiq [ the one time India doesnt play a spinner. Sheesh ] Yusuf
> rk-
Andrew Dunford
"Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvvcghp...@corp.supernews.com...
Given his remarkable achievements, might that show that banned substances
are actually performance-degrading?
> > Still, Hoggard did leave the field for a time afterwards, whatever that
> > proves.
> >
>
> Ganguly does not want to lose Agarkar as a fielder, by overbowling him?
Still doesn't have all the bases covered: Ganguly lost Agarkar as a
fieldsman on Saturday by letting him have a bat.
Andrew
Raghu Jetley
news:a374a779.02121...@posting.google.com...
> "rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<QLCL9.2316$iQ3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "jai" <vp...@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > > RK
> > > it doesn't have to be zero sum i.e. one at expense of other .We needed
as
> > > many decent guys as we could and Subrata didn't blot his copybook
badly (I
> > > recall another good game in the triangular too)
> > >
> > > That said, you should know better than to justify JS ahead of anyone
on
> > > grounds of *stamina* of all things !
> >
> > what is this suppose to be. a joke???
> >
> > JS never derailed after bowling 18 overs in an inngs. SB
> > vanished from the field after 18 overs.
> >
>
> Bannerjee was hardly not bowled here due to "lack of stamina" or
> any such thing. He was not bowled mostly because he was not a spinner,
> and there was desparate need for a spinner. At least some reporters
> still claim that Azhar "forgot about Bannerjee" on that day. But,
> of course, that was probably not the biggest sin - the biggest
> mistake was IMHO to not bowl Tendulkar more as a spinner,
Did SRT bowl spin in those days.
IIRC, when SRT used to bowl in ODI's in the beginning of his career,
he always used to bowl gentle medium pace - sort of like Bangar.
I don't remember him bowling spin till much later in his career.
I maybe wrong, of course.
Shripathi Kamath
Not really. The ones that help in bicycling are those that improve
endurance, and are fairly easily spotted. Add to that natural ability, and
it is hard to beat a Lance Armstrong. Miguel Indurain was the same way.
Cyclists are tested rather rigorously, it will be astonishing if any of the
top ones ever test positive, they would have to be pretty naive.
What might have benefitted Lance was that he was on some steroids when
recovering from testicular cancer, and helped him build his endurance during
his rehab which of course had cycling regimen.
That and a handshake from Dubya, and you can't go wrong.
> > > Still, Hoggard did leave the field for a time afterwards, whatever
that
> > > proves.
> > >
> >
> > Ganguly does not want to lose Agarkar as a fielder, by overbowling him?
>
> Still doesn't have all the bases covered: Ganguly lost Agarkar as a
> fieldsman on Saturday by letting him have a bat.
>
If you call it that.
> Andrew
>
>
Andrew Dunford
>
> "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:ouPL9.1871$j94.3...@news02.tsnz.net...
> >
> > "Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:uvvcghp...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> > > Ganguly does not want to lose Agarkar as a fielder, by overbowling
him?
> >
> > Still doesn't have all the bases covered: Ganguly lost Agarkar as a
> > fieldsman on Saturday by letting him have a bat.
> >
>
> If you call it that.
Well, it certainly looked like a piece of wood with a handle. Over here we
call it a bat.
Andrew
Kamesh
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a374a779.02121...@posting.google.com...
I have never taken such serious notes even in the toughest class I sat in.
:-)
Kamesh
rkusenet
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote:-
> Heh :-) Its amusing how this works. For so many years, people always
> said that it was Azhar who actually ill-treated Bannerjee - that he
> was on the field for large parts of the 5th day, but was never given
> the ball by Azhar. Some speculated that he wasnt given the ball due
> to some sort of injury. This is the first time Ive ever heard that
> he was not given the ball because of lack of stamina going back to
> the first innings :-)
Obviously lack of stamina was embellished by me. But he wasn't
there on the field on the fifth day. I remember this bcos the
commentators were telling why the bowler who took 3 wkts in
the first inngs wasn't given the ball, only to be corrected
that he is not on the field. Rest was my imagination.
Here is the proof of what sort of fitness SB possessed.
RJ: this is coming from a bong magazine, written by a
bong writer:-
http://www.ganashakti.com/old/1999/990329/featuresport.htm
"Two cricketers, Arindam Sarkar and Subroto Banerjee in their
late twenties were struggling with their fitness. "
"It surely jolted the ego of a lethargic Subroto."
So bottomline is that SB wasn't fit to bowl when India needed
him most. No energy, thanks to a marathon spell of 18 overs :-)
rk-