Jump to content

Speeds and Performances of Pacers and Spinners


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Very well put! Srinath never engaged in unfair means and has always been respected for his behaviour. Now its clear, after the admission of New Zealand players that all Pakistani pacers were using unfair means and hence have an inflated record. 

I think if we check the figures for Pakistani fast bowlers and Srinath, in the matches they played together, my guess is Srinath would be the leading bowler.

 

To put things in right perspective, please check the figures of Wasim Akram when his bowling partner wasnt Waqar Younis. You will see a significant dip. Same for Waqar. Srinath bowled his entire life as the lone strike bowler and the workhorse. The other legends may not have fared any better than Srinath if they were in his shoes. 

 

Its a pity that the cricketing world and neutrals dont realise the genius of srinath and put the likes of Akhtar ahead of him .

Srinath was clearly a genius and not just comparable to abdul razzaq as people would like us to believe .

 Lol. No seriously why would you degrade one of Indias few good fast bowlers (perhaps the best ) by comparing him to wasim and waqar even if on an indian forum ??

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Pollack said:

You missed the entire point for which I was critical. Its not about not rating Srinath highly. Srinath is respected for the reasons you mentioned and he is criticised for the reasons I mentioned before. That is reason why I said he is over rated on ICF because the moment he being one trick pony is mentioned ICFers flock to his rescue with reasons on his behalf. That will make one believe he is ATG by world standards.Outside  ICF many experts talk highly of him and that's that. No over the top praise and also mention what went wrong with him.

I was trying to explain that part only.   ICF rates him highly because he started the trend of good quality genuine fast bowling in India, something which was actively discouraged in the era when he developed as a bowler.   His end results cannot be comparable with pacers who grew up in an environment which encouraged as well as guided them on how to be  good fast bowlers.

 

Quote

There was also another aspect to my post which is of not backing bowlers who just have pace and bowl shorter over those who have pace and bowl fuller/good length. The former category does not appeal atleast to me.Maybe that's just my opinion.I don't believe in bowling good without wickets ; economical or expensive.Take wickets or gtfo. Hence favour the later category which in my opinion is more wicket taking.

We have seen many  pacers like McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner etc. who generally bowled lots of short of good length deliveries and still went on to become greats.

 

Even the pacers who bowl good length as their stock ball  need to bowl lots of surprise bouncers to keep the batsmen guessing.

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
8 hours ago, CoverDrive said:

We like to slag Prasad but he was a decent bowler. He could a good spell of fast bowling in helpful conditions. Also he won us some big matches '96/'99 WC vs. Pak 

This.

He seemed to pick his game against Pakistan, also did decently in England in 96 and West Indies in 97, he was the only support that Srinath had . The third seamer was an ever changing cast of Doda Ganesh, David Johnson, Abey Kuruvilla, Mohanty etc hardly a set that  inspired any fear among the opposition

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, express bowling said:

I was trying to explain that part only.   ICF rates him highly because he started the trend of good quality genuine fast bowling in India, something which was actively discouraged in the era when he developed as a bowler.   His end results cannot be comparable with pacers who grew up in an environment which encouraged as well as guided them on how to be  good fast bowlers.

 

We have seen many  pacers like McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner etc. who generally bowled lots of short of good length deliveries and still went on to become greats.

 

Even the pacers who bowl good length as their stock ball  need to bowl lots of surprise bouncers to keep the batsmen guessing.

True he really was a torchbearer among our pacers, though it can be argued that he sometimes had this tendency to bowl short, he has to be recognized for maintaining his pace despite shouldering the responsibility of being the only strike bowler on overseas tours (Kumble was more effective at home)

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, express bowling said:

We have seen many  pacers like McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner etc. who generally bowled lots of short of good length deliveries and still went on to become greats.

McGrath was cometely different. Used to generate awkward bounce from good lengthish. Rest are West Indian freaks humongous, tall and tracer bullet fast (lol) bowling on pacy and green decks without batsman having helmets. Common you cannot give them as examples. How many truly successful examples of recent decades?

 

48 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Even the pacers who bowl good length as their stock ball  need to bowl lots of surprise bouncers to keep the batsmen guessing.

Where did I imply short balls or bouncers need to be completely done away with.Huh... Let me quote one of my posts above:

On 02/04/2017 at 5:31 PM, Pollack said:

Would give backing to a bowler who has pace and bowls fuller/good lengths and can occasionally also make use of bounce.

 

 

Edited by Pollack
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Pollack said:

McGrath was cometely different. Used to generate awkward bounce from good lengthish.

 

 

McGrath and Srinath bowled somewhat similar lengths and got similar bounce too  with Srinath being quicker.

 

Quote

 

Rest are West Indian freaks humongous, tall and tracer bullet fast (lol) bowling on pacy and green decks without batsman having helmets. Common you cannot give them as examples. How many truly successful examples of recent decades?

 

Walsh and Ambrose bowled in the era of  helmets.  None of the 3 WI  pacers I  mentioned as examples were tracer bullet fast.  (  Holding, Roberts, Bishop and Patterson were the really fast West Indian pacers )   and these 3 were known more for their steep bounce than raw pace.  Even Richards was saying on our last tour to WI that Garner was not an out and out quick bowler but more the bouncy type.

 

Srinath bowled a large part of his career with  McGrath, Walsh and Ambrose, which is why I gave them as examples.  Recent times examples are not relevant while gauging Srinath.  (  In the last 15 years, batsmen have become fitter, they practice regularly with bowling machines and artificial long armed bowlers and protective gears have developed too, resulting in this consistent short length not working like it used to before )

 

We did not have regular use of speed guns with Srinath, Walsh and Ambrose at their prime but, after speed guns were used regularly, " Old Srinath" was quicker than " Old Ambrose " and much quicker than " Old Walsh ".    This may give us an indication regarding their relative pace when young.

 

p.s - I was not talking of occasional use of bounce but regular use of bounce, in almost every over,  for 2 or 1 ball.... maybe even more if a batsman has a specific problem with bouncers like Moeen, Maxwell, tailenders etc.

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

McGrath and Srinath bowled somewhat similar lengths and got similar bounce too  with Srinath being quicker.

 

Walsh and Ambrose bowled in the era of  helmets.  None of the 3 WI  pacers I  gave as examples were tracer bullet fast.  (  Holding, Roberts, Bishop and Patterson were the really fast West Indian pacers )   and these 3 were known more for their steep bounce than raw pace.  Even Richards was saying on our last tour to WI that Garner was not an out and out quick bowler but more the bouncy type.

 

Srinath bowled a large part of his career with  McGrath, Walsh and Ambrose, which is why I gave them as examples.  Recent times examples are not relevant while gauging Srinath.  (  In the last 15 years, batsmen have become fitter, they practice regularly with bowling machines and artificial long armed bowlers and protective gears have developed too, resulting in this consistent short length not working like it used to before )

 

We did not have speed guns with Walsh and Ambrose at their prime but, after speed guns were used regularly, " Old Srinath" was quicker than " Old Ambrose " and much quicker than " Old Walsh ".    This may give us an indication regarding their relative pace when young.

Yet again picking words rather than reading collectively.

 

"Rest are West Indian freaks humongous, tall and tracer bullet fast (lol) bowling on pacy and green decks without batsman having helmets. "

 

Does this sentence appear like I want to convey all of them having all mentioned qualities.It was a general statement.:wall: Should I write everything in detail.

Like :

This player played under helmet era. The other under Hitler era.The other under Modi era. One of them used bounce more. Other used pace but also bounce.According to Richards so and so weren't fast. According to Rakhi Sawant the others were though.Oh ! Wait we didn't have speed guns! Of course I should give details about pre speed gun era and post speed gun era.Of course I meant players from Srinath times

 

For god sake Stop nitpicking words! I agree I may not be that good in expressing my points verbally but clearly you read in parts and do what most propagandist in politics do.:wall:

 

29 minutes ago, express bowling said:


 

Srinath bowled a large part of his career with  McGrath, Walsh and Ambrose, which is why I gave them as examples.  Recent times examples are not relevant while gauging Srinath.  (  In the last 15 years, batsmen have become fitter, they practice regularly with bowling machines and artificial long armed bowlers and protective gears have developed too, resulting in this consistent short length not working like it used to before )

 

Now again shift in post. This is what I wrote:

 

4 hours ago, Pollack said:

 

There was also another aspect to my post which is of not backing bowlers who just have pace and bowl shorter over those who have pace and bowl fuller/good length. The former category does not appeal atleast to me.Maybe that's just my opinion.I don't believe in bowling good without wickets ; economical or expensive.Take wickets or gtfo. Hence favour the later category which in my opinion is more wicket taking.

Clearly I was talking about which type of bowlers shouldn't be backer in current era. There is no Srinath discussion here. To which you replied:

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

We have seen many  pacers like McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner etc. who generally bowled lots of short of good length deliveries and still went on to become greats.

Then I replied this:

 

1 hour ago, Pollack said:

McGrath was cometely different. Used to generate awkward bounce from good lengthish. Rest are West Indian freaks humongous, tall and tracer bullet fast (lol) bowling on pacy and green decks without batsman having helmets. Common you cannot give them as examples. How many truly successful examples of recent decades?

 

 

And suddenly you are back to Srinath out of nowhere in reply by saying:

 


 

Srinath bowled a large part of his career with  McGrath, Walsh and Ambrose, which is why I gave them as examples.  Recent times examples are not relevant while gauging Srinath.  (  In the last 15 years, batsmen have become fitter, they practice regularly with bowling machines and artificial long armed bowlers and protective gears have developed too, resulting in this consistent short length not working like it used to before )

 

 

Like I said back and forth. Chop and quote. 

 

Anyway this is not going anywhere meaningful. ::noidea: 

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Yet again picking words rather than reading collectively.

 

"Rest are West Indian freaks humongous, tall and tracer bullet fast (lol) bowling on pacy and green decks without batsman having helmets. "

 

Does this sentence appear like I want to convey all of them having all mentioned qualities.

 

Yes, it does.    " Or "  or    " And / or "   are used  if only some qualities are meant for some bowlers.

 

Anyway, since I named Ambrose, Walsh and Garner in my examples,  most of the qualities or factors are not relevant  unless we are talking about Garner.

 

15 minutes ago, Pollack said:

 

 

It was a general statement.:wall: Should I write everything in detail.

Like :

This player played under helmet era. The other under Hitler era.The other under Modi era. One of them used bounce more. Other used pace but also bounce.According to Richards so and so weren't fast. According to Rakhi Sawant the others were though.Oh ! Wait we didn't have speed guns! Of course I should give details about pre speed gun era and post speed gun era.Of course I meant players from Srinath times

 

For god sake Stop nitpicking words! I agree I may not be that good in expressing my points verbally but clearly you read in parts and do what most propagandist in politics do.:wall:

 

Now again shift in post. This is what I wrote:

 

Clearly I was talking about which type of bowlers shouldn't be backer in current era. There is no Srinath discussion here. To which you replied:

Then I replied this:

 

And suddenly you are back to Srinath out of nowhere in reply by saying:

 


 

Srinath bowled a large part of his career with  McGrath, Walsh and Ambrose, which is why I gave them as examples.  Recent times examples are not relevant while gauging Srinath.  (  In the last 15 years, batsmen have become fitter, they practice regularly with bowling machines and artificial long armed bowlers and protective gears have developed too, resulting in this consistent short length not working like it used to before )

 

 

Like I said back and forth. Chop and quote. 

 

Anyway this is not going anywhere meaningful. ::noidea: 

 

 

 

Anyway, without being pedantic, my general feeling is that most current day quicks have to bowl more good length deliveries than short ones, to be successful because batsmen have very good quality protective gears these days, they practice using bowling machines and artificial long arms, they are very fit and sway away faster, many have more pronounced back and across movements etc.

 

BUT

 

if there is a pacer who is good at bowling lots of short balls and still succeeding even in the modern era, like say Pat Cummins.... then I am still open to having  such a pacer and such an approach.

Link to comment

 

17 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

 

 

Anyway, without being pedantic, my general feeling is that most current day quicks have to bowl more good length deliveries than short ones, to be successful because batsmen have very good quality protective gears these days, they practice using bowling machines and artificial long arms, they are very fit and sway away faster, many have more pronounced back and across movements etc.

 

Finally after so many posts at least you are closer to understand my point of view.:shakehands:

Edited by Pollack
Link to comment
13 hours ago, the don said:

Its a pity that the cricketing world and neutrals dont realise the genius of srinath and put the likes of Akhtar ahead of him .

Srinath was clearly a genius and not just comparable to abdul razzaq as people would like us to believe .

 Lol. No seriously why would you degrade one of Indias few good fast bowlers (perhaps the best ) by comparing him to wasim and waqar even if on an indian forum ??

Talent wise, Srinath would be way lower than Imran Khan, Wasim and Waqar. Using bottlecaps does require certain talent and clearly Srinath lacked that. 

Without the bottlecap talent, we would never know who was better :) 

Aah, yeah, forgot that. Imran had some other talents too.. Like 2 Pakistani umpires :)

Link to comment

What a great read. Excellent article on Srinath from a South African's perspective!

 

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1086094/wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing

 

.............................................

Edited -

 

I didnt realize there's already a post with the same article in the group. Apologies, and ignore this post.

Edited by Rightarmfast
Link to comment
12 hours ago, speedster said:

This.

He seemed to pick his game against Pakistan, also did decently in England in 96 and West Indies in 97, he was the only support that Srinath had . The third seamer was an ever changing cast of Doda Ganesh, David Johnson, Abey Kuruvilla, Mohanty etc hardly a set that  inspired any fear among the opposition

True gap between Prasad and the third seamer was huge. Prasad was atleast consistent

Link to comment

 

Hassan ali 147 kph in the fourth t20 .

 

Amir and hasan will make an interesting new ball pairing in the coming matches .

 

 

 

 

Nice to see that,hassan Ali has improved lot last time when I saw him he was barely touching 137kph, did not watch the match but went throw some clips on YouTube just to check whether hassan Ali was fluke, but no he has genuinely improved his pace!!!

 

 

Link to comment

 

On 4/3/2017 at 11:23 AM, the don said:
Its a pity that the cricketing world and neutrals dont realise the genius of srinath and put the likes of Akhtar ahead of him .

 

Srinath was clearly a genius and not just comparable to abdul razzaq as people would like us to believe .

 Lol. No seriously why would you degrade one of Indias few good fast bowlers (perhaps the best ) by comparing him to wasim and waqar even if on an indian forum ??

 

 

 

 

On 4/3/2017 at 0:51 PM, express bowling said:
We have seen many  pacers like McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Garner etc. who generally bowled lots of short of good length deliveries and still went on to become greats.

Even the pacers who bowl good length as their stock ball  need to bowl lots of surprise bouncers to keep the batsmen guessing.

 

 

@the don

 

Since this is speed watch thread let me tel u one thing, srinath even at the twilight of his career in 2003wc was seen consistently hitting 140kph with the fastest ball of 144kph vs srilanka, where as highly overrated waquar was trundling at 135kph and wasim was @ 133kph since then I had serious doubt on their ability to bowl fast they were never clocked with proper speed gun until 2003wc,as per as talent and ability goes srinath would have had 500 odi wickets if he had used those bottle caps lol :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

 

 

Edited by laaloo
Link to comment
On 4/4/2017 at 1:48 AM, express bowling said:

 

 

Anyway, without being pedantic, my general feeling is that most current day quicks have to bowl more good length deliveries than short ones, to be successful because batsmen have very good quality protective gears these days, they practice using bowling machines and artificial long arms, they are very fit and sway away faster, many have more pronounced back and across movements etc.

 

BUT

 

if there is a pacer who is good at bowling lots of short balls and still succeeding even in the modern era, like say Pat Cummins.... then I am still open to having  such a pacer and such an approach.

 

One point must be added here.

 

Although the stock delivery of fast bowlers must be good length channel deliveries these days  ( punctuated by sufficient surprise bouncers almost every over  ) ..... the fast bowlers must still hit the deck hard while bowling good length deliveries ( unless trying to swing )  and  those bowlers who get some good length deliveries to bounce more than others are the most effective ones in international cricket.  Ability to get steep bounce is very very important in test matches and even ODIs.

 

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...