From the vault : South African Magazine on Indian fast bowlers bowling speed -2003

[Rightarmfast]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

He meant conventional swing. 
And yes, Akram was way more effective at the higher pace range than Srinath. This is reflected by the fact that Akram was consistently one of the most miserly fast bowlers going around. We think McGrath was miserly and he was (only Ambrose was more miserly IMO) but Akram was very very close to McGrath in economy.

Srinath, from what i'd seen in the 96-2001 period, couldn't really bowl fast and full well, he'd drift on to the pads way too often.

 

Career Economy of Srinath is 2.85 and Wasim Akram is 2.59. How different are they? If you are taking that into consideration, I would say Srinath would be one of the top bowlers too like Akram

[Muloghonto]

46 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

How many times could you gauge the speeds at which he was bowling? Wasim was never express. He was always 137-138 and thereabouts. Mcgrath is way ahead when it comes to being effective. Mcgrath used to take wickets of the frontline batsmen, Wasim was pretty poor in that. He thrived on tailenders. A fact that records dont show!

I disagree that Wasim was never express. He was only consistently tested after his groin injuries in the late 90s and old age caught up to him, before which he was universally considered significantly faster. and in the late 90s, he was in the 140-145kph zone when he wished to be. 

[Muloghonto]

40 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Career Economy of Srinath is 2.85 and Wasim Akram is 2.59. How different are they? If you are taking that into consideration, I would say Srinath would be one of the top bowlers too like Akram

Thats a significant difference actually. Wasim was just over 10% better than Srinath in terms of economy. 

[Muloghonto]

47 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Srinath always had a problem with his length, which he corrected by the fag end of his career. But when he did, he was way more effective than Wasim and was almost head to head with Mcgrath.

Ok, only in Indian forum will we ever consider Srinath to be more effective than Wasim and close to McGrath. Those guys were way better than Sri. 

[Rightarmfast]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

I disagree that Wasim was never express. He was only consistently tested after his groin injuries in the late 90s and old age caught up to him, before which he was universally considered significantly faster. and in the late 90s, he was in the 140-145kph zone when he wished to be. 

Do you have data to back your claims? In the late 90's he was bowling at a quickest of 138, and at times 140 when he would stretch it. Please show me some data

[Muloghonto]

49 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Srinath was only marginally more expensive than Akram in test matches, in which format  Srinath bowled really quick.

 

That would have been at par if Srinath had a pace partner who also applied pressure on the batters.

 

Akram started to bowl a lot of no balls when he tried to bowl flat out.

10% more expensive is not marginally more, its significantly more. 

As for applying pressure, Venkatesh prasad was the same ballpark as Srinath in economy rate. So was Prabhakar and Kapil was slightly better.

 

[Rightarmfast]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Thats a significant difference actually. Wasim was just over 10% better than Srinath in terms of economy. 

So you are quoting that Wasim was just over 10% better than Srinath in terms of economy and thus he was world class? Do you see the irony?

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Do you have data to back your claims? In the late 90's he was bowling at a quickest of 138, and at times 140 when he would stretch it. Please show me some data

Given that a) EVERY batsman who's faced Akram has said that he was really quick when he wanted to be and b) he lost some speed near the end of his career and after repeated groin injuries in the late 90s, it'd mean Akram was a much faster bowler at his peak, if he was 138-140s after slowing down.

 

[Rightarmfast]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Ok, only in Indian forum will we ever consider Srinath to be more effective than Wasim and close to McGrath. Those guys were way better than Sri. 

I am just showing how ridiculous your claims are and how hollow your knowledge of cricket is. Please show some real data to back up your claims.

[Rightarmfast]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Given that a) EVERY batsman who's faced Akram has said that he was really quick when he wanted to be and b) he lost some speed near the end of his career and after repeated groin injuries in the late 90s, it'd mean Akram was a much faster bowler at his peak, if he was 138-140s after slowing down.

 

Please quote 5 such batsmen.

[Rightarmfast]

2 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

yeah the economy was not the issue ,his problem was taking enough wickets in tests ,had he taken another 30 odd wickets he would have been rated  better,if he had played more county like wasim and waqar he may have been more effective in those conditions.

Then again, Srinath wasnt talented in the deptt of bottlecaps. That was bound to have its negative effects on his wicket tally!

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Rightarmfast said:

So you are quoting that Wasim was just over 10% better than Srinath in terms of economy and thus he was world class? Do you see the irony?

10% is a hell of a big difference when we compare professional numbers. That is the same difference in batting average between Tendulkar and Pietersen. Especially given that performances tend to follow bell curve, it means near the top end, its exponentially harder to have the same separation as in the middle of the pack.

This is why we see that practically every fast bowling hall of famer slots in the 21-23 average zone and every HoF batsman is in the 50-55 zone, while people who are 'world class but not great batters' tend to slow in the 40-50 zone. 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

I am just showing how ridiculous your claims are and how hollow your knowledge of cricket is. Please show some real data to back up your claims.

Can you show me a single non-Indian who will rate Srinath in the same ballpark as McGrath or Wasim even when Srinath was at his peak ?

 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

yeah the economy was not the issue ,his problem was taking enough wickets in tests ,had he taken another 30 odd wickets he would have been rated  better,if he had played more county like wasim and waqar he may have been more effective in those conditions.

Another 30-odd wickets would've made Srinath's average just a shade over 27. Ie, still in the 'mediocre' zone.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

10% is a hell of a big difference when we compare professional numbers. That is the same difference in batting average between Tendulkar and Pietersen. Especially given that performances tend to follow bell curve, it means near the top end, its exponentially harder to have the same separation as in the middle of the pack.

This is why we see that practically every fast bowling hall of famer slots in the 21-23 average zone and every HoF batsman is in the 50-55 zone, while people who are 'world class but not great batters' tend to slow in the 40-50 zone. 

So now that you are done with your rant, can you come back to the topic of economy rate and not deviate to average which was not the original topic :)

And please dont try to use nonsensical language to confuse people. Please show some data

[Rightarmfast]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Can you show me a single non-Indian who will rate Srinath in the same ballpark as McGrath or Wasim even when Srinath was at his peak ?

 

Please tell me where did I mention being of the same quality of Wasim and Waqar?

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Please quote 5 such batsmen.

 

 

See how many excellent/great batsman call him bowling fast. 

[Rightarmfast]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Another 30-odd wickets would've made Srinath's average just a shade over 27. Ie, still in the 'mediocre' zone.

 

lolz... A bottlecap could have helped, what do you say?

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Rightarmfast said:

So now that you are done with your rant, can you come back to the topic of economy rate and not deviate to average which was not the original topic :)

And please dont try to use nonsensical language to confuse people. Please show some data

What data ? Data is incomplete for all bowlers who bowled in the 90s or earlier. Fact is, Wasim was way, way better than Srinath in practically every department. Way better control. way better wicket-taker. Way better mover of the ball. Also genuinely fast. 

 

Just like pakistanis compare every tom, dick and harry Pakistani cricketer with Tendulkar, Indians have this tendency to compare our mediocre pace bowlers with Wasim-Waqar. Funny.

 

[Rightarmfast]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

 

See how many excellent/great batsman call him bowling fast. 

lolz, give me time till I am done from office. I will reply to this post of yours :)