Shami - Fastest Indian to 100 ODI wickets

[Trichromatic]

Shami has 91 wickets in 49 matches

 

Player	Opposition	Ground	Match Date	Debut	Time	Mat	Scorecard
MA Starc (AUS)	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (RPS)	21 Aug 2016	20 Oct 2010	5y 306d	52	ODI # 3768
Saqlain Mushtaq (PAK)	v Sri Lanka	Gwalior	12 May 1997	29 Sep 1995	1y 225d	53	ODI # 1205
SE Bond (NZ)	v England	Adelaide	23 Jan 2007	11 Jan 2002	5y 12d	54	ODI # 2482
B Lee (AUS)	v England	Melbourne	25 Jan 2003	9 Jan 2000	3y 16d	55	ODI # 1941
Imran Tahir (SA)	v West Indies	Basseterre	15 Jun 2016	24 Feb 2011	5y 112d	58	ODI # 3747
Waqar Younis (PAK)	v Zimbabwe	Sharjah	1 Feb 1993	14 Oct 1989	3y 110d	59	ODI # 796
IK Pathan (INDIA)	v Pakistan	Abu Dhabi	19 Apr 2006	9 Jan 2004	2y 100d	59	ODI # 2364
M Morkel (Afr/SA)	v New Zealand	Kimberley	22 Jan 2013	6 Jun 2007	5y 230d	59	ODI # 3325
DK Lillee (AUS)	v Zimbabwe	Nottingham	9 Jun 1983	24 Aug 1972	10y 289d	60	ODI # 199
SK Warne (AUS)	v West Indies	Melbourne	6 Dec 1996	24 Mar 1993	3y 257d	60	ODI # 1147
Shoaib Akhtar (PAK)	v New Zealand	Karachi	21 Apr 2002	28 Mar 1998	4y 24d	60	ODI # 1833
NW Bracken (AUS)	v South Africa	Basseterre	24 Mar 2007	11 Jan 2001	6y 72d	60	ODI # 2552

[Trichromatic]

He looks good to become fastest Indian to 100 wickets. Needs  9 wickets in 9 matches for that.

 

He averages 24 which is best among all Indian bowlers.

[Jimmy Cliff]

If only we had a bowler like him available in the CT. Oh wait...

[SK_IH]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

If only we had a bowler like him available in the CT. Oh wait...

[Laaloo]

But he wasnt picked in the CT

[Sidhoni]

3 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

If only we had a bowler like him available in the CT. Oh wait...

[vvvslaxman]

He is the only one bowler who had this "wicket taking mentality" direct opposite of Ishant who would bowl like a robot with zero plan.

[RAZPOR]

Shami sets up bastman and anticipates what the batsmen will do next,as far as i see he is the only one in our team ,who does it well.

[the don]

Skillful bowler . His fitness is a concern though . If he declines it would be due to fitness . India are unlucky in that sense.

[sarcastic]

5 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

He is the only one bowler who had this "wicket taking mentality" direct opposite of Ishant who would bowl like a robot with zero plan.

Ishant does have plans but he is not adaptable. That is he does not ask questions to the batsmen and set them up frequently enough to be successful enough at international level. 

[Tibarn]

49 matches is somewhat inaccurate. Really he has bowled only in 48 innings. The record for fastest to 100 wickets should take into account innings bowled, not just matches. How can you count a match if the player didn't bowl in it?

 

By comparison, the man he is chasing, Starc, has never not bowled in a match. He has gotten the opportunity to bowl in all 68 matches he has played in. 

 

Justice for Shami 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Tibarn

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

49 matches is somewhat inaccurate. Really he has bowled only in 48 innings. The record for fastest to 100 wickets should take into account innings bowled, not just matches. How can you count a match if the player didn't bowl in it?

To make it more fair, based on the number of overs he bowled out of the quota. Then may be number of balls. Then it becomes average. Should look at all.

[Vilander]

13 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

If only we had a bowler like him available in the CT. Oh wait...

 thats the way we roll.. making things difficult for ourselves since 2000.

 

 

 

 

[Vilander]

13 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

If only we had a bowler like him available in the CT. Oh wait...

to their credit though, Shami apparently winced in pain in yesterdays game. may be he was not match fit in CT, one has to pacify oneself.

[Vilander]

24 minutes ago, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

To make it more fair, based on the number of overs he bowled out of the quota. Then may be number of balls. Then it becomes average. Should look at all.

to be even more fair , based on number of steps he took to bowl each ball. or number of times he breathed while bowling each ball..

[Rasgulla]

So 2 matches 9 wicks needed

 

Mehhh starc ll stay

Edited July 7, 2017 by Rasgulla

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

22 minutes ago, Vilander said:

to be even more fair , based on number of steps he took to bowl each ball. or number of times he breathed while bowling each ball..

yes. water bottles he drank. breaks he took in between.

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

To make it more fair, based on the number of overs he bowled out of the quota. Then may be number of balls. Then it becomes average. Should look at all.

Please tell me, if something measures how many matches it took for a bowler to reach 100 wickets, how do you count a match where the bowler doesn't bowl.  

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

4 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Please tell me, if something measures how many matches it took for a bowler to reach 100 wickets, how do you count a match where the bowler doesn't bowl.  

You are right. But he was in the team as a bowler. You can count it in innings like we do for batsmen. But it is well possible that the bowler bowls only 1 over. Then again it is unfair to count that as a full match for that bowler. That is why the thought of % of 10 overs or the full quota whatever it be based on the match reduction etc..

Edited July 7, 2017 by Haarkarjeetgaye

[Tibarn]

1 minute ago, Haarkarjeetgaye said:

You are right. But he was in the team as a bowler. You can count it in innings like we do for batsmen. But it is well possible that the bowler bowls only 1 over. Then again it is unfair to count that as a full match for that bowler. That is why the thought of % of 10 overs or the full quota whatever it be based on the match reduction etc..

If a bowler bowls less than 10 overs that is very different than not bowling at all, just for this record in particular. 

 

Most teams have a number of all rounders, so at least 1 bowler doesn't bowl their entire quota, but they still participated in the match. However, if the bowler doesn't even bowl in the match, it's like a batsmen at number 4 being counted as playing a batting innings, when only the top 3 batsmen batted. Just my opinion.