Performance of Asian bowlers in South Africa

[Gollum]

I was too young to follow our tours to SA in 1992-93 and 1996-97. But I did follow the 2001-02 series quite religiously and must say, I was damn impressed by Srinath. He was the best quick on either side based on my viewing experience. Only Sreesanth in a few spells in 2006-07 and 2010-11 impressed me among all our bowlers since Srinath's retirement. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Gollum

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Gollum said:

90s was a great era for fast bowling, those 4 teams (not England, please tell me you were joking about them) you mentioned had some of the greatest quicks in the entire history of the game. Just because Srinath wasn't as good as Ambrose, Mcgrath, Donald, Akram doesn't mean he was mediocre because many 90s bowlers from those 4 teams would make the all time XIs of their respective sides and all those 4 sides have rich fast bowling history. Srinath may have been the 10th best quick of the 90s according to you, but according to me he would be a top 3 bowler of this decade. As a parallel example in tennis just because Stan and Andy have been bridesmaids to the big 3 for their entire career doesn't make them mediocre. If the next generation of weak era players start winning 6-7 majors I won't automatically look at the Swiss and Scott and bemoan how mediocre they were !!!!

Forget Ambrose, McGrath or Donald, Srinath wasn't even as good as Walsh, Bishop, Gillespie, Pollock, DeVilliers, Waqar, etc. 

As far as England goes, on overseas pitches, which Srinath was a total fail on, everywhere but South Africa, i'd take Gough, Caddick and Fraser over him. 

 

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

but what about optical illusions and even otherwise you are not qualified to pass such judgement 

Optical illusions are in reference to gauging a bowler's speed or height from TV. Not whether the guy can maintain a line or length or how much movement he gets. Srinath was mediocre, its because he was genuinely fast and probably the *only* express speed bowler India has ever had, Indians tend to over-hype him. He never inspired confidence and was a mediocre bowler in both formats.

 

[Gollum]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Forget Ambrose, McGrath or Donald, Srinath wasn't even as good as Walsh, Bishop, Gillespie, Pollock, DeVilliers, Waqar, etc. 

As far as England goes, on overseas pitches, which Srinath was a total fail on, everywhere but South Africa, i'd take Gough, Caddick and Fraser over him. 

 

Even Walsh, Bishop, Waqar, Pollock are ATGs. Gillespie is better than any post 2008 quick apart from Steyn. Fanie played too few matches to draw any conclusion. 

 

What have Caddick and Fraser done overseas, they haven't even played much overseas esp Asia? Gough (best English quick before Anderson but never bowled in India) was roughly Srinath level IMO.

 

I get a feeling people downplay Srinath and Kumble's achievements to somehow deflect the blame from SRT and co. We had a few overseas wins delivered on a platter by our bowlers but our batting stars esp SRT always flunked. No wonder when we got more clutch batsmen like VVS, Ganguly and Dravid in the 2000s these close losses overseas got converted into comfortable wins. I know these 3 were there in the late 90s but they peaked in test cricket only after 1999.  

[Suhaan]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Optical illusions are in reference to gauging a bowler's speed or height from TV. Not whether the guy can maintain a line or length or how much movement he gets. Srinath was mediocre, its because he was genuinely fast and probably the *only* express speed bowler India has ever had, Indians tend to over-hype him. He never inspired confidence and was a mediocre bowler in both formats.

 

Exactly this is your view..but for majority of us Srinath was a great bowler who used to fight lone battles with absolutely no  support from other end.You may brand him mediocre but we believe he was great fast bowler for India..why is there so much debate about this?

[Rightarmfast]

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Sorry, Umesh, Ishant, RP singh are not mediocre. Mediocre means average- these guys are WAY BELOW average. Srinath was mediocre. during his time, he was a very average bowler. I can think of loads of names in the 90s better than him- he would've struggled to crack the playing XI of Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies and maybe even England. That makes him mediocre.

 

Hehehehe! Are you sure you watched the same matches we watched in the 90's? Or were you hallucinating? Wasim, Mcgrath were ATG's. Surely, Srinath wasn't as good as them. However, countries would have begged him to be in their team, no matter which era! Maybe not as the main strike bowler, but as the 2nd to the strike bowler. Even Pakistan never had anyone half as good as Srinath accompanying Wasim and Waqar. Btw, in most of the matches, head to head with these legends, it was mostly Srinath who used to trump them with his performances. 

I really think you speak out of assumptions, rather than real experience.

[Silva]

Not sure why people here are calling srinath or zaheer khan mediocre to hype one bowler over the other. They are both all time indian greats end of story.

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, MultiB48 said:

hain ,how can you judge line and length on tv without depth perception ,aspect ratios and compressions alter it as well  and you are not even qualified to judge int cricketers, it simply you own opinion ,it means nothing.

Because line and length are not 3d component processed through a 2d filter. A spot on the pitch is still the same spot on the pitch, whether on tv or whether live. How a ball moves on tv, is not the same as how it moves live, THAT is where depth perception comes into play ( vertical vs horizontal components of speed). A spot on the pitch (which determines line and length) are 2d components.

 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

 

Hehehehe! Are you sure you watched the same matches we watched in the 90's? Or were you hallucinating? Wasim, Mcgrath were ATG's. Surely, Srinath wasn't as good as them. However, countries would have begged him to be in their team, no matter which era! Maybe not as the main strike bowler, but as the 2nd to the strike bowler. Even Pakistan never had anyone half as good as Srinath accompanying Wasim and Waqar. Btw, in most of the matches, head to head with these legends, it was mostly Srinath who used to trump them with his performances. 

I really think you speak out of assumptions, rather than real experience.

LOL.

More over-hype. 

Countries would've begged him to ?! I know Pakistan, South Africa, Australia wouldn't have. Srinath can't replace Gillespie, deVilliers, Pollock, Waqar...Pakistan didn't need anyone to accompany Wasim or Waqar because most of the 90s they played with 2 pacers + 2 spinners. And when the third pacer became important, they picked a swing bowler like Aaqib Javed (for tours like England or New Zealand), where Srinath was a big fat zero. 

And any era ? LOL. In the 70s and 80s, forget west indies, Srinath would've struggled to make Jamaica or Barbados team. A fast bowler who cannot bowl on fast pitches literally merits ZERO consideration. 

Srinath was an ordinary bowler who had very little control over his stock ball. This is why he was largely an impotent bowler. 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Suhaan said:

Exactly this is your view..but for majority of us Srinath was a great bowler who used to fight lone battles with absolutely no  support from other end.You may brand him mediocre but we believe he was great fast bowler for India..why is there so much debate about this?

That is because patriotism clouds judgement of actual player performances. This is the reason why nobody outside of India rates Srinath- they can see how crap he was as a bowler. There is so much debate about this, is because international cricket is a nationalistic sport and nationalism colours the view. I have been away from India long enough that i don't instinctively jump to defend anything and everything Indian anymore. There are a few here like that, but not many.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

Even Walsh, Bishop, Waqar, Pollock are ATGs. Gillespie is better than any post 2008 quick apart from Steyn. Fanie played too few matches to draw any conclusion. 

 

What have Caddick and Fraser done overseas, they haven't even played much overseas esp Asia? Gough (best English quick before Anderson but never bowled in India) was roughly Srinath level IMO.

 

I get a feeling people downplay Srinath and Kumble's achievements to somehow deflect the blame from SRT and co. We had a few overseas wins delivered on a platter by our bowlers but our batting stars esp SRT always flunked. No wonder when we got more clutch batsmen like VVS, Ganguly and Dravid in the 2000s these close losses overseas got converted into comfortable wins. I know these 3 were there in the late 90s but they peaked in test cricket only after 1999.  

Gough, Caddick, Fraser were all way, way better than Srinath on fast bowler-friendly wickets. This is why Srinath averages 34+ outside Asia, while Gough, Caddick, Fraser average 29+, 29+ and 27+ outside of Asia. 

There is no deflecting the blame from SRT, since SRT isn't to blame. His record overseas speaks for itself. 

SRT in the 90s was actually better overseas than in the 2000s. So yes, the rest of the cast around him flunked hard overseas, but the old adage of test cricket is 'bowlers win matches, batsmen save matches'. Our bowlers almost always laid an egg overseas, especially our so-called speedy spearhead Srinath. 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Silva said:

Not sure why people here are calling srinath or zaheer khan mediocre to hype one bowler over the other. They are both all time indian greats end of story.

Yes, they are all-time greats of Indian cricket, just like how Milkha Singh is an all-time great of Indian sprinting. Doesn't change the fact that by absolute standards, they are still mediocre. Just like how the alltime-great batsmen (or bowlers) from Bangladesh may be their all-time greats, but are mediocre at best by absolute standards.

 

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

spots on the pitch are in 3d shown as 2d on the screen ,same as the ball. now if you cant judge the ball how are you judging the spot.

 

line n length is the location of the ball ,the same location which is req to judge the speed, the other
aspect for speed is the time which comes from ones own senses ,so if you cant judge the location of the ball for speed how do you judge it for linenlength.

are you high ? a pitch is two dimensional. It has length and width. No height factor. Hence its a 2d spot, projected through 2d image (TV), leading to no distortion. 

A ball moves in 3d. You cannot judge the vertical component of speed very well from a 2d image. 

You quite literally don't know what you are talking about. 

[Silva]

59 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, they are all-time greats of Indian cricket, just like how Milkha Singh is an all-time great of Indian sprinting. Doesn't change the fact that by absolute standards, they are still mediocre. Just like how the alltime-great batsmen (or bowlers) from Bangladesh may be their all-time greats, but are mediocre at best by absolute standards.

 

Zaheer khan was the best pace bowler on a team that was ranked number one in tests and had dominated at home while winning test series in every country they played in apart from sa where they drew and in asuttalia where they lost 1-2 and to top ot all off he helped win a an odi world cup. How is that mediocre?

 

 

What bangladeshi batsman is comparable to srinath or  zaheer khan?

[Muloghonto]

16 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

the pitch extends away from the screen ,it is not laid out along x and y axis.the ball travels along that same route so by your logic you could judge both.i thought you were a troll now i can see you are a fool.

Does not matter that the pitch is not orthogonal. What matters, is that the spot on the pitch is NOT distorted by TV because a 2d spot cannot be distorted by a 2D image projection. 
A 3d motion for sure is distorted by a 2D image projection and a ball is travelling in 3d. its just that simple. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Gollum]

@Muloghonto Kindly explain these matches (note: I have given leeway to baby Sachin, I have taken only an experienced prime/peak Sachin of post 1996 WC with >7 years top flight experience ):

 

1. 1998 against Zimbabwe in Harare: Bowlers (Srinath and Kumble) got us a 1st innings lead of 60, target in 4th innings was 230 odd in 4.5 sessions and we ended up losing by 61 runs.

 http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15894/scorecard/63813/zimbabwe-vs-india-only-test-india-tour-of-zimbabwe-1998-99/

 

SRT scored 34 in the 1st innings and a pitiable 7 in the 4th innings chase against an attack of Streak, Olonga, Neil Johnson, Mbangwa and Huckle.

 

1998 was his peak year yet he wasn't clutch enough to get us across the line, target was a modest 235, not 500 !!!!

 

2. 1997 against WI in Barbados: Target 120, India 81 a.o. SRT scored 4, again near peak Sachin

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16103/scorecard/63747/west-indies-vs-india-3rd-test-india-tour-of-west-indies-1996-97/

 

3. 1996 2nd test against SA in Cape Town (Sachin Azhar partnership wallah match): We needed to bat out 110 overs to save the match on a very flat pitch, we were all out for 144. Again Sachin went missing. Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman,hell even Venkatesh Prasad and Kumble showed more spine than the captain. 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16126/scorecard/63737/south-africa-vs-india-2nd-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-1996-97/

 

Look I am a huge Sachin fan and it pains me to write against my idol. But I admit that he had his problems in closing out matches and at the end of his career had a bad 4th innings record. TBH he didn't even have the ability to play elite match winning knocks against the tide like say a Laxman. He wasn't perfect, the reason why we started winning matches in the 2000s was the entry of Dravid-VVS-Dada who were pretty clutch. Do you think even peak Sachin would have rescued us from 85/4 in Adelaide facing a deficit of 470 runs? Do you think peak Sachin would have played an innings even remotely close to Laxman's 98 in Durban 2010? Again VVS, Dravid (even Ganguly in 2006 Jo'berg) outbatted him in Headingley 2002, Jo'berg 2006 and Perth 2008.

 

Kumble and Srinath weren't Warne-Mcgrath but they were Indian ATGs who are unfairly downplayed to make Sachin look better than what he was in the 90s. Eg people keep harping about SRT of 1996 WC yet conveniently forget the brilliant show by the leading wicket taker of that WC Anil Kumble who outbowled his peers Warne, Murali, Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed. 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Gollum

[Suhaan]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That is because patriotism clouds judgement of actual player performances. This is the reason why nobody outside of India rates Srinath- they can see how crap he was as a bowler. There is so much debate about this, is because international cricket is a nationalistic sport and nationalism colours the view. I have been away from India long enough that i don't instinctively jump to defend anything and everything Indian anymore. There are a few here like that, but not many.

This is beyond patriotism ,I was saying "For us he was a great bowler,".What's annoying about it.If you have an  opinion which differs from mine so be it.Thats fine..no one is endorsing here the same thought just because of nationalism even if they do that's their right.. let them do what they wish to.I personally have felt you have good knowledge about the game..that's something which should be applauded..but brother let others celebrate their heroes too..

[Gollum]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That is because patriotism clouds judgement of actual player performances. This is the reason why nobody outside of India rates Srinath- they can see how crap he was as a bowler. There is so much debate about this, is because international cricket is a nationalistic sport and nationalism colours the view. I have been away from India long enough that i don't instinctively jump to defend anything and everything Indian anymore. There are a few here like that, but not many.

Bhai at least on this forum, no cricketer is beyond reproach. SRT, Dravid, Kapil, Dhoni, Kohli, Ashwin all have their share of critics here, Srinath is small fish compared to some of those guys. People are defending him because based on their viewing experience they saw something in him. You won't find ICFers (except @Rasgulla ) defending Dinesh Karthik, Avishkar Salvi and Vinay Kumar here. Posters have opinions and some feel strongly about them. Your 'patriotism' point holds valid in the common marketplace or school/college/workplace in India but I feel ICF posters in general are quite objective w.r.t cricket matters. Otherwise there wouldn't be a Sachin vs Steve Smith thread on the 1st page of Cricket Talk. 

[Rasgulla]

19 minutes ago, Gollum said:

You won't find ICFers (except @Rasgulla ) defending Dinesh Karthik, Avishkar Salvi and Vinay Kumar here.

When did I ever defend any of them you listed Mr. Kim jong un  You don't need to lie to @Muloghonto just because I call you out on your kohli propaganda

Edited January 4, 2018 by Rasgulla

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

@Muloghonto Kindly explain these matches (note: I have given leeway to baby Sachin, I have taken only an experienced prime/peak Sachin of post 1996 WC with >7 years top flight experience ):

 

1. 1998 against Zimbabwe in Harare: Bowlers (Srinath and Kumble) got us a 1st innings lead of 60, target in 4th innings was 230 odd in 4.5 sessions and we ended up losing by 61 runs.

 http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15894/scorecard/63813/zimbabwe-vs-india-only-test-india-tour-of-zimbabwe-1998-99/

 

SRT scored 34 in the 1st innings and a pitiable 7 in the 4th innings chase against an attack of Streak, Olonga, Neil Johnson, Mbangwa and Huckle.

Clear-cut example of bowlers dropping the ball. Look, on almost ALL test surfaces, third innings score being greater than 1st & 2nd innings score = bowlers let the 3rd innings batsmen 'get away with it'. That is blatantly obvious .

 

Quote

1998 was his peak year yet he wasn't clutch enough to get us across the line, target was a modest 235, not 500 !!!!

 

2. 1997 against WI in Barbados: Target 120, India 81 a.o. SRT scored 4, again near peak Sachin

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16103/scorecard/63747/west-indies-vs-india-3rd-test-india-tour-of-west-indies-1996-97/

This was a failure no doubt. But then again, EVERY batsman has failures of this sort. The ones for Sachin stick out, because Sri-Kumble were so rarely good enough to actually set a winning total, that the once-every-five-year scenarios sting. However, it must be pointed out, that WI of the 90s were the best team when it came to defending ultra-low totals. Don't know how they did it so often, but they have defended 120-150 odd 4th innings target against the likes of Pakistan, England, Australia and South Africa in that decade alone. 

 

Quote

3. 1996 2nd test against SA in Cape Town (Sachin Azhar partnership wallah match): We needed to bat out 110 overs to save the match on a very flat pitch, we were all out for 144. Again Sachin went missing. Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman,hell even Venkatesh Prasad and Kumble showed more spine than the captain. 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16126/scorecard/63737/south-africa-vs-india-2nd-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-1996-97/

So then every time a batsman scores single digits, everyone shows more spine than the said batsman. By that logic, every batsman is a failure too. The point of the argument is not Sachin never failed overseas. Every batsman has failed everywhere, even in their home grounds. Even Mahela 'Bradman of Premadasa' Jayawardene has failures there. Heck, even Bradman has failure in his home ground of Adelaide. So what ? The point is, Sachin was the *ONLY* batsman of the 90s who consistently succeeded overseas with ATG numbers. None of our bowlers did outside of home, especially not the speedster-who-cant-bowl-on-speedster's-wickets, aka Mr Srinath. 

 

Quote

Look I am a huge Sachin fan and it pains me to write against my idol. But I admit that he had his problems in closing out matches and at the end of his career had a bad 4th innings record. TBH he didn't even have the ability to play elite match winning knocks against the tide like say a Laxman. He wasn't perfect, the reason why we started winning matches in the 2000s was the entry of Dravid-VVS-Dada who were pretty clutch. Do you think even peak Sachin would have rescued us from 85/4 in Adelaide facing a deficit of 470 runs? Do you think peak Sachin would have played an innings even remotely close to Laxman's 98 in Durban 2010? Again VVS, Dravid (even Ganguly in 2006 Jo'berg) outbatted him in Headingley 2002, Jo'berg 2006 and Perth 2008.

No, the reason we started winning matches in the 2000s is because of Sehwag. in the 90s, Dravid, Dada both averaged 50+. It was the Sehwag factor, because Sehwag could score 150 and take about 30 overs less than any other batsman in the world barring Gilchrist. Thats 30 extra overs for our mediocre bowlers to exert scoreboard pressure on. 

Sachin played one of the ATG knocks of all-time against an ATG attack in 4th innings in Chennai. the only difference between his knock and Lara's knock of 153* is that Lara gave a chance at 140 (against Gillespie), which Healy spilled, while when Sachin gave his chance, it was held on to. 

 

Quote

Kumble and Srinath weren't Warne-Mcgrath but they were Indian ATGs who are unfairly downplayed to make Sachin look better than what he was in the 90s. Eg people keep harping about SRT of 1996 WC yet conveniently forget the brilliant show by the leading wicket taker of that WC Anil Kumble who outbowled his peers Warne, Murali, Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed. 

 

There is nothing unfairly downplaying about a spinner who spent the 90s with 40+ bowling average overseas and a pacer who averaged 33+ overseas, while the home bowlers were averaging 21-26. What is downplaying, is accomplishment of a batsman who averaged 50+ overseas during this period, while his bowlers were crap and had no batting support to speak of. 

 

I can forgive Kumble a bit, because what the heck is a spinner supposed to do when he comes on at 60/1 after 15-16 overs (Kumble's regular scenario overseas) as opposed to coming in at 50/3 ( Warne's regular scenario outside the subcontinent) ? But Srinath has absolutely ZERO excuse to fail overseas, except for the fact that he was a crap bowler. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Muloghonto