Mayank Yadav The Next Micheal Holding.

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

I was talking of comparisons. Hype is okay and much needed otherwise

 

 

 

I agree.

[putrevus]

Srinath was fast but he never had the ability to become a great fast bowler.Bowling fast does not mean you become a great fast bowler.

 

Mohd Sami also bowled fast but he was a horrible bowler.

[Vijy]

4 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

Indian " pace " quintet of Binny, Madan, Kapil, Sandhu and Amarnath have proved that they were much better by beating this quartet twice in 1983.  The WI could think of 4 but we thought about 5 pacers. Just imagine what would have happened if Sunil Valson had played. We would have won thrice in two games. 

For Eng conditions, our "pace" attack outperformed WI in 1983. it may seem shocking, but it is true. likes of Jimmy (Amarnath), Madan Lal, and Binny - who were very poor bowlers otherwise (barring Binny in ODIs) - were allowed to run rampant on those pitches given the conditions. one of life's ironies right there

[ravishingravi]

On 3/31/2024 at 3:55 PM, Kron said:

Should we drop him? And bring back Mukesh and avesh? 

 

Nah we can just drop you back the green zone. 

[Kron]

5 hours ago, ravishingravi said:

 

Nah we can just drop you back the green zone. 

Settle down ravi

[Kron]

12 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

Indian " pace " quintet of Binny, Madan, Kapil, Sandhu and Amarnath have proved that they were much better by beating this quartet twice in 1983.  The WI could think of 4 but we thought about 5 pacers. Just imagine what would have happened if Sunil Valson had played. We would have won thrice in two games. 

Lol

[First class]

20 hours ago, Vijy said:

Joffrey (Jofra), as I call him, was nowhere near Holding. I saw Holding a lot in Eng. It wasn't just the smoothness and pace, it was also his accuracy, robust body, and perseverance/heart that marked him as different from most county bowlers. Joffrey scores well on the first two (smoothness, pace), does okay on the third (accuracy), and very poorly on the fourth and fifth.

You're right, I was talking Jafra only in context of smooth action and pace he generated effortlessly. 

[Nikhil_cric]

18 hours ago, putrevus said:

Srinath was fast but he never had the ability to become a great fast bowler.Bowling fast does not mean you become a great fast bowler.

 

Mohd Sami also bowled fast but he was a horrible bowler.

Srinath had everything needed to be a quality fast bowler. 

 

There was no concept of workload management or anything back in the day and he was bowled into the ground without any support 

[Sandz]

58 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Srinath had everything needed to be a quality fast bowler. 

 

There was no concept of workload management or anything back in the day and he was bowled into the ground without any support 

You need a good group of fast bowlers to win you matches , if there is just one good bowler in the ranks then opposition can just play him out and smash the rest, story of Indian Fast bowling up until the last decade.

[Sandz]

21 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

Indian " pace " quintet of Binny, Madan, Kapil, Sandhu and Amarnath have proved that they were much better by beating this quartet twice in 1983.  The WI could think of 4 but we thought about 5 pacers. Just imagine what would have happened if Sunil Valson had played. We would have won thrice in two games. 

Post of the week! 

Edited April 2 by Sandz

[singhvivek141]

On 4/1/2024 at 7:35 AM, MediumPacer said:

India doesnt have a history of producing quick pacers ,so we are getting a bit overexcited.Is that so unreasonable.

 

Bet all these pajeet uncles will bump this thread when this guy struggles.

That's an inherent problem of our society.

People are ready to mock & kick someone when that fellow is down. But won't even appreciate when someone is doing well.

[singhvivek141]

21 hours ago, putrevus said:

Srinath was fast but he never had the ability to become a great fast bowler.Bowling fast does not mean you become a great fast bowler.

 

Mohd Sami also bowled fast but he was a horrible bowler.

It's a case of quantity has its own quality.

 

If you have 10 bowlers in system and chances of success in 10%, only 1 of them will succeed.

However if you have 100 such bowlers in system, even if they gave 5-6% success rate. You will have 5-6 fast bowlers playing for you and doing well.

 

Right now trundlers are everywhere. Our pace bowling ratio is not even 0.5 per domestic teams..while every team has like 8-10 trundlers.

250+ trundlers playing cricket vs 8-10 quicks. You can clearly see which section will dominate & dictate.

Edited April 2 by singhvivek141

[Rightarmfast]

21 hours ago, putrevus said:

Srinath was fast but he never had the ability to become a great fast bowler.Bowling fast does not mean you become a great fast bowler.

 

Mohd Sami also bowled fast but he was a horrible bowler.

Classic surface level observation. If he was a good, and tending towards great fast bowler or not, you need to observe his career holistically and understand the dynamics of the team, politics and much more. 

To make a blanket statement as bold as yours is highly myopic. 

[MediumPacer]

1 hour ago, singhvivek141 said:

That's an inherent problem of our society.

People are ready to mock & kick someone when that fellow is down. But won't even appreciate when someone is doing well.

Yeah absolutely,dime a dozen.

[Suhaan]

On 4/1/2024 at 7:35 AM, MediumPacer said:

India doesnt have a history of producing quick pacers ,so we are getting a bit overexcited.Is that so unreasonable.

 

Bet all these pajeet uncles will bump this thread when this guy struggles.

Fans across globe get excited if their boy(s) click 150s, nothing unusual with us here

Yes,out of good mood since it's a fun forum more so with ongoing  IPL  people make "funny/bold" comparisons,some metaphors which some may find annoying or even laughable, should be taken maybe as humor

[putrevus]

5 hours ago, singhvivek141 said:

It's a case of quantity has its own quality.

 

If you have 10 bowlers in system and chances of success in 10%, only 1 of them will succeed.

However if you have 100 such bowlers in system, even if they gave 5-6% success rate. You will have 5-6 fast bowlers playing for you and doing well.

 

Right now trundlers are everywhere. Our pace bowling ratio is not even 0.5 per domestic teams..while every team has like 8-10 trundlers.

250+ trundlers playing cricket vs 8-10 quicks. You can clearly see which section will dominate & dictate.

Pace bowlers will always be rare. The only time we could see abudance of pace bowlers was with WI in 1980s.

 

Srinath was more inswing bowler who natural length was short of good length and  it took time for him to develop the straight one.He should have been like Imran Khan who with reverse swing just had world class figures.His meekness did not help him either.

 

Attitude matters very much for a fast bowler. Umesh is another example, he should have been great fast bowler as he had perfect outswinger and pace plus fitness but never could find the greatness. 

[putrevus]

6 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Classic surface level observation. If he was a good, and tending towards great fast bowler or not, you need to observe his career holistically and understand the dynamics of the team, politics and much more. 

To make a blanket statement as bold as yours is highly myopic. 

I don't think so. I have watched Srinath thruout his career. To called him great would be biggest overstatement.

 

Did he have periods where he was very good.Yes but that does not make him great.

[Rightarmfast]

24 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I don't think so. I have watched Srinath thruout his career. To called him great would be biggest overstatement.

 

Did he have periods where he was very good.Yes but that does not make him great.

Is Darren Gough called a great? Is Gillespie called a great of the game? You dont have to be an all time great all the time. During the time Srinath was playing, he was mighty effective and commanded respect from the opposition. Perhaps you didnt notice it. And his extra yard of pace made him a bowler to be feared. 

The irony of him not being a great is not having a bowling unit he deserved to bowl along with, and a team who could support his bowling. 

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Is Darren Gough called a great? Is Gillespie called a great of the game? You dont have to be an all time great all the time. During the time Srinath was playing, he was mighty effective and commanded respect from the opposition. Perhaps you didnt notice it. And his extra yard of pace made him a bowler to be feared. 

The irony of him not being a great is not having a bowling unit he deserved to bowl along with, and a team who could support his bowling. 

Him having extra yard of pace might have impressed Indian fans but overall I don't think so, Srinath lack of greatness was also  not due to him not having support bowlers at other end.It took time for him to understand fast bowling ( his own words not mine) and his injuries did not help once he became good.

 

Srinath was not feared any means, was he respected yes but he was the not case of  lost potential either.Srinath is rightly rated as okay bowler.

 

 

[rageaddict]

Srinath was phasst but look at his attitude , zero aggression even after getting better off the batsman..