As good as Zak and Ishant are..

[coffee_rules]

His record in the 95-99 period is world class. He didn't have a good Aus record. Attitude was his drawback. but still in the top 3 all time best fast bowlers of India. He was express pace in '96 and was probably the world's fastest bowler in that period.

[graphic23]

Not sure how much truth there is to the whole assertion of Srinath being thought of as a "rival" by Kapil. At most it is a hearsay, and yes I have heard it before. I would be very interested if either of these two gents - Kapil & Srinath can be shown on record saying things of these nature. But if I did have to make an educated guess I would say that Srinath's atitude might very well have gone against him. A good comparison can be made with Chetan Sharma. The latter was hardly a fast bowler but he had fiery atitude. Kapil did use him very well and you can pick many an interview of CHetan Sharma where he showers glory on Kapil. The difference between CHetan and Srinath was that Srinath was just not fiery enough. Atleast thats what it showed on pitch. A very interesting point that people forget is that fans of Srinath, or Ishant or Zaheer for that matter, can make a claim that in the early years they did not get "support" from their seniors, who supported Kapil?? Famed Indian coaches are on record chidding Kapil that there are no fast bowlers in India, Indian openers were against Kapil when he bounced West Indies batsmen. Still the man has better record than most of the modern "greats" with all kind of "support" in initial period. I mean compare Kapil with Zaheer(easily the best that we have today). Kapil reached 100 wickets in 25 and 200 in 50. Zaheer has reached the former in 37 and till date has played 62 without touching 200 wickets. Plus of course Kapil had 2000 plus runs by this time as well. xxx

Isn't that more than enough reason for you to make sure the new incumbent fast bowlers learn quickly on their job and guide them through it? I am not chiding Kapil here but I think way too much importance was shown to the magic 434. It is not a surprise that he announced his retirement after he was briefly 'rested' after getting the record. I don't think his reputation or any of his 5wi or the 1983 WC or anything would be forgotten even if he didn't get the 434. No arguing that Kapil was more talented than Srinath but that doesn't do anything to the argument put in place that he could've done more than he did (its surprising I say that because he was the ultimate team man - but it is true). Do you think that McGrath would've gotten 560+ wickets if he was bowling with Venkatesh Prasad at the other side ?

[amits]

nobody guessing the uniqueness of srinaths 6/21 against sa still???

[bunny]

Do you think that McGrath would've gotten 560+ wickets if he was bowling with Venkatesh Prasad at the other side ?

Yeah he'd have. Check out how Glen McGrath did when he didn't have Mcdermott, Gillespie, or Lee by his side. He even played a couple of matches where his support bowlers were Adam Dale and Collin Miller. Got 5-fer in one and 3-fer in the other averaging < 20. Kapil himself had no support bowler but did pretty well especially early in his career.

[bunny]

nobody guessing the uniqueness of srinaths 6/21 against sa still???

Got most number of people out for ducks? Can't be actually...

[Lurker]

Isn't that more than enough reason for you to make sure the new incumbent fast bowlers learn quickly on their job and guide them through it? I am not chiding Kapil here but I think way too much importance was shown to the magic 434. It is not a surprise that he announced his retirement after he was briefly 'rested' after getting the record.

I dont think that is neccessarily true. Maybe it is because I belong to Ian Chappell's school of thought that once you have made it to International cricket you are responsible for your actions. Your skills might be honed but there is little chance you would learn new skills, which seems to be the argument here. Kapil Dev as an individual was a fighter. John Woodcock, in his book 100 Greatest cricketers, mentions how Kapil affected more games with his performance than any other players. I wouldnt be surprised if Kapil expected his team members to be a fighter as well. He won 1983 not by chance but because of this aspect of his personality. He dared to pick Madan Lal from second string XI in England then won the series in 86. Quite possible he didnt enjoy players who gave anything less than 100%. In this sense he would be no different than say Sachin Tendulkar whose captaincy was greatly affected by the fact that his team would let down. Now I leave it up to you to judge if Sachin was a terrible captain and hence his team flopped OR if Indian team flopped so miserably that Sachin Tendulkar comes across as a terrible captain. Two perspective of the same issue. xxx

[amits]

Got most number of people out for ducks? Can't be actually...

no it isnt that although there were 6 ducks in that innings. it is something else

[Lurker]

Srinath struggled in his early years with a lack of guidance. Later on it came out how little Kapil Dev helped him; how Kapil literally treated him as a rival rather than his successor and wouldn't give him any advice on the 91-92 tour in Australia. I recollect a comment from Sri saying that if he had learnt to bowl a fuller length in his youth' date= he may have taken a lot more wickets.

I would argue that Srinath did not have full length delivery in his arsenal right throughout his career. It is not that he developed a good knack for full length delivery later on. Indeed those who have watched Indian cricket in 90s would remember(painfully) as to the number of times India would take out top order only to see the tail enders mount a rearguard action. It is basic common sense that you take out tail enders will full length fast deliveries, or yorkers, but Srinath(and others) would fail to do so. Not to mention in One Day International he would get pelted in last overs(40-50) due to lack of full length yorkers. Even otherwise does it really take a rocket scientist to understand the value of full-length deliveries? I mean come on I knew this in school! It is a waste of the new ball to pitch anything but up. Yes you can throw in a bouncer or two every over but most pace bowlers, medium or superfast, should pitch in the corridor of uncertainty at full length or short of full length. This is simple common sense. I am a big Srinath fan by the way. I specially liked the way he would get the ball to rise and thud from the short of a good length but had he mastered the art of varying his length he would have been a hugely different bowler. And thats got nothing to do with Kapil Dev. xxx

[Lurker]

Coming back to the OP, which I seem to have distracted, I would say that while Srinath overall was a better bowler by Zaheer Khan(Ishant Sharma is too young to be counted) anyday, if I have to pick both of them at their peak I would go with Zaheer Khan. Zaheer has better control overall, has more variety in his arsenal, is comfortable bowling to both left handers and the right, can operate with new ball as well as the old, and can fox the batsmen by using crease on either side of the umpire. Plus he is aggressive enough that noone in International cricket messes with him. Srinath did have more of pace and bounce. He could rear the ball off short of a good length and at different times he was amongst the top 3 fast bowlers in terms of sheer pace. That he could manage it alongside Waqars, Donalds etc is nothing to scoff at. I specially liked the way he would make big inswingers come in at a brisk pace. It remains to be seen how long Zaheer maintains his peak. If he does for couple more years I daresay he would move ahead of Srinath in all time bowlers list. xx

[Gambit]

i still remember the 6/21 of srinath against sa. we were defending only 170 & still won by 64 runs. also' date=' there was 1 very unique thing in that spell. u guys try giving it. i will post the answer later:D[/quote'] Srinath was on a hattrick on three occassions.

[Gambit]

Coming back to the OP' date=' which I seem to have distracted, I would say that while Srinath overall was a better bowler by Zaheer Khan(Ishant Sharma is too young to be counted) anyday,[b'] if I have to pick both of them at their peak I would go with Zaheer Khan. Zaheer has better control overall, has more variety in his arsenal, is comfortable bowling to both left handers and the right, can operate with new ball as well as the old, and can fox the batsmen by using crease on either side of the umpire. Plus he is aggressive enough that noone in International cricket messes with him. Srinath did have more of pace and bounce. He could rear the ball off short of a good length and at different times he was amongst the top 3 fast bowlers in terms of sheer pace. That he could manage it alongside Waqars, Donalds etc is nothing to scoff at. I specially liked the way he would make big inswingers come in at a brisk pace. It remains to be seen how long Zaheer maintains his peak. If he does for couple more years I daresay he would move ahead of Srinath in all time bowlers list. xx

Baukhla gaye ho kya bhaiya? :D Sri was a million times more lethal than Zak(even given Zak's current form). Sri was much much quicker. He could get the ball to lift(which you mentioned) which 99% batsmen hate and had a good bouncer(Lanka De Silva and Pwnting can vouch for that). Sri could reverse it at a much quicker pace making him more lethal. Where Zak scores over Sri is in his yorker bowling ability and attitude. Apart from, until he does a 6/21 or 13/131, he would be firmly sit behind Sri. In ODIs, Zak might be better but tests, Sri was a far more potent force. Regarding some of the other comments. Srinath was clocked at 149 kmph in the 1999 world cup which was the second fastest delivery of the tourney after Actor's 150+ ball. Alistair Campbell is on record saying that Sri was quicker than Donald in the 1997 tri series in RSA and Sri, according to unconfirmed reports, clocked 155+. There is a Cricinfo link to this.

[Cricketics]

stil remember reading the famous south african score 0 FOR 2 twice, when Srinath got Hudson and Kirsten during the first 2 delivieries of the game. about the Srinath's spell at eden gardens, kolkata against pak in tri nation test series, i uploaded that video. Gambit, any chance of revival of that youtube account??? it was there

[amits]

Srinath was on a hattrick on three occassions.

thats the right answer

[Lurker]

Baukhla gaye ho kya bhaiya? :D Sri was a million times more lethal than Zak(even given Zak's current form). Sri was much much quicker. He could get the ball to lift(which you mentioned) which 99% batsmen hate and had a good bouncer(Lanka De Silva and Pwnting can vouch for that). Sri could reverse it at a much quicker pace making him more lethal. Where Zak scores over Sri is in his yorker bowling ability and attitude. Apart from, until he does a 6/21 or 13/131, he would be firmly sit behind Sri. In ODIs, Zak might be better but tests, Sri was a far more potent force.

Pace and bounce are non-issue for me. Srinath was easily better. Srinath, as his stats would show, was most effective in short bursts. He would have 3-4 wicket scalps in one spell. But if a batsmen settled down he would have a tough time. He couldnt set up a batsman so to speak. Zaheer Khan. You can see how he makes angles or changes around the wicket, and over, when need be. Srinath would hustle the batsmen, Zaheer outsmarts them. Personally I like thinking bowlers and hence Zaheer pips Srinath..at their peak. :--D:--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[coffee_rules]

STats of Srinath from Nov 1994 till Nov 1999 (5 years) filtered 29 1117.2 3324 121 8/86 13/132 27.47 2.97 55.4 6 1 Why these dates?..That's the first test he was a spearhead after KDev retired. I don't think ZK had such a great run. ZK from 2004 till date is: filtered 33 1152.3 3784 114 5/34 9/134 33.19 3.28 60.6 3 0 Even from SA tour onwards in 2007 his stats are: filtered 20 718 2309 76 5/34 9/134 30.38 3.21 56.6 3 0 So, ZK stats wise never can match Srinath.

[bunny]

STats of Srinath from Nov 1994 till Nov 1999 (5 years) filtered 29 1117.2 3324 121 8/86 13/132 27.47 2.97 55.4 6 1 Why these dates?..That's the first test he was a spearhead after KDev retired. I don't think ZK had such a great run. ZK from 2004 till date is: filtered 33 1152.3 3784 114 5/34 9/134 33.19 3.28 60.6 3 0 Even from SA tour onwards in 2007 his stats are: filtered 20 718 2309 76 5/34 9/134 30.38 3.21 56.6 3 0 So, ZK stats wise never can match Srinath.

As good as ZK has been, his exploits have been a tad too overrated. ICC rankings are also a pretty good indicator...Srinath's average ranking when at his peak was around 700 (peak around 750)....ZK's max ranking has been around 700...He has to do more.

[Cricketics]

Pace and bounce are non-issue for me. Srinath was easily better. Srinath, as his stats would show, was most effective in short bursts. He would have 3-4 wicket scalps in one spell. But if a batsmen settled down he would have a tough time. He couldnt set up a batsman so to speak. Zaheer Khan. You can see how he makes angles or changes around the wicket, and over, when need be. Srinath would hustle the batsmen, Zaheer outsmarts them. Personally I like thinking bowlers and hence Zaheer pips Srinath..at their peak. :--D:--D

i think to draw a conclusion rite away between Sharma/Zaheer v/s Srinath won't be the rite thing to do. Srinath started his international career when he was 21.. and soon after 4-5 years he gained popularity by his regular devastating spells. It took him a about 4-5 years to put his name rite after their for Indian team to be picked on regular basis. Ishant even though has been impressive till now, hasn't been as devastating till now as Sree was through out his career because he hasn't played enough yet. So only time will decide on how Ishant Matures and takes up the heat which is to follow in his career

[Fontaine]

As good as ZK has been' date=' his exploits have been a tad too overrated. ICC rankings are also a pretty good indicator...Srinath's average ranking when at his peak was around 700 (peak around 750)....ZK's max ranking has been around 700...He has to do more.[/quote'] Over rated? Hardly. I remember the English pundits scoffing at the idea that Zaheer was going to prove any problems for their batting order. They went by his career average and said he was too inconsistent etc etc. Since he's come back he's faced the top sides like South Africa, England twice, Australia twice, Sri Lanka etc and he's been the most complete bowler in the world. Bowling swing (both ways), seam, and even reverse swinging the ball for months. But if you do want to look at an over rated bowler just take a look at Flintoff. For all the hype this guys gets when was the last time he took a five for in a test match?

[bunny]

Over rated? Hardly. I remember the English pundits scoffing at the idea that Zaheer was going to prove any problems for their batting order. They went by his career average and said he was too inconsistent etc etc. Since he's come back he's faced the top sides like South Africa, England twice, Australia twice, Sri Lanka etc and he's been the most complete bowler in the world. Bowling swing (both ways), seam, and even reverse swinging the ball for months.

If he is such a complete bowler why does he average just 30 over the last couple of years. He has got talent, no doubt. He didn't do much against SL (in tests) and overall, he hasn't done enough to be called the best (or the most complete) fast bowler in the world. That's why I say he is overrated. Anyway, I've hogged this thread a bit too much...over and out.