Lurker Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 My dad, who still thinks Kapil Dev is India's greatest cricketer, said that it is unclear what was going on between '92-'94 where he was trying to break Hadlee's record and so many people were criticizing him for holding up Srinath's place in the team. I don't know how to come to a conclusion with this (and whatever conclusion I do reach will be incomplete because of no first-hand knowledge), through deduction, it is clear that he was unhappy with Srinath pushing for his place in the team [perhaps as competition or perhaps because he felt after all he'd given to the team, he deserved something back]. Your Dad is correct that there was a bit of confusion around this era. Srinath was lapped up Indian fans specially for his pace but his performance often left a lot to desire. In his first 4 years he played about 15 Tests and had 40 wickets. He had potential but Srinath did not exactly set the world on fire in his first few years. This was also one of the reason why Kapil managed to eke out a couple more seasons. Although it was very clear he was past his selling date there was not much challenge against him. Plus he was still a formidable batsman down the order and a handy one day International player. So that added to the quandry.
riya Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 it is a fact that Kapil was in the Indian test team solely for the last 20 tests to break the world record.he did not deserve a place in the team as an opening bowler. was operating at less than 120k right thro the test match in NZ, where Stephen Fleming made his debut.kumble was bowling his faster ball around 115k that time. Atul Wassan , Salil Ankola, Vivek Razdan were other faster bowlers, who were certainly couple of yards quicker than Kapil when they bowled in tandem with kapil.Srinath was fire and was in good form but could not break in to Indian test team regularly because Kapil was the obstacle. I am a staunch fan of kapil , he was on par with Ian Botham if not better than Botham till 1983-84 west indies series.after his knee surgery he certainly lost his jump and pace. for some time he lost his out swinger too.he regained it later otherwise he would not have broken Hadlee's world record. Yes Kapil's overstay affected his statistics too. Meanwhile the shrewd Imran did stay without bowling and concentrating on batting .Thus preserved his bowling average and improved his batting average .
Lurker Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 I haven't talked about Davidson's skill etc because as I said I'm not familiar with his bowling and unless you've watched test matches in the 50s/60s you aren't either. You're going by 2nd hand accounts. Yeah, it's nice to have watched some documentaries and read a few books by batsmen from those days etc etc but like I keep saying take the bolwer out of the 50/60s and have him bowl now against fully padded/helmet wearing batsmen. In other words for you the cricket world exist ONLY if you have watched it with your own two eyes. Sounds pretty ridiculous but hey full powers to you for enjoying that. And as far as Cowdrey and other great batsmen not being able to hook and pull? Who the hell is talking about that. I made a very simple point that even tail enders (forget about average batsmen) can hook and pull against top fast bowlers with impunity nowadays. You would have almost never seen that regularily in those times, never mind the greats. Which is why I gave a few names but it doesnt surprise me that your knowledge, or lack thereof, showed through. Ted Dexter was a hearty hooker, so was Gary Sobers. How about Rohan Kanhai? These gentlemen were top class against fast bowling. All of them would make to their country's all time XI, atleast a strong candidate. Your whole discussion seems to hover around tail enders. You easily forget cricket is played between batsmen and bowlers and not only between tail enders. But I agree with you, comparing bowlers of different eras shouldn't be done that's why originally I said Zaheer would be ONE of the best but then you came out with a silly statement like Davidson is better or maybe even Voce. What a joke that is. One of the first bowlers to really employ short pitch bouncers on a regular basis and the batsmen were hopping around clueless. Take away that shock factor and he's a nobody. When you make comments like Zaheer is an all time great left arm fast bowler you should be prepared to rank him. There are a handful of left armers anyway. Heck Karsan Ghavri would make it top 10 left armers of all time(wicket wise) as would probably Bruce Reid. So should they be considered all-time greats as well?? Lets not throw the word "great" so easily around. Akram-Davidson are 1-2. If you dont agree to that you are pretty much swayed by zingoistic nationalism and little by cricket. xxx
f.b.m Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 As much as I like watching Ishant and Zaheer bowl, they havent shown that they can run through a side and leave them in tatters. Ishant Sharma has the potential, I think to deliver a Taylor'esque spell that can completely take the wicket, situation of the match and everything else out of the equation and be a spectactle. Zaheer Khan, for my money hasnt shown this ability in all of his 60 odd test matches, to skittle an opposition out for next to nothing. In the last few years only one man has done such a thing and only once. Yeah, you guessed it Fontaine; it was in 2006, it was in Jo'Berg. Thats him. Javagal Srinath remains the best quick bowler we produced in the last 20 years and by some distance. Zaheer Khan is probably the most exciting to watch in that he's always upto something be it new ball swing, seam movement, slower cutters, changes in angles, reverse swing, etc, etc. He also has the best short ball from an Indian bowler that I've ever seen. But in terms of the ability to run through a side and well.... produce results, Srinath was by far a better bowler.
coffee_rules Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Your Dad is correct that there was a bit of confusion around this era. Srinath was lapped up Indian fans specially for his pace but his performance often left a lot to desire. In his first 4 years he played about 15 Tests and had 40 wickets. He had potential but Srinath did not exactly set the world on fire in his first few years. This was also one of the reason why Kapil managed to eke out a couple more seasons. Although it was very clear he was past his selling date there was not much challenge against him. Plus he was still a formidable batsman down the order and a handy one day International player. So that added to the quandry. That's because he used to come 1st change after KD and MP trundlers. Srinath was effective with the new ball initially. After he got the new ball permanently (since 94) till 1999 he had an amazing World run as shown in stats. He was not given the new ball because, KD was extending his career to get to the World Record wickets.
The Outsider Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 The aim is taken at the wrong person when it is argued that Srinath should have played more during the '92-'94 period. Yes, he should have played more but the person to have been dropped should have been Prabhakar. There wasn't much to choose between Kapil and Prabhakar as bowlers during that period, but Kapil was a much better batsman and averaged 40+ during the last stages of his career - that's almost as good as a specialist, not to mention he remained a superb fielder right till the end unlike the lard Prabhakar. If India were picking an allrounder it should have been Kapil. Yes, he might have hung around for the record but it was Prabhakar who deserved the chop more than him to include Srinath.
The Outsider Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Lurker, Regarding the highlighted portion in bright pink color, I've heard of the above (second hand story from another local cricketer who knows Kapil, not from WoodenCock like you heard directly). I was not sure earlier whether or not to believe it, but given that you have also heard of it, now I think I believe that story because I myself am not sure of anything because I also dont know anything abt cricket. Atleast Kapil did what he could to help other yengsters later on but I dont know anything abt this so I will accept what you say about his perf. Its really sad that Kapil (a great bowler, no doubt) came in the way of other Ind bowlers' development, everyone in this thread has said this and Salil has said this before also so I will just copy them and state the obvious like I am doing now because I am not sure abt it myself whineleg rocks!! :laugh:
The Outsider Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 So in this thread, Fontaine is saying the batting sucked in those days and in another thread BB is saying bowling sucked in those days. Why don't you guys decide and let us know? kthxbai
bunny Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 So in this thread, Fontaine is saying the batting sucked in those days and in another thread BB is saying bowling sucked in those days. Why don't you guys decide and let us know? kthxbai Personally I believe that the batting technique was way too different. People just used to sit on their backfoots. I'd like to believe that it's not the best method to play swing bowling. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QrIdBG1yM]YouTube - Fred Trueman - Englands greatest ever fast bowler[/ame]
Fontaine Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 In other words for you the cricket world exist ONLY if you have watched it with your own two eyes. Sounds pretty ridiculous but hey full powers to you for enjoying that. Nice job avoiding the question I asked. You either watched Davidson in the 50s early 60s or are just going by 2nd hand accounts. Which is why I gave a few names but it doesnt surprise me that your knowledge, or lack thereof, showed through. Ted Dexter was a hearty hooker, so was Gary Sobers. How about Rohan Kanhai? These gentlemen were top class against fast bowling. All of them would make to their country's all time XI, atleast a strong candidate. Your whole discussion seems to hover around tail enders. You easily forget cricket is played between batsmen and bowlers and not only between tail enders. Last time I checked when you get a tail ender out it counts towards your average unless you think the only wickets that ever count are that of Sobers, and other top class batsmen. :winky: When you make comments like Zaheer is an all time great left arm fast bowler you should be prepared to rank him. There are a handful of left armers anyway. Heck Karsan Ghavri would make it top 10 left armers of all time(wicket wise) as would probably Bruce Reid. So should they be considered all-time greats as well?? Lets not throw the word "great" so easily around. Akram-Davidson are 1-2. If you dont agree to that you are pretty much swayed by zingoistic nationalism and little by cricket. xxx Actually I never said Zaheer is an all time great. This is EXACTLY what I said: When Zaheer retires he'll go down as one of the greatest left arm fast bowlers in the history of the game. See, if you actually read what I said then you'd realize that I made that statement based on his peak form and him continuing it for another three years or so. If you're going to base your posts on misunderstanding what I actually say, then maybe you should follow your monikor and go back to just lurking!! :cantstop:
Fontaine Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 Personally I believe that the batting technique was way too different. People just used to sit on their backfoots. I'd like to believe that it's not the best method to play swing bowling. There's a very good reason for that. Get on the front foot and any decent bowler would have dropped it in short and the batsmen would be facing an 85+mph fastball with little more than a soft cap on.
Fontaine Posted February 12, 2009 Posted February 12, 2009 As much as I like watching Ishant and Zaheer bowl, they havent shown that they can run through a side and leave them in tatters. Ishant Sharma has the potential, I think to deliver a Taylor'esque spell that can completely take the wicket, situation of the match and everything else out of the equation and be a spectactle. Zaheer Khan, for my money hasnt shown this ability in all of his 60 odd test matches, to skittle an opposition out for next to nothing. In the last few years only one man has done such a thing and only once. Yeah, you guessed it Fontaine; it was in 2006, it was in Jo'Berg. Thats him. Javagal Srinath remains the best quick bowler we produced in the last 20 years and by some distance. Zaheer Khan is probably the most exciting to watch in that he's always upto something be it new ball swing, seam movement, slower cutters, changes in angles, reverse swing, etc, etc. He also has the best short ball from an Indian bowler that I've ever seen. But in terms of the ability to run through a side and well.... produce results, Srinath was by far a better bowler. Man, you're one of the best posters here when it comes to fast bowling. I completely agree with what you're saying here.
Rajan Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 As much as I like watching Ishant and Zaheer bowl, they havent shown that they can run through a side and leave them in tatters. Ishant Sharma has the potential, I think to deliver a Taylor'esque spell that can completely take the wicket, situation of the match and everything else out of the equation and be a spectactle. Zaheer Khan, for my money hasnt shown this ability in all of his 60 odd test matches, to skittle an opposition out for next to nothing. In the last few years only one man has done such a thing and only once. Yeah, you guessed it Fontaine; it was in 2006, it was in Jo'Berg. Thats him. Javagal Srinath remains the best quick bowler we produced in the last 20 years and by some distance. Zaheer Khan is probably the most exciting to watch in that he's always upto something be it new ball swing, seam movement, slower cutters, changes in angles, reverse swing, etc, etc. He also has the best short ball from an Indian bowler that I've ever seen. But in terms of the ability to run through a side and well.... produce results, Srinath was by far a better bowler. ====== there are 2 phases of srinath. the fiery srinath who did not have too many variations but possessed raw pace, a big inswinger,a good bouncer,who was made to literally carry the attack on his shoulders when touring,who bowled some inspired spells at 150k+!(my friend used to say that srinath does not have stamina, if the ICC changes the number of deliveries in an over to 5, he would be the best fast bowler in the world! his last ball goes for runs because he does not have energy) and the one after his shoulder injury , surgery, rehab. This srinath II had picked up subtle variations but lost about 10k pace.surprisingly he contributed more to indian wins, because the batting became formidable after his surgery. Old timers say, Srinath and Mohammed Nissar were the onlt 2 fast bowlers ever to play for india.I have seen Zak bowl at 149k in his first season, in Nairobi champions trophy!But he compensates for the loss of pace with cunning variations.Ishant has lost his pace but can bowl fast in conditions that would help his jump and justify the effort in bending his back.NZ would help us in understanding him better. We need these 2 guys to be playing with out injuries.i am worried that Ishant is being played in all 3 formats. Zak prefers to keep on playing every game, he has his reasons. but Ishant looks weak!
patriot Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Zakky or Javagal Srinath ? Who would go down as India's best fast bowler after Kapil ?
msb1991 Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Srinath, no question until Zaheer strings one or two genuinely strong series together, rather than the one or two genuine class spells that he strings together.
patriot Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Abilitywise....Srinath could bowl the nastiest spells one could expect from a fast bowler. But just hated the way he bowled a boundary ball each over letting go off all the pressure. His attitude for a fast bowler also sucked. Zakky is lower on ability and pace..but has got a great attitude.
msb1991 Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Abilitywise....Srinath could bowl the nastiest spells one could expect from a fast bowler. But just hated the way he bowled a boundary ball each over letting go off all the pressure. His attitude for a fast bowler also sucked. Zakky is lower on ability and pace..but has got a great attitude. Zaheer can be very expensive too and is prone to half volley after half volley when searching a wicket.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now