punjabi_khota Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 ^Srinath at his best was indeed faster than Akram. Plenty of articles which mention that.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 ^Srinath at his best was indeed faster than Akram. Plenty of articles which mention that. Venkatesh Prasad was also faster than Waqar Younis.
punjabi_khota Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 http://www.espncricinfo.com/wctimeline/content/story/111878.html Bowling speeds also received huge publicity in the lead-up to the 1999 World Cup when all eyes were on Shoaib Akhtar. The question was not 'who was the fastest' but 'who could come close to the Rawlpindi Express'? Not much was known about bowling speeds at the time and some still rated McGrath and Donald fast enough to challenge Shoaib. At the tournament's first match Srinath and McGrath went head to head once more. This time it was evident for all the world to see that Javagal Srinath was no medium pacer, but was a genuine speedster clocking up 149.6kph once again and bettering McGrath's best speed by some 9kph. Srinath proved to be the second fastest bowler of the tournament next to Shoaib (154.5kph) while surprise pacemen Geoff Allott of New Zealand (146.5kph) and Jacques Kallis (146.4kph) left the pace of McGrath and Donald looking decidedly bland. Javagal Srinath could now lay claim to being the second fastest bowler in the world. Suck on that for a while, *****. :finger:
Yoda-esque Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 ^Srinath at his best was indeed faster than Akram. Plenty of articles which mention that. Agree..If its just about pace Srinath was always in late 130s early 140s..same as akram. At their fastest, both could touch the late 140s- early 150s
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Agree..If its just about pace Srinath was always in late 130s early 140s..same as akram. At their fastest, both could touch the late 140s- early 150s So, you compare Srinath at his best versus Akram at his worst? Both at their best, Akram was way faster! Even Zaheer Khan clocked closed to 150 kph in this first series Champions Trophy 2000. Shane Watson could also clock higher 140s.
punjabi_khota Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 So' date= you compare Srinath at his best versus Akram at his worst? Both at their best, Akram was way faster! Even Zaheer Khan clocked closed to 150 kph in this first series Champions Trophy 2000. Shane Watson could also clock higher 140s. Nope. In the article, Srinath is reported to have bowled 150+ and 149 in two different tours and conditions. So If Akram was WAY faster, what would that speed be ? 155+ ? Was he bowling at same speeds as Shoaib ? :dontknow: No one even in Pak will claim that.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 http://www.espncricinfo.com/wctimeline/content/story/111878.html Suck on that for a while, *****. :finger: Wasim Akram : Fast http://es.pn/nXbNMG Srinath : Fast-Medium http://es.pn/oeP8dK The cricket arm of the same website link you posted. Try again! :finger:
punjabi_khota Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 ^So you would rather go by words than the numbers ? ok. Enjoy your day.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Nope. In the article' date= Srinath is reported to have bowled 150+ and 149 in two different tours and conditions. So If Akram was WAY faster, what would that speed be ? 155+ ? Was he bowling at same speeds as Shoaib ? :dontknow: No one even in Pak will claim that. Reported by whom? Some chaddi reporter who would probably be a fan of Srinath.
jairamesh Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Akram was never fast, a great deal of success in the 90s was due his tutorship under Imran Khan on how to physically manipulate the ball legally and illegally.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 ^So you would rather go by words than the numbers ? ok. Enjoy your day. Numbers by whom? I can sit on my couch and compare two fast bowlers to say X is better than Y. You can enjoy the orgasm on one article posted by a nobody compared to an authentic website recognized by most cricketers and knowledgeable folks.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Akram was never fast' date=' a great deal of success in the 90s was due his tutorship under Imran Khan on how to physically manipulate the ball legally and illegally.[/quote'] The tutorship probably also included how to manipulate the crowd, umpires, third-umpires and match referees.
punjabi_khota Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Numbers by whom? I can sit on my couch and compare two fast bowlers to say X is better than Y. You can enjoy the orgasm on one article posted by a nobody compared to an authentic website recognized by most cricketers and knowledgeable folks. The article I posted is ON cricinfo. WTF are you smoking ?
Yoda-esque Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 So' date=' you compare Srinath at his best versus Akram at his worst? Both at their best, Akram was way faster! Even Zaheer Khan clocked closed to 150 kph in this first series Champions Trophy 2000. Shane Watson could also clock higher 140s.[/quote'] Nope..not at his worst..I am saying that the stock delivery of both was essentially almost the same speed...i.e. the 135-138 range.
jairamesh Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 The tutorship probably also included how to manipulate the crowd' date=' umpires, third-umpires and match referees.[/quote'] Actually umpires in home series weren't even manipulated, their bias favoritism was/is notoriously well known. It's just unfortunate under Imran Khan's tutorship he didn't learn to manipulate the tv cameras, it would have been useful under today's TV coverage.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 The article I posted is ON cricinfo. WTF are you smoking ? So, did the profile links which I posted were from Times of India? One article says Srinath was fast for two tours. So? I posted Cricinfo profile links. Overall, in their career span Akram as fast and Srinath was fast-medium. If you can't take that. :finger:
Yoda-esque Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 So' date=' did the profile links which I posted were from Times of India? One article says Srinath was fast for two tours. So? I posted Cricinfo profile links. Overall, in their career span Akram as [b']fast and Srinath was fast-medium. If you can't take that. :finger: Easy with the :finger: mate.You have been doing it far too many times.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Nope..not at his worst..I am saying that the stock delivery of both was essentially almost the same speed...i.e. the 135-138 range. You know Akram started playing way before Srinath did. He played for a longer duration and his stock delivery was still comparable to Srinath. Akram was fast, Srinath wasn't and hence Cricinfo gives both of them their due place. Srinath Fast Medium Akram Fast
punjabi_khota Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Overall sure, on an average Akram probably was faster. But as I said, at their respective bests, Akram could not have possibly be any faster than Srinath's best, which would somewhere between 149.5 and 155 (his two highest speeds in SA and WC99).
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