podi wije Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Probably because you did not watch cricket in the mid-late 90s. Between 96 and 99, Srinath was just as fast, if not faster than, Allan Donald and Waqar Younis. In the 96-97 series in SA, Srinath bowled at an average speed in the late 140s and early 150s touching 156 kmph. Kluesener was the only bowler who had an average speed faster than Srinath in that series. And this was during the time when Donald was at his fastest best. Dilhara is no Srinath when it comes to pace yeah i didn't.never heard about his pace before.know him as a good swing bowler from last generation.and i didn't tried to say that dilhara is quicker than srinath impact i dont know that for sure.(its understandable since i didn't followed any of his bowling back in those yrs.).what i tried to say is sri lanka got at least half dozen bowlers who can bowl quick.
Crookbond Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 probably the most unathletic nation on earth. England probably is the most ****-licking nation on earth. Nasser Hussain's nose is a testimony to it.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Number of gold medals won by India in the history of olympic games: 9 Number of gold medals won in track and field events: 0 you dun goofed son. To think a tiny nation like Jamaica will probably win 9 gold medals next olympics. Indians are just genetically inferior when it comes to being athletes, no hate at least you are probably more intelligent.I dunno if it is truly a genetic phenomenon but I think it is fair to say that when it comes to brawn the caucasians are top dog, followed by negroids, followed by australoids and then monogoloids. Problem is the Indian subcontinent race is a mix of all four root races. While native evolution in the Indian subcontinent has placed less importance on physical strength (our geology is nowhere as hostile as the cold europe and china or the hot africa or even the rain forests or SA), we have evolved with lots of importance given to finesse though. And that is why you see the general Indian is slightly more intelligent than the general world citizen. Our evolution has made us better at fine skills...hence you see great dribblers and tacklers in hockey (but the moment hockey became a power sport, we fell down), you see good chess players, very good TT and badminton players which again require subtle skills. Our batsmen have always been good because batting requires great finesse based skills which we are good at. Finally, despite our lack in physical fitness, without our minds to propel the world economy you wouldn't be using these computers and sexy, feature-rich software to write your posts. O by the way, the world's first superhero, that too a full physically well built superhero was an Indian...we call him Hanuman here (sorry to cheat but he was an ape). We did have our once-in-a-while beat-the-trend physical giants thru out history and continue to have 'em....the great khali included.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 yeah i didn't.never heard about his pace before.know him as a good swing bowler from last generation.and i didn't tried to say that dilhara is quicker than srinath impact i dont know that for sure.(its understandable since i didn't followed any of his bowling back in those yrs.).what i tried to say is sri lanka got at least half dozen bowlers who can bowl quick.After scoring his first Test century at Jo'burg to help India save the Test, Rahul Dravid said, "I am glad I did not have to face Sri" Dravid faced Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Brian McMillan, and Lance Kluesener in that game each of whom bowled 140+. You might not be aware but Shaun Pollock was 140+ bowler for the first 2-3 seasons after his debut
ganeshran Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Srinath, as fast as Donald Srinath was fast but Donald was ferocious, one series where their speeds overlapped doesnt make Srinath consistently as quick as Donald
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Srinath, as fast as Donald Srinath was fast but Donald was ferocious, one series where their speeds overlapped doesnt make Srinath consistently as quick as DonaldPlease read my post again. I never claimed Srinath was as fast as Donald thru out his career. I said the following - Between 1996 and 1999, Srinath was just as fast as, if not faster than, Allan Donald and Waqar Younis. I stick by the above. All 3 bowlers had their careers at the same time, give or take an year or two. Allan Donald and Waqar Younis were always recognized as the fastest bowlers in the cricketing universe in the 90s. However for a brief 3-4 season period Srinath rose to those heights. And how! Srinath was a genuine fast bowler from around the 96 World Cup (in England he was considered probably the unluckiest fast bowler ever to tour the country with so many catches dropped) till about the 99 World Cup after which he met with another injury and reduced his pace once and for all. Here's a quick fact about the three fast bowlers during the 2003 WC. The guy who bowled more balls in 140s was Srinath. Donald was half the bowler he was bowling in 130s and Waqar was quarter the bowler he was. Srinath still touched 140 but usually bowled in the high 130s even then. Whole career-wose both Donald and Waqar are miles ahead of Srinath. But between 96 and 99, I doubt if there was a better express fast bowler around. Sure there were McGrath and Ambrose but they weren't express. Lemme dig out some stats for 96 to 99 and present 'em
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Alright between the 96 and 99 WCs Player M Wickets BB Avg SR 1. McGrath 30 - 154 - 8/38 - 20.37 - 48.1 2. Donald 29 - 151 - 6/59 - 19.24 - 41.3 5. Walsh 30 - 122 - 6/80 - 25.35 - 58.5 6. Pollock 25 - 104 - 7/87 - 21.33 - 54.6 7. Ambrose 29 - 111 - 6/51 - 21.36 - 53.8 10. Srinath 20 - 95 - 8/86 - 27.29 - 53.0 11. Wasim 21 - 89 - 6/48 - 23.03 - 48.0 13. Gough 14. Waqar 19 - 77 - 6/78 - 25.48 - 47.4 In the above, 3.Kumble, 4.Murali, 8.Warne, 9.Mushtaq, 12.Saqlain 11 of Srinath's 20 games were in India. 4 of Donald's 29 games were in India and Pakistan.
ganeshran Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Alright between the 96 and 99 WCs Player M Wickets BB Avg SR 1. McGrath 30 - 154 - 8/38 - 20.37 - 48.1 2. Donald 29 - 151 - 6/59 - 19.24 - 41.3 5. Walsh 30 - 122 - 6/80 - 25.35 - 58.5 6. Pollock 25 - 104 - 7/87 - 21.33 - 54.6 7. Ambrose 29 - 111 - 6/51 - 21.36 - 53.8 10. Srinath 20 - 95 - 8/86 - 27.29 - 53.0 11. Wasim 21 - 89 - 6/48 - 23.03 - 48.0 13. Gough 14. Waqar 19 - 77 - 6/78 - 25.48 - 47.4 In the above, 3.Kumble, 4.Murali, 8.Warne, 9.Mushtaq, 12.Saqlain 11 of Srinath's 20 games were in India. 4 of Donald's 29 games were in India and Pakistan. That answers it I guess. 96-2000 was the prime of Donad's career, Srinath doesnt even come close to him in performance. In Pace, Srinath touched 156 during one series in Saffers, but consistently, he was much slower compared to Donald.
Tiger80 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 yeah i didn't.never heard about his pace before.know him as a good swing bowler from last generation.and i didn't tried to say that dilhara is quicker than srinath impact i dont know that for sure.(its understandable since i didn't followed any of his bowling back in those yrs.).what i tried to say is sri lanka got at least half dozen bowlers who can bowl quick. Could you please mention those bowlers name? If they have tearaway quicks then why they play crap bowler Kulasekara .The fact is they had their best medium fast bowler as Chaminda Vaas Apart from that they do not have any good medium fast or fast bowler in test cricket
Tiger80 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Probably because you did not watch cricket in the mid-late 90s. Between 96 and 99, Srinath was just as fast, if not faster than, Allan Donald and Waqar Younis. In the 96-97 series in SA, Srinath bowled at an average speed in the late 140s and early 150s touching 156 kmph. Kluesener was the only bowler who had an average speed faster than Srinath in that series. And this was during the time when Donald was at his fastest best. Dilhara is no Srinath when it comes to pace If I am not wrong Ishant Sharma's 152.3 kph is considered as fastest bowl by Indian http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ishant-fastest-indian-bowler/274013/ ItÃÔ now official. Ishant Sharma is the fastest Indian bowler having recorded a speed of 152.3 kmph in his second delivery of his third over
Tiger80 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 what about varuns 153??? I know but How reliable that speed gun was?.Ishant was measured in Australia and in International cricket
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 If I am not wrong Ishant Sharma's 152.3 kph is considered as fastest bowl by Indian http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ishant-fastest-indian-bowler/274013/ ItÃÔ now official. Ishant Sharma is the fastest Indian bowler having recorded a speed of 152.3 kmph in his second delivery of his third overSorry, you are wrong. The fastest ball I have seen is Srinath at 156. Edit - Who knows someone may have bowled faster than that too. I have seen Agarkar touching 150 during the late 90s too...he might have bowled faster when I wasn;t watching. By the way, just coz someone bowled 150 dunn make him a great fast bowler so ppl please think before you shoot off in protest. The standard of journalism these days is pathetic...I didn't think I needed to say that. These days we have more sensationalism than fact.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I know but How reliable that speed gun was?.Ishant was measured in Australia and in International cricket Are you one of those "foreign means better" people?
Tiger80 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Out of curiosity, why do you say Ishant's is more reliable? Did you check the machines? Do you have even the foggiest about the technology they use or don't use? or is it because it's Australia who can never be wrong but Indians on the other hand..? I know of an international match where Sami was measured at 104 Mph. Reliable? If I am not wrong we all discuss international records.Tell me why all fastest bowls are always bowled in international cricket? As far Australia is concerned I think they have the most reliable speed guns ( not sure about it) and I know SAmi was measured 104mph but again that bowl was never considered as fastest
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 If I am not wrong we all discuss international records.Tell me why all fastest bowls are always bowled in international cricket? As far Australia is concerned I think they have the most reliable speed guns ( not sure about it) and I know SAmi was measured 104mph but again that bowl was never considered as fastestSorry Tiger80 I am really in the mood for having some fun at your expense so please forgive my indulgence (hopefully it will serve a purpose and I humbly accept any ridicule that comes my way as a result of my action). You do realize the contradiction in that phrase there right. You are coming across as a "foreign is better" kinda idiot...are you one of that kinds?
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Sorry' date=' the Montreal Gazette isn't a scientific journal. Even the book and authority it cites in the article is nothing but an empirical survey. [b']You mentioned "genetics". I am asking you to cite ONE peer reviewed journal which definitively pinpoints the gene responsible for this difference in performance. Let me give you a clue, race isn't a scientifically defined term. Another clue for the clueless, race isn't defined not because it's sensitive but because there's no "genetic" basis for it.This is an OT response but I'd not place any premium on "peer reviewed" science. Why? Because, new theories or thought-approaches extremely rarely come thru as a result of peer review. Peer Review is good for status quo and not for new theories and new sciences. The history of science is evidence of this. Peer Review is highly over-rated. All new humanity-furthering theories become successful despite peer review and not because of it. Evidence exists through out scientific history for this...even western scientific history from Aristotle to modern day scientists like Stephen Hawkings, Bill Gates, Kalam, and Steve Jobs (I know referring to software entrepreneurs as scientists sounds weird but hey they are!)
Tiger80 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Could you not figure that out? Because nobody watches first class cricket. Because nobody watches them, who'd finance the equipment? If there's no equipment to tell the speed, how in holy hell would you know? You mean in England and in Australia no body watches first class cricket? Are you serious serious about your statement.O.K tell me what is the fastest bow bowled by Brett lee in their first class cricket ,I have never seen anybody discussing fastest bowl bowled in Australia or England in their first class cricket You think a heck lot without knowing **** about things You think it's genetics without knowing **** about genetics. You think Australia has the most reliable speed guns without knowing **** about the equipment or even the manufacturer. At least I accept I could be wrong you have seen fittest bodies in kolkatta football clubs who just play Football their.These fittest bodies neither go to international level clubs nor they play for India This statement does not make sense. measured fastest yet not considered fastest? How does that work? What I was saying is that Sami was shown bowling at 164 kmph on screen just like Zaheer was shown bowling at 174 kph in world cup
nballa Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 these guys training regimen does not include squats, deadlifts etc which builds lower body strength, diet is probably rhotis or naans fried to a crisp in ghee and this dolt comes up with a statement like this. can't blame him though, indians are 'naturally' not inclined to take care of their physiques, and people who do are quickly labelled as showoffs and become social outcasts.
Tiger80 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 In Australia, they barely came to watch the Ashes last year save the English. So it's true, nobody watches 1st class cricket. If they did, the counties and other first class teams wouldn't be making losses. But I seem to have forgotten why this is even relevant. Are you saying there exists an inviolable law that forbids bowlers from crossing a certain speed barrier in 1st class cricket? Could you quote that law? Or is this similar to your "genetics" argument? You mean to say that cricket is also dead in Australia? If nobody watches there domestic tournaments then how their clubs survive? What about england so many cricket clubs matches are even telecast here . I am not saying that there is law that only international match fast bowl should be recognised but I have never seen people discussing Fastest bowls or bowlers in Australian or English county crickets you can google fast bowling records and all bowls which various sites show were bowled in international matches You need a lesson in reading comprehension. I didn't say fittest, I said immeasurably fitter (compared to Zaheer) in the context of fast bowling. Now you can say I read out of context but you used word immeasurably ,if you think I am reading it out of context then you should had clarified it then Yes, so Sami was shown to have bowled at 104 Mph because he did? How are viewers supposed to know otherwise? I vaguely remember England batsmen claiming Nehra was discernably quicker than Shoaib in 2003 world cup. But speed guns differed. If you're going to believe speed guns then why create exceptions? Please clarify what you mean here ,several people reported here that they have seen one channel showing different speed from other
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