Is Srinath the best Fast bowler India ever produced?

[express bowling]

Botham was about as fast as legend Vinay Kumar during most parts of his career. :cantstop:

[express bowling]

Nobody cares about these silly records. Once our players are over the hill we get rid' date=' we don't keep them on just to break meaningless records. Too many stats geeks in India who care more about individual performance. Compare your win/loss ratio to England.[/quote'] Team Performance in TESTS Last 30 year's Win/ Loss Ratio INDIA. --- 1.22 ENGLAND .--- 0.92 Last 20 year's Win/ Loss Ratio INDIA. --- 1.33 ENGLAND --- 1.23 Also, India is above England in the ICC TEAM rankings in all 3 forms of cricket. 400 wickets is not a big thing nowadays with so much cricket being played. Look at Ambrose, Walsh , McGrath , Wasim, Pollock and Hadlee. No bowler achieving it means your players lack the hunger to excel for a decent length of time and give up easily when the going gets tough. Also, if your logic of , "getting rid of players when they are over the hill " were true then you would have many seamers with averages in the early 20s, given the fact that they play most of their cricket under helpful conditions. In reality your top pacers in the last 30 years have averages between 28.39 to 33+ ,*. This proves that they are not that useful from your team's point of view. You did not have any strike bowler in the last 30 years.

[Muloghonto]

Whenever I have seen Botham bowling on TV showing past matches' date=' I have always found him a trundler.[/quote'] Botham was the second most unconventional cricketer I've seen succeed at international cricket ( the first is, by a country mile, Shahid Afridi). He wasn't build to bowl fast because he always had a penchant for getting fat. When he tried to, he broke down horribly. The thing about Botham's bowling is, I've never seen a fast bowler succeed as much as Botham picking up wickets from batsmen's attacking shots. Botham rarely ever pinned you down to submission, whizzing it past your bat with alacrity or having you defending the stumps fiercely. He had a truely one-of-a-kind ability to bowl rank bad balls- balls that are pitched short and wide or too full and wide- but make the ball do something it hadn't done in the last 20 Botham deliveries. Botham's formula was to feed you some good length deliveries seaming around then sneak a weird semi-bouncer that produced under-edges to pull shots ( I've never seen as many players get under-edges to wicketkeepers as they did with Botham either) or a wide one that made the batsmen's eyes light up in glee, go for the drive, only to see the ball move half a foot and take the splice. And this is why Botham was royal failure against the West Indies: the West Indies batsmen of that era- Lloyd, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Kalli- they all were utterly ruthless when you bowled wicket-to-wicket and didnt know what you were doing. They were actually conservative with their offside play- leaving balls all day long, forcing the bowler to bowl to their body. Growing up on a diet of fast & short at their body or fast & full at their toes from the best pool of fast bowling talent ever seen (about 7-10 WI fast bowlers of that era would've made the top 3 sides with ease), the West Indies batsmen simply clobbered one-dimentional bowling at their bodies. As such, they left Botham a lot more when outside off and hammered him when he tried the stumps line. His bowling never looked confident or enthralling but he had the uncanny knack of running ultra-hot and picking wickets with balls you didnt think would take wickets. Which is ultimately why, grudgingly, i rate Botham was the best English quick in the last 40 years. Results are results and while Willis was way more consistent, Botham at his peak was capable fo taking wickets. The other thing is, his decline was the steepest. We deride Kapil for hanging on too long and reducing himself to a harmless bower but Botham's bowling for the last 5-6 years of his career was worse than Ishan Sharma's by a handy distance. Kapil near the end atleast kept batsmen honest-he posed no threat if batsmen were content to play him out but did do something with the newball if the batsmen erred in their judgement even a little. His batting on the other hand, was underrated. he was a dynamic batsman- a batsman who could've been in Ritchie Richardson's class if he were a specialist bat, if not better. Half the time he looked too tired on crease but I've seen plenty of innings from Botham where he was easily the most comfortable batsman on either teams- not an easy thing to do when your opponents are the likes of Viv,Chappell, Gavaskar, etc. His centuries/fifties were stellar- rarely a 'play and a miss' type ( until again, the end when his batting declined a lot), he looked like ABDV minus the cheekiness. However, that being said, his batting had a glaring weakness, something the West Indians and later, the Pakis exploited: Botham when not set, was very easy to set up. The good old 'short ball-full ball' combo in one over worked very well with Botham. Incidentally, i think botham the batsman would've flourished in 20/20 but Botham the bowler-most probably not.

[special K]

Team Performance in TESTS Last 30 year's Win/ Loss Ratio INDIA. --- 1.22 ENGLAND .--- 0.92 Last 20 year's Win/ Loss Ratio INDIA. --- 1.33 ENGLAND --- 1.23 Also, India is above England in the ICC TEAM rankings in all 3 forms of cricket. 400 wickets is not a big thing nowadays with so much cricket being played. Look at Ambrose, Walsh , McGrath and Hadlee. No bowler achieving it means your players lack the hunger to excel for a decent length of time and give up easily when the going gets tough. Also, if your logic of , "getting rid of players when they are over the hill " were true then you would have many seamers with averages in the early 20s, given the fact that they play most of their cricket under helpful conditions. In reality your top pacers in the last 30 years have averages between 28.39 to 33+ ,*. This proves that they are not that useful from your team's point of view. You did not have any strike bowler in the last 30 years.

Win/loss the last 30 years, Let's include just since 2000, or the overall win/loss ratio of both sides. England's worst ere ever was between 1975-2000, when they were a weak team. See it's easy to pull out statistics that favour your country. Overall win/loss ratio, you're behind Sri Lanka. Also you've never won in SA or Aus, England's won a series in every country since 2000 alone. Overall the 2nd most successful test nation after Aus. Our cricket players get bored once they hit 30. Once you've won the test cricket world cup ( the ashes) there's not much else to achieve, so the hunger goes.

[shortbread]

....... Once you've won the test cricket world cup ( the ashes) there's not much else to achieve' date=' so the hunger goes.[/quote'] WON?! Didnt you just get walloped 5-0?! Or if you are trying to say that losing makes the english rediscover their hunger, then how come they did not make a comeback after being 1 down, then 2 down, then three...you get the jist of it?!!

[vvvslaxman]

Win/loss the last 30 years, Let's include just since 2000, or the overall win/loss ratio of both sides. England's worst ere ever was between 1975-2000, when they were a weak team. See it's easy to pull out statistics that favour your country. Overall win/loss ratio, you're behind Sri Lanka. Also you've never won in SA or Aus, England's won a series in every country since 2000 alone. Overall the 2nd most successful test nation after Aus. Our cricket players get bored once they hit 30. Once you've won the test cricket world cup ( the ashes) there's not much else to achieve, so the hunger goes.

Stricktly if you are talking about 2000s (2000-2010) W/L ratio for England is same as India's thanks to your 5 test series against a weak side like West Indies. If you take out WI/Bangladesh/Zimbabwe India was still better than England from 2000 and 2010. Your ass is saved because of India's recent performances where INdia was going through a massive transition while you were possibly at your very best form in 125 year old cricket history? Yet you guys got canned by Pakistan 0-3, 0-5 by Austraila, thrashed home and away by SA, couldn't even win a test in NZ. This was your very very best phase. Some of your supporters even included your side in the "All time great team list". Considering the experience you have you should have done far more. It is hard for Asians to win in countries like SA/Australia. But not in England. All teams have won there. Even SRilanka.

[special K]

Stricktly if you are talking about 2000s (2000-2010) W/L ratio for England is same as India's thanks to your 5 test series against a weak side like West Indies. If you take out WI/Bangladesh/Zimbabwe India was still better than England from 2000 and 2010. Your ass is saved because of India's recent performances where INdia was going through a massive transition while you were possibly at your very best form in 125 year old cricket history? Yet you guys got canned by Pakistan 0-3' date=' 0-5 by Austraila, thrashed home and away by SA, couldn't even win a test in NZ. This was your very very best phase. Some of your supporters even included your side in the "All time great team list". Considering the experience you have you should have done far more. It is hard for Asians to win in countries like SA/Australia. But not in England. All teams have won there. Even SRilanka.[/quote'] Head to head between India and England. England have won 40 and India 20. And I know you're make excuses saying India was an amateur team in the 30's. You should have been stronger back then then now because Pakistan and India were both together. So India's batmen and Pakistan pace bowlers, and yet you still got owned by posh Englishmen from Eton who only treated the game like a hobby. We only play 2 test series against Windies. You guys play windies and Sri Lanka at home every two years to get cheap wins. It's not easy for England, SA and Aus to win in Asia, yet we have. It all comes down to talent and England has more of it then India

[special K]

WON?! Didnt you just get walloped 5-0?! Or if you are trying to say that losing makes the english rediscover their hunger, then how come they did not make a comeback after being 1 down, then 2 down, then three...you get the jist of it?!!

They won 3 world cups before that. The hunger was already gone.

[vvvslaxman]

Btw Between 2000 and 2010 England played 24 tests against West INdies you won 15 of them. India played just 12 tests.

[adi B]

Win/loss the last 30 years, Let's include just since 2000, or the overall win/loss ratio of both sides. England's worst ere ever was between 1975-2000, when they were a weak team. See it's easy to pull out statistics that favour your country. Overall win/loss ratio, you're behind Sri Lanka. Also you've never won in SA or Aus, England's won a series in every country since 2000 alone. Overall the 2nd most successful test nation after Aus. Our cricket players get bored once they hit 30. Once you've won the test cricket world cup ( the ashes) there's not much else to achieve, so the hunger goes.

25 years of worst era!!its not an era,its a fecking quarter of a century :haha: what a sh1t side england were/are..

[adi B]

another joke of a statement by kellog terming ashes as "test cricket wc" when clearly india,saf are miles ahead of both of them in the rankings :hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

They won 3 world cups before that. The hunger was already gone.

Srilanka has won a world cup. You have not. Don't say "We don't care about one dayers". Because you don't speak for English team. You speak for yourself. They do care. But they just can't win because they are pathetic. :cantstop:

[vvvslaxman]

another joke of a statement by kellog terming ashes as "test cricket wc" when clearly india' date='saf are miles ahead of both of them in the rankings :hysterical:[/quote'] Special K is a special idiot lol. Even when they are lagging behind us in every possible cricketing rankings he has the nerve to talk his team up. lol

[adi B]

Team Performance in TESTS Last 30 year's Win/ Loss Ratio INDIA. --- 1.22 ENGLAND .--- 0.92 Last 20 year's Win/ Loss Ratio INDIA. --- 1.33 ENGLAND --- 1.23 Also, India is above England in the ICC TEAM rankings in all 3 forms of cricket. 400 wickets is not a big thing nowadays with so much cricket being played. Look at Ambrose, Walsh , McGrath and Hadlee. No bowler achieving it means your players lack the hunger to excel for a decent length of time and give up easily when the going gets tough. Also, if your logic of , "getting rid of players when they are over the hill " were true then you would have many seamers with averages in the early 20s, given the fact that they play most of their cricket under helpful conditions. In reality your top pacers in the last 30 years have averages between 28.39 to 33+ ,*. This proves that they are not that useful from your team's point of view. You did not have any strike bowler in the last 30 years.

Stricktly if you are talking about 2000s (2000-2010) W/L ratio for England is same as India's thanks to your 5 test series against a weak side like West Indies. If you take out WI/Bangladesh/Zimbabwe India was still better than England from 2000 and 2010. Your ass is saved because of India's recent performances where INdia was going through a massive transition while you were possibly at your very best form in 125 year old cricket history? Yet you guys got canned by Pakistan 0-3' date=' 0-5 by Austraila, thrashed home and away by SA, couldn't even win a test in NZ. This was your very very best phase. Some of your supporters even included your side in the "All time great team list". Considering the experience you have you should have done far more. It is hard for Asians to win in countries like SA/Australia. But not in England. All teams have won there. Even SRilanka.[/quote'] that settles then..india>>>england. india have produced far better cricketers during this time which england can dream of be it tendu,dravid,gavaskar who have more than 10k test runs or even bowlers like kumble,kapil even harbhajan lol with over 400 test wkts :giggle:

[special K]

India's greatest ever era was between 2000-10, you're greatest ever batsmen and bowlers and yet you still have an inferior record to England in that time. The reasons England struggled between 1975-2000 was because there were no central contracts. Players were interested in their county then England. It a bit like the England football team. If they were contracted to play just for England we'd have won 3 or 4 more football world cups. The British dominated football in the 30's when money wasn't an issue. What does that tell you?

[special K]

Special K is a special idiot lol. Even when they are lagging behind us in every possible cricketing rankings he has the nerve to talk his team up. lol

We were lagging behind you in the rankings in 2011. You drew a series in SA back then with all your greats. Please remind me what happened a few months later? Rankings don't mean anything. Brazil aren't always no.1 in football but are usually the best.

[vvvslaxman]

India's greatest ever era was between 2000-10' date=' you're greatest ever batsmen and bowlers and yet you still have an inferior record to England in that time. The reasons England struggled between 1975-2000 was because there were no central contracts. Players were interested in their county then England. It a bit like the England football team. If they were contracted to play just for England we'd have won 3 or 4 more football world cups. The British dominated football in the 30's when money wasn't an issue. What does that tell you?[/quote'] :giggle: Excuses Excuses. What is new. You guys poached 65 players from other countries over the years. Yet you could not win a single world cup.Keep in mind you are no Australia or SA to have any kind of bragging rights. Atleast West Indies truly dominated Test cricket for a significant period. Pakistan/SL/India have won world cups. You are barely an average side. Even at your very best ou get whitewashed.

[vvvslaxman]

We were lagging behind you in the rankings in 2011. You drew a series in SA back then with all your greats. Please remind me what happened a few months later? Rankings don't mean anything. Brazil aren't always no.1 in football but are usually the best.

It means we are rated above you :cantstop: It means something

[special K]

:giggle: Excuses Excuses. What is new. You guys poached 65 players from other countries over the years. Yet you could not win a single world cup.Keep in mind you are no Australia or SA to have any kind of bragging rights. Atleast West Indies truly dominated Test cricket for a significant period. Pakistan/SL/India have won world cups. You are barely an average side. Even at your very best ou get whitewashed.

We've won the test world cup 31 times. If you mean the pyjama baseball stuff, nobody cares for it. The last WC the England players we're still celebrating the ashes win. Hardly any coverage in the media in England. It's big in minnow nations like India and Bangladesh. The only chance for these small cricket nations to hope to have any success.

[special K]

It means we are rated above you :cantstop: It means something

It mean 11-1 after next summer.