Is Srinath the best Fast bowler India ever produced?

[Sooda]

For those who don't know' date=' this is as good a thread as any to introduce fast bowlers [b']Mohammed Nissar and Amar Singh who played for India in the 1930s. Their Test careers were painfully short, 6 Tests for Nissar and 7 for Amar Singh, so their respective bowling averages of 28.28 and 30.64 may not be reflective of their abilities. Suffice to say they were very highly regarded by their international opponents. FWIW, their stats against the international teams that visitsed India (for 'unofficial Tests') were much better. If their FC records are any indicator- Amar Singh played 92 games at an average of 18.35 and Nissar 93 games at 17.60. Stunning, and unsurpassed I think by any Indian pacer in FC (but I could be wrong). Amar Singh had a Ranji bowling average of some 16. Some three or four decades after he played him, Len Hutton in 1970 said of Amar Singh that there was no better bowler then playing. Wally Hammond said that Singh "came off the pitch like a crack of doom". Nissar and Singh were India's first great fast bowling duo, and it pains me to say that as a pair, in independent India at least, they may yet stand unsurpassed. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/26228.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/31791.html And as for Zaheer, Srinath and Dev, I think they were all there and thereabouts. Nothing much to separate them, but if someone held a gun to my head I'd say Srinath, Dev, Zaheer.

Indeed! Theye probably did not play quite enough to be our best ever but deserve recognition in this thread

[Vilander]

Yup. That was the only time I have ever seen a batsman slagging off a fast bowler after being hit. And Srinath just turned around and walked back to his bowling mark with his head bowed :(( Here's the clip of the incident... ]

what else should he have done, he hit him in the head and checked if he was ok, and punter acted like a *****. I think Srinath acted admirably.

[Muloghonto]

1.Kapil 2. Amar Singh 3. Nissar 4. Zaheer 5. Srinath 6. Lala Amarnath 7. Ghavri 8. Chetan Sharma 9. Ladha Ramji 10. One of : Prasad, Ishant, Irfan,etc. etc. The sorriest list of 'top 10 cricketers' from a top Test nation.

[Sooda]

Lala Amarnath was military medium pacer I think he would say he was batsman first and then a bowler...?? I think the three under discussion in this thread are the top three followed by Amar singh and Nissar. Then Ghavri and probabaly Prasad and Ishant..maybe Prabhakar? Ramakant Desai was reportedly a decent enough paceman in his day as was Dattu Phadkar who was a handy allrounder

[Texan]

no' date='Zaheer is better than Srinath[/quote'] ohhh dude, you have not watched Srinath bowl at his peak or you would have never said that!

[The Outsider]

Even Lala Amarnath would come rushing out of his grave to be ranked number 6 in the Indian pace bower line up to stop the atrocity,

[Texan]

If Srinath could have adjusted his length slightly and pitched the ball up further he would have taken more wickets before injury curtailed his career.

This. And also bowled from closer to the stumps. He used to bowl from a very wide angle whereby LBW was almost completely ruled out.

[Texan]

For fans of Srinath, watch this compilation video of him bowling in England.....the brutal pace he was bowling at on this tour! ng8cugfPjik

[Ultimate_Game]

One interesting stat about Srinath... Srinath's the only bowler in history of Test cricket to have taken two wkts in the opening over of a test twice! :hatsoff: If he had a bit more aggression and could pitch the ball further up by maybe a foot or so he would have finished as one of the best fast bowlers to have played the game.

[coffee_rules]

Kapil was half the bowler post 84 after knee surgery. My list would be: pre-1984 Kapil Srinath Zaheer Post-1984 Kapil

[Texan]

One interesting stat about Srinath... Srinath's the only bowler in history of Test cricket to have taken two wkts in the opening over of a test twice! :hatsoff: If he had a bit more aggression and could pitch the ball further up by maybe a foot or so he would have finished as one of the best fast bowlers to have played the game.

Interesting. I remember he also got 2 wickets in the opening over of WC'96 semi-finals. This must be a very unique achievement.

[rkt.india]

I never understand the obsession with strike rate. If you bowl a team out for 250, does it matter if they scored 250 in 70 overs or 75 overs? Seems insignificant to me. I think economy rate is more important than strike rate, for bowlers with the same average. A low economy rate means pressure is building which can help get wickets from the other end. The so called 'wicket-taker' can detriment his team mates if he concedes a high economy rate. Or at least, that is the neglected other side of the argument.

You will rarely see a bowler having poor ER but has a great SR in a long run. You take wickets run rate will eventually come down.

[rkt.india]

Indeed! Theye probably did not play quite enough to be our best ever but deserve recognition in this thread

What was the standard of international cricket in 1930 is another question?

[saneindian]

What was the standard of international cricket in 1930 is another question?

Shouldn't matter. They didn't have the option of choosing their opposition.

[rkt.india]

Shouldn't matter. They didn't have the option of choosing their opposition.

So, they were good in their era, right. Otherwise, as someone said Lohmann is the best fast bowler of all time.

[Gunner]

I never understand the obsession with strike rate. If you bowl a team out for 250, does it matter if they scored 250 in 70 overs or 75 overs? Seems insignificant to me. I think economy rate is more important than strike rate, for bowlers with the same average. A low economy rate means pressure is building which can help get wickets from the other end. The so called 'wicket-taker' can detriment his team mates if he concedes a high economy rate. Or at least, that is the neglected other side of the argument.

Strike Rate is the most important stat for a bowler in Tests. The primary goal of a bowler in tests is to pick wickets, and SR signifies the wicket-taking ability of the bowler and how effective he is in achieving his primary objective. Average is the best stat for ODIs (as it combines ER with SR), and ER for T20s.

[The Outsider]

You will rarely see a bowler having poor ER but has a great SR in a long run. You take wickets run rate will eventually come down.

Steyn, Waqar.

[Lord]

Strike Rate is the most important stat for a bowler in Tests. The primary goal of a bowler in tests is to pick wickets, and SR signifies the wicket-taking ability of the bowler and how effective he is in achieving his primary objective. Average is the best stat for ODIs (as it combines ER with SR), and ER for T20s.

but what use is taking wickets if you are leaking too many runs for it.average is the best indicator imo across formats as it combines both SR and ER

[rkt.india]

Steyn' date=' Waqar.[/quote'] Their SR are on a higher side a bit but not poor. I am talking about real bad ER.

[Gunner]

but what use is taking wickets if you are leaking too many runs for it.average is the best indicator imo across formats as it combines both SR and ER

If a bowler takes a wicket every 6 or 7 overs, isn't he preventing the batsman from scoring runs by getting him out? Also, picking wickets quickly increases the chance of a result.