Is Srinath the best Fast bowler India ever produced?

[The Outsider]

Their SR are on a higher side a bit but not poor. I am talking about real bad ER.

In tests you are not going to find bowlers with ER > 4. They are around the 3.25-3.5 range which is pretty poor in tests. That's like conceding 300+ runs in a day.

[saneindian]

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

And would have done equally wel in any other era because thats what great players do, adjust their game as per the situations/conditions, no? Think this has been debated to death, so have no interest in prolonging this further.

[rkt.india]

In tests you are not going to find bowlers with ER > 4. They are around the 3.25-3.5 range which is pretty poor in tests. That's like conceding 300+ runs in a day.

But with an SR of 41o Steyn, you are getting teams out at 68-70 overs conceding just 220-230 runs, so you are not going to bowl 90 overs.

[rkt.india]

And would have done equally wel in any other era because thats what great players do, adjust their game as per the situations/conditions, no? Think this has been debated to death, so have no interest in prolonging this further.

You know if Munaf had retired after playing first 6 test matches with reasons like those bowlers had. Sreesanth had retired after playing first 11 test matches with similar reasons. Then 40-50 years down the line, these two would have been called two of the greatest pacers India have produced whose career ended abruptly because of this or that reason. We would have read how Munaf had tormented England batsmen in his debut series and then how he was the most successful fast bowler in WI. Similarly, we would have had books written about Sreesanth's ability to take wickets and great outswinger. His 18 wickets in SA. How he destroyed their batting for 84 at Wanderers, etc, etc. A span of 6-7 matches is not enough to consider any one a great.

[saneindian]

You know if Munaf had retired after playing first 6 test matches with reasons like those bowlers had. Sreesanth had retired after playing first 11 test matches with similar reasons. Then 40-50 years down the line, these two would have been called two of the greatest pacers India have produced whose career ended abruptly because of this or that reason. We would have read how Munaf had tormented England batsmen in his debut series and then how he was the most successful fast bowler in WI. Similarly, we would have had books written about Sreesanth's ability to take wickets and great outswinger. His 18 wickets in SA. How he destroyed their batting for 84 at Wanderers, etc, etc. A span of 6-7 matches is not enough to consider any one a great.

So is your problem standard of cricket in 1930s or the small sample size? A look at their FC records coupled with the views of legends from that era does suggests both were genuine pacers. Not the greatest pacers definitely but worthy of being in the top 10.

[rkt.india]

So is your problem standard of cricket in 1930s or the small sample size? A look at their FC records coupled with the views of legends from that era does suggests both were genuine pacers. Not the greatest pacers definitely but worthy of being in the top 10.

Both. There is a big gap of 80 years then and now and everything has evolved, so talking about them in today's situation is very irrelevant.

[saneindian]

Both. There is a big gap of 80 years then and now and everything has evolved' date=' so talking about them in today's situation is very irrelevant.[/quote'] Not sure if that is correct but lets leave it at that.

[Crookbond]

Not sure if you are seriously interested in knowing this, but if you are here goes. Srinath - Srinath was the fastest bowler amongst Kapil,Srinath,Zaheer lot. In fact for the better part of 90s Srinath was one of the fastest bowler around. And that is saying something considering he was competing against Ambrose, Donald, Waqar etc. He has a beautiful inswinging delivery that would bounce sort of a good length and come at a brisk pace at you. His problem was he lacked variety and sometimes could disintegrate mentally. This was more evident in LOI where he leaked runs. Test cricket was probably where he was more comfortable. He was more useful with a bit of swing in wicket, as witnessed in Calcutta where he ran through South Africans and Pakistanis, and in England. Zaheer Khan - At his peak Zaheer Khan was the craftiest of the three. His peak, unfortunately for India, was only a couple of years. But during those years he was as goos as Wasim Akram. While Zaheer lacked Akram's pace, he was even better in "holding" the ball. Almost like Erapalli Prasanna. The batsman would move forward or back but find the ball not there, like on a string. Zaheer was/is very strong mentally and the batsmen could never get on top of him. But sadly inspite of his talent, he bloomed late (famously after being dropped) and then lasted only a few years on top. Kapil Dev - Indian fast bowling is BK and AK (Before Kapil and After Kapil). That should tell you all you need to know about who is greatest. People forget that in the series prior to Kapil's debut Indian bowling was opened by Amarnath and Sunil Gavaskar (Ghavri being more conventional). In fact Vishwanath had quipped once how for a while Indian fielders had to learn how to shine the new ball (for Kapil) since the practice always was to roll the ball on the ground from delivery 1 to make it good for the spinners. People, specially non-Indians, forget that Kapil within a matter of 3 years had broken many records. He once held the most number of wickets in a calendar year (which was broken by Dennis Lillee). His heyday was till about 60th odd Tests during which he hurt his knee and never really recovered. If you use a cut-off of say 200 wickets you may be surprised by how good he was. Hadlee achieved it in 44 Tests Imran achieved it in 45 Tests Marshall in 42 Kapil in 50 But look close and you will see that Hadlee, Imran and Kapil they all took exactly 81 innings to get there! That tells you all you need to know about Kapil. he was as good as the best of his time. But he was a lone wolf and hence often did not get to bowl as most other top bowlers did. lack of support didnt help either. Plus till his very last day he was one of the two best fielders in the side (Azhar would be the only one better than him). Not like Zaheer or Srinath who needed to be hidden in field often. Kapil FTW!! :bootyshake:

Wonderful post! :two_thumbs_up:

[express bowling]

Have you seen his spells in South Africa? Lethal as many of our neighbours might say:hatsoff:

True. Zaheer is a highly overrated pacer. He was good for only a couple of years.Srinath was perhaps the most lethal test pacer we have ever produced. Azharuddin pedestrian field placements to a genuine quick who bowled indippers primarily, had spoiled his figutes a lot. His stock delivery was the fast, bouncing indipper and yet Sri bowled without a short leg most of the time where lots of catches used to pop up repeatedly. Kapil was perhaps the best of the lot for the first 5 to 6 years of his career. I did not have the privilege of seeing him much then. He went downhill after then. Sri remained good till the day he retired. He actually improved during the second half of his career when he learned the outswing.

[Lord]

If a bowler takes a wicket every 6 or 7 overs' date=' isn't he preventing the batsman from scoring runs by getting him out? Also, picking wickets quickly increases the chance of a result.[/quote'] not if hes comceding 35+ runs in those 7 overs.Thats what I am saying.average matters the most.only if they are equal that you prefer one with better SR.A bowler with an average of 25 n SR of 50 is better thanb one with average of 30 and SR of 40

[rkt.india]

not if hes comceding 35+ runs in those 7 overs.Thats what I am saying.average matters the most.only if they are equal that you prefer one with better SR.A bowler with an average of 25 n SR of 50 is better thanb one with average of 30 and SR of 40

Is there any bowler who concedes 5 rpo and ha an SR of 40-45 in tests in long run?

[The Outsider]

But with an SR of 41o Steyn' date=' you are getting teams out at 68-70 overs conceding just 220-230 runs, so you are not going to bowl 90 overs.[/quote'] Huh? And that's why Steyn is a great if you look at his average. But if you look only at his economy rate it is poor, which is what you were asking for. Poor economy rate, great strike rate - bowlers like Steyn, Waqar, Lee, Ntini all fill both criteria you were looking for.

[Lord]

Is there any bowler who concedes 5 rpo and ha an SR of 40-45 in tests in long run?

no.I am just saying avg>SR.Those are theoretical numbers.SR OF 40-45 is execptional.only few bowlers have that

[rkt.india]

Huh? And that's why Steyn is a great if you look at his average. But if you look only at his economy rate it is poor' date=' which is what you were asking for. Poor economy rate, great strike rate - bowlers like Steyn, Waqar, Lee, Ntini all fill both criteria you were looking for.[/quote'] Because I do not consider an ER of 3.3 poor if some one has an SR of 42. How many bowlers have SR in 40s and ER less than 3? Marshall, dont remember any one else. The bowlers who go for wickets every time they bowl are bound to go for a few extra runs than others. Wasim and Waqar were different in that aspect. Waqar was an attacking bowler, while Akram's mantra was to tie down the batsman if he is not getting help off the pitch or in the air.

[rkt.india]

no.I am just saying avg>SR.Those are theoretical numbers.SR OF 40-45 is execptional.only few bowlers have that

So, what it shows that how difficult it is to maintain such low SR and that is why there are so few bowlers in the world with SR in low to mid 40s.

[msb1991]

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.

Primary goal of bowler is to get wickets, but for the lowest amount of runs, not in the lowest amount of balls. A team scoring 400 all out after 50 overs is not a good effort by the bowling team. The amount of overs it takes to bowl a team out is insignificant compared to the total runs scored.

[The Outsider]

Because I do not consider an ER of 3.3 poor if some one has an SR of 42. How many bowlers have SR in 40s and ER less than 3? Marshall' date= dont remember any one else. The bowlers who go for wickets every time they bowl are bound to go for a few extra runs than others. Wasim and Waqar were different in that aspect. Waqar was an attacking bowler, while Akram's mantra was to tie down the batsman if he is not getting help off the pitch or in the air.

Do you know how strike rate, economy rate, and average are linked? If you know any two the third is determined and known. When you say you don't consider ER of 3.3 poor when SR is 42, all you are saying is you don't consider an average of 22 to be poor because given the ER and SR there can be one and only one average. And no one considers an average of 22 poor so you are not saying anything new here. The original question you were asking makes sense only if you look at the ER in isolation, in which case an ER of 3.3 is poor given the context of test matches.

[rkt.india]

The original question you were asking makes sense only if you look at the ER in isolation, in which case an ER of 3.3 is poor given the context of test matches.

I agree about that if you just talk about ER in isolation, but when you talk about bowlers and how good they are, you only talk about average, wickets and SR, but not ER especially in tests. In today's time, several bowlers have ER over 3.

[The Outsider]

I agree about that if you just talk about ER in isolation' date=' but when you talk about bowlers and how good they are, you only talk about average, wickets and SR, but not ER especially in tests. In today's time, several bowlers have ER over 3.[/quote'] You can talk about whatever you want. I entered the discussion when you asked for examples of bowlers with poor economy rate and great strike rate to give you examples of Steyn, Waqar, Lee etc. who satisfy both your criteria you were asking examples off. It shows that such bowlers exist and can still considered great because of their average, which remains and should remain by far the most important criteria to judge a bowler because the job of a bowler in cricket is to pick maximum wickets for minimum runs and the average measures exactly that.

[Raghav_12]

Some info on how fast Srinath was

Srinath was a genuinely fast bowler and in the period between about 1995 and March 1997 Srinath's pace was at times frightening. He was right up there with the fastest men in the game. Perhaps at times Srinath was even No 1 in the pace stakes but just how fast he was at his peak we will never know. What we do know is that following South Africa's tour of India late in 1996, India travelled to South Africa where speed guns were in operation. Between December '96 and February '97 Srinath's speeds were timed in excess of 150kph and were comparable to those of both Allan Donald and South Africa's 'new' pace sensation Lance Klusener. Whilst Klusener's fastest ball came in at 154kph and he proved at the time to be faster than Donald, it has been brought to my attention on numerous occasions that Srinath pipped them both with one particular delivery measured at 156kph. This particular delivery was reported by a major Indian News service although the exact date and the match in question has not been confirmed

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=325439&postcount=41 Following statement from then Zim captain Campbell put things in perspective

We then moved on to our second game against India, at Boland Bank Park. In all 236 was quite a decent score, as it wasn't the easiest of pitches to bat on, and Srinath I think bowled the quickest that any of our guys had ever seen. He bowled a really quick spell early on, even quicker than Allan Donald; he was timed at 157 km/h, a good 10 km/h faster than Donald was bowling throughout the tournament.