Is Srinath the best Fast bowler India ever produced?

[Robelinda]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S2UbA50tGs]Savage Srinath inflicts brutal eye injury on Meyrick Pringle 1992 - JAVAGAL SRINATH DEMON - YouTube[/ame]

[Crookbond]

Best Srinath spell I have ever seen! Q4NST8PVMJo

[philcric]

Srinath was very good and very quick in his prime. He was one of those bowlers who'd trouble batsmen a lot but doesn't get a lot of wickets (a bit like Morne Morkel i suppose). I remember Lara getting troubled a lot by Srinath, some body blows and lots of playing and missing. He was unfortunate with the following as he played majority of his career in the 90s ... Indian set up was unprofessional. No awareness or desire to develop pace bowlers. Lost 3 of his initial years because of dust bowls (3 spinners + Kapil + sometimes Prabhakar) No good support pace bowlers (Prasad was his best support, so you can imagine how bad it was) He would have been a much better bowler if he'd played his cricket in the 2000s. Indian set up was much better starting with Wright-Ganguly combo, and there would have been decent pace support at the other end.

[Ultimate_Game]

Srinath's natural length was on the shorter side like Morkel or Ishant. That may look good in highlights reel as batsmen play & miss or are hit on the body but the fact remains you need to pitch the ball up to get wkts a la Steyn, Waqar and Wasim. Even the WI bowlers of yore understood intimidation was fine but that needed to be followed up by fuller length deliveries to dismiss the batsmen. So may times you saw likes of Holding, Marshall and co. push batsmen on the back foot by bowling short pitched stuff and then getting them bowled, LBW or edging to slips to a fuller length delivery where batsmen is planted on the crease.

[rkt.india]

Srinath's natural length was on the shorter side like Morkel or Ishant. That may look good in highlights reel as batsmen play & miss or are hit on the body but the fact remains you need to pitch the ball up to get wkts a la Steyn' date=' Waqar and Wasim. Even the WI bowlers of yore understood intimidation was fine but that needed to be followed up by fuller length deliveries to dismiss the batsmen. So may times you saw likes of Holding, Marshall and co. push batsmen on the back foot by bowling short pitched stuff and then getting them bowled, LBW or edging to slips to a fuller length delivery where batsmen is planted on the crease.[/quote'] Fast bowling is much more complex today than what it was back then in 80s without protecting gears. You need extraordinary skills or extraordinary consistency to be really successful bowler now against top teams and top batsmen. Steyn is extraordinary. He rarely bowls short initially. His first aim is to swing the ball and make batsmen play. Those days are no more when you will bowl 2-3 quick short balls followed by a fuller ball and batsmen most time will edge it or will get hit on the body like in 70s and 80s that was the part of intimidation because batsmen would fear coming on front foot against the likes of Marshall and Holding who were quick enough to beat most batsmen for pace.

[Ultimate_Game]

Fast bowling is much more complex today than what it was back then in 80s without protecting gears. You need extraordinary skills or extraordinary consistency to be really successful bowler now against top teams and top batsmen. Steyn is extraordinary. He rarely bowls short initially. His first aim is to swing the ball and make batsmen play. Those days are no more when you will bowl 2-3 quick short balls followed by a fuller ball and batsmen most time will edge it or will get hit on the body like in 70s and 80s that was the part of intimidation because batsmen would fear coming on front foot against the likes of Marshall and Holding who were quick enough to beat most batsmen for pace.

That's the way to take wkts. Fundamentals of the game haven't changed much as even in the old days you still had to bowl fuller to get a batsman out. If you look at Wasim & Waqar in their prime you will see a bunch of dismissals bowled or LBWs and even if you look at India's Aussies tour in 2011-12 you will see how Aussie bowlers benefitted by taking McDermott's advice and pitching it up a foot or so further up to Indian batsmen. That's why Umesh Yadav looks dangerous in Tests as he tries to bowl fuller. He only needs to work on his line as his length is pretty good. There's a reason why it's said it's better to err on the fuller side than short as pitching it up will always have more chance to dismiss a batsman since LBWs and bowleds come into the mix. Also, in case there's movement off the pitch a short of length delivery is more likely to beat the batsman and miss the edge as deviation would be more than what's needed to get the edge of the bat whereas seam movement off a fuller length is more likely to get the edge. Bowling short is a good weapon to have in a fast bowler's armory but short pitched stuff seldom gets too many wkts.

[Lurker]

Fast bowling is much more complex today than what it was back then in 80s without protecting gears. You need extraordinary skills or extraordinary consistency to be really successful bowler now against top teams and top batsmen. Steyn is extraordinary. He rarely bowls short initially. His first aim is to swing the ball and make batsmen play. Those days are no more when you will bowl 2-3 quick short balls followed by a fuller ball and batsmen most time will edge it or will get hit on the body like in 70s and 80s that was the part of intimidation because batsmen would fear coming on front foot against the likes of Marshall and Holding who were quick enough to beat most batsmen for pace.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Dude your uber simplistic explanation makes for hilarious reading. Seems like you do not understand the difference between Roy Gilchrist and Michael Holding. Or Jeff Thomson and Dennis Lillee. To think 70s and 80s bowlers took wickets ONLY by initimidation is ultra funny. As for Steyn, great as he is, someone like Gavaskar would keep leaving him whole day long. And Richards would murder him. Now please check some videos to verify that :winky:

[Muloghonto]

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

Lala Amarnath was not 'fast' as some would call, but military medium with good control and movement both ways. In some respects, he was an old-timers equivalent of Mohammed Aasif/Fanie deVilliers- bowlers who do not regularly cross 130kph but move the ball miles both ways and with good control. Even though Amar Singh fits this description better, Lala Amarnath was a similar style of bowler. he was good enough to pick up 463 wickets @ 22.98 in first class cricket - an average that no Indian pace bowler since WWII can come close to. The fact that he played 21 of his 24 tests after the age of 35( WWII robbed him of the best years) and as a 35-41 year old, he still managed to pick up 41 wickets @ 33.36, is testament to the fact of how bloody good he was. PS: also, i find it interesting that nobody has mentioned Ladha Ramji. He was the first genuine 'express pace bowler' India has produced and came with the whole gamut of dizzying speed, bouncers and an excellent away swinger. He was the older brother of Ladhabhai Amar Singh and his best years were over before India even got to test status. Due to the presence of Amar Singh and Mohammed Nissar, this was the deepest the Indian pace bowling attack has ever been and Ladha Ramji was already 33 before India played its first test and got only one test to play (where he bowled a good spell of 23-5-64-0 in the only innings he bowled). However, he did exceedingly well in the domestic scene and retired with 125 wickets @ 17.37 in 25 matches. A forgotten Indian pace hero.

[rkt.india]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Dude your uber simplistic explanation makes for hilarious reading. Seems like you do not understand the difference between Roy Gilchrist and Michael Holding. Or Jeff Thomson and Dennis Lillee. To think 70s and 80s bowlers took wickets ONLY by initimidation is ultra funny. As for Steyn, great as he is, someone like Gavaskar would keep leaving him whole day long. And Richards would murder him. Now please check some videos to verify that :winky:

I never said all wickets were taken by intimidation. Intimidation was a part of the process which rarely works nowadays. No one would like ball hitting the head and that certainly had a lot of impact on batting approach and how bowlers operated those days and that method is not going to work nowadays. Regarding Steyn, I think you need to watch some videos to verify that if ball pitches on middle and leg and swinging away like a Shane Warne leg break, you cannot leave that. Regarding Roy Gilchrist, have you watched him bowl? Regarding Richards thrashing Styen, a lot of less popular batsmen have thrashed Steyn at some point of time in LOIs, but come tests, he is a different bowler, how many bowlers who could bowl 145-150, has Richards thrashed because most of the quick bowlers played for his team. I heard once he was dismantled by Lillie, not sure but you can confirm that. This Richards you are talking about and Lillie was even at his quickest at this time. He had lost quite a bit of his pace because of back injury he had suffered in 1972-73. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t51RjEpw8E0]1976 Viv Richards vs Dennis Lillee WACA PERTH - RARE VIDEO! - YouTube[/ame] Which batsmen can leave deliveries like this. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78GXFd97uw]Pujara Flop against Dale steyn - YouTube[/ame]

[rkt.india]

That's the way to take wkts. Fundamentals of the game haven't changed much as even in the old days you still had to bowl fuller to get a batsman out. If you look at Wasim & Waqar in their prime you will see a bunch of dismissals bowled or LBWs and even if you look at India's Aussies tour in 2011-12 you will see how Aussie bowlers benefitted by taking McDermott's advice and pitching it up a foot or so further up to Indian batsmen. That's why Umesh Yadav looks dangerous in Tests as he tries to bowl fuller. He only needs to work on his line as his length is pretty good. There's a reason why it's said it's better to err on the fuller side than short as pitching it up will always have more chance to dismiss a batsman since LBWs and bowleds come into the mix. Also, in case there's movement off the pitch a short of length delivery is more likely to beat the batsman and miss the edge as deviation would be more than what's needed to get the edge of the bat whereas seam movement off a fuller length is more likely to get the edge. Bowling short is a good weapon to have in a fast bowler's armory but short pitched stuff seldom gets too many wkts.

Bowling full alone is not going to get wickets, neither bowling short. For bowling full, you will need the ability to swing and seam the ball, a good wrist and seam position. Without that, you will be cannon fodder. A bowlers basics must improve.

[fineleg]

Some info on how fast Srinath was http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=325439&postcount=41 Following statement from then Zim captain Campbell put things in perspective

Could India/BCCI have made better use of J. Srinath with even better coaching/guidance and talent development? He never realized his full potential.

[rkt.india]

he was good enough to pick up 463 wickets @ 22.98 in first class cricket - an average that no Indian pace bowler since WWII can come close to. T.

You are talking about when Indian cricket was nothing, let alone FC cricket. Check sir Jogi's FC bowling average. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/29976.html

[rkt.india]

If Kapil Dev was played for NZ, he would have had as good an average and SR as Hadlee by bowling in those conditions.

[Muloghonto]

You are talking about when Indian cricket was nothing, let alone FC cricket. Check sir Jogi's FC bowling average. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/29976.html

I wouldn't say Indian cricket was nothing, they had some very good players. The FC scene was not organized, but anyone who played for the Hindus or the Muslims were quality FC players. This is the same scene that churned out players like Mankad, Gupte, CK Nayudu, Merchant, Hazare, Umrigar and the Indians of the 1940s-1960s, which had some quality players. This era of Indian cricket was not worse than Indian cricket of mid 80s-mid90s. The occasional MCC teams visited, as well as the Saffers, Aussies, etc.

[Muloghonto]

I never said all wickets were taken by intimidation. Intimidation was a part of the process which rarely works nowadays.

It rarely works because we rarely see bowlers who can consistently bowl 145-150 kph while being as accurate as Donald/Marshall etc- who were a heck of a lot more accurate than the paciest bowlers today. Which is why Dale Steyn has bowled many an intimidatory spell- he is one of the few who can bowl accurately at 145+kph range. The simple fact of fast bowling you are not realizing- perhaps you are not old enough to've seen cricket in the 80s or 90s, is that fast bowling of that era was a lot more potent than in the 2000-present era. Bowling quality was a lot better, pacers were significantly faster than now - especially off the pitch(which is due to pitches being a lot faster in OZ, Eng, NZ, WI than it is now) and most importantly, pacers were a lot fitter.

No one would like ball hitting the head and that certainly had a lot of impact on batting approach and how bowlers operated those days and that method is not going to work nowadays.

Ofcourse it wont because unlimited bouncers are gone. Not because the bowling conditions have changed.

Regarding Steyn, I think you need to watch some videos to verify that if ball pitches on middle and leg and swinging away like a Shane Warne leg break, you cannot leave that. Regarding Roy Gilchrist, have you watched him bowl? Regarding Richards thrashing Styen, a lot of less popular batsmen have thrashed Steyn at some point of time in LOIs, but come tests, he is a different bowler, how many bowlers who could bowl 145-150, has Richards thrashed because most of the quick bowlers played for his team. I heard once he was dismantled by Lillie, not sure but you can confirm that.

Bowlers who have been thrashed around by Richards: Lillee, Thommo, Imran, Botham. Of those, 2 were of Steyn quality and one almost as good( Botham version 1 was one of the greatest swing bowlers ever). Yes, Lillee had the better of Richards a couple of times- that is not anything jaw dropping- quality pace bowlers have very rarely not tooled every single batsman at some point or another in their careers. As such, great batsman vs great bowler, the great bowler should get the batsman more often than not and the great batsman shouldnt have more than 1 in 4/5 excellent performance. Richards more than satisfies this criteria.

[rkt.india]

It rarely works because we rarely see bowlers who can consistently bowl 145-150 kph while being as accurate as Donald/Marshall etc- who were a heck of a lot more accurate than the paciest bowlers today.

That is where my problem is, people glorify past to the hilt, does not matter they have seen those players or not. I dont think likes of Styen are slower than Marshall. I have never seen a single video of Marshall yet where he bowled really quick. In my view, Holding was a bit quicker than him. Thomson was quicker who was as quick as Brett Lee or Shoiab Akhtar. I think Today's WI bowlers like of Best, Edwards, Roach, Gabriel are as quick as Holding and Marshall, quicker than both Walsh and Ambrose. Sylvester Clarke was pretty much like Walsh, though shorter, similar pace. One thing he had was quick bouncer which would be quicker than his normal deliveries and that used to surprise the batsmen and got him a lot of wickets.

Which is why Dale Steyn has bowled many an intimidatory spell- he is one of the few who can bowl accurately at 145+kph range. The simple fact of fast bowling you are not realizing- perhaps you are not old enough to've seen cricket in the 80s or 90s, is that fast bowling of that era was a lot more potent than in the 2000-present era. Bowling quality was a lot better, pacers were significantly faster than now - especially off the pitch(which is due to pitches being a lot faster in OZ, Eng, NZ, WI than it is now) and most importantly, pacers were a lot fitter.

I used to think same like you, used to hear from people, reading stuff until I have not watched the videos of past, but since I started watching videos, my opinion has changed. There were great bowlers and batsmen at that time, but experts and ex-cricketers try to make every bowler or batsman of the past a great. Regarding pace, until a bowler goes through radar, you can never be sure how quick a bowler is, but you can have an idea after watching videos of these eras and comparing them with today's pacers assess their pace. In fast bowling competition in 1978, Jeff Thompson was the fastest bowler clocking 147K and that too when he was on down slide. He was the only bowler at that time who on his peak could clock 160 like Lee and Akhtar and may be Lillie in 1971 before his injury and Holding initially were close to him.

Ofcourse it wont because unlimited bouncers are gone. Not because the bowling conditions have changed. Bowlers who have been thrashed around by Richards: Lillee, Thommo, Imran, Botham. Of those, 2 were of Steyn quality and one almost as good( Botham version 1 was one of the greatest swing bowlers ever). Yes, Lillee had the better of Richards a couple of times- that is not anything jaw dropping- quality pace bowlers have very rarely not tooled every single batsman at some point or another in their careers. As such, great batsman vs great bowler, the great bowler should get the batsman more often than not and the great batsman shouldnt have more than 1 in 4/5 excellent performance. Richards more than satisfies this criteria.

I am not saying Richards was not a great batsmen, but some people saying plainly that he would thrash Steyn. Styen has been thrashed even by Saurabh Tiwary, but it does not make an inferior bowler. Which bowler has not been thrashed at some point of time in his career? but great bowlers can always trouble even the best of the batsmen. If bowlers like Lillie, Steyn, Marshall, Donald, Holding bowl at their best, even the best batsmen at their best cannot thrash them. PS: Let me know if you dont think that safety gears have not changed how the game used to be played in 70-80s and now.

[Crookbond]

PS: also, i find it interesting that nobody has mentioned Ladha Ramji. He was the first genuine 'express pace bowler' India has produced and came with the whole gamut of dizzying speed, bouncers and an excellent away swinger. He was the older brother of Ladhabhai Amar Singh and his best years were over before India even got to test status. Due to the presence of Amar Singh and Mohammed Nissar, this was the deepest the Indian pace bowling attack has ever been and Ladha Ramji was already 33 before India played its first test and got only one test to play (where he bowled a good spell of 23-5-64-0 in the only innings he bowled). However, he did exceedingly well in the domestic scene and retired with 125 wickets @ 17.37 in 25 matches. A forgotten Indian pace hero.

The last time I tried speaking about forgotten Indian sporting heros, the great champions on this board came up with the argument on how pre 1947 was British era and so they shouldn't be counted as "Indians". :facepalm:

[NameGoesHere]

That is where my problem is' date=' people glorify past to the hilt, does not matter they have seen those players or not. .........[/quote'] fair enough but then why go to extremes in the other direction with statements such as: On a related note if I were to agree to your statement below then how would we rank Bradman who played in the same era?

[The Outsider]

Regarding pace, until a bowler goes through radar, you can never be sure how quick a bowler is, but you can have an idea after watching videos of these eras and comparing them with today's pacers assess their pace. In fast bowling competition in 1978, Jeff Thompson was the fastest bowler clocking 147K and that too when he was on down slide. He was the only bowler at that time who on his peak could clock 160 like Lee and Akhtar and may be Lillie in 1971 before his injury and Holding initially were close to him.

I have no idea why you keep on regurgitating this. Speed guns are not uniform from one match, venue, broadcaster, country to another even in today's game and you trust the values from a one off speed test 35 years back using completely different technology. Can you explain why?

[Lurker]

I never said all wickets were taken by intimidation. Intimidation was a part of the process which rarely works nowadays. No one would like ball hitting the head and that certainly had a lot of impact on batting approach and how bowlers operated those days and that method is not going to work nowadays.

So please qualify what %age of wickets were taken by intimidation. How about you put some numbers? Like maybe 25% intimidation, 13.5% on old balls, 27.67% on weird sight screen, 18.5% on the loose bell bottom pants worn by the bowlers etc! Since you keep yapping about how intimidation played the key role, please quantify it too for lesser learned like me

Regarding Roy Gilchrist, have you watched him bowl?

I havent watched you type a response either. Are you sure you are not employed by Google since every response of yours somehow ends up sending traffic to YouTube and generate traffic for them? :hmmmm: