Ajit Agarkar vs Sreesanth in Limited Overs

[masterblaster]

Bearing in mind that this comparison is in Limited Overs Cricket only (ODI's and Twenty20's), who would you rather have as a bowler in your squad. Ajit Agarkar gets a lot of stick on this board, for test matches this is deserved. But he's been a leading ODI bowler for India over many years.

Agarkar has been criticised as being expensive, erratic and inconsistent. When you compare him with Sreesanth however, Sreesanth is just as expensive (if not more), erratic and inconsistent.

If you had to choose between one player in your side for ODI's and Twenty20's who would you pick?

Here is a statistical comparison between the two players in ODI's:

Ajit Agarkar

Batting: 1269 runs at 14.58 with a SR of 80.62
Bowling: 288 wickets at 27.85 with a ER of 5.07 and SR of 32.9

Sreesanth

Bating: 34 runs at 4.25 with a SR of 36.17
Bowling: 59 wickets at 31.45 with a ER of 5.78 and SR of 32.6

 

[Perm]

Agarkar.

He was nowhere near as ridiculously expensive as Sreesanth and they took their wickets at roughly the same rate. I think Sreesanth could probably influence a match more, but that doesn't help when he usually goes for 60-70 runs in others. Agarkar could bat too, which is an added bonus.

 

[masterblaster]

Agarkar.

He was nowhere near as ridiculously expensive as Sreesanth and they took their wickets at roughly the same rate. I think Sreesanth could probably influence a match more, but that doesn't help when he usually goes for 60-70 runs in others. Agarkar could bat too, which is an added bonus.

My reasoning exactly here too. Agarkar gets my vote. I've always been baffled by people who continously support Sreesanth in ODI's and then criticise Agarkar. Agarkar has been India's best ODI fast bowler over the last 10 years where many have come and gone. Sreesanth continues to be really expensive and unreliable in the shorter format of the game.

 

[haroon510]

None of them.. they both sucks..

 

[Prince EWS]

Agarkar has obviously had the better career so far.

Sreesanth isn't expected to replicate his career record whenever he's selected, though - never mind the fact that Agarkar looked ridiculously bad the last time he played ODIs. If both retired tomorrow, Agarkar would definitely be regarded the better bowler, but I'd rather have Sreesanth in my squad at the current time because I think he'd do better than his career record suggests (and ITBT I think Agarkar would do much worse than his career record suggests..). Sreesanth is an improving bowler; Agarkar is in decline.

Given the question asks which I'd rather have and not which has had a better career, I voted Sreesanth.

It should also be noted that I've completely ignored Twenty20 cricket in this assessment despite what the opening post says.

 

[Prince EWS]

None of them.. they both sucks..

It doesn't matter if they suck; that's not the point. Which one sucks the least?

 

[honestbharani]

in terms of career so far, I picked AA.


But as Prince said, if I am asked who I will pick as of now, it would be Sreesanth.

 

[social]

Different stages of their careers

Given a choice between the 2 TODAY, I'd pick Sreesant every time as it is an investment in the future

 

[nikhil1772]

Bearing in mind that this comparison is in Limited Overs Cricket only (ODI's and Twenty20's), who would you rather have as a bowler in your squad. Ajit Agarkar gets a lot of stick on this board, for test matches this is deserved. But he's been a leading ODI bowler for India over many years.

Agarkar has been criticised as being expensive, erratic and inconsistent. When you compare him with Sreesanth however, Sreesanth is just as expensive (if not more), erratic and inconsistent.

If you had to choose between one player in your side for ODI's and Twenty20's who would you pick?

Here is a statistical comparison between the two players in ODI's:

Ajit Agarkar

Batting: 1269 runs at 14.58 with a SR of 80.62
Bowling: 288 wickets at 27.85 with a ER of 5.07 and SR of 32.9

Sreesanth

Bating: 34 runs at 4.25 with a SR of 36.17
Bowling: 59 wickets at 31.45 with a ER of 5.78 and SR of 32.6

Why oh why would u even consider making that comparison?AA is the third highest wicket-taker in ODI's at a better average than Kapil Dev. He may not have taken many five wicket hauls to single-handedly win matches but his constant ability of taking 2-3 wicket hauls has done much more in helping India win so many matches. Those are conveniently forgotten.

 

[Jono]

Agarkar has obviously had the better career so far.

Sreesanth isn't expected to replicate his career record whenever he's selected, though - never mind the fact that Agarkar looked ridiculously bad the last time he played ODIs. If both retired tomorrow, Agarkar would definitely be regarded the better bowler, but I'd rather have Sreesanth in my squad at the current time because I think he'd do better than his career record suggests (and ITBT I think Agarkar would do much worse than his career record suggests..). Sreesanth is an improving bowler; Agarkar is in decline.

Given the question asks which I'd rather have and not which has had a better career, I voted Sreesanth.

It should also be noted that I've completely ignored Twenty20 cricket in this assessment despite what the opening post says.

Yep

 

[Richard]

Agarkar.

He was nowhere near as ridiculously expensive as Sreesanth and they took their wickets at roughly the same rate. I think Sreesanth could probably influence a match more, but that doesn't help when he usually goes for 60-70 runs in others. Agarkar could bat too, which is an added bonus.

Agarkar has obviously had the better career so far.

Sreesanth isn't expected to replicate his career record whenever he's selected, though - never mind the fact that Agarkar looked ridiculously bad the last time he played ODIs. If both retired tomorrow, Agarkar would definitely be regarded the better bowler, but I'd rather have Sreesanth in my squad at the current time because I think he'd do better than his career record suggests (and ITBT I think Agarkar would do much worse than his career record suggests..). Sreesanth is an improving bowler; Agarkar is in decline.

Given the question asks which I'd rather have and not which has had a better career, I voted Sreesanth.

It should also be noted that I've completely ignored Twenty20 cricket in this assessment despite what the opening post says.

It doesn't matter if they suck; that's not the point. Which one sucks the least?

Pretty much agree completely with these posts.

 

[slowfinger]

Nah, Limited overs definately Sreesanth 'cos he's young, and who knows how long he will play for, but speaking of past and records, I pick AA because he has already done his job wheras Sreesanth could retire tomorrow (not gonna happen though). So you CAN NOT decide so early, anyway why are you comparing these two at two totally different stages to there careers?
This topic is

 

[slowfinger]

And Sreesanth is a show off and a moron

 

[DaRick]

Ajit Agarkar. Even though he is quite expensive (econ. rate 5.07 - he's consistently been around there for his career), at least you can call him an established ODI strike bowler. Sreesanth frankly isn't and is so expensive in ODI's (5.78) that I'd be happy if he never played another ODI.

 

[nikhil1772]

And Sreesanth is a show off and a moron

You forgot to add, '...to say the least'

 

[Arjun]

Agarkar v/s Sreesanth

• One who tries to show off when selected v/s another who whinges when not picked
• One trying too hard and looking dumb v/s another trying just enough and looking weak
• One a little too short v/s one even shorter
• One who tries to bowl fast and runs out of steam v/s another who bowls decently fast but slows down drastically when needed most
• One with aggression and (limited) attack power v/s another with records and a lot of luck

If only Munaf Patel and VRV Singh were completely fit all the time.

 

[Arjun]

From an Indian selection point of view, they should keep Agarkar out. They've given him a learning experience long enough. He's proven useless and doesn't contribute any value. As for Sreesanth, they're stuck with him since he's just settled in, unless they find someone reasonably better- maybe, as I said, VRV and Munaf (and also Zaheer) fully fit on the field, and RP Singh regaining fitness and form.

 

[Richard]

Vikram Rajvir is one of the worst bowlers I've ever seen so far in his international career, and Munaf Patel in the state he was most recently in when I saw him I don't want anywhere near ODIs either.

In any case, Ishant Sharma is the new Munaf Patel and I imagine someone else might well be the new Ishant Sharma in January 2010.

 

[Arjun]

Vikram Rajvir is one of the worst bowlers I've ever seen so far in his international career, and Munaf Patel in the state he was most recently in when I saw him I don't want anywhere near ODIs either.

In any case, Ishant Sharma is the new Munaf Patel and I imagine someone else might well be the new Ishant Sharma in January 2010.

I'd say they need a new Ishant Sharma rightaway, so that he can play alongside the existing Ishant Sharma. That would solve an annoying problem, and how!

 

[Richard]

You're making the somewhat brave presumption that Ishant Sharma will not be a burnt-out hazzbin in 3 years' time. I mean, I think he looks damn good now, yeah, but I thought the same about Munaf Patel 2 years ago. And several other bowlers before that - including even Ajit Agarkar, despite his short stature.

If Ishant Sharma is to become a good bowler, he has an unspeakably large amount of history to defy. He's capable of doing so, unquestionably, but that hasn't stopped countless seam-bowlers before him failing to. And the same pitfalls that befell them remain in place for him.