Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 82

Thread: Srinath in tests: 1996-2002

  1. #1
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890

    Srinath in tests: 1996-2002

    I was checking out some stats and found that Srinath was the most effective pace bowler from the subcontinent during 1996-2002!

    Below are the stats:

    1 Jan 1996 to 1 Jan 2003, discounting BD and Zim


    Srinath
    41M, 160W = 3.9 wkts per test

    Waqar
    37M, 119W = 3.2 wkts per test

    Wasim
    30M, 102W = 3.4 wkts per test

    Akthar
    20M, 69W = 3.4 wkts per test



    Let's talk abt bowling averages and SR

    Vs - Avg/SR [tests]
    worst in bold

    Australia
    Sri - 35/61 [6]
    Waqar - 33/54 [4]
    Wasim - 49/101 [5]
    Aktar - 38/64 [7]

    Eng
    Sri - 38/78 [5]
    Waqar - 28/51 [6]
    Wasim - 40/91 [7]
    Aktar - 64/114 [1]

    NZ
    Sri - 29/64 [5]
    Waqar - 33/71 [5]
    Wasim - didn't play
    Aktar - 1/8 [1]

    India/Pakistan
    Sri - 20/35 [3]
    Waqar - 76/147 [2]
    Wasim - 23/53 [3]
    Aktar - 14/29 [1]

    SA
    Sri - 24/47 [10]
    Waqar - 24/45 [6]
    Wasim - 24/54 [3]
    Aktar - 42/78 [3]

    SL
    Sri - 29/50 [4]
    Waqar - 27/48 [7]
    Wasim - 20/44 [6]
    Aktar - 26/45 [4]

    WI
    Sri - 40/93 [8]
    Waqar - 30/52 [7]
    Wasim - 17/41 [6]
    Aktar - 20/41 [3]


    5-fors [against the above mentioned countries]
    Sri - 9
    Waqar - 1
    Wasim - 3
    Aktar - 5


    Those are excellent stats from the Indian pacer! Easily the top pacers from the sub-continent in the 1996-2002 period [7 years]

    Sri rocks!!
    Fastest gun in town

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Srinath got better as years wore on. But there's no way he was better than Wasim between 1996 and 2000. Waqar, yes, because he was no more than pretty good 1995/96-2000/01.

    And Vaas was capable of being both far better than all and far, far worse than all at a moment's notice. Shoaib essentially ditto, but he was also capable of being out-of-action at a moment's notice. Prasad meanwhile was never a patch on any of the aforementioned except when they were unfit \ very bad.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #3
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    Overall, Wasim tops .... then I would loop Waqar, Sri and Akthar .... and then Vaas and some of the others

  4. #4
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    29,957
    Srinath was crap outside the subcontinent till very late in his career. He had the length all wrong and when he corrected it and really bore fruit to the talent he possessed as a bowler, he retired soon after. Just talent wise, I would rate him higher than a McGrath. Brain wise, I would rate him way lower than Harbhajan Singh.

    He was better than Waqar in 1996-2002 who really declined as a bowler but he was no way better than Akram (as Richard said). Also, Akhtar>Srinath for the given period from when Akhtar debuted.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    All three Pakistan players have a lower Wickets/Test mean only one thing, Srinath bowled in more over than them. Quite simply even Waqar who had really declined like as a bowler had a better average than Srinath, better strike rate etc. Srinath was a good bowler but even at his peak and I would take Akram, Waqar and Akhtar ahead of him any day.

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratters View Post
    Srinath was crap outside the subcontinent till very late in his career. He had the length all wrong and when he corrected it and really bore fruit to the talent he possessed as a bowler, he retired soon after. Just talent wise, I would rate him higher than a McGrath. Brain wise, I would rate him way lower than Harbhajan Singh.
    So how is Srinath more talented than someone like Mcgrath when he can not pitch the ball at right length to save his life ? Srinath talent is overblown.

  7. #7
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    29,957
    Talented yes, but didn't use his brain. Once he did to pitch the ball in the right areas, he was devastating.

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    As far as I am aware, Srinath never learnt to pitch the ball in right areas. Once in a while he found his rhythm and showed how good he could be if he worked harder and and showed a bit more heart. The look at his face when he was hit for a four/six was very depressing as a cricket fan.

    He comes across as someone who always complained.

  9. #9
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    29,957
    In the end of his career, he did pitch the ball in the right lenghts. See the stats from that period and see how he improved his performances as a bowler. All through his career, whenever he pitched the ball in the right areas, he looked very dangerous. Pity was, he used to pitch the ball wrong and complain (as you said).

    McGrath didn't have those dangerous balls like Srinath did. However, through sheer hard work, he became the great bowler that he did. Even when we compare Gillespie with McGrath, Gillespie was more talented.

  10. #10
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    Being able to consistently put the ball in the right areas and being more concerned with taking wickets than ripping a ball past the outside edge of a batter = talent. Having brain in gear on a consistent basis = talent. McGrath's talents were just in different areas.

    The whole idea that it takes more talent to bowl big swingers/cutters than to bowl consistently is weapons-grade bollocks. Similarly so, that McGrath was incapable of bowling big said swingers/cutters. Seriously. On a flat pitch, McGrath was a fairly stern test for any batter. Put him on a pitch with a smidge of juice in it and he was damn-near unplayable.

  11. #11
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    29,957
    Bradman once said that he saw far more batsmen more talented than him.

    It is not how much talent you have, it is how much you make of it at top level sports. McGrath pitched the balls in the right areas through sheer hard work, not because he was particularly talented in doing so.
    Last edited by Pratters; 27-10-2009 at 12:10 AM.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    24,772
    My memory of Srinath will always be of him looking perplexed halfway down the pitch when a boundary has been hit.

    Decent cricketer though is Javigal.

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Being able to consistently put the ball in the right areas and being more concerned with taking wickets than ripping a ball past the outside edge of a batter = talent. Having brain in gear on a consistent basis = talent. McGrath's talents were just in different areas.

    The whole idea that it takes more talent to bowl big swingers/cutters than to bowl consistently is weapons-grade bollocks. Similarly so, that McGrath was incapable of bowling big said swingers/cutters. Seriously. On a flat pitch, McGrath was a fairly stern test for any batter. Put him on a pitch with a smidge of juice in it and he was damn-near unplayable.
    I knew I could count on you for this.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratters View Post
    Bradman once said that he saw far more batsmen more talented than him..
    IMO he was just being modest.

  15. #15
    Cricket, Lovely Cricket Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    29,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    IMO he was just being modest.
    It does emphasize the point of hard work to reach the top level in sports. Talent can take you thus far and no further. In the end, you need talent PLUS tons of hard work.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Linear Test World Champions
    By BoyBrumby in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-02-2016, 02:38 AM
  2. Mystery Draft V.2 (1989-2009)
    By Mupariwa_Magic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 492
    Last Post: 21-11-2009, 01:00 PM
  3. Mystery Draft (ODI XI and Test XI, 79-09)
    By Athlai in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 973
    Last Post: 24-03-2009, 03:54 AM
  4. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 08:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •