-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How does Ishant Sharma rate?
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
In all seriousness, averaging low-20s over the last two and a half-ish years, 28ish average under Kohli, has now got his career average below 34.
At worst, I reckon he's the fourth-best Indian quick of all time. I think Sharma > Srinath is a pretty defensible position, which would put him third. At best, he could end up surpassing Zaheer by the time he wraps up his career.
Gives you a top ten of Indian quicks along the lines of:
with the obvious expectation that Bumrah goes a lot higher.
At worst, I reckon he's the fourth-best Indian quick of all time. I think Sharma > Srinath is a pretty defensible position, which would put him third. At best, he could end up surpassing Zaheer by the time he wraps up his career.
Gives you a top ten of Indian quicks along the lines of:
- Dev
- Zaheer
- Sharma
- Srinath
- Shami
- A Singh
- B Kumar
- M Nissar
- J Bumrah
- U Yadav
with the obvious expectation that Bumrah goes a lot higher.
thierry henry
International Coach
Pretty highly, in the sense that he is that rare cricketer who is miles taller than his listed height
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Srinath is better than Sharma for me, at least for the time being. Played for a very weak team for most of his career, averaging sub 30 for a good part and was the best indian bowler for a decade.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
a massive zebra
International Captain
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Really selling Srinath short there
Anyway Ishant is difficult to judge. Promising start, 5 or 6 years of being an absolute joke, genuinely test class over the last couple of years. I don't rate him much but I do have a tendency to not think much of cricketers who get a long rope without truly justifying it
Anyway Ishant is difficult to judge. Promising start, 5 or 6 years of being an absolute joke, genuinely test class over the last couple of years. I don't rate him much but I do have a tendency to not think much of cricketers who get a long rope without truly justifying it
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He's certainly been on an upcurve over the past five years.
I think that Ishant has shown himself to be a bit more well-rounded than Srinath ever was. Srinath far better at home, but Ishant's overall away record looks stronger to me. Srinath faded out by 30, so Ishant's gonna have him on longevity above and beyond just number of Tests. Srinath was probably more new ball reliant, given Ishant's shown himself to be valuable both upfront and at first change over the past few years.
I mean, I think it's an incredibly line-ball call and that it's difficult to compare given the different skill sets they had. But I can certainly see how someone would toss a coin and come up Ishant.
My coin still lands on Srinath, ftr.
cnerd123
likes this
Ishant has had me thinking about how to value a player's peak versus their career as a whole while evaluating them.
Ishant in the last 5 years has 120 wickets at a good average. If that was taken as a career in isolation, I think it would rate higher in people's minds than Ishant's career as a whole. And that is weird to me. How can playing more cricket before or after the peak be a bad thing? Plus, when picking an ATG XI or similar hypotheticals, aren't we assuming a player at the peak of their powers?
If Ishant keeps this up for a few more years, and ends up with a 7 year stretch where he took 200 wickets at around 25, then I think he should be considered more or less on par with other quick bowlers that have similar numbers. Darren Gough, Alec Bedser, Trent Boult (if he retires tomorrow), Jason Gillespie, Merv Hughes. He will have also eclipsed Srinath and Zaheer.
Ishant in the last 5 years has 120 wickets at a good average. If that was taken as a career in isolation, I think it would rate higher in people's minds than Ishant's career as a whole. And that is weird to me. How can playing more cricket before or after the peak be a bad thing? Plus, when picking an ATG XI or similar hypotheticals, aren't we assuming a player at the peak of their powers?
If Ishant keeps this up for a few more years, and ends up with a 7 year stretch where he took 200 wickets at around 25, then I think he should be considered more or less on par with other quick bowlers that have similar numbers. Darren Gough, Alec Bedser, Trent Boult (if he retires tomorrow), Jason Gillespie, Merv Hughes. He will have also eclipsed Srinath and Zaheer.
Bijed
International Regular
Not saying Ishant necessarily was, but if a player is costing their side games by being bad (not that you can often pin a loss directly on one player) for a while (be it before or after their peak), you've got to count that against them when evaluating their career. There's a distinction between pre/past a peak being just worse than their best, and pre/past a peak being actually a bit rubbish. I didn't pay much attention to Ishant's early career mind, so won't make an assessment on him either way.
Fwiw, I think my first sentence applies to your inconsistent types who often get branded 'matchwinners' - when they go badly, they're outright liabililties
Last edited:
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah the problem is Ishant was that 1. his pre-peak period was so long and 2. he genuinely was pretty bad during that period. Maybe it's a bit exaggerated but it still wasn't good.
cnerd123
likes this
yea but Ishant doesn't choose to play himself in the team. He get's picked by the selectors. He's thrown out there and tries his best.
If he is picked while he's terrible that isn't his fault, so I don't see why that's held against him (or any player, really). At least he was good enough to get selected, right? Ryan Harris is remembered fondly for his exploits at Test level, but it's never held against him that he was too **** to even be picked for Australia for the large majority of his career.
And like I said - in hypothetical ATG discussions we never evaluate players based on their bad days, nor do we speculate what it would be like if they were selected too soon or played on past their peak. Just because we know that Ishant was **** before he became good doesn't mean we then devalue all the work he did while he was good.
If he is picked while he's terrible that isn't his fault, so I don't see why that's held against him (or any player, really). At least he was good enough to get selected, right? Ryan Harris is remembered fondly for his exploits at Test level, but it's never held against him that he was too **** to even be picked for Australia for the large majority of his career.
And like I said - in hypothetical ATG discussions we never evaluate players based on their bad days, nor do we speculate what it would be like if they were selected too soon or played on past their peak. Just because we know that Ishant was **** before he became good doesn't mean we then devalue all the work he did while he was good.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Bijed
International Regular
I get what you're saying and pretty much agree - I guess it depends of whether you're evaluating a career based purely on how good it ways in terms of raw effectiveness, or in terms of relative value to their side - for example, no-one suggests that any on Bangladesh's early Test Players were particularly good, but equally no-one holds it against them because of context - you can criticise a player's performance/part of their career in objective terms without holding it against them and being angry at them, if you get what I mean?
With your Harris example, it'd be weird to hold him donig badly in Shield matches against him when trying to assess his test career, but fans of South Australia would be perfectly entitled to hold it against him if he was losing them games by being bad
Fwiw, I don't tend to get into the discussions on here, but if I'm having hypothetical ATG discussions IRL, I'm always picking them based on their career, which by definition includes their bad days. And no, Ishant being **** before he came good doesn't devalue his later work, but nor does it mean you can ignore it in an objective assessment of his entire career - though of course you have strong mitigating factors if he was genuinely the best available throughout the period. Likewise, a players starting well for a while before becoming rubbish shouldn't devalue their earlier work, it will in people's minds (both ways around) due to recency bias
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Wonder if you just said to a random 20 year old bowler that you get to play 100+ test matches no matter what that he'd eventually come good just through experience.