Srinath in tests: 1996-2002

[ret]

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!!

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[ret]

Overall, Wasim tops .... then I would loop Waqar, Sri and Akthar .... and then Vaas and some of the others

 

[Pratters]

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.

 

[Sanz]

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.

 

[Sanz]

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.

 

[Pratters]

Talented yes, but didn't use his brain. Once he did to pitch the ball in the right areas, he was devastating.

 

[Sanz]

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.

 

[Pratters]

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.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

 

[Pratters]

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.

 

[NUFAN]

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.

 

[Sanz]

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.

 

[Sanz]

Bradman once said that he saw far more batsmen more talented than him..

IMO he was just being modest.

 

[Pratters]

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.

 

[Migara]

He was possibly better than Wasim and Akthat in 1997-99 period, where he was passing 90mph in pace. (he was clocked 152k at NZ around that time). The quick pace allowed him to stay in even if he bowled rank ****. But beyond that period, his bowling can be descried as good, but nothing sensational.

 

[tooextracool]

Not sure if I agree with this logic of, if you bowl accurately then you are talented or if you bowl booming cutters you are more talented than someone who doesnt. Talent is an innate ability, the idea is that you are born or blessed with that ability. Anyone who represents their country is talented, dont think anyone is more so than another to be honest. Some are more skillful than others, and I think McGrath was more skillful than Srinath, even if Srinath may have had more variety, but McGrath was hands and feet down a more intelligent bowler.

As far as Srinath is concerned, no doubt he was a better bowler at the end of his career than he was at the start. However, I fail to see the relevance of comparing him with bowlers like Wasim and Waqar who were by and large past their prime by 1996.

 

[Pratters]

I don't see the big deal in calling x more talented than y despite not achieving as much as y. How much talent x or y possesses is subjective to one's opinion. Obviously every one can't be at the same talent level.

 

[Xuhaib]

Not sure if I agree with this logic of, if you bowl accurately then you are talented or if you bowl booming cutters you are more talented than someone who doesnt. Talent is an innate ability, the idea is that you are born or blessed with that ability. Anyone who represents their country is talented, dont think anyone is more so than another to be honest. Some are more skillful than others, and I think McGrath was more skillful than Srinath, even if Srinath may have had more variety, but McGrath was hands and feet down a more intelligent bowler.

As far as Srinath is concerned, no doubt he was a better bowler at the end of his career than he was at the start. However, I fail to see the relevance of comparing him with bowlers like Wasim and Waqar who were by and large past their prime by 1996.

Agreed.Waqar post 2nd stress fracture and Wasim post diabities (was diagnosed in 97) were just fairly good bowlers though Wasim unlike Waqar had spells when he bowled like the old Wasim unfortuantley his fitness levels had gone gone down dramitically after his disease and he could never sustain it.

 

[aussie]

Agreed.Waqar post 2nd stress fracture and Wasim post diabities (was diagnosed in 97) were just fairly good bowlers though Wasim unlike Waqar had spells when he bowled like the old Wasim unfortuantley his fitness levels had gone gone down dramitically after his disease and he could never sustain it.

Antigua 2000 immediately comes to mind..