• 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.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

Gob

Gob

International Coach
sunilz said:
Weren't they a regular feature in AUS team in late 90s ?
Saw them in lots of game.
Click to expand...
There or there about but not clear cut 3rd best. McDermott and Marvin Hughes were accompanied by Reid or Reiffel in the early parts and McGrath came along around 94. Gillespie a couple of years later and Brett Lee in 99 and Lee had a sensational start.

I'd say Hughes/McDermott in the first part of the decade and McGrath/Gillespie in the 2nd part with no clear cut 3rd seamer.
 
sunilz

sunilz

International Regular
Gob said:
There or there about but not clear cut 3rd best. McDermott and Marvin Hughes were accompanied by Reid or Reiffel in the early parts and McGrath came along around 94. Gillespie a couple of years later and Brett Lee in 99 and Lee had a sensational start.

I'd say Hughes/McDermott in the first part of the decade and McGrath/Gillespie in the 2nd part with no clear cut 3rd seamer.
Click to expand...
Ok looks like you misunderstood my post. I am not saying Srinath would have been 3rd best pace bowler of Aus in 90s. I am saying he could have played as a 3rd pacer in place of Fleming/Kasprowicz in late 90s.
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
sunilz said:
Ok looks like you misunderstood my post. I am not saying Srinath would have been 3rd best pace bowler of Aus in 90s. I am saying he could have played as a 3rd pacer in place of Fleming/Kasprowicz in late 90s.
Click to expand...
No I think I got what you said but my point was they weren't the exact 3rd best fast bowler most of the time even when they played (Due to injuries). McDermott/Hughes plus Rieffel were good till mid 90s with Reid chipping in. Fleming was preferred, from memory for a brief period from around mid 90s to late 90s until Lee came in.

Fleming>Srinath>Kasprowicz anyways.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fleming was very good in the late 90s. Definitely better than Srinath. But
Sunilz is right that Srinath could have got a game here or there because of injuries. Scott Muller got a Test in 1999.
 
Days of Grace

Days of Grace

International Captain
Fuller Pilch said:
Srinath was hardly "world class". Apart from Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka (where he would've been behind Streak and Vaas), how many teams would he have made in the 90s? He wouldn't have made NZ or England's 1st choice XI in the 90s, let alone Pakistan, South Africa, Australia, or the Windies.
Click to expand...
Srinath would have walked into any New Zealand team in the 1990s. Those were dark times.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
This is a more subjective take and I guess there is no real way to prove this but I think Srinath had excellent attributes to be a great 3rd seamer. He had very good pace, enough movement on the in swing and the odd ball that can straighten (he even added a proper outswinger in the last 5 years of his career) and his natural length was the enforcer length at pace. Would have been a great 3rd seamer for any attack that had world class opening bowlers IMO.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Averaging 30 in the 90s is pretty mediocre. Yes he played his home games in India, but this was a world where averaging 35 with the bat could net you a full 70 test career. The average test batsman was Not Good, and Srinath's name gets mentioned so often because he was a rarity for India - a test standard fast bowler. In the 90s if you weren't averaging 25 or less with the ball you were nowhere near the top pacemen list. McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Shoiab and then the next tier inhabited by Chaminda Vaas, the English and the Australian supporting cast.

If he plays in the 00s I think you can add a few more runs to his average like most others copped. Srinath was probably slightly better than Chris Martin, the extra pace giving him a boost, and definitely never as good as the second coming of Zaheer, Ishant etc.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Flem274* said:
Averaging 30 in the 90s is pretty mediocre. Yes he played his home games in India, but this was a world where averaging 35 with the bat could net you a full 70 test career. The average test batsman was Not Good, and Srinath's name gets mentioned so often because he was a rarity for India - a test standard fast bowler. In the 90s if you weren't averaging 25 or less with the ball you were nowhere near the top pacemen list. McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Shoiab and then the next tier inhabited by Chaminda Vaas, the English and the Australian supporting cast.

If he plays in the 00s I think you can add a few more runs to his average like most others copped. Srinath was probably slightly better than Chris Martin, the extra pace giving him a boost, and definitely never as good as the second coming of Zaheer, Ishant etc.
Click to expand...
Yes but the argument is that that lot weren't too different from Srinath, they just benefited from Australia having a really good top 2/3 to pile the pressure on plus a world class spinner.

Srinath was a good bowler who had attributes to be better - he lacked the support required to push on from there, as one would if your supporting cast is Prasad, Agarkar (and Prabhakar earlier) - all mediocre at best. So clearly he wasn't a Hadlee or similar, no one is claming he was.
There were enough instances of him really wrecking opposition at times to say there could have been more in a better team.
He also became a different bowler post injury and losing quite a bit of pace. He was genuinely rapid for a brief while/early on.

He'd be fantastic in today's India team, for example - probably be averaging around that ~25 mark or at least ~27-28, certainly not 30+.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
_00_deathscar said:
He'd be fantastic in today's India team, for example - probably be averaging around that ~25 mark or at least ~27-28, certainly not 30+.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. This era has a lot in common with the 90s. His average might be brought down a bit because he has more support, but equally I don't think he's better than Bumrah, Shami or Ishant 2.0 so he might struggle to make the side.

Srinath just wasn't as good as you believe and cricket has a serious nostalgia problem with old players.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Flem274* said:
I doubt it. This era has a lot in common with the 90s. His average might be brought down a bit because he has more support, but equally I don't think he's better than Bumrah, Shami or Ishant 2.0 so he might struggle to make the side.

Srinath just wasn't as good as you believe and cricket has a serious nostalgia problem with old players.
Click to expand...
Fair - he never had an insane peak or anything was just late 20s at best in terms of average. He did have a horrid start and bad last year though - without those 3 years his record is a respectable ~27.87 average from 49 tests with a 4 WPM. I know that's nitpicking but he was REALLY off the boil in the last year.
What I'm saying is he could probably averaged around about there in this Indian team given enough support.

Of course Ishant Sharma has improved to the fantastic bowler he is today, but that improvement becomes immediately useless if it isn't backed up with the rest of the unit and strength in depth that we have, down to Yadav being a beast at home and Siraj's emergence. And still his career average looks horrible, it's only when you slice it up that you think "wait a second, he was actually pretty damn good in the latter half"
I'm saying I don't think Srinath was too far from doing something like that in a better unit.

No one's arguing he was anywhere near ATG class (apart from a couple of weirdos), much like no one is arguing Ishant is anywhere near ATG class.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
_00_deathscar said:
He'd be fantastic in today's India team, for example - probably be averaging around that ~25 mark or at least ~27-28, certainly not 30+.
Click to expand...
Never got this logic. The whole "would be better in a better team" idea is great and makes sense but it's not going to make that much of a statistical difference, if any.

If you really think that playing in a crap team hurts your stats that much then how good would you have to think Hadlee or Andy Flower were? Or maybe the idea is that only mediocre/middling players are affected and the very best are just as great regardless of what is around them?
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
ATG NZ XI excluding current players:
S Dempster
G Turner
B Sutcliffe
M Crowe
M Donnelly
B McCullum (wk)
C Cairns
D Vettori
R Hadlee
S Bond
J Cowie

Would be interesting to see them play the current world's best team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top