Zaheer, Shami or Srinath

[centurymaker]

How would you rank the 3 as bowlers, in which order?

Zaheer, Shami, Srinath

 

[centurymaker]

I am tempted towards Srinath but it's close between the 3, so not entirely sure how to rank them. Here's their raw stats.

Srinath 67 Tests - 236 wickets - Avg 30.4 - 10 five-fers

Zaheer 92 Tests - 311 wickets - Avg 32.9 - 11 five-fers

Shami 55 Tests - 200 wickets - Avg 27.1 - 6 five-fers

 

[ma1978]

I think the five fors are less relevant because of the greater support Shami has

I think when you adjust for support and era ithe difference is immaterial between the three

I would go with Shami,Khan and Srinath but as I said it’s bloody close

 

[Daemon]

Zaheer carried us during the flat pitch era and was a massive part of how we reached no.1 for that brief period so I’m always biased towards him.

 

[centurymaker]

Home and away

Srinath

Home 32 Tests, 108 wickets, Avg 26.6
Away 35 Tests, 128 wickets, Avg 33.7

Zaheer

Home 38 Tests, 104 wickets, Avg 35.9
Away 54 Tests, 207 wickets, Avg 31.5

Shami

Home 16 Tests, 62 wickets, Avg 21.1
Away 39 Tests, 138 wickets, Avg 29.8

 

[centurymaker]

Zaheer and Shami both good away but Zaheer not good at home nor Asia.

Srinath great at home but ok away. (Played half his games at home)

Bloody hard to split between them.

But have to take into account the eras they bowled in. Zaheer mostly bowled on flat pitches, while Shami has had the most favourable conditions and best bowling support. Srinath had least support and India were mostly a 5th or 6th ranked side in the world- below par.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont like comparing players who are still playing but I will be very surprised if Shami does not end his career a better bowler than both.

And for me, Zak > Srinath.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Shami's made a more than decent case for himself. I dont think he's touched the heights of all conditions mastery Zaheer did at points in 2007-11 but he's put up low-mid 20s averages for basically his entire career so far which Zaheer and Srinath didn't for any significant stretch of theirs.

Much more favourable conditions I do agree but I'm not sure how much weight the better bowling support argument holds. He has shown at various points how good he can be when the other pacers arent firing. The two home series against Eng and NZ in 2016 was where he really first showed how good he could be on pretty flat decks as the leader of the attack.

 

[Teja.]

One factor is that Zaheer was arguably the second best bowler and easily in the top 3 bowlers in the world for a good couple of years while the other two haven’t cracked the top 5 through their careers for a prolonged period. This is borne out by the ICC peak rankings.

However, it can’t be denied that Shami and especially Srinath were bowling at a historically epic period for fast bowling while Zaheer’s peak came right in between the end of the McGrath/Asif/Akthar/Bond period and the newer gen of fast bowlers.

 

[Shri]

but Zaheer not good at home nor Asia

you don't actually watch cricket do you

 

[Manee]

One factor is that Zaheer was arguably the second best bowler and easily in the top 3 bowlers in the world for a good couple of years while the other two haven’t cracked the top 5 through their careers for a prolonged period. This is borne out by the ICC peak rankings.

Yes - this is a great point. Zaheer post 2007 was a really excellent bowler with such tremendous skills all over the world.

 

[h_hurricane]

It hasn't been discussed here but Shami is closer to Mcgrath in bowling average than Zaheer. Also closer to Lillee in bowling avg than Srinath.

 

[Manee]

Zaheer carried us during the flat pitch era and was a massive part of how we reached no.1 for that brief period so I’m always biased towards him.

I'm unsure that Shami could have carried us like Zaheer did. However, Shami can only perform in the support that he's had and he's been a tremendous servant of Indian cricket. He's also had greater longevity and some underrated skills in areas such as reverse swing. Shami is overall better than Zaheer but any underrating of Zaheer should be criminalised.

 

[subshakerz]

Shami is too soon to rate ahead of the others. I prefer Zaheer over Srinath because he was critical to India's success in their golden period of 2007-2011.

 

[subshakerz]

Zaheer really kept the Indian attack together on overseas tours. He gave Dhoni as captain the control he wanted. I recall in South Africa in 2011 when he instantly made an impact on return in the second test after the Indian bowling was useless in the first test when he was missed. Then on the England tour of 2011, India seemed in control in the first test but then he got injured and the attack was poor for the rest of the series.

 

[Daemon]

I'm unsure that Shami could have carried us like Zaheer did. However, Shami can only perform in the support that he's had and he's been a tremendous servant of Indian cricket. He's also had greater longevity and some underrated skills in areas such as reverse swing. Shami is overall better than Zaheer but any underrating of Zaheer should be criminalised.

Shami vs Zaheer with reverse swing is an interesting debate. I tend to think Zak was a little bit more skillful with it but Shami with his extra pace, has higher peaks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I recall in South Africa in 2011 when he instantly made an impact on return in the second test after the Indian bowling was useless in the first test when he was missed.

The first two games of that tour were the most blatant example I can think of of how one class bowler can make the entire attack look better. Was night and day despite the others not really bowling that differently.

 

[srbhkshk]

As good as his peak was - it lasted ~4 years and he was quite rubbish outside of that and would break down every second game (not entirely his fault tbf.).

Shami easily better than Zaheer for me.

 

[Gob]

Shami > Zaheer >>Javgal

Javgal was a journey man. Jackson bird > Javgal

 

[Manee]

Shami > Zaheer >>Javgal

Javgal was a journey man. Jackson bird > Javgal

Arrest him!