Zaheer, Shami or Srinath

[Shri]

Srinath was rapid in the 90s

 

[Gob]

Maybe on the bed

 

[Migara]

Srinath instead on any other pacer in that Indian line up would lift it to the level of ATG fast bowling attacks cricket had ever seen. India have good bowlers, but don't have anyone of pace of Starc or Rabada. Sinath perfectly fills up the gap with very different approach to batsman and being exceptional with the old ball, and being very good on dustbowls. England also could very well do with a out and out pacer like Srinath in their attack.

 

[Migara]

Srinath was rapid in the 90s

Very, very rapid.

 

[Gob]

Srinath instead on any other pacer in that Indian line up would lift it to the level of ATG fast bowling attacks cricket had ever seen. India have good bowlers, but don't have anyone of pace of Starc or Rabada. Sinath perfectly fills up the gap with very different approach to batsman and being exceptional with the old ball, and being very good on dustbowls. England also could very well do with a out and out pacer like Srinath in their attack.

They have Wood and his imaginary horse

 

[Arachnodouche]

Srinath was similar to Flintoff. Visually impressive "heavy" deliveries for the first half of his career yet frequently too short to take the edge. Later on developed reverse swing on Indian pitches and the ball that held its line and became twice the bowler. Also not very good at hiding his frustration at drops and misfields off his bowling.

 

[Migara]

Srinath was similar to Flintoff. Visually impressive "heavy" deliveries for the first half of his career yet frequently too short to take the edge. Later on developed reverse swing on Indian pitches and the ball that held its line and became twice the bowler. Also not very good at hiding his frustration at drops and misfields off his bowling.

All those would be very useful in current bowling attack. All other bowlers bowl full, try to swing it, and what India lacks is a bowlker who can bowl back of a length at pace, hitting gloves and batsmen. It may not bring Srinath a lot of wicketsm but other pacers will be much more dangerous because of the presence of such a bowler. The comparison to Flintoff is not a particularly good one. Flintoff is loke a poorer version of Srinath, less pace and less movement off the deck.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

As good as Srinath and Zaheer were I'd say Shami and Bumrah are both better. That just shows the quality of the current Indian attack and is in no way downplaying the older players ability.

 

[trundler]

As good as Srinath and Zaheer were

Not very then

 

[Gob]

All those would be very useful in current bowling attack. All other bowlers bowl full, try to swing it, and what India lacks is a bowlker who can bowl back of a length at pace, hitting gloves and batsmen. It may not bring Srinath a lot of wicketsm but other pacers will be much more dangerous because of the presence of such a bowler. The comparison to Flintoff is not a particularly good one. Flintoff is loke a poorer version of Srinath, less pace and less movement off the deck.

I'd take big Andy Flintoff over Javgal any day without considering their respective batting prowesses

 

[a massive zebra]

Shami is overall better than Zaheer but any underrating of Zaheer should be criminalised.

Translation: Any underrating of Zaheer should be criminalised but I'm going to underrate him anyway.

 

[a massive zebra]

I'd take big Andy Flintoff over Javgal any day without considering their respective batting prowesses

I think you are significantly underrating Srinath here. Flintoff probably wouldn't have made the Indian side purely as a bowler in the first half of his career - after 38 Tests he had just 79 wickets @ 39 despite generally playing on more pace friendly pitches than Srinath and with better fast bowling support. Of course, he was outstanding for a few years from about 2004, but Srinath had more pace, more movement, led his attack and maintained his form for longer.

 

[subshakerz]

All those would be very useful in current bowling attack. All other bowlers bowl full, try to swing it, and what India lacks is a bowlker who can bowl back of a length at pace, hitting gloves and batsmen. It may not bring Srinath a lot of wicketsm but other pacers will be much more dangerous because of the presence of such a bowler. The comparison to Flintoff is not a particularly good one. Flintoff is loke a poorer version of Srinath, less pace and less movement off the deck.

Except Srinath was leader ot the Indian attack. Not taking wickets while beating the bat didnt help India. I didnt see Srinath as a bowler for high profile games unless they were at home.

 

[SJS]

Shami is the best of these three.

Shrinath had the potential to be the best but he bowled far too short for bulk of his career. If he had bowled a fuller length than he did for most of his early career he would have been a far better bowler and could have moved the ball in the air which he rarely did.

I could be wrong butone got the impression that he seemed to compete with the ageing Kapil on speed and the ability to make the batsmen uncomfortable with pace and bounce. Hence he bowled far too short for most of the first half of his career. That may have worked if he had Shoaib’s speed who, by the way, despite the speed was unable to pick up the tricks of his illustrious immediate seniors in Waqar and Wasim and their senior Imran.

He too spent his energy in competing with them with speed and bounce. He was totally consumed by his speed being greater than any bowler in the world. He never achieved his full potential which was that of a possible truly great.

Shami is a better bowler than has ever given credit for being. Indian cricket establishment, dominated by former cricketers, has its favourites and not much can be done about that.

It is astounding that with so many pacers with merit being finally available in India, the Ishantshave been in the fray for so long.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It is astounding that with so many pacers with merit being finally available in India, the Ishantshave been in the fray for so long.

? Ishant has been amazing for a good 5 years for India. He got a long rope before that but none of the other pacers had broken through back then

 

[_00_deathscar]

Shami is the best of these three.

Shrinath had the potential to be the best but he bowled far too short for bulk of his career. If he had bowled a fuller length than he did for most of his early career he would have been a far better bowler and could have moved the ball in the air which he rarely did.

I could be wrong butone got the impression that he seemed to compete with the ageing Kapil on speed and the ability to make the batsmen uncomfortable with pace and bounce. Hence he bowled far too short for most of the first half of his career. That may have worked if he had Shoaib’s speed who, by the way, despite the speed was unable to pick up the tricks of his illustrious immediate seniors in Waqar and Wasim and their senior Imran.

He too spent his energy in competing with them with speed and bounce. He was totally consumed by his speed being greater than any bowler in the world. He never achieved his full potential which was that of a possible truly great.

Shami is a better bowler than has ever given credit for being. Indian cricket establishment, dominated by former cricketers, has its favourites and not much can be done about that.

It is astounding that with so many pacers with merit being finally available in India, the Ishantshave been in the fray for so long.

What the hell are you on about?

 

[Shri]

I think you are significantly underrating Srinath here. Flintoff probably wouldn't have made the Indian side purely as a bowler in the first half of his career

No he was 20 kmph quicker than anyone we had and was tall in addition to being a big hitter. He'd have been given 10 years of tests on potential alone

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Definitely think Srinath is a touch underrated here

Don't usually care for these types of debates. But someone (can't entirely remember who) was arguing that Simon ****ing Doull was better bowler than him, and that is just absolute insanity

 

[Prince EWS]

Definitely think Srinath is a touch underrated here

Don't usually care for these types of debates. But someone (can't entirely remember who) was arguing that Simon ****ing Doull was better bowler than him, and that is just absolute insanity

Always good to see a random New Zealand player enter the debate.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Always good to see a random New Zealand player enter the debate.

Well no actual New Zealander has done so yet. Clearly they are slipping