Zaheer, Shami or Srinath

[Chrish]

Is it wrong to be biased in favor of players who have carried the team during its dark periods? I will always have softer spot for Zak and especially for Srinath because they served the team when going was tough. I fully acknowledge it's not Shami's fault that he has such a great support.

 

[centurymaker]

Yes that was a great 5 year peak for him. Outside of that part of his career though, Zaheer was averaging similar or worse numbers. Thats why the bolded part here is interesting to me.

Yeah, if he avg'd 27 in 5 years, then in the 7 years outside that he must have avg'd 38+ in order to end up with an career avg of 33.

 

[centurymaker]

Imagine if Shami has his off days and there’s no Ashwin, Bumrah, Ishant, Yadav etc to help keep the opposition in check.

Then imagine if we had no 5th bowling option like Jadeja to cover him.

All this on the flattest wickets.

It’s close and not as clear cut as stats suggest.

Indeed it is close.

Its almost as if cricket is a team game, isn't it? And bowling even more so in that, than batting.

Yeah, if you are part of a proper attack, on your good day you can end up with less wickets (as wickets get shared around) but on you ordinary day you still end up with wicket or so thanks to others/ or you bowl less (and thus concede less) so your stats get protected.


If you are the main bowler of an attack that is not so good, on your good day you bowl a lot and end up taking the bulk of wickets as others are not good enough. But on your ordinary day, you still bowl a lot and give away a lot more runs.

Overall I would say the bowler who is part of a strong attack benefits more as you not only reap your rewards but also of others. Your average tends to be lower.

 

[centurymaker]

I would say Shami's avg has benefitted by at least 10% for being part of a strong attack and at least 10% more for bowling in this era where par scores are a lot less.

Add 20% to his avg, it would be same as Zaheer, plus Shami will not play on as he will be replaced so factor in late career decline, I would say Zaheer > Shami by a small margin.

Srinath and Zaheer, I am still slightly in favor of the former due to his exceptional home record and always bowling at a high pace consistently. I can recall he was often bowling in the 140s

 

[Coronis]

Indeed it is close.


Yeah, if you are part of a proper attack, on your good day you can end up with less wickets (as wickets get shared around) but on you ordinary day you still end up with wicket or so thanks to others/ or you bowl less (and thus concede less) so your stats get protected.


If you are the main bowler of an attack that is not so good, on your good day you bowl a lot and end up taking the bulk of wickets as others are not good enough. But on your ordinary day, you still bowl a lot and give away a lot more runs.

Overall I would say the bowler who is part of a strong attack benefits more as you not only reap your rewards but also of others. Your average tends to be lower.

Hadlee should probs be ranked over Marshall and McGrath then for sure.

 

[Shri]

I would say Shami's avg has benefitted by at least 10% for being part of a strong attack and at least 10% more for bowling in this era where par scores are a lot less.

Add 20% to his avg, it would be same as Zaheer, plus Shami will not play on as he will be replaced so factor in late career decline, I would say Zaheer > Shami by a small margin.

?

 

[centurymaker]

We can see from India's bowling averages from before versus now.

Right now the whole attack, even the reserves, are averaging between 25-29, whereas before, the range for bowling avgs was 35-45!

 

[subshakerz]

Is it wrong to be biased in favor of players who have carried the team during its dark periods? I will always have softer spot for Zak and especially for Srinath because they served the team when going was tough. I fully acknowledge it's not Shami's fault that he has such a great support.

Depends what you mean by 'carrying the team'. Zaheer had a key role in several overseas victories, whereas Srinath did not. Yes, that also depends on the quality of the team you are in, but Zaheer was part of India's winning formula. So I am biased towards him.

 

[subshakerz]

I would say Shami's avg has benefitted by at least 10% for being part of a strong attack and at least 10% more for bowling in this era where par scores are a lot less.

Add 20% to his avg, it would be same as Zaheer, plus Shami will not play on as he will be replaced so factor in late career decline, I would say Zaheer > Shami by a small margin.

Srinath and Zaheer, I am still slightly in favor of the former due to his exceptional home record and always bowling at a high pace consistently. I can recall he was often bowling in the 140s

The problem is that these numbers are completely arbitrary, like trying to add a wicket number for all those missed catches of Wasim. I can understand if Zaheer and Shami were around the same in terms of record to give Zaheer the edge based on these factors. But otherwise, its a guessing game of 'what if'.

 

[ankitj]

Again, this is way too simplistic. Shami is probably better, but what Zaheer did in 2007-11 was pretty incredible and a much more impressive sustained level of quality bowling than anything Shami's done so far. The extent to which he alone carried a dreadful bowling lineup can't be overstated. Look at the garbage support he had:

View attachment 30280

Truly disgusting how bad the others were. And this includes even home tests where even the spinners (Harbhajan and co) were completely toothless. Shami has overall had a much more consistently good career, but assuming he'd have been putting up the same numbers as zaheer in the above period is a bit of a stretch. You're understating how much more difficult it is to take wickets when the rest of the lineup cant buy one.

All this shows Hadlee and Murali in a new light

 

[Teja.]

All this shows Hadlee and Murali in a new light

While Hadlee and Murali did not have ATG support bowlers; I think their lack of support is a bit overrated. Murali had Vaas who would either be the best or second best pacer even India has produced for basically his entire career and Hadlee had constant supply of mediocre but test class pacers around him.

 

[CricAddict]

Is it wrong to be biased in favor of players who have carried the team during its dark periods? I will always have softer spot for Zak and especially for Srinath because they served the team when going was tough. I fully acknowledge it's not Shami's fault that he has such a great support.

The going was tough because Srinath himself wasn't that good.

 

[Migara]

The going was tough because Srinath himself wasn't that good.

Srinathis not the bowler who would bowl 30 overs a day. He is a strike bowler who will deliver in short spells. This was not the case in his playing days. He was bowling very long spells because support around him was crap. Only time he found support was when Kumble was getting hot to handle.

 

[ankitj]

Curious fact: Shami's career strike rate is better than Bumrah's. Former is significantly more expensive though

 

[sunilz]

Curious fact: Shami's career strike rate is better than Bumrah's. Former is significantly more expensive though

Also took 200 wkts in least balls ( Indian bowlers)