Srinath in tests: 1996-2002

[Pratters]

Wasim was great as an ODI bowler even post 1996. Couldn't sustain the level in tests later in his career. Every one thought he would end up being the highest wicket taker but he didn't end up taking that many test wickets in the end.

 

[Xuhaib]

Antigua 2000 immediately comes to mind..

Galle 2000, Chennai 99, Karachi 98 but the frequency dropped.

 

[Xuhaib]

Wasim was great as an ODI bowler even post 1996. Couldn't sustain the level in tests later in his career. Every one thought he would end up being the highest wicket taker but he didn't end up taking that many test wickets in the end.

Remember hearing one of his interviews where he said after his diabities he hated bowling longer spells hence the drop in test performances.

 

[Jono]

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.

I guess, and just playing devil's advocate, most batsmen would prefer to face Srinath over Wasim post-1996 (or perhaps better to say post-99), yet Srinath was more likely to get them out. At least that's what the stats say?

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Could not disagree any more but meh.

 

[Richard]

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.

It also emphasises, I think, that talent can mean so many different things, and be interpreted so many different ways. Sure, there were batsmen who were more talented in certain ways than Bradman, but there's never been anyone who comes close to his general talent for batting in my book.

 

[Pratters]

Could not disagree any more but meh.

Talent can get you only so far. Beyond that you need hard work.

 

[Richard]

While that's true, the consistency with which one can pitch balls in the right areas is down one hell of a lot more to innate ability than any amount of honing of the skill.

Otherwise those who bowled most would be the most accurate bowlers. Anyone who wanted it enough could be as accurate as Glenn McGrath \ Curtley Ambrose \ Shaun Pollock. And that just isn't the case. Those three had top-of-the-tree accuracy mostly because they had an innate ability given to precious few (at least, of those who can bowl at the sort of speed you need to bowl seam-up in international cricket, ie 75mph+ or so), and though they'd not have made the most of that ability without a hell of a lot of practice at bowling, it is not the case, nor close to it, that anyone who copied their degree of practice could thus attain their accuracy.

 

[marc71178]

Talent can get you only so far. Beyond that you need hard work.

Sir Viv disagrees.

 

[Migara]

Sir Viv disagrees.

And averages close to Chanderpaul?

 

[Pratters]

While that's true, the consistency with which one can pitch balls in the right areas is down one hell of a lot more to innate ability than any amount of honing of the skill.

Otherwise those who bowled most would be the most accurate bowlers. Anyone who wanted it enough could be as accurate as Glenn McGrath \ Curtley Ambrose \ Shaun Pollock. And that just isn't the case. Those three had top-of-the-tree accuracy mostly because they had an innate ability given to precious few (at least, of those who can bowl at the sort of speed you need to bowl seam-up in international cricket, ie 75mph+ or so), and though they'd not have made the most of that ability without a hell of a lot of practice at bowling, it is not the case, nor close to it, that anyone who copied their degree of practice could thus attain their accuracy.

You need talent to pitch the ball in the right areas. To do it consistently though, you need tremendous hard work, essentially what I am saying.

 

[Migara]

People are gifted in many ways.

One can bowl at 150k
Another can bowl banana swingers
Another bowls a vicious in cutter (i.e. Hadlee)
Another is damn accurate
Another can spin it a mile
Another can bowl throughout the whole day.

International bowlers will have some of these skills. We cannot decide what is the most difficult.

 

[Richard]

Sir Viv disagrees.

So he never did any work on his game?

Seriously, anyone who imagines being as good as he was can possibly come completely naturally without any hard work is living in dream-land.

 

[Richard]

You need talent to pitch the ball in the right areas. To do it consistently though, you need tremendous hard work, essentially what I am saying.

To have skills of accuracy as good as the McGraths, Pollocks and Ambroses you need tremendous talent and tremendous hard work. With either of the two and not the other, you will not achieve their standards. Chaminda Vaas for example was every bit as hard a worker as those lot but not, quite, so talented, in respect of accuracy.

However, as pointed-out in the above post but one, talent comes in many different ways and in some respects Vaas was more talented than any of the above.

 

[Pratters]

People are gifted in many ways.

One can bowl at 150k
Another can bowl banana swingers
Another bowls a vicious in cutter (i.e. Hadlee)
Another is damn accurate
Another can spin it a mile
Another can bowl throughout the whole day.

International bowlers will have some of these skills. We cannot decide what is the most difficult.

You can say who you thought was more talented based on a summation of those abilities 'potentially'. Potential will not always be achieved, so you have some one like Srinath who was more talented than McGrath IMO but achieved far less. It is very subjective who thinks which player to be more talented, so I have no problem if some one thinks McGrath was more talented.

 

[marc71178]

And averages close to Chanderpaul?

Averages mean diddly squat.

As someone once posted on here - it's about reading the game, not reading stats-guru.

 

[Migara]

Stats clearly show that Viv kept it loosing after late to mid 1980s. Viv should have averaged 55+. But he left with an average of 51. That's because his eye and reflexes did get better of him. If he made the changes in his style of play accordingly, who knows? And Chanderpaul clearly do that out of his skin. That's why he averages close to Viv, and that is a talent of his which is treated as unimportant compared to the former's swashbuckling style.

 

[Pratters]

Age got the better of him. He was not good enough to do it unlike if I may add, Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Migara]

Age got the better of him. He was not good enough to do it unlike Sachin Tendulkar.

That is another perspective, but according to the things I have heard of Viv, I suspect he did not care.

 

[Manee]

People are gifted in many ways.

One can bowl at 150k
Another can bowl banana swingers
Another bowls a vicious in cutter (i.e. Hadlee)
Another is damn accurate
Another can spin it a mile
Another can bowl throughout the whole day.

International bowlers will have some of these skills. We cannot decide what is the most difficult.

Srinath could do all of them