Zaheer, Shami or Srinath

[cnerd123]

bowling heat in a sweater vest is alpha as ****

 

[Migara]

Damn. Brown Lightning

That would be Shoaib Akthar, but yeah, I do get it.

 

[subshakerz]

The spell he took 6/21 against SAF was proper serious express bowling. And he was the quickest in the game which had a certain Allan Donal playing, that too on a dust bowl.

I remember that, great spell.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Shamis record is actually more impressive than I would have assumed. Terrific at home and fairly consistent overseas. He is comfortably better at this point than Srinath. However, I still think he needs to play a few more years to solidly overtake Zaheer, since we all know that bowlers can drop off in their latter years. You would assume that if he is in the same conversation as Zaheer now that it makes sense to wait until his career is near over before making a final judgment.

Hopefully we are also now at a place that if Shami is old and not doing it, we can drop him because we have a host of great bowlers instead of them bowling like crap till 35.

 

[centurymaker]

you don't actually watch cricket do you

Look at his overall career in India, not some selected series’/year(s), he is only taking a bit more than 2.5 wickets a game, that's a bit too low. He bowled well in some of the big series vs Aus and England. overall his home stats are below par by any standards!

Though he gives us the impression that he always bowled well, thing is he did not pick up enough wickets at home and conceded 36 per wicket.

 

[Arachnodouche]

No batsman has ever made batting look as hazardous a vocation as Michael Atherton. But even so, Srinath was proper hostile on that tour, cutting people in half with seam and bounce time and again.

 

[centurymaker]

For me personally, it’s Srinath > Zaheer > Shami

 

[ma1978]

The difference in bowling average between Shami and Zaheer is the same as the difference in bowling average between Mcgrath and Shami.

Think Shami is ahead

 

[subshakerz]

The difference in bowling average between Shami and Zaheer is the same as the difference in bowling average between Mcgrath and Shami.

Think Shami is ahead

Shami is 31 and just got his 200th wicket. A sharp decline from here could change how we all rate him so I think the question of him being better than Zaheer is still open. But Srinath I think its fair to say he has overtaken.

Shamis home record stands out for me. An underrated part of why India are unbeatable there.

 

[Coronis]

Shami is 31 and just got his 200th wicket. A sharp decline from here could change how we all rate him so I think the question of him being better than Zaheer is still open. But Srinath I think its fair to say he has overtaken.

Shamis home record stands out for me. An underrated part of why India are unbeatable there.

Zaheer vs Shami at 200 wickets
Zaheer 63 matches 200 @ 34.28, 6 5fers
Shami 55 matches 203 @ 27.00, 6 5fers

Shami would have to average ~45 over his next 100 wickets to have a comparable average to Zaheer. But apparently its super close.

 

[ankitj]

I remember that, great spell.

That moment when they describe a game you can remember like yesterday as "classic"

 

[OverratedSanity]

Zaheer vs Shami at 200 wickets
Zaheer 63 matches 200 @ 34.28, 6 5fers
Shami 55 matches 203 @ 27.00, 6 5fers

Shami would have to average ~45 over his next 100 wickets to have a comparable average to Zaheer. But apparently its super close.

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:



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.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Away from home is even more stark

 

[centurymaker]

Man I had really forgotten how bad Indian bowling used to be. I can recall now that I would call Indian bowling non-test standard (and at the level of WI, SL and BAN). And all the great players of that era racked up, stat padded many many tons against India! It was truly terrible.

 

[Coronis]

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.

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.

 

[centurymaker]

Last 7 years --




The improvement in numbers couldn't be more drastic!!

 

[vicleggie]

Voted for Shami. Believe Shami is a bit better than the Mitchells, Johnson and Starc in tests who are equal to Zaheer and Srinath.

Fair tbh.

He's definitely better than Starc.

Johnson more destructive at his peak, but his peak was basically 8 Ashes tests in 2013-14 and pretty mediocre the rest of it

 

[vicleggie]

Srinath was gun and his relative lack of success vs modern day quicks has much to do with the structural issues with Indian cricket during his era. Imagine if he had modern-day coaching, nutrition, physios. I don't think judging him off his numbers against Zak and Shami is fair.

Having said that I find this comparison really interesting, because in way all of their careers are reflective of the state of Indian cricket during their eras. Shami is wonderful but had he debuted during Zak's era he might have been lost to the wheel the same way guys like Pathan, Balaji, Sreesanth, RP, etc were. If he debuted in the 90s with Srinath he might have been a flash in the pan, or had to cut down on pace to maintain a career. The fact that he is now heads and shoulders above these two statistically, and yet isn't even the best quick in the team, is a testament to how far Indian cricket has come in the least 3-4 decades.

I feel like Zak is just slightly the best of the 3 because
A) He's left-handed, which adds a lot to an attack
B) His career had two peaks - one early on where he was rapid and lethal, then his late-career peak that got us to Number 1 where he cut down on pace and used his intelligence and depth of skills. Neither Shami nor Srinath have demonstrated that range and ability to adapt, at least to that extent
C) He was a proper bowling-attack leader, whereas Shami and Srinath just rock up to bowl. They've put in good performances as strike bowlers, no doubt, but Zak (if I remember correctly) led the entire pace attack and helped with bowling plans and fields for the other guys. If the question is 'who was the better bowler', then I think this has to factor in.

Yeah Zak was a beast. A true grand daddy of the attack during those years. Showed a lot of heart when the rest of India's attack was listless.

I'm so happy he revived his career, got his average down from ~37, and took 300 test wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

Zaheer vs Shami at 200 wickets
Zaheer 63 matches 200 @ 34.28, 6 5fers
Shami 55 matches 203 @ 27.00, 6 5fers

Shami would have to average ~45 over his next 100 wickets to have a comparable average to Zaheer. But apparently its super close.

Well if Shami ends up averaging 29/30 then the comparison with Zaheer will obviously be tighter.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Well if Shami ends up averaging 29/30 then the comparison with Zaheer will obviously be tighter.

And here's the thing - if this bowling depth continues, he'll be kicked out/eased out long before his form dips so badly that he's now averaging 35 in the last 15 tests or something. See also, Ishant Sharma of late.

That didn't used to happen for the past generation(s), who would continue to be **** but be the only realistic options for us.

(Only seems to apply to the bowling though, not the batting. Although we'd kill for 3 middle order bats averaging 35+ in the last 15 tests to be fair...).