India's fast bowler since Kapil Dev

Have India had any genuine matchwinning fast bowlers since the great Kapil Dev retired from test cricket in the early 1990's? Is Sree Sreesanth good enough to one day become India's second-placed finest fast bowler, and the only genuine fast bowler to have represented India since Kapil retired?

Srinath managed quite a few decent hauls.

Galted wrote:Srinath managed quite a few decent hauls.

But he isn't a genuine matchwinning bowler who has over 300 test wickets to his name ! And more to the point he isn't genuinely fast !

Srinath was just as fast as Dev, who wasn't a great fast bowler.

Kapil wasn't the fastest on the planet during his playing days.
Since him, India produced to real match winning fast bowlers. I don't think taking 300 wickets is all about being a match winner.
Javakal Srinath carried the Indian pace unit without much support in the 90s and early 2000s, the only real support he got was from Anil Kumble and then Harbhajan Singh, and that too mostly at home. Venkidesh Prasad formed a bit of a half-decent bowling partnership with him. When he started off, Srinath was really quick, often bowling close to the 90 MPH mark. As injuries became a constant companion, he adopted by cutting down on his pace, but developing new skills.
The other real match winning seamer has been Zaheer Khan. Zaheer too, like Srinath, was pretty sharp to start with, but then had to cut down on his pace. At his peak he was a master of reverse swing, and was pretty good in setting batsmen up. Unfortunately, it seems he's done as a test cricketer, although he's trying to regain fitness and form at the domestic level for the Australia series.
Among the emerging pacers, Umesh Yadav is a serious potential. He has the pace, and he has now started reversing the ball at pace. Not the most accurate, but with experience and if his body holds up, he should be the next major pacer from India.
Praveen Kumar if he regains fitness and form as well as his optimum pace could be a handful, Ishant Sharma if he could find ways to take wickets and remain consistent could eventually transform into an actual performer rather than a potential.
Sreesanth if he sorts his head out and stay fit could also be a healthy addition.
The other emerging prospect is Bhuvneshwar Kumar. Like Praveen he's not the quickest, but with his swing and control, could be come effective.
As far as serious pace is concerned, its Yadav and Varun Aaron, and a fit and on song Ishant could also bowl real quick.
Another young fast bowler who has already impressed the likes of Wasim Akram is Shami Ahmed.
I have high expectations from the U-19 seamer Sandeep Sharma.

msp83 wrote:Kapil wasn't the fastest on the planet during his playing days.
Since him, India produced to real match winning fast bowlers. I don't think taking 300 wickets is all about being a match winner.
Javakal Srinath carried the Indian pace unit without much support in the 90s and early 2000s, the only real support he got was from Anil Kumble and then Harbhajan Singh, and that too mostly at home. Venkidesh Prasad formed a bit of a half-decent bowling partnership with him. When he started off, Srinath was really quick, often bowling close to the 90 MPH mark. As injuries became a constant companion, he adopted by cutting down on his pace, but developing new skills.
The other real match winning seamer has been Zaheer Khan. Zaheer too, like Srinath, was pretty sharp to start with, but then had to cut down on his pace. At his peak he was a master of reverse swing, and was pretty good in setting batsmen up. Unfortunately, it seems he's done as a test cricketer, although he's trying to regain fitness and form at the domestic level for the Australia series.
Among the emerging pacers, Umesh Yadav is a serious potential. He has the pace, and he has now started reversing the ball at pace. Not the most accurate, but with experience and if his body holds up, he should be the next major pacer from India.
Praveen Kumar if he regains fitness and form as well as his optimum pace could be a handful, Ishant Sharma if he could find ways to take wickets and remain consistent could eventually transform into an actual performer rather than a potential.
Sreesanth if he sorts his head out and stay fit could also be a healthy addition.
The other emerging prospect is Bhuvneshwar Kumar. Like Praveen he's not the quickest, but with his swing and control, could be come effective.
As far as serious pace is concerned, its Yadav and Varun Aaron, and a fit and on song Ishant could also bowl real quick.
Another young fast bowler who has already impressed the likes of Wasim Akram is Shami Ahmed.
I have high expectations from the U-19 seamer Sandeep Sharma.

But Srinath wasn't a genuine quick as he had others like Prasad around him who could bowl near his speed range. In contrast the great man Kapil Dev had no-one consistently near his speed range apart from perhaps Chetan Sharma and Sharma is in no-one classed as a matchwinning great fast bowler as he doesn't have 300+ test wickets, and the same thing applies to Srinath. As for these upstarts like Aaron, Sandeep Sharma, Shami Ahmed, well I have never heard of them,but no doubt one or two of these guys will go on to become good if not great seam bowling medium pacers and will go alongside those other fine medium pacers who have represented India such as Abid Ali, Madan Lal, Roger Binny and Balwinder Sandhu.

@gboycottnut - Srinath & Kapil had almost identical strike rates though Kapil was slightly better in matches per 4 wicket haul (3 as opposed to 3.7).

Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you mean by matchwinner, I'm not sure how having 300+ wickets is a prerequisite.

Galted wrote:@gboycottnut - Srinath & Kapil had almost identical strike rates though Kapil was slightly better in matches per 4 wicket haul (3 as opposed to 3.7).

Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you mean by matchwinner, I'm not sure how having 300+ wickets is a prerequisite.

Well to me greatness and being a matchwinner go-hand-in-hand which is why I believe having 300+ test wickets is a prerequisite.

Garner & Holding were not great then?

Stella wrote:Garner & Holding were not great then?

That is a matter of opinion, but based on stats the answer is no as neither took over 300 wickets between them. Anyway the Garner and Holding situation is a one-off as there were 4 of those guys in the same bowling unit so naturally there would have been less chance of getting a 5 to a 10 for wicket count per innings of a test match.

It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

That helps but not stats which say, 300 wickets = great but 300 doesn't.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

That helps but not stats which say, 300 wickets = great but 300 doesn't.

But it will help make the assumption that 300 wickets=great which is what I am just concentrating on for the time being. This discussion about whether a bowler with under 300 wickets is considered as being a great can be left for another day.

Ok, fair enough.

I actually don't think Dev was a great fast bowler anyway, when compared to the real greats of his era, Hadlee, Marshall, Garner, Imran etc. Very good, yes.

Stella wrote:Ok, fair enough.

I actually don't think Dev was a great fast bowler anyway, when compared to the real greats of his era, Hadlee, Marshall, Garner, Imran etc. Very good, yes.

Kapil Dev was a great fast bowler when you take into account that India didn't produce any fast bowlers prior to Kapil Dev's test arrival in 1979 and since his retirement, there hasn't been anyone to replace him. Perhaps Sree Sreesanth is that bowler who can achieve this.

I wouldn't say GREAT but each to their own. A bowling average of 29 says good but he was better than that.

Stella wrote:I wouldn't say GREAT but each to their own. A bowling average of 29 says good but he was better than that.

But he did collect what 430 odd test wickets with a best innings bowling figures of 9 for 34. These facts to me are enough to say for certain that he was a truely great bowler.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I wouldn't say GREAT but each to their own. A bowling average of 29 says good but he was better than that.

But he did collect what 430 odd test wickets with a best innings bowling figures of 9 for 34. These facts to me are enough to say for certain that he was a truely great bowler.

Yes, thanks to India having very little in terms of help. An average of 29 and a s/rate of 63 in those days is not great though. BUT I did watch him on a few occasions and will say he was a very good swing bowler.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I wouldn't say GREAT but each to their own. A bowling average of 29 says good but he was better than that.

But he did collect what 430 odd test wickets with a best innings bowling figures of 9 for 34. These facts to me are enough to say for certain that he was a truely great bowler.

Yes, thanks to India having very little in terms of help. An average of 29 and a s/rate of 63 in those days is not great though. BUT I did watch him on a few occasions and will say he was a very good swing bowler.

But there were more good/great test match quality batsmen back then.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:I wouldn't say GREAT but each to their own. A bowling average of 29 says good but he was better than that.

But he did collect what 430 odd test wickets with a best innings bowling figures of 9 for 34. These facts to me are enough to say for certain that he was a truely great bowler.

Yes, thanks to India having very little in terms of help. An average of 29 and a s/rate of 63 in those days is not great though. BUT I did watch him on a few occasions and will say he was a very good swing bowler.

But there were more good/great test match quality batsmen back then.

Mmm, not sure and wickets back then favoured both batsmen and bowlers more than they do now (not the present test). TBH, those stats are not great in any era.

The 300 wicket criteria is very arbitrary I'd say, why not 250 or 350? Why exactly 300?
gboycottnut has these streaks of enjoying people hyperreacting and I'd see this very much in line with those.
But the topic otherwise is an interesting one.
Sreesanth's full name is Shanthakumaran Sreesanth by the way. What makes you think he would be the next great Indian fast bowler if you really feel so?

msp83 wrote:The 300 wicket criteria is very arbitrary I'd say, why not 250 or 350? Why exactly 300?
gboycottnut has these streaks of enjoying people hyperreacting and I'd see this very much in line with those.
But the topic otherwise is an interesting one.
Sreesanth's full name is Shanthakumaran Sreesanth by the way. What makes you think he would be the next great Indian fast bowler if you really feel so?

As I have mentioned in this thread topic, there aren't the fast bowlers in India who I would place in the genuine fast bowlers category apart from Sreesanth.

Sreesanth usually bowls around 135-140 KMPH, not very fast even by Indian standards, Umesh Yadav generally bowls around the 140s consistently.

msp83 wrote:Sreesanth usually bowls around 135-140 KMPH, not very fast even by Indian standards, Umesh Yadav generally bowls around the 140s consistently.

Never heard of him.

Trying to work whether:

a.) Kapil Dev is great because he took 300 wickets
b.) Kapil Dev is great because he was the only Indian fast bowler in his era.
c.) Kapil Dev is great because there has been no other Indian fast bowling great since.
d.) Kapil Dev is great because Garner and Holding were part of a 4 pronged attack.

Make your point clear man.

seanmichaels wrote:Trying to work whether:

a.) Kapil Dev is great because he took 300 wickets
b.) Kapil Dev is great because he was the only Indian fast bowler in his era.
c.) Kapil Dev is great because there has been no other Indian fast bowling great since.
d.) Kapil Dev is great because Garner and Holding were part of a 4 pronged attack.

Make your point clear man.

Alright then, Kapil Dev is great because he was the only Indian fast bowler in his era. Also Kapil Dev is great because there has been no other Indian fast bowling great since. Also Kapil Dev is great because Garner and Holding were part of a 4 pronged attack. However Kapil Dev is not great because he never took 300 wickets.

Happy Now?

gboycottnut wrote:

msp83 wrote:Sreesanth usually bowls around 135-140 KMPH, not very fast even by Indian standards, Umesh Yadav generally bowls around the 140s consistently.

Never heard of him.

Yeah I thought so.

msp83 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

msp83 wrote:Sreesanth usually bowls around 135-140 KMPH, not very fast even by Indian standards, Umesh Yadav generally bowls around the 140s consistently.

Never heard of him.

Yeah I thought so.

I don't need to anyway as he is likely to be like all the other wannabe Indian fast bowlers of medium pace.

gboycottnut wrote:

msp83 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

msp83 wrote:Sreesanth usually bowls around 135-140 KMPH, not very fast even by Indian standards, Umesh Yadav generally bowls around the 140s consistently.

Never heard of him.

Yeah I thought so.

I don't need to anyway as he is likely to be like all the other wannabe Indian fast bowlers of medium pace.

Quite insightful, yet again.

msp83 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

msp83 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

msp83 wrote:Sreesanth usually bowls around 135-140 KMPH, not very fast even by Indian standards, Umesh Yadav generally bowls around the 140s consistently.

Never heard of him.

Yeah I thought so.

I don't need to anyway as he is likely to be like all the other wannabe Indian fast bowlers of medium pace.

Quite insightful, yet again.

Cheers!