Who's The Best Bowler EVER?

[JBMAC]

I don't often speak out against Warne but I just can't see how he could be considered better than Marshall TBH.

I do not follow your reasoning Richard....

1.Warne took more wickets
2.Warne had 5 wicket innings hauls 37 times, Marshall 22
3.Warne had 10 wicket match hauls 10 time, Marshall only 4

Having seen both players through their earlier careers to their conclusion IMO Warne was the more "complete" Cricketer.Fierce competitor, more so than Marshall...and ready to "have a go" at something a little different.I have seen Marshall carted all over the ground and drop his bundle.When a similar thing happened to Warne, he dug deep and came out on top.


BTW...Warneie was the better smser

 

[Perm]

Warne took more wickets, 5WI and 10WM more times because he played more games with a lesser attack around him. It's fairly easy to explain those statistics, I fail to see how you could convince anybody that Warne was the better bowler with your post.

 

[The Sean]

I do not follow your reasoning Richard....

1.Warne took more wickets
2.Warne had 5 wicket innings hauls 37 times, Marshall 22
3.Warne had 10 wicket match hauls 10 time, Marshall only 4

Having seen both players through their earlier careers to their conclusion IMO Warne was the more "complete" Cricketer.Fierce competitor, more so than Marshall...and ready to "have a go" at something a little different.I have seen Marshall carted all over the ground and drop his bundle.When a similar thing happened to Warne, he dug deep and came out on top.


BTW...Warneie was the better smser

Mate, by that reasoning Lara, Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Waugh and Punter are all better batsmen than The Don, as they all scored more runs, with more centuries and more fifties.

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong about Warne being greater than Marshall - there's very, very little between the two IMO, but sheer volume of wickets (and runs) is very often a factor of simply who's played more Tests.

 

[Beleg]

Eh, it's all academic anyway. Everybody knows Murali's the best, really.

 

[Perm]

Eh, it's all academic anyway. Everybody knows Murali's the best, really.

Seriously, the whole chucking issue aside, I'd still rate Marshall and Hadlee as better, with McGrath on the same level.

 

[Richard]

For me, it's almost impossible for even the best wristspinners to be better than the best seamers.

No-one, ever, went down the wicket and plonked Malcolm Marshall (or, I daresay, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan or anyone along those lines) back over his head in a Test-match. Any spinner, no matter how good, will always have such a thing happen to him of times.

If a batsman chooses to go after a spinner, he always has tools that will enhance his chances of success. If he tries to go after a seamer and the seamer holds his nerve, his chances are exceptionally slim and there's virtually nothing he can do to enhance them. (And while your chances of succeeding going after Murali and Warne are slim too, they're that bit better)

 

[Richard]

Fierce competitor, more so than Marshall...and ready to "have a go" at something a little different.

Perhaps that was because Marshall's bowling was so good, he didn't need to make his competetiveness so obvious? Just because something isn't as obvious at face-value, doesn't mean it's any lesser there.

I have seen Marshall carted all over the ground and drop his bundle.When a similar thing happened to Warne, he dug deep and came out on top.

When was this, then? Never heard of such a thing myself. Only time I've ever heard of where Marshall lost his temper was when Dickie Bird told him off for bowling too many short deliveries.

 

[Engle]

Marshall was surrounded by supreme pacers before and after. Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft....then Walsh, Ambrose which IMM reduces his stature as one who stood out head and shoulders above his peers.

Warne stood out much more than Marshall. He re-vitalized a dying art. And made it look funky.

 

[readie]

has to be warne

 

[Beleg]

Seriously, the whole chucking issue aside, I'd still rate Marshall and Hadlee as better, with McGrath on the same level.

No. Muralitharan stands heads and shoulders above any other bowler in the history of modern cricket. Though, I think, most of you will never conciously admit it, even if he takes 1000 wickets in 50 games.

He's quite simply the best bowler I have ever watched - watching him, specially against Pakistan, gives me no pleasure - because I am sure that's he going to get a wicket on every ball. That's a feeling no other bowler, apart perhaps from Shoaib Akhtar, has ever been able to stir in me.

 

[Richard]

Marshall was surrounded by supreme pacers before and after. Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft....then Walsh, Ambrose which IMM reduces his stature as one who stood out head and shoulders above his peers.

Warne stood out much more than Marshall. He re-vitalized a dying art. And made it look funky.

Dying? Abdul Qadir was an undead, was he?

Just because Warne stood-out as a wristspinner more than anyone, doesn't mean he was as good as the best seamers.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Dying? Abdul Qadir was an undead, was he?

That's just one example.

 

[honestbharani]

That's just one example.

leg spin was never really dead in India..... LS and Hirwani started off very very promisingly, in fact, they had better debuts than Warney....



Seriously, Warne had a lot of things going for him, but surely it is too much to call him the greatest bowler ever.... Esp. because I am sure no one has seen all the test bowlers over the last 100 years or so....

 

[honestbharani]

For me, it's almost impossible for even the best wristspinners to be better than the best seamers.

No-one, ever, went down the wicket and plonked Malcolm Marshall (or, I daresay, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan or anyone along those lines) back over his head in a Test-match. Any spinner, no matter how good, will always have such a thing happen to him of times.

If a batsman chooses to go after a spinner, he always has tools that will enhance his chances of success. If he tries to go after a seamer and the seamer holds his nerve, his chances are exceptionally slim and there's virtually nothing he can do to enhance them. (And while your chances of succeeding going after Murali and Warne are slim too, they're that bit better)

I am not saying Warne > Marshall here, but seriously Rich, do u think that the effect is not the same when a fast bowler gets hooked for six and a spinner gets hit for six over his head? It is all the same and from what I have heard and read, it is just as shameful for a fast bowler to be hooked or pulled for six as it is for a spinner when the batsman goes down the track and smashes a six. You think Lillee or Botham would have been proud when Richards went after them in the way only he can. I have seen Lara jump down the track to every other ball of Allan Donald in a series. Surely, even a spinner could have done better against him.... You really do under rate the effectiveeness of spinners if u say stuff like that.


Another thing to consider is that, historically, pitches have been more in favour of fast bowlers than spinners.... It is a reason why most of the time you don't see more than 1 or at max. 2, spinners as opposed to 3 or 4 or even 5 fast and fast-medium bowlers..

 

[roseboy64]

Agreed. Fatuous argument Dickinson.

 

[Sanz]

Warne stood out much more than Marshall. He re-vitalized a dying art. And made it look funky.

What dying art ? Anil Kumble hit the International Scene 2 years before Warne did. And how many legspinners are there in the world right now because of Shane Warne's so called revival of the dying art.

 

[pup11]

When we talk about bowlers from 70's and 80's or even early 90's and compare them to bowlers of the last decade then its not a fair comparison. Bowling greats like Marshall,Garner,Holding, etc bowled on responsive tracks (there weren't many flat pitches in those days) and they didn't play much cricket in tough sub-continent conditions.

 

[pup11]

Sanz, mate Warne surely re-vitalised the dying art of leg-spin and though Kumble hit the international scene 2 years before him but at that time he was just a medium-pacer who bowled with a spinners action. There are still a lot Shane warne wannabe's around the world but then they don't make em like Warne anymore!!

 

[Sanz]

Marshall Played 20 tests in India/Pak and did very well there. Holding played 6 tests in India and needless to say he did as well as he did elsewhere.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, mate Warne surely re-vitalised the dying art of leg-spin and though Kumble hit the international scene 2 years before him but at that time he was just a medium-pacer who bowled with a spinners action. There are still a lot Shane warne wannabe's around the world but then they don't make em like Warne anymore!!

So Just because there are a lot of Warne wanabies means he revived the art, There are millions of Tendulkar Wannabies in the world and that must mean Tendulkar revived the art of batting. Shane Warne made cricket very entertaining and people loved watching him more than any other spinner in the world ever but I dont think he revived the art.

As someone had already mentioned that, it was not a dying art, Laxman SivaramaKrishnan in the mids 80s and Narendra Hirwani in the late 80s were bowling legspin. While Siva suffered due to his own inability to handle the fame, Hirwani couldn't keep up with Anil Kumble, who was a Leg Spinner. If you think he was a medium pacer, then I must tell you you have never watched him bowl.