Best Test Bowler(s) since 2000

[Flem274*]

Well, to each their own, even though it's close. And it's a mighty good case. He makes you lot look clueless.

Sadly you've never spoken a truer sentence.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd really love to see a bit more love for a few other bowlers, no possible way to distinguish the next best after them from this poll, which is interesting in itself, batsman seems to have been a much harder contest.

James Franklin is my (other) idol-Better?

 

[Ikki]

These:

And they were in reply to:

Murali's stats are bordering on the ridiculous.

Not so much when you take out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and consider he played 40 of his 65 tests at home.

and

The former yes, the latter no.

Um, he plays in the most spin-friendly conditions and it has nothing to do with his success? Warne does better in Sri Lanka than Murali does. Let that be a clue.

respectively.

Neither is unfair criticism nor are they not facts.

 

[Athlai]

James Franklin is my (other) idol-Better?

Franklin 4th best bowler since 2000? Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[James]

Haha piss off, you'll take any opportunity you'll get to have a go at Murali. Don't act all innocent, just admit it and get on with it.

I'll take any opportunity to engage the argument and make my plea on facts. I don't take pot-shots at Murali's character or anything of the nature to which you imply. Furthermore, don't tell me to piss off, I find it offending.

Good.

Can we ever have a discussion on Murali where it doesn't resort to name calling? It's just so un-necessary.

 

[Athlai]

Can we ever have a discussion on Murali where it doesn't resort to name calling? It's just so un-necessary.

Especially in my thread.

 

[The Sean]

Can we ever have a discussion on Murali where it doesn't resort to name calling?

Sadly, the answer to this question has been proven far too many times to be "no".

 

[Flem274*]

Especially in my thread.

You tell 'em Athlai

 

[Ikki]

Can we ever have a discussion on Murali where it doesn't resort to name calling? It's just so un-necessary.

I didn't name-call mate.

Especially in my thread.

 

[silentstriker]

Voted once. Couldn't vote for spinners.

 

[Beleg]

Murali is heads and shoulders above anybody else. His performance this century has been truly amazing.

Warne, McGrath and to a lesser extent Pollock/Akhtar have been far ahead of the remainder.

 

[Richard]

Can we ever have a discussion on Murali where it doesn't resort to name calling? It's just so un-necessary.

Sadly, the answer to this question has been proven far too many times to be "no".

AWTA (with Sean that is). It's regrettable, but it's pretty much inevitable.

 

[Richard]

And they were in reply to:
and
respectively.

Neither is unfair criticism nor are they not facts.

I know what they were in reply to (I made one of them after all). As I say - I still find Murali's figures pretty remarkable even when Test-standard sides only are considered, and as I said - I don't think playing in the country which is generally the most spin-friendly in The World makes a hell of a lot of difference to his performance.

 

[The Sean]

Agreed mate. I'm fully aware of the home and minnow inflations on Murali's numbers if we want to look at them that way, but I was simply making the point that IMO a record of nearly 500 Test wickets at 18 over a 7 year period is ridiculously good, no matter who it's against or where they were taken.

 

[silentstriker]

I do not want to get into this again, but last year I broke the performances of both players on a country by country basis, and made a rating system that took each country equally, and Warne came out ahead (it was close). The thread is here, and the raw numbers were:

	inAus	inEng	inInd	inNZ	inPak	inSA	inWI	inSL srInAus srInEng srinInd srinNz	srinPak	srinSA	srinWI	srinSL	ICC SR Averages Ave SR. Consistancy	Total
Warne	26.51	21.94	43.11	21.3	28	24.31	39.64	20.45	61.4	52.3	81	51.4	60.5	60.3	78.2	39.6	905	31.96	28.54	4.65	2.91	93.408
Murali	63.12	19.2	39.58	29.38	21.48	26.02	18.24	20.94	109.5	48.2	81.8	77	50.1	60.5	41.9	53.5	915	31.08	29.51	2.63	1.76	92.024
Kumble	40	45.81	24.1	40.27	42.41	35.32	31.28	42.68	72.9	103.9	57.2	104.4	68.3	97.1	64.4	90	859	23.16	20.67	5.61	2.13	77.562
Laker	21.2	18.08	27.47	27.47	27.47	29.45	31.78	27.47	68.1	64.7	83.3	83.3	83.3	105.5	76.4	83.3	897	22.73	29.39	8.98	3.23	85.618

Obviously, this is just one (subjective) method for ranking, but it does show why Warne's stats suffer a bit due to his home country.

 

[haroon510]

some of the votes are laughable.. for example shaun pollock... since 2000 he is declining big time.. waqar younis.. he was far from his peak in 2000..

the poll is missing wasim akram... since younis got a place out there..

 

[Athlai]

some of the votes are laughable.. for example shaun pollock... since 2000 he is declining big time.. waqar younis.. he was far from his peak in 2000..

the poll is missing wasim akram... since younis got a place out there..

Had only played 12 if memory serves me right.

 

[shortpitched713]

Because I choose to look at his record realistically? What have I said that is disrespectful? In the other thread I took Sangakkarra's record apart too, do I hate him? Do I hate all Sri Lankans then? Or how about Dravid and his SR, even though Dravid is one of my favourite batsmen of all time? Or how about even when I voted for McGrath against Hadlee, I made arguments for both men?

All of the above players that you have chosen to analyze "realistically" have had prominent comparisons to Australian players. You are oft maligned because your analyses always just "happen" to lead you to conclude the Australian player was better. Suggests close-mindedness and a certain amount of analysis to support ones conclusion as opposed to an analysis to draw a conclusion.

I am not saying that you are a particularly biased person, but the above reasons would help explain why you might be percieved as such.

 

[Ikki]

All of the above players that you have chosen to analyze "realistically" have had prominent comparisons to Australian players. You are oft maligned because your analyses always just "happen" to lead you to conclude the Australian player was better. Suggests close-mindedness and a certain amount of analysis to support ones conclusion as opposed to an analysis to draw a conclusion.

I am not saying that you are a particularly biased person, but the above reasons would help explain why you might be percieved as such.

Well, considering I'm usually defending Warne, Lillee and McGrath it would be no coincidence as to being able to argue a case, in almost all cases, for them being the better choice. These 3 are all strong candidates for the greatest bowlers of all time. The fact that they're Australian is secondary. And I wouldn't deny my bias. If I had two bowlers with equal records in every way of course I will be more inclined to like the Aussie more. But I always give a fair shake to the alternative and unless it can be shown that I'm not well I don't see what's so wrong?

Also, it's a good point for discussion. If I am vouching Warne, for e.g., and someone else is vouching Pollock for e.g., I am more than glad to discuss why I think Warne is superior or why I see Pollock as inferior and even more receptive to get an argument to show why Warne is inferior or Pollock superior. We can discuss our hearts out and it may, as it usually does, in the end come down to a difference in opinion or it may sway one party to open their mind. I, for one, always gain an appreciation when a fan of one cricketer makes a great argument to the greatness of said cricketer. I look into it even more and, as aforesaid, appreciate it more.