Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Richard]

no spinner?

Really isn't outrageous, y'know.

If you were to do a list between 1900 and 1970 you'd get plenty of the blighters, though.

 

[Ikki]

Well, OK, Swervy too, but he's always a natural ally of anyone stating against me.

I think you're delusional if you think only them 2 have a problem with your arguing. People have just straight given up on you. Some don't waste their time to reply anymore.

It doesn't - as I've said, judging purely on what appears to be the case on the forum won't give you an accurate picture of people's attitudes.

That makes no sense. So what people say here doesn't actually reflect what they think? Er?

 

[Richard]

I think you're delusional if you think only them 2 have a problem with your arguing. People have just straight given up on you. Some don't waste their time to reply anymore.

I don't think only 2 "have a problem" in general. That wasn't the point, though - the point is there were only 2 people who stated they thought what I was saying was wrong in that thread, and in neither case was it remotely surprising.

That makes no sense. So what people say here doesn't actually reflect what they think? Er?

No, that's not what I said at all. What people say on here comes accross (or could be interpreted) differently depending on what you do and don't know from elsewhere.

Obviously, plenty are living in fool's paradise and don't want to know the truth, because it'd impede on the perceptions they so love to get.

 

[social]

I'll confine my list to those for whom we have at least video image - impressions of others tends to be romanticised over time (Barnes, for example, could have been nothing more than an accurate slow-medium leg-cutter bowler and that simply wouldnt cut it in today's conditions)

1. McGrath - supposedly didnt swing it or seam it much but had the happy knack of getting everyone out and wasnt dominated by anyone for an extended period in reputedly the best ever batting conditions PLUS hit as many batsmen as I can remember for someone supposedly not that quick

2. Ambrose - had everything McGrath had but lost his rag on occasion

3. Marshall - quick, mean, effective, swung it both ways and the modern prototype for a bowler (front on and using the wrist for movement) but had the benefit of playing in better bowling conditions than the first 2. Basically, you have to nit-pick to separate these guys and MM's only fault was that he wasnt 6'6" and so didnt get the bounce of the first 2.

4. Imran - 90 plus mph, swinging it both ways in conditions not suited to his bowling

5. Wasim - see Imran but left-handed. Possibly the most talented pacer but discipline let him down a bit compared to the others in this rarified atmosphers

6. Warne - genius (compare other big spinning wrist-spinners records to his) and he propbably wont see his like again for a generation or more. Probably the most talented bowler ever but spinners simply dont have the ability to blast you out when all else fails

7. Murali - comparable to Warne in that he redefined his art. Only weaknesses are that his record is padded by playing majority of tests on wickets tailor-made for him and his action would not have passed muster for the majority of time in the history of cricket

8. Lillee - Redefined the art of fast bowling with his variations once express speed had left him

9. Hadlee - brilliant bowler and possibly responsible for the best spell of bowling I've ever seen. Lacked the intimidation factor of others up the list but, what the hell, not a bad weakness when he simply got you out anyway.

10. Thomson - Had the most devastating peak of any bowler. The fastest, meanest and most uncontrolled bowler I've seen, he had test-class batsmen crapping themselves and basically doing anything to get up the other end. Shame he injured his shoulder or his record would've been on par with anybody

Honorable mentions to Trueman, Underwood, Garner, Croft (seriously mean bowler who's career was curtailed by injury), Roberts, Proctor, Pollock etc

 

[Ikki]

I don't think only 2 "have a problem" in general. That wasn't the point, though - the point is there were only 2 people who stated they thought what I was saying was wrong in that thread, and in neither case was it remotely surprising.

That is what I meant. Only 2 replied in that thread, not counting myself which makes it 3. And the reason I am saying you won't find many more is that arguing with you bears little fruit. Which is why you won't have people constantly on your case anymore. You've proven without a doubt to being incapable of comprehending some of the simple things people are trying to get across to you.

No, that's not what I said at all. What people say on here comes accross (or could be interpreted) differently depending on what you do and don't know from elsewhere.

Obviously, plenty are living in fool's paradise and don't want to know the truth, because it'd impede on the perceptions they so love to get.

When people say your argument is ridiculous, there is little else to take that for. You're a likable guy due to your restrained way of arguing, but if you weren't you would be absolutely lambasted for the stuff you say here.

You're making even this an argument. If you don't agree, don't. This is what I see and I am sure others do too. I am not asking if you see these things, because it's more than obvious you don't.

 

[SJS]

Please put them in order.

Sorry, but I clearly stated this in both this thread and the batting thread. Otherwise, I can't include your list.

If you insist mate though I might think differently tomorrow

1. Barnes
2. Murali
3. Lillee
4. Grimmett
5. Hadlee
6. Lindwall
7. Orielly
8. Spofforth
9. Marshall
10. Warne

 

[SJS]

Please put them in order.

Sorry, but I clearly stated this in both this thread and the batting thread. Otherwise, I can't include your list.

If you insist mate though I might think differently tomorrow

1. Barnes
2. Murali
3. Lillee
4. Grimmett
5. Hadlee
6. Lindwall
7. Orielly
8. Spofforth
9. Marshall
10. Warne

 

[BhupinderSingh]

May be they were but Australia were not even close to being the best in Imran's era but they were the best in Akram's time and check out his record in Australia vs. Imran's

Australia were never the best side in Imran's whole career but during Wasim's last 4 or 5 years of International cricket

What you think doesn't count for much in my opinion. We have already established how biased you are when it comes to Imran Khan. Anyone who says that Wasim was nowhere near Imran as a bowler doesn't know crap about bowling.

Imran doesn't pay me for saying all these things & neither is he my relative.If I praise him,thats because of unforgetable services for my country.From what I've seen,Imran was a better bowler than Wasim.In my top 10 bowlers ever,I have Imran at 1 & Wasim at 4,which means I consider Imran better but its not like McGrath vs Gillespie but Marshall vs Ambrose.Both Wasim & Imran are all-time great bowlers but when it comes to Pakistani bowlers,Imran has to be at top.

And it is funny that you talk about peak when it suits you..but not consider it when it doesn't go in favor of your argument. That said , Imran didn't have a longer peak than Akram. Imran was at his peak between 1979 and 1986 whereas Akram was at his peak for pretty much all of his career. I watched Akram and Imran both bowl a lot and I dont think Akram was any less destructive than Imran at any point in his career. His stats dont show it and that's because he shared bowling with Waqar early in his career and then Shoaib later on.

Check the ICC ratings,Imran is at No. 3 in terms of peak,behind Barnes & Lohmann only where as Wasim can't even be seen in top 30 even.

Richard's opinion has as much value as a horse's fart. But if at all you are going to consider SriLanka as a test standard nation then at least be consistent because Zimbabwe were pretty much of same standard during Akram's career.

I've never said Zimbabwe in 1990s were a substandard test team.They had just one good bowler in the form of Streak but always had a fine batting line-up.

 

[Sanz]

Check the ICC ratings,Imran is at No. 3 in terms of peak,behind Barnes & Lohmann only where as Wasim can't even be seen in top 30 even.

And obviously that means that Imran had a longer peak than Wasim's, isn't it ? It just means that Imran had a better peak than Wasim.

Besides since when you have started to give value to those ICC ratings, Remember Sobers, Botham Allrounder ratings ?

 

[Sanz]

Imran doesn't pay me for saying all these things & neither is he my relative.If I praise him,thats because of unforgetable services for my country.From what I've seen,Imran was a better bowler than Wasim.In my top 10 bowlers ever,I have Imran at 1 & Wasim at 4,which means I consider Imran better but its not like McGrath vs Gillespie but Marshall vs Ambrose.Both Wasim & Imran are all-time great bowlers but when it comes to Pakistani bowlers,Imran has to be at top.

You changes statements and opinions faster than a chameleon changes colors.

 

[roseboy64]

From 1 to 10:

Warne
Muralitharan
Marshall
Ambrose
McGrath
Hadlee
Walsh
Imran
Akram
Donald

 

[Richard]

Richard's opinion has as much value as a horse's fart.

Let's see what happens if we report this...

 

[Richard]

That is what I meant. Only 2 replied in that thread, not counting myself which makes it 3. And the reason I am saying you won't find many more is that arguing with you bears little fruit. Which is why you won't have people constantly on your case anymore. You've proven without a doubt to being incapable of comprehending some of the simple things people are trying to get across to you.

I'm well capable of comprehending things, I just don't agree with what is being said. I highly doubt many more than 4 or 5 people even read that thread, virtually no-one does when it becomes chiefly about 2 posters. You don't know how many more would back-up either me or you if they did.

When people say your argument is ridiculous, there is little else to take that for. You're a likable guy due to your restrained way of arguing, but if you weren't you would be absolutely lambasted for the stuff you say here.

Mostly, though, those who say "your argument is ridiculous" are those who haven't had any decent contact with me, often because they're new to the forum.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's not an unsubstantiated claim, any fool can tell those willing to actually take a look and those that are willing to live in the fool's paradise and tell themselves that what they see - or appear to see, rather - on the forum tells them all.

Huh?
To quote my post which you quoted "it's also a very wild and unsubstantiated claim with "sufficiently insufficient knowledge" that I haven't had contact with any members away from this forum."

So your proof that I have not had any contact with any forum members is "any fool can tell".
I don't think that would stand up in court your honour.

 

[Richard]

Nor do I, fortunately it doesn't need to.

 

[roseboy64]

Richard reminds me of this guy on a sports radio show. Name's Orville Higgins, with other hosts on the show being Maurice Foster, Micheal Hall and Lindy Delapenha(doing some segments). Basically he's got unconventional views such as people aren't born with talent, the better team always wins and that Australia of the last decade or so is better than the WI in their period pf dominance which isn't a good stance in the WI. He's got a couple others too.

 

[Ikki]

I'm well capable of comprehending things, I just don't agree with what is being said. I highly doubt many more than 4 or 5 people even read that thread, virtually no-one does when it becomes chiefly about 2 posters. You don't know how many more would back-up either me or you if they did.

The problem is you never (I say never because I am yet to see it) change your original opinion for any thing. You will disregard a perfectly good argument for some lame concoction you make up, stats or facts-wise.

I have eyes, I read the forums and it's more than a few people who find you tedious. I mean, not only are you blind to what you are arguing sometimes but you're even blind to people who disagree with you.

I'm not sure if I've met anyone quite like you, and that's really not a compliment.

Mostly, though, those who say "your argument is ridiculous" are those who haven't had any decent contact with me, often because they're new to the forum.

LOL. Let me leave it at this. This is starting to be another one of those arguments. I have to stop convincing myself that you'll get it if it's shown to you in enough ways.

 

[Richard]

The problem is you never (I say never because I am yet to see it) change your original opinion for any thing. You will disregard a perfectly good argument for some lame concoction you make up, stats or facts-wise.

What's reasonable and what's lame is not fact.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What's reasonable and what's lame is not fact.

True but.........

Any fool can tell.

 

[Richard]

Not really, there's plenty of both fools and worthy souls who have trouble deciding.