Who do you think the best bowlers are at present??

[Precambrian]

Mendis is probably a sub-continent track bully..

I'd say Stuart Clark with Ryan Sidebottom a close second

As far as the spinners go I'd reckon they are all of a muchness and given that Murali is a straight chucker I'll leave him out

:wallbang:

 

[Migara]

Mendis is probably a sub-continent track bully..

Don't buy in to that argument. Let's see how he performs.

As far as the spinners go I'd reckon they are all of a muchness and given that Murali is a straight chucker I'll leave him out

Few years earlier we could have left the straight drug cheat out as well.

 

[Ernest]

Murali & Warne

At least Warne never had the temerity to suggest that as a "larger" player the law should be changed on diuretics..

Murali would have been called in every decade before the 90's.. which was when the rest of the world started pandering to every Sub-Continent country because of $$$$$$$

The boy chucks. Simple.

 

[PhoenixFire]

At least Warne never had the temerity to suggest that as a "larger" player the law should be changed on diuretics..

Murali would have been called in every decade before the 90's.. which was when the rest of the world started pandering to every Sub-Continent country because of $$$$$$$

The boy chucks. Simple.

 

[Precambrian]

 

[Richard]

At least Warne never had the temerity to suggest that as a "larger" player the law should be changed on diuretics..

Murali would have been called in every decade before the 90's.. which was when the rest of the world started pandering to every Sub-Continent country because of $$$$$$$

The boy chucks. Simple.

Oh dear.

 

[Richard]

Bah, did you watch the game? The entire lineup seemed completely at his mercy, on a very flat deck. He was pinpoint accurate, lightning quick and got some really awkward movement. He beat the bat repeatedly and had every batsman he bowled to jumping all over the place. For the duration of that fourth-morning spell, Lee looked every inch the best bowler in the world and NZ looked completely at his mercy, for once due to quality bowling rather than their own pure ****ness. "Decent" is a horrendous understatement.

I watched the morning session, before giving-up and deciding sleep was better than this crap. Yes, he beat the bat, but the fact is his first 3 wickets were all simply poor batting. They never looked at his mercy, they just looked like they were never going to last 5 minutes, and whoever was bowling was in with a big chance. FFS, Hauritz got 4-for-not-that-many that game!

 

[Uppercut]

I watched the morning session, before giving-up and deciding sleep was better than this crap. Yes, he beat the bat, but the fact is his first 3 wickets were all simply poor batting. They never looked at his mercy, they just looked like they were never going to last 5 minutes, and whoever was bowling was in with a big chance. FFS, Hauritz got 4-for-not-that-many that game!

Hauritz didn't bowl well though, he got wickets because he was targeted unsuccessfully. Paul Harris has made a career of it.

Lee was bowling really well but NZ were so painfully bad that they got themselves out before he had the chance to. He wasn't so good in the first innings, nor in the first test, but when NZ bat like they did it's almost an irrelevance because they're just as likely to get out to a bad ball.

The point was, i thought it looked like he'd found the rhythm he seemed to lose after the West Indies tour, and that coupled with the fact that he can pull his length back more effectively than Steyn is what leads me to believe he'll outperform him, marginally, in the upcoming series.

 

[Jigga988]

I dont think you can possibly say Lee was decent, anyone who gets a 5 wicket haul couldnt have jsut been decent, despite the circumstances, and besided having watched that game i know that he was easily the most potent bowler and how many wickets in this era are down to 'poor shots.' If you were to discount every wicket that was down to a poor shot then half the bowlers would be wicketless.

On the subject of Ishand and Fred. If i had to pick one bowler it would probobly be Ishant but if i had to pick one of them to be in an attack that already had 3/4 bowlers then it would be freddie despite whoever them bowlers may be.

 

[Richard]

anyone who gets a 5 wicket haul couldnt have jsut been decent

That just isn't true. It's perfectly possible to get a five-wicket haul without bowling remotely well.

If you were to discount every wicket that was down to a poor shot then half the bowlers would be wicketless.

The point isn't about discounting all wickets that come from poor strokes - say a bowler takes a 6-for and it's half good bowling, half good batting - not got a problem with that. What irks me is when people claim a bowler who's got 4 or 5 has bowled well when in reality just 1, or 0, of his wickets have come from good bowling.

 

[Richard]

Hauritz didn't bowl well though, he got wickets because he was targeted unsuccessfully. Paul Harris has made a career of it.

Not in the second-innings. They played him on merit and still managed to gift him 2 wickets.

Lee was bowling really well but NZ were so painfully bad that they got themselves out before he had the chance to. He wasn't so good in the first innings, nor in the first test, but when NZ bat like they did it's almost an irrelevance because they're just as likely to get out to a bad ball.

They still dealt with him fine in the First Test, and it was only cleaning-up the tail in the first-innings of the Second that made his figures good.

As I say, I don't think Lee was bowling well at the time the wickets fell. Redmond hit a wide one straight to point, Ryder, well, did the same thing in an even worse way, and Taylor just played far too early. Terrible batting, on all counts.

The point was, i thought it looked like he'd found the rhythm he seemed to lose after the West Indies tour, and that coupled with the fact that he can pull his length back more effectively than Steyn is what leads me to believe he'll outperform him, marginally, in the upcoming series.

That's fair enough, but it's a different matter from suggesting he was outstanding in that Second Test, because he simply wasn't, IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

They still dealt with him fine in the First Test, and it was only cleaning-up the tail in the first-innings of the Second that made his figures good.

I agree with that, but it certainly wasn't the case in the second test, second innings.

That's fair enough, but it's a different matter from suggesting he was outstanding in that Second Test, because he simply wasn't, IMO.

Ah, agree to disagree, i thought his bowling on the fourth morning was nothing short of superb.

 

[Furball]

That's the thing though, Sharma's exactly the same, test bowling average of 32. Sharma and Flintoff are almost identical bowling-wise- back-of-a-length, accurate, good pace, can do a little bit of swing, bounce, seam and reverse but no one major strength, always seem to bowl far better than the wickets column suggests.

I don't buy that Flintoff has bowled poorly in tests since his recall, he's simply bowled extremely well at times for unflattering figures. Fitness dependent, i'm confident he's as good at bowling today as he's ever been, his ODI performances supporting that. If you believe that, there's no way one can pick Sharma over him.

For me though, the world's leading bowler is between Dale Steyn and Brett Lee. I'm going to go for Lee on the grounds that i expect him to outbowl Steyn (just) in the two upcoming series.

Sharma's 20, and has had an away series in Australia when he was brand new to the international game.

That he's averaging 32 in those circumstances is staggering.

 

[Athlai]

O'Brien > Sharma

 

[Uppercut]

Sharma's 20, and has had an away series in Australia when he was brand new to the international game.

That he's averaging 32 in those circumstances is staggering.

True but being young isn't something I'd factor in when judging who the current best quick in the world is. In terms of potential, the only bowler i'd have above him is Mendis.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Dale Steyn or Ishant Sharma.

Lee would be in a group just below with Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Clark.

Admittedly I haven't followed him a lot lately, but he must have improved a hell of a lot.

 

[Top_Cat]

Admittedly I haven't followed him a lot lately, but he must have improved a hell of a lot.

He has but not enough to be on Lee's plane, tbh.

Seriously NUFAN, on this one you're ridiculously under-rating Lee. His record for the last two years means there's really no need to defend him but you just needed to watch his bowling in that period to see how threatening he was against tough opposition on very, very flat pitches..

 

[Richard]

Admittedly I haven't followed him a lot lately, but he must have improved a hell of a lot.

Anderson certainly bowled inestimably better in summer (UK summer) 2008 than he ever had before for more than the odd spell. However, it was a less extended period and I'd say he bowled less well than Lee did in Aus\WI summers of 2007/08 and 2008.

Right now I'd remain more confident in Lee than Anderson but I do think Anderson maintains the capability to bowl pretty much as well as Lee can - ie, if both bowl as well as they're capable of I don't think there'll be all that much between them.

 

[Richard]

True but being young isn't something I'd factor in when judging who the current best quick in the world is. In terms of potential, the only bowler i'd have above him is Mendis.

Hmm, it'll be interesting to see what Mendis turns-out as (whether he's wrist and finger spinner rolled into one or just fingerspinner who bowls the odd wristspinner's ball occasionally) before I make-up my mind about their potential.

Ishant Sharma - and this very much still applies to Munaf Patel too - is a bowler I certainly think has excellent potential. As a seamer, not a spinner. And as a spinner you have to be exceptional to rank with even merely good seamers.

 

[pup11]

Hauritz didn't bowl well though, he got wickets because he was targeted unsuccessfully. Paul Harris has made a career of it.

Lee was bowling really well but NZ were so painfully bad that they got themselves out before he had the chance to. He wasn't so good in the first innings, nor in the first test, but when NZ bat like they did it's almost an irrelevance because they're just as likely to get out to a bad ball.

The point was, i thought it looked like he'd found the rhythm he seemed to lose after the West Indies tour, and that coupled with the fact that he can pull his length back more effectively than Steyn is what leads me to believe he'll outperform him, marginally, in the upcoming series.

Hauritz is one of the better spin bowlers in Australia atm (though that is not a big deal given Australia current spin stocks) but the problem with him is his mindset, he thinks like an OD bowler and has a defensive style of bowling and that clearly hampers him when playing test cricket, he doesn't really enjoy flighting the ball so he generally bowls a flatish length, but i guess he is working on that, but still Hauritz isn't as dire as he is being made out to be, he should definitely already be playing ODI cricket for Australia.