Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[G.I.Joe]

Not many people admit to it, but a huge reason why people have certain players in their XI's is because they've noted other people have those same players in their XI's. All time XI's are strangely self-perpetuating.

 

[weldone]

Not many people admit to it, but a huge reason why people have certain players in their XI's is because they've noted other people have those same players in their XI's. All time XI's are strangely self-perpetrating.

massively AWTA

Ram is better than Shyam because Sita said so...Ah, maynot be true...
But Rahim also said so...so what?...
Jyoti also thinks so...ok, but is there a specific reason all of them think so?...
Hey, Sumedha also has the same opinion...OK, let me do some statsguru and come up with a reason about their concurrence...

If I come up with something, then yeah 'away records' might be the reason...

Otherwise, ex-cricketers' opinions matter more than statsguru...

 

[vcs]

But he doesn't. Warne is superior in Aus, SL, Ind, SA and ZIM which are half the countries. He'd also be superior against Pak if you take the neural tests into account. He's generally pretty much equal in the countries he is statistically behind in (NZ and ENG, for example). Generally, Warne away from home is quite superior to Murali in avg. and SR. Where Murali makes the difference up is in home performance - which considering Warne has had to bowl in Aus and Murali in SL is straightforward as to why that occurs.

In fact, I think Murali gets extra kudos for reasons you just bring up; he's always seen as the victim and hard done by.

Well, Warne is also only marginally superior in India and SA. And they both have poor records in India, so it's not really worth mentioning as a positive for either of them.. at least Murali has done well against India at home.

 

[Howe_zat]

Why is it so hard to just pick who you think was the better bowler and go with that?

No, wait, that's exactly what's happening.

Let me rephrase - why is it so hard to admit to doing that?

 

[ankitj]

Well, Warne is also only marginally superior in India and SA. And they both have poor records in India, so it's not really worth mentioning as a positive for either of them.. at least Murali has done well against India at home.

and at least once run through the Indian batting lineup in Delhi

 

[Ikki]

Well, Warne is also only marginally superior in India and SA. And they both have poor records in India, so it's not really worth mentioning as a positive for either of them.. at least Murali has done well against India at home.

Theyre not too far apart and generally the difference between them away is that Warne succeeded tremendously in SL whereas Murali was abysmal in Aus.

It's also not Warne's fault that he couldn't face India in SL. He did however best him in India despite all the injury problems he had, whereas AFAIK Murali never did against them.

I'd also go as far as to say that SA would rate Warne ahead of Murali despite there not being a great deal in it and I am almost positive that the English would also rate Warne better despite Murali being marginally better statistically.

Make your own conclusions, I was replying to Smalishah; and I reckon I am on point with my reply.

 

[smash84]

like i said, it matters a lot how one performs in australia, england, west indies and south africa and. of late - since 1980 - in india, too. other countries are not given as much weightage.

.

Murali's and Warne's performance is pretty similar in SA. Warne is somewhat ahead. Murali comes out on top in England I think. He has a better average than Warne in England as well as a better SR although the difference is about as much as the difference in SA. In WI Murali is ahead by a long margin. Both failed in India and Warne failed against India as well. Warne did well in Australia but that as you say is his home ground. So your argument does not really hold IMO.

imran should have been an automatic choice - with a bowling avg of 22 and batting avg of 38 - in these dream teams.

there is no other reason why imran, lara, murali and kallis are not in as many teams as marshall, tendulkar, murali and sobers.

In dream teams Imran does not get chosen because they only keep one all rounder's spot and Sobers is taken as the all rounder. They don't even keep him in the bowler's category. The only dream team that had 2 all rounders (Benaud's team) had Imran as the second all rounder so I really don't think that it is the away performance that matters in these teams nor do I feel it is the deciding criteria.

 

[smash84]

Theyre not too far apart and generally the difference between them away is that Warne succeeded tremendously in SL whereas Murali was abysmal in Aus.

It's also not Warne's fault that he couldn't face India in SL. He did however best him in India despite all the injury problems he had, whereas AFAIK Murali never did against them.

Make your own conclusions, I was replying to Smalishah; and I reckon I am on point with my reply.

I agree with you that in SL which is Murali's home Warne has done well while Murali has not done well at all in Aus. However the point of contention with Bagapath here is that Warne gets picked because of his away performances being better than Murali. Clearly these guys are too close on away performances except Murali in Australia (which is Warne's home ground so he does not get too many points for bowling well there) and Warne failing against India home and away (where Murali also failed against India away but did well against them at home. India have been far and away the best players of spin bowling)

 

[GotSpin]

bradman was close to selecting warne in his xi before going for grimmett and oreilly. it is in that book detailing his selections. i never heard tendulkar or sobers say murali was the better bowler of the two. i still dont see one all time xi with murali taking warne's place. do you know of any?

as for the reasons why warne is preferred over murali, you can differ with my opinion that it is to do with their overseas records. but i am not going to agree with your/beleg's claim that murali and warne have equal backers (or that murali will get picked ahead of warne) .

I've always been a tad suspicious of Bradmans AT XI since it was published after his death.

 

[Ikki]

I agree with you that in SL which is Murali's home Warne has done well while Murali has not done well at all in Aus. However the point of contention with Bagapath here is that Warne gets picked because of his away performances being better than Murali. Clearly these guys are too close on away performances except Murali in Australia (which is Warne's home ground so he does not get too many points for bowling well there) and Warne failing against India home and away (where Murali also failed against India away but did well against them at home. India have been far and away the best players of spin bowling)

TBF I agree with baga in that Warne is better away although I am not sure that is why people rate him ahead.

As for who rates who ahead; Murali rates Warne as better; and as the greatest bowler ever, let alone spinner.

 

[ankitj]

As for who rates who ahead; Murali rates Warne as better; and as the greatest bowler ever, let alone spinner.

Which says more about Murali than Warne tbf.

This is not to say Warne is not a top bloke, he is. Whatever he (or any cricketer) did outside the field doesn't concern me much. On field Warne was a good guy too.

 

[Ikki]

Which says more about Murali than Warne tbf.

This is not to say Warne is not a top block, he is. Whatever he (or any cricketer) did outside the field doesn't concern me much. On field Warne was a good guy too.

I remember HB recalling a story where he went to the stadium holding a "Murali > Warne" sign and taunting him and Warne just smiled and gave him a thumbs up. I reckon both are good blokes; Murali far more moral but I think it was more an admission when Murali said that than simply being nice. Or, who knows.

 

[vcs]

Theyre not too far apart and generally the difference between them away is that Warne succeeded tremendously in SL whereas Murali was abysmal in Aus.

It's also not Warne's fault that he couldn't face India in SL. He did however best him in India despite all the injury problems he had, whereas AFAIK Murali never did against them.

I'd also go as far as to say that SA would rate Warne ahead of Murali despite there not being a great deal in it and I am almost positive that the English would also rate Warne better despite Murali being marginally better statistically.

Make your own conclusions, I was replying to Smalishah; and I reckon I am on point with my reply.

SA would probably rate Murali higher TBH. He has a better average, better SR, more 5fers, more 10fers in fewer matches. Remember Warne having a couple of not-so-great series against them towards the end.

Agree about England, but that is probably to do with the Ashes factor, how often he played them, and the various different generations of English batsmen who had no clue how to cope with him. They fared equally badly against Murali, but played him a lot less.

 

[smash84]

Murali against England has a better record in England tbf

 

[bagapath]

You can't generalise a reason stating that all famous ex-cricketers choose A over B for that particular reason.

why is no one choosing murali over warne? i havent seen one dream with murali in it. why?

In dream teams Imran does not get chosen because they only keep one all rounder's spot and Sobers is taken as the all rounder.

bradman, CMJ and ESPN legends XI did not have such a condition. even if he lost out to sobers in those teams, why was he not considered above or on par with lillee or marshall as a fast bowler alone?

what imran did to india in the 82-82 home series was way more devastating than anything done by a single player in a series in cricketing history, including botham's ashes of 1981. but the fact that it happened in pakistan between india and pakistan means those feats dont get the coverage that they deserve. had they happened between pakistan and england in england then they would have been put on par with bradman's 1930 exploits.

why dont people rate samaraweera on par with, say, dravid? one guy does well only in sri lanka. and the other guy has tasted success in england and australia, that's why.

even sunil gavaskar does not get selected in several dream teams. his average of 38 in england must be working against him. mike gatting gave that as a reason when he selected his dream team in 1989.

sehwag is not getting the respect he deserves. he is not even given as an option in the icc test team. only with better success in england and SA he would be considered alongside the huttons and hobbses despite the best SR in history and a 50+ average over 87 tests.

one has to succeed on the lively wickets of australia, the seaming conditions of england, bouncy wickets of south africa and the hard wickets of west indies/ dust bowls in india to deserve universal acclaim.

 

[smash84]

TBF I agree with baga in that Warne is better away although I am not sure that is why people rate him ahead.

As for who rates who ahead; Murali rates Warne as better; and as the greatest bowler ever, let alone spinner.

I really don't have any issues with anyone rating Warne above Murali. In fact so do I. But my rating of Warne does not have too much to do with him being slightly better (or worse) in away performances.

For me Warne has been the second most exciting bowler to watch (only behind Wasim Akram).and that had mostly to do with his skill as a leg spin bowler

 

[Ikki]

SA would probably rate Murali higher TBH. He has a better average, better SR, more 5fers, more 10fers in fewer matches. Remember Warne having a couple of not-so-great series against them towards the end.

Agree about England, but that is probably to do with the Ashes factor, how often he played them, and the various different generations of English batsmen who had no clue how to cope with him. They fared equally badly against Murali, but played him a lot less.

Actually, Warne has a better avg and sr in SA. Usually when SA met Aus it had a lot going on it and those two teams were fighting out for #1 spot. TBH, I haven't met many Saffies rate Murali better.

Similarly to the Ashes, there was simply more on the line when they played. Warne also played 5-match series against them, rather than 1, 2 and 3.

 

[vcs]

Actually, Warne has a better avg and sr in SA. Usually when SA met Aus it had a lot going on it and those two teams were fighting out for #1 spot. TBH, I haven't met many Saffies rate Murali better.

Similarly to the Ashes, there was simply more on the line when they played.

I meant overall against SA. About your last line, it looks like you are penalizing Murali for playing in a weaker team as they were not contenders for No. 1.

 

[G.I.Joe]

why is no one choosing murali over warne? i havent seen one dream with murali in it. why?

Maybe you're not thinking dirty enough thoughts before bedtime.....

 

[Ikki]

I meant overall against SA. About your last line, it looks like you are penalizing Murali for playing in a weaker team as they were not contenders for No. 1.

I think your post is in jest but the Ashes rarely had been about being #1. The poms have only recently started showering . Although in seriousness, I don't think being #1 is necessarily an advantage as it also brings on the pressure to perform, and win all the time.

Maybe you missed this; "Warne also played 5-match series against them, rather than 1, 2 and 3." but I think it is important.