Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[ankitj]

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

Well spotted

 

[vcs]

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

 

[vcs]

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.

Oh, I agreed with you regarding England (though Murali also had them in knots on the occasions he got to play them, and was pretty much solely responsible for SL's historic results in England). Just don't agree about your reason that there was more on the line when Australia faced SA/England. I would say there is always plenty on the line for SL when they tour these countries as they are known as notoriously poor travellers, and the onus is on them to prove otherwise. Just look at how they struggled to make any inroads into the English batting on this recent tour, without Murali. My reason for rating Warne's performances against England higher is simply that he played them a lot more, and succeeded against everyone, starting from the Gooch-Gatting generation to Bell and Pietersen.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

This thread has given birth to yet another epic Warne vs. Murali debate. I'll try to steer clear and get back to the main topic. So, here goes the list:

Criteria:Top bowlers who debuted played bulk of their cricket (not necessarily debuted) after 1/1/1990

1) Muralidharan - arguably, the singular greatest match-winner I ever saw live
.
.
2) Glenn McGrath
3) Curtly Ambrose
4) Waqar Younis - ridiculously underrated, IMHO
5) Shane Warne
.
6) Allan Donald
7) Wasim Akram
8) Shaun Pollock
9) Saqlain Mushtaq
10) Dale Steyn
.
11) Courtney Walsh
12) Anil Kumble
13) Jason Gillespie
14) Ian Bishop
15) Angus Fraser
.
16) Darren Gough
17) Chaminda Vaas
18) Makhaya Ntini
19) Matthew Hoggard and Srinath
20) Zaheer Khan and Jimmy Anderson

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

I must give honourable mention to strong contenders like McDermott, Streak, Asif and Harbhajan who just narrowly missed out. Top bowlers all, but for one reason or another, were not consistent and threatening enough on a long-term basis to make the list.

 

[smash84]

Waqar is not under rated tbh. He was not that great other than his peak which is arguably the greatest peak in history

 

[smash84]

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

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Waqar is not under rated tbh. He was not that great other than his peak which is arguably the greatest peak in history

Yeah! The peak lasted four years and some 45-odd matches, which is good enough for me to conclude that the guy was an awesome killing machine.

 

[smash84]

Yeah! The peak lasted four years and some 45-odd matches, which is good enough for me to conclude that the guy was an awesome killing machine.

Yeah but not to be places above the likes of Warne or Donald or Wasim

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Yeah but not to be places above the likes of Warne or Donald or Wasim

Subjective. I'd place a rampaging Waqar slightly ahead of any of those three in cracking form.
A s/r of 43 balls per wicket over 87 tests is just insane.

You may choose to vote the others ahead for their relative prolonged peak and that'd be a fair opinion as well. As I said, the difference at such a high level isn't that great and ultimately, it boils down to personal preferences.

 

[smash84]

Subjective. I'd place a rampaging Waqar slightly ahead of any of those three in cracking form.
A s/r of 43 balls per wicket over 87 tests is just insane.

You may choose to vote the others ahead for their relative prolonged peak and that'd be a fair opinion as well. As I said, the difference at such a high level isn't that great and ultimately, it boils down to personal preferences.

awta

 

[akilana]

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.

Of course SL fans or the president wasn't calling Warne a chucker and putting so much pressure on him. Most of the spinners have done better in Aus than Murali so I tend to believe the external factor.. the chucking controversy is what plagued him from doing his best in Australia.

It wasn't Murali's fault that he didn't have McGrath at the other end to help create pressure for him.. and take Laras and Sachins and Sehwags out before they get to face Murali.. It wasn't his fault that Murali didn't have have great great batsmen that could bat well away from home and give him enough runs to bowl out opposition. It wasn't his fault that he had to bowl to the 2nd greatest side of all time in their backyard.

Till Murali's last tour to India, he had a better record in India than Warne.. Of course Warne didn't have to face the stronger India that Murali was bowling to the last time in India as he was retired before.

Of course it wasn't his fault he can't play Ashes.

Yes what a load of bull**** of excuses and defense.

 

[Ikki]

Yes what a load of bull**** of excuses and defense.

The irony. I'll reply, but something tells me I shouldn't.

Not sure how you measure "pressure" but if Murali didn't have others creating it, on the other hand he didn't have those same bowlers competing for wickets with him. If Murali didn't have great teammates and won less, then that affects his games lost - not necessarily his figures. He could go about getting wickets without much regard for the result because it wasn't expected as much.

Let's be clear about his figures in Australia: they are awful. There are a number of spinners, not fit to lace his boots, who did better. He was targeted and manhandled; that's pretty much it.

Against India, he had worse series than his last one - although I am not sure if that is even a talking point considering that Warne had worse prep and form going into most his series against India. And yet Warne has the slightly superior record.

 

[Ikki]

awta

Reckon both Waqar and Trueman are someway ahead of their bowling contemporaries as far as SR/striking wickets goes. Quite incredible really. It's like having a mass of 100m runners running at around 9.5 and then you have a guy who does it at 9. The kind of difference between peers that is hard to believe unless seen.

 

[centurymaker]

Of course SL fans or the president wasn't calling Warne a chucker and putting so much pressure on him. Most of the spinners have done better in Aus than Murali so I tend to believe the external factor.. the chucking controversy is what plagued him from doing his best in Australia.

.

Thats a very good point.!!

 

[Athlai]

Reckon in Muralis last tour to Australia he was very very unlucky not to take a bagful. Same with Malinga.

The cricketing Gods sided with the Aussies in that one.

 

[bagapath]

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

ha ha ha.

 

[BlazeDragon]

It wasn't his fault that he had to bowl to the 2nd greatest side of all time in their backyard.

I didn't know Murali had bowl to WI side of 80's in their home. Must have missed that one.

 

[bagapath]

Of course it wasn't his fault he can't play Ashes.

true. that's what I mean when I say some tours are considered more important than the rest.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Of course it wasn't his fault he can't play Ashes.

He faced England both home and away just like Warne. Unless you are saying Warne only did better against England because it was called "The Ashes" when he played I don't see why that makes a difference.