Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[BlazeDragon]

Winning in England is as important to Sri Lankan fans as the Ashes is to the Australians.

Do you actually believe that an England vs Sri Lanka series is just as important to a Sri Lankan like The Ashes is to an Australian or an English?

 

[vcs]

I am not equating the two. I am providing an extreme example to make clear a pretty vivid point. Unfortunately, the person in question doesn't seem to demonstrate that they actually watched the series in question so I thought it necessary. One can have an amazing series and their team still lose.

The irony, though, is a Murali fan trying to pin a result of a series based on his performance. So every other time he had great stats and Sri Lanka lost is his fault?

Stupid, stupid logic.

Yeah, the series result should not really come into it. I don't think that was his main point though. Both were pretty magnificent one-man show type performances, and though it obviously helps if you followed the series, you can make that out from the scorecards alone. Statistically, it's impossible to say one was better than the other.

 

[vcs]

Do you actually believe that an England vs Sri Lanka series is just as important to a Sri Lankan like The Ashes is to an Australian or an English?

Erm, yes? Of course it is.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Erm, yes? Of course it is.

I am sorry but this deserves that. Some Aussies and English actually only WATCH cricket because of the Ashes.

 

[Bonnie Prince C]

1. Muralitharan
2. Warne
3. McGrath
4. Ambrose
5. Donald
6. Steyn
7. Wasim
8. Waqar
9. Pollock
10. Kumble
11. Walsh
12. Akhtar
13. Vaas
14. Gillespie
15. Lee
16. Gough
17. Zaheer
18. Asif
19. Harbhajan
20. McDermott

 

[vcs]

LOL.

There is literally no polite way to respond to that, so I'll just leave it here. Suffice to say that Sri Lanka probably wouldn't even be getting 3-Test match series in England these days if not for their occasional away successes, which are almost solely down to Murali.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, the series result should not really come into it. I don't think that was his main point though. Both were pretty magnificent one-man show type performances, and though it obviously helps if you followed the series, you can make that out from the scorecards alone. Statistically, it's impossible to say one was better than the other.

I watched both, and the bolded part was my point from the beginning. I said that if you looked at stats you may think Murali did better because his stats are marginally better; but having watched both series I know Warne's was the better series.

The SL series; 1st test, Murali was a non-factor. 2nd test, Murali took 4 wickets for peanuts when England had practically won the Test having only needed to chase 78 runs for victory. He had an incredible 3rd test which helped beat England and square the series.

The Ashes 05 series shouldn't need much of an introduction; it was epic in almost every way and one of the biggest reasons (the biggest when you only consider bowling) was Warne. He took so many key wickets and many wickets in general (40! for the series). The England team in 05 was also better than the one Murali faced and performed out of their skin in that series. Warne kept it competitive and if he had held onto Pietersen's catch I dare say we would have won it.

 

[BlazeDragon]

LOL.

There is literally no polite way to respond to that, so I'll just leave it here. Suffice to say that Sri Lanka probably wouldn't even be getting 3-Test match series in England these days if not for their occasional away successes, which are almost solely down to Murali.

You literally do not understand what The Ashes means to and Australian or an English if you actually think its equivalent to an England vs Sri Lanka series. That's like saying an India vs New Zealand series is more personal than an India vs Pakistan series.

They have been planning about the 2013 Ashes even before the the last one was over!

 

[Ikki]

I think vcs is saying that winning is universally desired by all. I do agree with you though. Whilst winning is still winning, some of the stakes (especially old rivalries) go beyond just the game of cricket and getting a result.

 

[vcs]

I watched both, and the bolded part was my point from the beginning. I said that if you looked at stats you may think Murali did better because his stats are marginally better; but having watched both series I know Warne's was the better series.

The SL series; 1st test, Murali was a non-factor. 2nd test, Murali took 4 wickets for peanuts when England had practically won the Test having only needed to chase 78 runs for victory. He had an incredible 3rd test which helped beat England and square the series.

The Ashes 05 series shouldn't need much of an introduction; it was epic in almost every way and one of the biggest reasons (the biggest when you only consider bowling) was Warne. The England team in 05 was also better than the one Murali faced and performed out of their skin in that series. Warne kept it competitive and if he had held onto Pietersen's catch I dare say we would have won it.

I think Warne had the better series, but that is because of his batting. Bowling wise, my opinion is there was nothing in it. Of course, you could also say the bolded part for Warne's haul at Trent Bridge when England were chasing 115 or something, but the other bowlers also took a couple of wickets to make it tighter. Murali took 24 of the 40 English wickets to fall in that series with 2 10-fers, can't argue with that.

I agree England did have the stronger team in 2005, but that was due to their attack, not their batting lineup, which was kind of brittle, and carried by Pietersen (in both series in question). They had some fairly ordinary bowlers like Plunkett, Lewis, Mahmood etc. in the 2006 series against SL.

 

[vcs]

You literally do not understand what The Ashes means to and Australian or an English if you actually think its equivalent to an England vs Sri Lanka series. That's like saying an India vs New Zealand series is more personal than an India vs Pakistan series.

They have been planning about the 2013 Ashes even before the the last one was over!

Erm.. I have been watching the Ashes for a long time, thank you very much for the lecture. Every series matters, full stop. A series does not suddenly become more important because it has more people watching it and more cricinfo articles written about it.

 

[Ikki]

At Trent Bridge they were chasing 128 and barely got over the line with 3 wickets left. I wouldn't equate the two. In that 2nd innings Warne was so hot that the general belief of getting to 128 was suspended because of the grip he had on their line-up. In the Murali innings it was rarely felt that way; the whole vibe had an inevitability about it. A bit of a surprise but not that much concern as was felt with Warne - who almost always seemed to pull something out to keep England in check.

At 32 without loss after five overs, they were coasting. But cricket has never had a scene-stealer - not even Ian Botham - who could match Warne. He removed Trescothick and Vaughan with the opening deliveries of his first two overs, then snared Strauss at leg slip in his fifth to make it 57 for three. When Bell hooked Lee to long leg without addition, the talk was of Australian revenge for Headingley 1981. As on the Sunday morning at Edgbaston and Monday afternoon at Old Trafford, news from Trent Bridge began to savage the peace of a warm August English Sunday. Then Pietersen and Flintoff, against type, calmed everyone's nerves by adding 46, but Lee had Pietersen caught behind with the first ball of a new spell and in his next over bowled an incredulous Flintoff with a beauty that proved Australia could produce reverse swing, to tremendous effect. With 13 still needed, Geraint Jones spooned Warne to deep extra cover. England were down to the bowlers.

The anxiety was not confined to the spectators. As Hoggard trooped to the crease, Giles provided a cheerless assessment of Lee's bowling: "He's reversing it at 95 miles an hour." Somehow, though, the runs came in dribs and drabs: Giles kept out Warne, Hoggard handled Lee. Catharsis arrived when Hoggard drove a Lee full toss to the cover fence to take England within four runs of their target, and victory was secured in the next over when Giles clipped Warne through midwicket.

With more support for Lee and Warne - Kasprowicz and Tait bowled six wicketless overs for 43 between them - Australia might have won. Instead, it was England who celebrated a result which ensured that, for the first time in nine Ashes series, they would not be on the losing side. Could they now take the one last step towards the Ashes?

Something similar to this also occurred in the 5th test. It was always going to be an ask to bowl England out cheaply and also fire our way to the total in time/light. But when Warne came to the crease you knew the English batsmen were ****ting themselves. He had such a grip on them that the after 3 overs of McGrath and Lee, Warne was introduced rapidly (which is not common and somewhat due to light) and he immediately took Strauss to start a series of wicket taken by him and McGrath in which it almost seemed possible to steal the Ashes.

The point re the team being weaker is that I don't think SL would have squared the series if they had their #1 attack. 3rd test would have been a dead rubber. Although IIRC even their attack was different (Vaughan was out).

 

[vcs]

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir here really, I loved watching Warne in that series, with bat as well as ball. He was awesome.

 

[Bonnie Prince C]

Erm.. I have been watching the Ashes for a long time, thank you very much for the lecture. Every series matters, full stop. A series does not suddenly become more important because it has more people watching it and more cricinfo articles written about it.

I agree that every series matters, but if you told the English cricket team they would win the Ashes if they lost a series to Sri Lanka they would do it. To say that certain series do not matter more to certain countries isn't right IMO.

 

[vcs]

But every series, especially away from home, is vitally important from Sri Lanka's point of view. Many countries still don't think they are good enough travellers for them to merit a series of decent length. In any case, I don't think it is fair to bring in circumstances outside someone's control.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Erm.. I have been watching the Ashes for a long time, thank you very much for the lecture. Every series matters, full stop. A series does not suddenly become more important because it has more people watching it and more cricinfo articles written about it.

Oh okay so what Australia got out in the world cup at the quarter finals I mean it is only 3 ODI matches from there to the finals. So their world cup loss is justifiable because they made it up by winning the ODI series 3-0 against Bangladesh.

That is some fantastic use of logic right there.

 

[BlazeDragon]

But every series, especially away from home, is vitally important from Sri Lanka's point of view. Many countries still don't think they are good enough travellers for them to merit a series of decent length. In any case, I don't think it is fair to bring in circumstances outside someone's control.

Yeah sure Sri Lanka is the only countries that care about their away series. To other countries they are just a waste of time.

 

[akilana]

Pathetic arguments are made here for Warne and Ashes

Not surprised.

 

[Jacknife]

Pathetic arguments are made here for Warne and Ashes

Not surprised.

Oh really, please tell.

 

[akilana]

waat?