Greatest Bowler

[MrPrez]

top6

akram
marshall
hadlee
murali
sfb
lillee

followed by
mcgrath
warne
trueman
donald
ambrose
imran
waquar
........

Steyn makes it into that list if Donald does. And I'm not sure Ambrose shouldn't be in the first group.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Between Marshall, McGrath, Murali and Hadlee for me. Ambrose can be compared to McGrath but I can't see a dimension in which I could put him over Marshall, whereas McGrath at least has a noticeable number of wickets more than Marshall and remained successful even in the batting friendly 2000s. Hadlee gets in for amazing consistency even as a lone wolf in a smaller team.

In the end went for Murali probably a bit on bias but mainly because to take 800 wickets at 22 is phenomenal and he turned a small team into a team that once became ranked 2 officially. Apart from in Australia he generally seized limited chances abroad with memorable performances, and at home he was able to win matches for SL at the SSC which was and is so flat.

 

[dhillon28]

M Marshall- deadly in all conditions, no matter how flat the wicket

after him I would divide it into tiers, with all players within a tier being on a similar level:

tier 2 wasim, hadlee, mcgrath, ambrose

tier 3 holding, roberts, garner, walsh, lillee, imran, warne, muralitharan, donald, steyn

tier 4 kapil, jeff thompson, bedi, kumble, waqar

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I vote for Dennis Lillee just so he can be temporarily ahead of Imran Khan before his groupies start voting.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Voted for Warne. I'm surprised Murali has 4 votes and Warne had none before mine. There's nothing between Murali and Warne stayistically if you remove Bangladesh NZ against whom Warne didn't play much. The poll should honestly reflect how close it actually is, but so far it doesn't.

Warne's the most complete bowler I can think of... A hoard of wickets, great overall stats everywhere except India, one of the best ever big match performers, aesthetically just perfect (imo THE most elegant bowling action ever), and he mastered what's considered to be the most difficult form of bowling. The way he used a specific plan to work over any batsman put in front of him (as long as he wasn't Indian ) was one of the great joys of watching cricket for me. His ability to use all the tools at his disposal, the big leg break, the crazy drift, the best flipper of any spinner ever(pre-injury) , the deadly slider, and last but not least get into the batsman's head and screw with his concentration while for the most part not going overboard with the sledging, all made him fascinating to watch.

So while I think that old argument of Warne being some sort of "savior of spin bowling "
is utter nonsense, I do think he was utterly special. How many truly great leg spinners had made it to ATG level before Warne? One or two maybe and I wager it'll be ages before we see a leg spinner as good as him.

True but Warne has some big limitations compared to other ATG bowlers. He failed against India both home and away and was fortunate not to have to face his own batting line up, who were the 2nd best players of spin in the era. Then compared to the other bowlers his average is over 25 which is quite high for an ATG, and he took a large percentage of tailenders compared to someone like McGrath.

Having watched both him and McGrath in the same team I can say that McGrath is clearly the more valuable bowler. Performed well in all conditions, hardly any bad matches or batsman dominating him, took his wickets much cheaper than Warne despite bowling to higher quality batsman.

 

[Justo]

Oohh Ahhh Glenn Mcgrath!

 

[dhillon28]

True but Warne has some big limitations compared to other ATG bowlers. He failed against India both home and away and was fortunate not to have to face his own batting line up, who were the 2nd best players of spin in the era. Then compared to the other bowlers his average is over 25 which is quite high for an ATG, and he took a large percentage of tailenders compared to someone like McGrath.

Having watched both him and McGrath in the same team I can say that McGrath is clearly the more valuable bowler. Performed well in all conditions, hardly any bad matches or batsman dominating him, took his wickets much cheaper than Warne despite bowling to higher quality batsman.

outstanding analysis of Warne, I have always been astounded as to how many people simply overlook the fact that he never had to face Australia (definitely the second best players of spin during his time). I can imagine Hayden and Gilly taking him to the cleaners. I also reckon Michael clarke, m hussey, darren Lehman would all play him comfortably and he would not be as effective as he was against NZ, RSA and England.

 

[centurymaker]

if done totally objectively, then murali. Otherwise, there's so many awesome bowlers to choose from...

 

[Zinzan]

As much as I'd love to give it to my countryman Sir Dick, I just can't go past the late great Malcolm Marshall. Hadlee's a definite second though.

 

[kyear2]

Warne, unlike Murfali didn't come on after five overs and didn't always come on first change as they had good fast bolwers who would take better advantage of the new ball and take some of the top order wickets before Warne came on. When compared to all other leg spinners since WW2 and covered pitches his numbers are surreal and just unbelievable. Where he separates himself againts Murali is that while he didn't bowl in the most spin friendly conditions at home apart from the SCG, he actually averages less playing away from home than at home, while Murali played in the most spin friendly conditions at home and averaged 19 at home (Warne himself averaged 20 with a s/r of 39 in Sri Lanka) compared to 27 away from home. Warne like Marshall proved that they could dominate at home and away while Murali showed that he was overly dependent on his home tracks.
Then they are the minnows, averaging 13 againts Bangladesh and 16 vs Zimbabwe certainly helped his stats while taking 176 wickets agints them.
Murali like Hadlee basically had his run of most batting lineups from top to tail while Warne like Marshall had to compete for wickets.
800 is similar to 99.94 in it's dominance, but the numbers bear closer inspection and for me Warne definately comes out on top. His mental strength, his cricketing mind, his variations and his domination of the most difficult art of cricket just sealed it for me.

 

[dhillon28]

Warne- graceful text book action
charisma that created on field theatre
very accurate leg spinner- almost impossible task to achieve
better cricket mind than murali

Murali- dominated India (final frontier for a spin bowler in those days) on his home track
did not have mcgrath etc bowling at the other end to create pressure- HUGE factor in assisting warne to take wickets- even he admits to this himself

I would say there is hardly anything between them

 

[Ikki]

If Warne got to play India on the Sri Lankan tracks it'd be a fairer comparison. Warne did better than Murali against India, in India; despite the fact that he played several series against them in a period where he had several career threatening injuries.

For me, the greatest bowler ever is Warne, even though he doesn't have the best record, like Marshall. But the spells he bowled, the games he turned around, and the consistency he did it was incredible. I'm not sure I've seen a player as 'clutch' across any sport.

Marshall's case is obvious, but Lillee's isn't. I remember doing an analysis of the attacks he faced. Roughly a third of the attacks he faced (combining Tests and WSC) were all-time great batting line-ups with several all-time great batsmen in each one. Few bowlers have 1 series of success against such line-ups, none (as far as I know) a third of their career. He averaged in the low 20s and under 50 IIRC with that record. What more, Lillee was lauded by all and sundry as the best of his generation. Hadlee, himself one of the greats, basically idolised him. As I've said before, he came as a tearaway and played the 2nd half of his career as a thinker in the McGrath mold. He did it with fantastic bowlers next to him, and he did it as a lonewolf too. He will be perenially underrated because his career was interrupted and because of a handful of Tests in the subcontinent though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Let's not do this again Let people who like Murali better vote for him

I don't like Murali better but I voted for him anyway because I think he was the better bowler.

I'd like to retract my vote as to not give a false impression to harsh.skm.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Warne, unlike Murfali didn't come on after five overs and didn't always come on first change as they had good fast bolwers who would take better advantage of the new ball and take some of the top order wickets before Warne came on. When compared to all other leg spinners since WW2 and covered pitches his numbers are surreal and just unbelievable. Where he separates himself againts Murali is that while he didn't bowl in the most spin friendly conditions at home apart from the SCG, he actually averages less playing away from home than at home, while Murali played in the most spin friendly conditions at home and averaged 19 at home (Warne himself averaged 20 with a s/r of 39 in Sri Lanka) compared to 27 away from home. Warne like Marshall proved that they could dominate at home and away while Murali showed that he was overly dependent on his home tracks.
Then they are the minnows, averaging 13 againts Bangladesh and 16 vs Zimbabwe certainly helped his stats while taking 176 wickets agints them.
Murali like Hadlee basically had his run of most batting lineups from top to tail while Warne like Marshall had to compete for wickets.
800 is similar to 99.94 in it's dominance, but the numbers bear closer inspection and for me Warne definately comes out on top. His mental strength, his cricketing mind, his variations and his domination of the most difficult art of cricket just sealed it for me.

Yes but kyear you were claiming that Sangakkara should be marked down for playing on batting pitches, now you are marking Murali down for playing in spin friendly conditions. How can someone take this argument seriously?

Secondly you claim that Warne had less opportunity to bowl at the top order but that is exactly my point. Given that he bowled at lesser quality batsman on the line up than McGrath don't you think he should have taken wickets much more cheaply.

I'll make this quick as I dont want this to go into the Murali Warne thread but as I've said before you can't simply blank out Zim and Bang even though I accept those teams should count for less. Zim were actually a proper team before 2003 and by excluding them you are excluding Murali's 10 wickets against Grant Flower yet you are happy to include Warne's 10 wickets against Harmison. Then after blanking out Zim and Bang you fail to blank out Australia, who Warne didn't have to play so by your logic they should not be included.

Lastly, and this is not to do with test cricket but I'm curious all the same, when Murali and Warne played first class cricket in England how do you explain that Murali took wickets at 15 and Warne at 25?

I'll make this quick before it goes onto the Murali Warne thread.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm going to make an executive decision to allow a Murali/Warne debate in this thread because it obviously can't be avoided and is very relevant to the topic.

However, if possible, please try not to let it take over the thread completely, and allow an opportunity for people who want to put forward Marshall, Hadlee, Barnes, McGrath, Lillee, Larwood, Imran or anyone else to do so without getting shouted over.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't like Murali better but I voted for him anyway because I think he was the better bowler.

I'd like to retract my vote as to not give a false impression to harsh.skm.

I'm going to make an executive decision to allow a Murali/Warne debate in this thread because it obviously can't be avoided and is very relevant to the topic.

However, if possible, please try not to let it take over the thread completely, and allow an opportunity for people who want to put forward Marshall, Hadlee, Barnes, McGrath, Lillee, Larwood, Imran or anyone else to do so without getting shouted over.

This is what I was basically saying mate

 

[sobers no:1]

No Prctr? I am surprised

did he play enough ?
its easy to crown him as the greatest bowling all rounder though..

 

[complan]

Warne was a great bowler, my only issue with him was that he had a very good supporting cast (both bowlers and batsman). This IMO makes his job easier since the burden on his shoulders is less. My vote goes to Murali.

My No. 2 would be Hadlee for the same reasons. He carried his team's bowling and seemed to get better and better with age. Marshall did that too, but it's easier to demoralize the opponent if your bowling mates are world class champions as well.

 

[Satyanash89]

outstanding analysis of Warne, I have always been astounded as to how many people simply overlook the fact that he never had to face Australia (definitely the second best players of spin during his time). I can imagine Hayden and Gilly taking him to the cleaners. I also reckon Michael clarke, m hussey, darren Lehman would all play him comfortably and he would not be as effective as he was against NZ, RSA and England.

THAT was an outstanding analysis? You have got to be kidding me. The criticism of Warne's record against India is of course a fair one but frankly, virtually every great spinner has been smashed around by Indian batsmen. Bowling against India was their greatest challenge and both the great spinners failed.

Also, the "didn't play against teammates" argument is the absolute worst, the fungus scraped off the bottom of the barrell of silly criticisms aimed at great players' records. Warne's "big limitation" is that he was Australian? What was Warne supposed to do? Do a KP-esque country switch just to complete some arbitrary list of "things to do to call myself ATG"? You get judged on how you actually perform, not on some imaginary scenario of what ifs about which you can NEVER actually know what the outcome would have been.

 

[smash84]

Yes but kyear you were claiming that Sangakkara should be marked down for playing on batting pitches, now you are marking Murali down for playing in spin friendly conditions. How can someone take this argument seriously?

Secondly you claim that Warne had less opportunity to bowl at the top order but that is exactly my point. Given that he bowled at lesser quality batsman on the line up than McGrath don't you think he should have taken wickets much more cheaply.

I'll make this quick as I dont want this to go into the Murali Warne thread but as I've said before you can't simply blank out Zim and Bang even though I accept those teams should count for less. Zim were actually a proper team before 2003 and by excluding them you are excluding Murali's 10 wickets against Grant Flower yet you are happy to include Warne's 10 wickets against Harmison. Then after blanking out Zim and Bang you fail to blank out Australia, who Warne didn't have to play so by your logic they should not be included.

Lastly, and this is not to do with test cricket but I'm curious all the same, when Murali and Warne played first class cricket in England how do you explain that Murali took wickets at 15 and Warne at 25?

I'll make this quick before it goes onto the Murali Warne thread.

how dare you raise some valid points.....that is kyear2's opinion and he is not answerable to people for it