Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
No idea what that's supposed to mean but never mind.
It's interesting to see John Snow in the list. Yet no Joel Garner or Allan Donald. This forum certainly has changed.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Greatest Bowler
- Thread starter kyear2
- Start date
It's interesting to see John Snow in the list. Yet no Joel Garner or Allan Donald. This forum certainly has changed.
watson
Banned
OK. If you say so it must be correct.
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
At last you've got something right.
sobers no:1
Banned
pardon me, i always make indecent arguments
marshall's ODI stats are not that great. so , i guess he can not perform IN ALL CONDITIONS at that great level.
and HE IS 2nd GREATEST BOWLER OF ALL TIME
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Murali didn't have to face Sri Lanka in Australia either. The Sri Lankans were as good or better players of spin than the Australians. And, let's be clear; Murali wasn't just poor against Australia...he was targeted and embarrassed. Lesser spinners did better than him there.
The 2nd part has also been addressed: bowling spin in SL is not the same as bowling spin in Australia. Warne didn't have pitches doctored to his preference. Both played India in India and Warne has the better record, despite his injury troubles.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It depends which version of Lillee you are talking about. Pre-spinal stress fractures he was a very fast bowler - Allan Donaldish.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
This is a really tough one and I tend to go back and forth on it quite regularly. There's very, very little to choose between the group of blokes at the very top, though as it stands today I think that Murali is probably the greatest bowler of all time - certainly his wicket-taking ability was unparalleled in my lifetime and in my most recent rankings he's the highest ranked pure bowler.
That being said though, if I were locked in a room before a match without any knowledge of the conditions outside that I or my team were about to face - the weather, the pitch, the opposition, anything - and told that taking all possibilities into account I had to choose one bowler to bowl for my life, I'd pick Malcolm Marshall.
That being said though, if I were locked in a room before a match without any knowledge of the conditions outside that I or my team were about to face - the weather, the pitch, the opposition, anything - and told that taking all possibilities into account I had to choose one bowler to bowl for my life, I'd pick Malcolm Marshall.
watson
Banned
The Dennis Lillee I saw at the SCG was after Austin Robertson senior had fixed his run-up and turned him into a bowler with a classical action that was perfectly metronomic.
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
It's part of the armoury of any fast bowler worthy of the term "great" to maintain a good length outside off stump on a flat wicket. They all do it whether it be McGrath, Lillee, Roberts, Marshall, Donald, Truman, Lindwall etc. McGrath forged a reputation for being more accurate (and patient) than anyone else but he was a very different bowler to Lillee.
The great thing about Murali and Warne is that they are spinners who have strike-rates that are almost on par with the great fast bowlers. This is unprecedented for spinners, unless you bring in bowlers from the George Lohmann days. What fascinates me about this is that they were so successful without the physical intimidation factor that a fast bowler brings in (more so in the pre-helmet era).
I understand that this poll is about who is the best bowler, regardless of style as long as he is using all legal means at his disposal. But Murali & Warne brought in an extra dimension which takes them up a notch, in my book.
I understand that this poll is about who is the best bowler, regardless of style as long as he is using all legal means at his disposal. But Murali & Warne brought in an extra dimension which takes them up a notch, in my book.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
I'll go with Mcgrath (and not Marshall, since it doesn't look like he needs much help in this poll and I never saw him bowl at his peak) because unlike Warne or Murali, I can't seem to recollect him faring really execrably against any opposition, home or away. And he may have been slower than a lot of the others mentioned, but he was every bit as overbearing and domineering as any of the lot. If I wanted to hedge on any bowler to pick up five wickets for me before close of play, it would be Mcgrath. His MO and his strengths were eternal and would've made him a terror in any era.
Last edited:
Tom Halsey
International Coach
Curtly is always criminally undermentioned in these sorts of discussions IMO.
akilana
International 12th Man
Nah this is bull****. Warne has grown up in Australia and he would have learned to bowl well in his home conditions like how Imran and 2 Ws learned to bowl well on the flat pitches of pakistan. I don't see Alistair Cook or AB or Kallis or Smith given more credit for batting well on their home pitches. Smith would already better than Hayden.
I agree murali fared poorly in Audtralia, even worse than some of the worse spinners. Your assertion that Murali perforemed horribly in Australia so it must be harder to bowl is wrong. Murali's action was under far more scrutiny in Australia and he was targetted even by PM which put him under massive pressure by external factors. I believe he would have done a lot better without those distractions.
Given the futility of predictions and assumptions, I think, it gives you a better picture of their greatness when you compare their performancs against common opposition. Murali has performed as well as warne in all the countries without support from the other end and almost always had few runs to defend. When you compare their performances country-wise, it shows that they are both on the same level and Murali wasn't just reliant on pitches. When SL toured outside of subcontinent, their batsmen rarely put any decent score on the board, leaving him to single handedly put his team back in contention. Importantly, Spinners come into play more in the 3rd and 4th innings and lack of runs from his team-mates means that he has few runs to defend. For example, when SL tour SA, SA bowlers would blow away SL batsmen in quick time. Then Murali had to bowl on the pitch that doesnt help him and no good fast bowler at the othe end to put some pressure and nip out a few. It would be a lot easier for the batsmen to score runs when there's pressure only from one end. SA would have have out-scored SL by a huge margin and then SL batsmen resist for a while and lose by an innings or give Murali a few runs to defend. His task is a lot harder here. He has to find a balance betweeen attack and defend. But despite how had his task is, he was as succssful in SA as Warne was. In fact Murali has out-bowled Warne in a lot of countries and in countries where he doesn't, he lags behind by only a small margin.
Why Murali is more successful in SL is because he had enough runs to defend as SL batsmn would have amassed huge number of runs and Murali has the freedom to attack relenlessly.
Murali's record in india was better than Warne's before his last tour to India and got a little worse by the end of it. Given that Murali has played more matches than Warne and the fact the Indians batting line up was the best that it had ever been during that time, I wouldn't say Warne was better with conviction.
India was not the only place Warne was horrible. WI is another.
smash84
The Tiger King
top quality post
Arachnodouche
International Captain
@akilana: I'd say having a medium pacer with over 350 Test wickets at the other end is good help for building pressure. But then, according to you, he had no quality bowlers to aid him. So you're not only being inconsiderate of Vaas, you're also suggesting that Murali's wicket tally was inflated because he didn't have wicket taking bowlers in his team. Which is it then? Either Vaas helped him pick wickets or he scooped up everything in an otherwise inferior bowling unit. 
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Line after line of garbage, frankly.
Imran, the 2 Ws, were swing bowlers. They took the pitch out of the equation. Had they been seam bowlers of the McGrath type and were able to be as successful, you may have had a point. In reality, they were much better at home than away.
Warne was better away than at home, and that is precisely because his home pitches did not suit his bowling, save Sydney. Warne's record in SL, on those pitches, is incredible. He outbowled Murali head-to-head there when their teams were at their most equal - the SL batsmen are imperious at home and great players of spin. The 04 series was owned by Warne.
Even more nonsense: that the PM caused Murali to bowl badly. The assertion that it is harder to bowl spin in Australia is not based on the fact that Murali did terribly there but that basically all spin bowlers did terribly there. It is a place where spinners, even domestically, even Warne, struggled. The two best places in the world to bowl spin? India and Sri Lanka.
Of course you'd want to look at common opposition: it would take out Murali's worst record (Australia) and also take out Warne's best (Sri Lanka). It doesn't need any further explaining why that would be disingenuous. See, it is pretty easy: Warne was clearly better than Murali away from home. Murali averages closer to 30 and strikes 60+. As aforesaid, Warne averaged even better away than at home.
Your point re his team composition and his own bowling load has been brought up several times. Bowling by yourself, at the opposition, also means getting more wickets, in loads, which aids your average. Although it is true that Murali had responsibility to defend more, he also had the opportunity to bowl to more batsmen (he came earlier on and bowled many more overs). These things even out, they're not simply/solely a disadvantage.
Murali is more successful in SL because the pitches have been doctored to his strengths. That was the smart thing to do, that was the right thing to do. Having your own batsmen put up good totals, etc, is fine, but you're exaggerating it greatly. That affects your win/loss record more, but not so much your ratios. In the end you have to bowl out the opposition regardless of how many runs your own batsmen put up. Ironically, if they don't put up enough the opposition may not have to make as many and Murali may concede less runs on aggregate.
Against India, Murali played more matches, Warne played more innings. The fact that Warne played several series injured more than counterbalances the fact that Murali had a bad last series. And even if he did, so what? Do we discount it? Warne had a very good last series and could have had an even better one if he wasn't injured for the Test where Michael Clarke took 6/9.
Warne wasn't horrible in WI, see... you don't know what you're talking about. Warne had good/great series home and away against WI in every series bar 1 away. And that series was when he had huge shoulder injuries. He was having trouble against everyone - he averaged 55 in the Ashes before the WI series that taints his WI record. Since he only had 1 other series away (avg 27, sr 55) it makes it look like he had a problem there, against them. At that time he was basically learning to bowl all over again. This is well documented.
Of course it is, it touts your "Pak bowlers should get extra credit when bowling at home" argument.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
haha....dude, relax.
Although the question has recently been plaguing my mind a lot. That SC batsmen are labeled FTBs for scoring on home tracks and SC bowlers are not given extra points for bowling on those pitches. You can't have it both ways.
akilana
International 12th Man
How successful was Vaas away from home?@akilana: I'd say having a medium pacer with over 350 Test wickets at the other end is good help for building pressure. But then, according to you, he had no quality bowlers to aid him. So you're not only being inconsiderate of Vaas, you're also suggesting that Murali's wicket tally was inflated because he didn't have wicket taking bowlers in his team. Which is it then? Either Vaas helped him pick wickets or he scooped up everything in an otherwise inferior bowling unit.