Cricketweb decides the greatest bowler ever in a 64 player bracket. Contest thread.

[watson]

Good points, and I agree he has a very consistent career record.. maybe the only blemish being an average @NZ record which probably doesn't mean much due to small sample size. I think a good comparison is probably McGrath who had a similar consistent career. Both players benefited from a great supporting cast which positively affected their averages (and probably lowered their wkts/mat). I'd pick the Aus team of the 2000s as the GOAT team over the WIs of the 80s mainly because they won much more frequently and so were more dominant.

Makes me think that there should be separate "best pace bowler" and "best spin bowler" threads but it's too late for that.

Only if we assume that a great fast bowler trumps an equally great spin bowler every time as a matter of principle.

Therefore, if Marshall beats Murali then the result is more likely to be a vote in favour of Fast Bowling rather than a vote against Murali personally.

 

[Slifer]

Some may disagree with me but imo atg fast bowlers > atg spinners. They just bring more to the table in terms of intimidation etc. Think of most of the demolition jobs in history ( ie teams blasted out for sub 100) and I think fast men were the primary catalysts

 

[mr_mister]

not in India

 

[Red]

Some may disagree with me but imo atg fast bowlers > atg spinners. They just bring more to the table in terms of intimidation etc. Think of most of the demolition jobs in history ( ie teams blasted out for sub 100) and I think fast men were the primary catalysts

On the contrary, there are far more elite fast bowlers (Marshall, Ambrose, Holding, Roberts, Hall, McGrath, Lillee, Lindwall, Davdison, Waqar, Wasim, Imran, Hadlee, Steyn, Donald, Pollock (2), Procter, Adcock, Trueman, Larwood) than there are spinners (Warne, O'Reilly, Murali, Grimmett, Laker).

Fast bowling is an easier skill. Sure, a lot of demolition jobs might've been done by quicks, but the pitches would've been responsive to the quicks. Truly great spinners come into their own in a different way when it comes to winning matches. Nothing better than a battle of attrition between an elite spinner and a batting line up on day 5 when the pitch is turning.

I'd also argue generally that spin (particularly leg spin) is a far more difficult craft to master than pace bowling. And, as good as Marshall was (and he was ****ing brilliant), Warne's skills are greater than his skills (and this has NOTHING to do with averages or strike rates). My opinion is that Marshall deserves to be the best quick of all time because of his brilliance in all conditions and against all opponents, but Warne deserves to be the greatest bowler because of his mastery of cricket's most difficult art.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah amen to leg spin being harder to master. i considered myself competent at pace and gifted at off-spin but could hardly ever land leg spinners

 

[kyear2]

Only if we assume that a great fast bowler trumps an equally great spin bowler every time as a matter of principle.

Therefore, if Marshall beats Murali then the result is more likely to be a vote in favour of Fast Bowling rather than a vote against Murali personally.

Don't think that is the case. Warne is still beating Ambrose.

 

[jonbrooks]

I'm very late to this thread but it is an interesting one.

 

[viriya]

yeah amen to leg spin being harder to master. i considered myself competent at pace and gifted at off-spin but could hardly ever land leg spinners

I was a natural leg spinner and couldn't control off-spin for ****.. Never understood why leg spin was considered harder. I think it's more that wrist-spin is harder to land properly. Murali's off-spin was a unique case of wrist-spin. Either way, I don't really rate players based on how hard their discipline was but on actual results.

 

[jonbrooks]

I'm picking Warne and Marshall for the final. With Warne my pick for the best ever.

 

[jonbrooks]

I was a natural leg spinner and couldn't control off-spin for ****.. Never understood why leg spin was considered harder. I think it's more that wrist-spin is harder to land properly. Murali's off-spin was a unique case of wrist-spin. Either way, I don't really rate players based on how hard their discipline was but on actual results.

Warne is leaps and bounds ahead of all other bowlers.

 

[viriya]

Warne is leaps and bounds ahead of all other bowlers.

I can understand a warne favoritism but this is just hyperbole. This thread won't turn into a warne vs Murali debate due to the setup of the contest so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Slifer]

Just because legspin is a tougher art, doesn't make him superior to any of the top fast men. The fact of the matter is, MM (sir malcolm) is a much more effective bowler than Warne. Warne made leg spin ***y again and all that jive but facing a atg batting lineup, I'd rather toss the ball to mm regardless of conditions. Picture an atg lineup of :Hobbs, Hutton, etc. I know I'd much rather trust mm with the wicket taking duties....

 

[smash84]

that's true, fast bowlers are more effective in general.

 

[viriya]

I would argue that great spinners are much more effective than fast bowlers because they can affect the game for longer. Murali in the 2000s is a great example. He averaged 7 wkts/mat partly because he could bowl all day - no fast bowler has ever gotten to that much of an impact over a long period of time.

 

[viriya]

He was able to singlehandedly keep SL dominant at home during that time. Fast bowlers are naturally unable to be that effective due to physical limits.

 

[Coronis]

I would define a bowler to be more effective the more wickets he takes. The fact is, top quality spinners take more wickets than top quality pacers. However, there are far less top class spinners than pacers.

 

[Red]

Either way, I don't really rate players based on how hard their discipline was but on actual results.

Just because legspin is a tougher art, doesn't make him superior to any of the top fast men. The fact of the matter is, MM (sir malcolm) is a much more effective bowler than Warne. Warne made leg spin ***y again and all that jive but facing a atg batting lineup, I'd rather toss the ball to mm regardless of conditions. Picture an atg lineup of :Hobbs, Hutton, etc. I know I'd much rather trust mm with the wicket taking duties....

By "results" and "effective" do you just mean the fact that Marshall had a better average and SR than Warne? Because if you do, it reveals a lot about the fact that you don't really grasp how important spinners are in a cricket team and how they will very rarely have a better avg and SR than quicks but that's ok because they play a different role.

 

[viriya]

By "results" and "effective" do you just mean the fact that Marshall had a better average and SR than Warne? Because if you do, it reveals a lot about the fact that you don't really grasp how important spinners are in a cricket team and how they will very rarely have a better avg and SR than quicks but that's ok because they play a different role.

I'm comparing Marshall and Murali. Marshall averages 2 runs less per wicket but Murali gets 1.5 more wickets per match. I think the extra wickets are worth the slightly higher average so I consider Murali to be more effective.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Some may disagree with me but imo atg fast bowlers > atg spinners. They just bring more to the table in terms of intimidation etc. Think of most of the demolition jobs in history ( ie teams blasted out for sub 100) and I think fast men were the primary catalysts

The reason spinners aren't responsible for more sub-100 demolition jobs is because they largely come in to bowl after the incompetent fast bowlers have conceded many for few.

 

[watson]

Just because legspin is a tougher art, doesn't make him superior to any of the top fast men. The fact of the matter is, MM (sir malcolm) is a much more effective bowler than Warne. Warne made leg spin ***y again and all that jive but facing a atg batting lineup, I'd rather toss the ball to mm regardless of conditions. Picture an atg lineup of :Hobbs, Hutton, etc. I know I'd much rather trust mm with the wicket taking duties....

Being 'effective ' is only part of being great. Greatness is also to be found in mastering the difficult, overcoming setbacks, and succeeding against the odds.

I have no problem admitting that Marshall was the finest bowler of all time, but he never had to overcome the difficulty of bowling with a 'withered' arm like Chandra or Murali, nor overhaul and remake his bowling action like Imran. It was Lillee's tenacity in overcoming a crippling injury that makes him truly great.