OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Marshall was always going to win the whole thing.
-
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.
Cricketweb decides the greatest bowler ever in a 64 player bracket. Contest thread.
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
kyear2
International Coach
I wasn't talking about Marshall at all.yeah, he did bowl to some decent batsmen, but that wasn't my initial point in any case. I was just elaborating on your initial point.
Now kyear2 has run away for a while, will probably pop his head in, say something about the greatness of MM and then disappear off again. It was his point that was being addressed in the first place
viriya
International Captain
I think people are overrating fast bowlers here. They are generally going to have better averages and strike rates than spinners but WPM is the most important stat IMO. I doubt a team cares if a bowler costs them 3 more runs if he gets you one additional wicket. In Murali's case, he gets you 1.5 wickets over Marshall each game at the cost of 30 or so more runs (3x4.6 + 1.4x23) which any team would be OK with.
smash84
The Tiger King
Why not have another quality fast bowler ahead of the spinner?
viriya
International Captain
Because that fast bowler can't get as many wickets as the spinner. Marshall averages 21 @ 4.5 WPM, Murali averages 23 @ 6 WPM. On average, Murali gives you 1.5 more WPM @ 28.4 runs/wicket.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
oh, i see your point
kyear2
International Coach
He gives you more wickets per match because
A) He bowled more overs
B) Didn't have as much competition for wickets.
Has nothing to do with being better.
Marshall got wickets cheaper and at a quicker rate. Period. The only real advantage of having a spinner over a fast bowler is for the potentially longer career.
Outside of that, I will take Marshall / McGrath / Steyn any day before Murali or Warne.
With regards to leg spin bring more difficult to master, it's also more difficult to open than to bat at 4. We don't give openers extra credit for that though.
Additionally, pacers get a higher percentage of front line batsmen than spinners. Thus also making life easier for the spinners.
A) He bowled more overs
B) Didn't have as much competition for wickets.
Has nothing to do with being better.
Marshall got wickets cheaper and at a quicker rate. Period. The only real advantage of having a spinner over a fast bowler is for the potentially longer career.
Outside of that, I will take Marshall / McGrath / Steyn any day before Murali or Warne.
With regards to leg spin bring more difficult to master, it's also more difficult to open than to bat at 4. We don't give openers extra credit for that though.
Additionally, pacers get a higher percentage of front line batsmen than spinners. Thus also making life easier for the spinners.
Last edited:
If we are looking at who is the better bowler, than it doesn’t matter how many wickets he gets you per match. That is dependent on many external factors such as bowling more overs or not having as competition from other bowlers for getting the wickets. To see how skillful a bowler is irrespective of these factors, their strike rate is a much better indicator (in which case Marshall gets every wicket 8 balls earlier than Muralitharan, on average).
viriya
International Captain
He bowled more overs because he is a spinner - that's why they have the potential to be more valuable than a fast bowler. The competition for wickets argument is only a factor. Hadlee didn't have competition for wickets and he averaged 5 WPM. Murali averaged 1 whole wicket more than that.
In terms of SR, Murali got wickets at 55 compared to Marshall's 47.. 8 more balls per wicket for 1.5 more wickets in a match. Any team would take that trade.
You guys are ignoring the fact that Marshall couldn't have bowled more overs even if he wanted to (at least keep the same high quality) - higher SR for fast bowlers is countered by spinners being able to bowl more. Comparing SR and ignoring WPM plainly makes no sense.
Last edited:
viriya
International Captain
This isn't the whole story. Pace bowlers take more top order wickets, spin bowlers take more middle order wickets. The tail-enders are shared - many teams bring back their pacers to finish the tail off.
kyear2
International Coach
Why would you make the assumption that Marshall couldn't have bowled more overs. That is purely speculative. What is certain is that Marshall has a far superior strike rate. You are also ignoring that Murali was taken apart by Lara and struggled mightily against Australia. You are also forgetting how he inflated his numbers against the 2 minnows of his day and benefited greatly from bowling on the raging turners at home, where he played most of his matches. Away from home he simply wasn't the same bowler and while still ATG, certainly not good enough to be seen as the greatest ever.
Finally to be Frank, he isn't even seen as the greatest spinner in history by most. When cricinfo selected their team, Warne was a unanimous selection over Murali., and that is just one example.
Murali was great, undoubtedly a top 10 bowler, but not the best in my estimation.
Is this about which bowler is more valuable for a team or which is the better bowler? Arguably a spinner like Muralitharan is more valuable for a team since he can bowl more overs than a fast bowler and as a result pick up more wickets. But that does not mean he is a better bowler.
smash84
The Tiger King
you could have saved yourself (and others) a lot of typing by just putting in this line
viriya
International Captain
No I mean he is a better bowler. The factors you were considering overvalues fast bowlers and undervalues spinners.
kyear2
International Coach
Didn't force you to read it
viriya
International Captain
I'm saying his effectiveness will decrease if he bowled more most likely - nothing against Marshall but that's just the nature of fast bowling. Spinners tire later for obvious reasons.
Lara did great vs Murali that's true, but that's anecdotal. Murali got 24 wickets in that series and SL won 3-0. That's beside the point though. I was merely pointing out that you were overvaluing fast bowlers because you were undervaluing WPM.
The "inflated numbers because of minnows" is also irrelevant. These points have been talked about endlessly but I will merely point out that his average was better than Warne even without Ban + Zim, but I disagree that they should be left out considering how Zim was relatively strong in the 90s/early 2000s.
"Raging turners at home" - I disagree, just look at how SSC plays. It's more of a road. The only turners were Galle and to a lesser extent Kandy (where fast bowlers did well as well). The idea that SL was full of raging turners is a myth.
To be clear, I don't have an issue with Marshall ranked so high, it's just that reasons like "his average + SR is better" shows a misunderstanding of how fast bowlers and spinners work in Test cricket. The idea that Marshall is clearly ahead of Warne or Murali makes no sense.
Last edited: