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

[Lillian Thomson]

Some people just don't rate spinners. Silent Striker reckoned they were a pop group and Richard reckoned there isn't a single spinner that would be chosen ahead of Ian Bishop in an all time bowlers list.

 

[viriya]

It's kind of like a batsman who makes 50 runs @ 80 SR and another that makes 60 @ 55. The higher SR is nice but in Test cricket the 10 runs still matters more.

 

[kyear2]

While you would want to focus on WPM, for me it is no more important than average and strike rate. With a strike rate of 47 and an average under 21, Marshall did his job. His WPM for me had more to do with Garner, Holding etc taking wickets away from him rather than he being unable to take additional wickets if required.

The
Similarly with McGrath, Warne and Gillespie would have been competing for wickets more aggressively than anyone Murali played with.

 

[viriya]

While you would want to focus on WPM, for me it is no more important than average and strike rate. With a strike rate of 47 and an average under 21, Marshall did his job. His WPM for me had more to do with Garner, Holding etc taking wickets away from him rather than he being unable to take additional wickets if required.

The
Similarly with McGrath, Warne and Gillespie would have been competing for wickets more aggressively than anyone Murali played with.

The same argument can be made to say that they benefit from better average + SR because they don't overbowl. It goes both ways. When Murali was having a bad day the captain had no option but to bowl him again.

I'm not saying WPM is more important than average/SR necessarily but it is at least as important.

 

[Coronis]

mm, it is impressive that despite bowling a hell of a lot more than most of the other bowlers he still managed such a low average and strike rate.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Murali's WPM was so high because the SL captains bowled him just about non-stop for the majority of the innings. I remember when SL came here some years back (the series where McCullum ran out Murali) and he bowled 40 overs out of one 90-over NZ innings.

If these SL captains had had the rest of the WI pace quartet to call on or Gillespie, McGrath, Warne et al. then Murali would have a far lower WPM.

 

[viriya]

Murali's WPM was so high because the SL captains bowled him just about non-stop for the majority of the innings. I remember when SL came here some years back (the series where McCullum ran out Murali) and he bowled 40 overs out of one 90-over NZ innings.

If these SL captains had had the rest of the WI pace quartet to call on or Gillespie, McGrath, Warne et al. then Murali would have a far lower WPM.

His WPM would go down no doubt, but his average and SR would improve. Even with how he bowled a lot because the captain had no other options, he still had a SR similar to Wasim Akram and better than Warne.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

Nah.

McGrath had 2.31 wpi, Warne 2.59 wpi playing for the same team. That's 0.28 wpi extra (0.5 wpm) for the spinner there controlling for competition. viriya's made a good argument.

 

[watson]

Some people just don't rate spinners. Silent Striker reckoned they were a pop group and Richard reckoned there isn't a single spinner that would be chosen ahead of Ian Bishop in an all time bowlers list.

If you look at bowlers individually then you'd probably be forgiven for under-rating spinners. However, a bowling attack is not just one person, but rather it's 4 or more. The point being that spinners always complement the attack by adding variety. This is why Warne and McGrath worked so well together - one minute the batsman is facing slow swerving leg-breaks, and the next minute they are defending a fast outswinger on the off-stump. This has to throw the batsman's rhythmn and timing out.

Also, spinners are able to bowl longer spells. This increases the effectiveness of the fast bowlers as they can rest better and be rotated more efficiently. And on the last day of a Test when the pitch is roughed-up and cracked, most good spinners take wickets, and occasionally run through the opposing batting line-up.

 

[kyear2]

Unofficial count.

Marshall is leading 13 - 3. Voting lower than for previous rounds.

 

[Gob]

Warne

 

[Slifer]

Mm>Murali. MM was great universally but Murali was not. Fact. Also MM may have benefitted from playing in a champion team (I don't agree) but this is more than balanced out by the fact that unlike Murali, he didn't play any minnow teams. Imagine what MM's record would look like if he had even half a dozen tests against the minnows.

 

[NUFAN]

Nah.

McGrath had 2.31 wpi, Warne 2.59 wpi playing for the same team. That's 0.28 wpi extra (0.5 wpm) for the spinner there controlling for competition. viriya's made a good argument.

Nah, the difference just illustrates why McGrath got knocked out first round and Warne has made the final. *insert random smiley*

 

[kyear2]

So are we going to call this?

 

[mr_mister]

Guess so. thanks for helping count votes Kyear I get lazy near the end. Marshall wins!

Our XI

Hobbs
Grace
Bradman
Sachin
Viv
Sobers
???
Marshall
Warne
Ambrose
Murali



lol

 

[watson]

I think that we've accidently selected a first rate team. WG Grace, Ambrose, and two spinners instead of the usual one make it more interesting.

Thanks for running the show MM.

 

[kyear2]

Both exercises were interesting and fairly conclusive. Think we ended up with the right finalists and deserving winners.

 

[kyear2]

I think that we've accidently selected a first rate team. WG Grace, Ambrose, and two spinners instead of the usual one make it more interesting.

Thanks for running the show MM.

Yea, the biggest difference is having Sir Curtly over say Sir Richard or McGrath, so no major drop off there. Thought Barnes would have beaten Murali though and challenged for the title, but I think we got it right.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There's no 'right' in these things.

 

[mr_mister]

i wish people would stop saying that lol

there definitely can be things drawn from a contest like this it's not hard to figure out

X narrowly losing to Y, who goes on to thrash Z tells us X > Z