Which pacers would you rank ahead of Murali and Warne as bowlers?

[Coronis]

Warne and Ambrose both have incomplete records, it’s just that Warne bowler on less helpful home pitches, and had a way better WPM despite playing in a more competitive attack

lol yes WPM is a good comparison for pacers and spinners.

 

[OverratedSanity]

lol yes WPM is a good comparison for pacers and spinners.

Course it is. Pacers and spinners are being compared here. The fact that spinners usually pick up more WPM is a point in their favour and not something that can just be waved aside as "Oh they're just spinners they always pick up more WPM"

 

[ZK$]

As for home wickets, in the Caribbean only Sabina and Kensington favor pace. Ambrose has an outstanding record on the flattest wicket in the world aka the ARG in Antigua.

Interestingly, Ambrose averaged 27.35 at Kensington Oval and 50.5 at Sabina Park. He saved his best for the other grounds.

 

[honestbharani]

Course it is. Pacers and spinners are being compared here. The fact that spinners usually pick up more WPM is a point in their favour and not something that can just be waved aside as "Oh they're just spinners they always pick up more WPM"

WTF OS. Who uses wickets as a measure to compare bowlers? What's next? Using runs to compare batsmen??? FFS.

 

[Migara]

Interestingly, Ambrose averaged 27.35 at Kensington Oval and 50.5 at Sabina Park. He saved his best for the other grounds.

Muralitharan on those flattest of WI wickets averaged 23. Ambrose 21.2.

 

[Slifer]

Dude, Ambrose never bowled in Ind where Warne sucked. Also I have specified Ambrose barely played in NZ and SL, and very little in SA. Ambrose took a lot of wickets vs some of the worst English batting lineups ever. Ambrose is not decisively the better bowler. Warne did well in SA, SL, Nz, Pak, Eng and at home. Ambrose did well in Aus, SA and Eng, but his record in Pak, NZ and SL is based on a very very small sample size, and he never played in Ind.

Warne played all of 3 tests in Pakistan so don't know why you're using them. And there's literally nothing to say Ambrose wouldn't have maintained his excellent record with more matches away to Nz (lol), SL or Pakistan.

Also, Warne never had to bowl to his own atg batting lineups while Ambrose dominated Australia home and away. The only real chink in Ambrose's armor is India. Period. Funny enough Warne has the same chink.

 

[Godard]

Warne played all of 3 tests in Pakistan so don't know why you're using them. And there's literally nothing to say Ambrose wouldn't have maintained his excellent record with more matches away to Nz (lol), SL or Pakistan.

Also, Warne never had to bowl to his own atg batting lineups while Ambrose dominated Australia home and away. The only real chink in Ambrose's armor is India. Period. Funny enough Warne has the same chink.

Thats why I am saying they both have equally good away records, cause Ambrose did great in Aus, Eng and SA, and decent in Pak but in NZ and SL, he played 2 or less matches which is barely enough of a sample size and he never bowled in Ind. On the other hand, Warne was great in SA, Eng, SL, Nz and decent in Pak, while having a problem in Wi and Ind. Warne took 18 wickets in the 3 matches(a fifer and six-fer) he played against Pak, Ambrose barely took 5 in 2 vs Nz and 3 in 1 vs SL, so in the latter case, it is very difficult to call that excellent form or even good ability as the performance in the sample size is too spare. Plus Warne was the MOS in that series in Pak, and his stats would be great if he would have done slightly better in the last match. Ambrose had no such major role in the series in NZ and SL. So I can reasonably comment favourably about Warne in Pak and say Ambrose bowled too little in NZ and SL to judge what what he would have done there. Ambrose’s sample in Pak and SA is decent enough I agree. Bowling great against the best batting side of his time is a point in Ambrose’s favour, but Warne’s superior WPM and the fact he bowled on slightly less friendly home pitches, makes me choose him marginally above Ambrose.

 

[Slifer]

Thats why I am saying they both have equally good away records, cause Ambrose did great in Aus, Eng and SA, and decent in Pak but in NZ and SL, he played 2 or less matches which is barely enough of a sample size and he never bowled in Ind. On the other hand, Warne was great in SA, Eng, SL, Nz and decent in Pak, while having a problem in Wi and Ind. Warne took 18 wickets in the 3 matches(a fifer and six-fer) he played against Pak, Ambrose barely took 5 in 2 vs Nz and 3 in 1 vs SL, so in the latter case, it is very difficult to call that excellent form or even good ability as the performance in the sample size is too spare. Plus Warne was the MOS in that series in Pak, and his stats would be great if he would have done slightly better in the last match. Ambrose had no such major role in the series in NZ and SL. So I can reasonably comment favourably about Warne in Pak and say Ambrose bowled too little in NZ and SL to judge what what he would have done there. Ambrose’s sample in Pak and SA is decent enough I agree. Bowling great against the best batting side of his time is a point in Ambrose’s favour, but Warne’s superior WPM and the fact he bowled on slightly less friendly home pitches, makes me choose him marginally above Ambrose.

Let's agree to disagree. Cheers !!!

 

[subshakerz]

None of the top tier pacers genuinely sucked in a country in which they played at least a couple of series. Even a 30 something average is sub optimal but not horrible to the extent Murali was in India and Australia and Warne in WI and India. So I think the pacers have an advantage there when it comes to being less condition dependent.

With Murali and Warne, you have to balance their advantage in bowling longer spells and being more deadly in spin conditions with the fact that against the strongest lineups/players of spin, they have an ability to be destroyed in a way high level pacers do not.

 

[ankitj]

None of the top tier pacers genuinely sucked in a country in which they played at least a couple of series. Even a 30 something average is sub optimal but not horrible to the extent Murali was in India and Australia and Warne in WI and India. So I think the pacers have an advantage there when it comes to being less condition dependent.

Spinners are more likely to keep bowling marathon spells even on their bad days. Murali had nowhere to hide on an unhelpful pitch or in adverse match situations. True for Warne too I guess to lesser extent (due to better support cast).

 

[subshakerz]

Spinners are more likely to keep bowling marathon spells even on their bad days. Murali had nowhere to hide on an unhelpful pitch or in adverse match situations. True for Warne too I guess to lesser extent (due to better support cast).

The pacers like Imran and Hadlee also had nowhere to hide. The only difference is the marathon spells. But even if they got a hammering, that gave the spinners some 4/150 type returns also.

How many times did Murali and Warne end up with more wickets in a match in which they bowled ordinarily.

 

[ankitj]

The pacers like Imran and Hadlee also had nowhere to hide. The only difference is the marathon spells. But even if they got a hammering, that gave the spinners some 4/150 type returns also.

How many times did Murali and Warne end up with more wickets in a match in which they bowled ordinarily.

That might help their WPM but probably explains why even the greatest spin bowlers have 1-2 countries where their averages are poor.

 

[subshakerz]

That might help their WPM but probably explains why even the greatest spin bowlers have 1-2 countries where their averages are poor.

It doesn't. They have those high averages cas they were smashed by Sidhu, Tendulkar, Lara, Laxman and Sehwag respectively in their bad series. They had a few passable series in between in which they averaged less also but these are outweighed by them just performing badly most of the time.

 

[ankitj]

It doesn't. They have those high averages cas they were smashed by Sidhu, Tendulkar, Lara, Laxman and Sehwag respectively in their bad series. They had a few passable series in between in which they averaged less also but these are outweighed by them just performing badly most of the time.

Yeah but even when they were getting smashed, they keep bowling mostly.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah but even when they were getting smashed, they keep bowling mostly.

Even If that was the case it evens out with all the times they took longer expensive wicket hauls. You can't give them credit for all those 6/160s and then exempt them for the time they were caned in their longer spells. It mostly worked to their favor.

 

[Kirkut]

I would rate zero pacers definitely ahead. For me, Any of Marshall/Hadlee/McGrath/Warne/Murali have strong claims to be ranked as the greatest bowler ever.

Do agree. The discrimination against spinners is universal...

 

[subshakerz]

Do agree. The discrimination against spinners is universal...

Top tier pacers are simply better. Less condition dependent, take wickets quicker, not blunted by first innings pitches, and simply set the pace for teams to win.

 

[Coronis]

Top tier pacers are simply better. Less condition dependent, take wickets quicker, not blunted by first innings pitches, and simply set the pace for teams to win.

I don’t get it.

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t get it.

Pacers open the bowling and their success determines the early advantage of the game.

 

[nightprowler10]

All of them.