Who is the best new ball bowler of all time?

[Bolo.]

Frankly what about Lillee with the new ball? Wasn't he supposed to be a champ?

Other people would know more about this than me. I'd assume others would be ahead. He was considered a wicket taking threat at any stage of the innings and most people rank a few bowlers ahead of him overall.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with your points but I think McGrath is the one I would expect to get most of a bright red cherry in seaming conditions even more than Marshall.

I think McGrath had extra bounce that made a balk kick up off a length and that expertise of seam.

However, on a flat pitch Marshall takes it. So it's close.

I just want to be clear, you're saying you would prefer to face Marshall on a traditional WACA or Bridgetown pitch than McGrath? You believe McGrath would be more of a handful in such conditions?

 

[kyear2]

This is a really difficult one. I would probably give the edge to McGrath for bowling with the old ball. He could reverse it when needed. But Marshall was better at working out batsmen's weaknesses in multiple areas IMO whereas McGrath would generally get the batsmen by just tiny movements of line and length that the batsmen generally find difficult to negotiate from one ball to the next. It's fast and skinny vs bouncy

I do respect your opinions in such matters, and it's true Marshall didn't even try to pick up reverse until late in his career, but he still had his ways of working out the batsmen and using conventional swing.

This will be a controversial take, but the batsmen in the 80's and 90's were battle hardened and had to learn how to negotiate skillful bowlers. Think for the 2000's, with McGrath being the only alpha around, they seemed at sea when having to face him. Not even remotely a knock vs McGrath, because each era had their advantages, but it's something I've noticed looking back.

Those two for me were in a league of their own though.

 

[subshakerz]

I just want to be clear, you're saying you would prefer to face Marshall on a traditional WACA or Bridgetown pitch than McGrath? You believe McGrath would be more of a handful in such conditions?

Marshall would be more physically threatening but McGrath would be more likely to get me out.

I do respect your opinions in such matters, and it's true Marshall didn't even try to pick up reverse until late in his career, but he still had his ways of working out the batsmen and using conventional swing.

This will be a controversial take, but the batsmen in the 80's and 90's were battle hardened and had to learn how to negotiate skillful bowlers. Think for the 2000's, with McGrath being the only alpha around, they seemed at sea when having to face him. Not even remotely a knock vs McGrath, because each era had their advantages, but it's something I've noticed looking back.

Those two for me were in a league of their own though.

Finally someone said it.

 

[kyear2]

Fair enough in your case. You give Marshall a big edge. I'd also rank Marshall ahead with the new ball if I thought there was a big gap between them overall. Most people put them closer than you do though.

For the record, I don't think there's a big gap, I think there's an edge where Maco is ahead. As I said I don't think it's a coin toss, bit definitely not a big gap.

McGrath was crafty, subtle and aggressive, along with being accurate as hell. That being said, I'll face him before I would Marshall though.

 

[kyear2]

Barnes deserving of a mention.

I know you love to represent the black and white days, but my God, we've hardly no real life footage of the man. His career started in 1901, batsmanship and technique wasn't comparable to even the 30's and we would hardly know because we can't see it.

The game simply wasn't the same.

 

[nightprowler10]

Marshall would be more physically threatening but McGrath would be more likely to get me out.

I'm sure Ian Salisbury with a new ball could get you out though.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall would be more physically threatening but McGrath would be more likely to get me out.


Finally someone said it.

But that's the thing though, they both were.

And yeah, something I've noticed for a while, but also something that would be seriously pushed back against for various reasons.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Well seeing that a new ball is shared i would share it between McGrath and Marshall, would compliment each other well.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know you love to represent the black and white days, but my God, we've hardly no real life footage of the man. His career started in 1901, batsmanship and technique wasn't comparable to even the 30's and we would hardly know because we can't see it.

The game simply wasn't the same.

Sometimes you just have to give some people a pass just for their statistics and peer ratings, after all we rate most people that way. I highly doubt you rate Hobbs based on his batting footages. I am pretty sure many people in CW still have Barnes in their Top 10, and it's really disrespectful to include Asif but not him.

 

[kyear2]

Well seeing that a new ball is shared i would share it between McGrath and Marshall, would compliment each other well.

Perfectly actually.

 

[kyear2]

Sometimes you just have to give some people a pass just for their statistics and peer ratings, after all we rate most people that way. I highly doubt you rate Hobbs based on his batting footages. I am pretty sure many people in CW still have Barnes in their Top 10, and it's really disrespectful to include Asif but not him.

Peer ratings is the most unreliable way of rating cricketers.

Two, his average vs Australia was no better than bowlers in the 80's and 90's. And that's the level of batsmanship that was considerably lower.

Three, we're doing this based on his they operated with the new ball, not just stats. That would require observing how they performed with the new ball, look at Smali's post, it described how both of them operated. We have no such frame of reference, at alllll. Some observers said cut, some seam, some spin.

There's a reason he isn't included in these conversations or even AT teams.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Peer ratings is the most unreliable way of rating cricketers.

Two, his average vs England was no better than bowlers in the 80's and 90's. And that's the level of batsmanship that was considerably lower.

Three, we're doing this based on his they operated with the new ball, not just stats. That would require observing how they performed with the new ball, look at Smali's post, it described how both of them operated. We have no such frame of reference, at alllll. Some observers said cut, some seam, some spin.

There's a reason he isn't included in these conversations or even AT teams.

He is included in many people's AT teams. Now:

One: Peer ratings is a big way we rate players. It's literally what separates Victor Trumper from Clem Hill. You can't act like it's orbitary.

Two: I can't understand your point. He played for England, haven't he?? And his average against Australia isn't really worse than anyone's. Also, he had an astronomically high WPM.

Three: This argument is based on bowling with the new ball, and we know for a fact that he specifically was dangerous with the new ball. We knew about his almost inhumane ability to bowl long spells, the movement he got on air and the way he made the ball move off the pitch. He was very successful with it in spin friendly soft English pitches, hard Australian ones and also the matted pitches in South Africa.

In conclusion, you are definitely entitled to think McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, etc. all are better than him; but others may differ and most importantly, he no doubt deserves a mention.

 

[honestbharani]

It's literally what separates Victor Trumper from Clem Hill

@trundler

 

[kyear2]

He is included in many people's AT teams. Now:

One: Peer ratings is a big way we rate players. It's literally what separates Victor Trumper from Clem Hill. You can't act like it's orbitary.

Two: I can't understand your point. He played for England, haven't he?? And his average against Australia isn't really worse than anyone's. Also, he had an astronomically high WPM.

Three: This argument is based on bowling with the new ball, and we know for a fact that he specifically was dangerous with the new ball. We knew about his almost inhumane ability to bowl long spells, the movement he got on air and the way he made the ball move off the pitch. He was very successful with it in spin friendly soft English pitches, hard Australian ones and also the matted pitches in South Africa.

In conclusion, you are definitely entitled to think McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, etc. all are better than him; but others may differ and most importantly, he no doubt deserves a mention.

I'm not saying he wasn't as good as the names mentioned, I'm saying it not comparable because it was a different game. Think Red made a similar comment last time we did an at xi and he was excluded.

But to your other points. Peer resting is ****, as we've discussed with Barrington vs May / Compton etc. it's who was media favorites or popular with the other players. Peer ratings have Lillee and Wasim as one and two all time as bowlers.

Next, mis typed, meant to say his average vs Australia was no better than players in the 80's and 90's, while playing a much more competitive and competent level of batsmen. We're talking about batting techniques from 1901.

Yes we know, depending on what we read, that he swung, cut, seamed or spun it, hell sometimes for the same delivery. And yes, in wet pitches in England, which must have been a joy to bat on in 1910. Re South Africa, not even including them, the same way Bang and Zim aren't included for Murali, absolute minnows and God in heaven knows what it was like to bat on them in that era.

Again, not saying he can't be recognized in his era, but it s a stretch to think or believe that it's comparable in anyway to modern cricket.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm not saying he wasn't as good as the names mentioned, I'm saying it not comparable because it was a different game. Think Red made a similar comment last time we did an at xi and he was excluded.

But to your other points. Peer resting is ****, as we've discussed with Barrington vs May / Compton etc. it's who was media favorites or popular with the other players. Peer ratings have Lillee and Wasim as one and two all time as bowlers.

Next, mis typed, meant to say his average vs Australia was no better than players in the 80's and 90's, while playing a much more competitive and competent level of batsmen. We're talking about batting techniques from 1901.

Yes we know, depending on what we read, that he swung, cut, seamed or spun it, hell sometimes for the same delivery. And yes, in wet pitches in England, which must have been a joy to bat on in 1910. Re South Africa, not even including them, the same way Bang and Zim aren't included for Murali, absolute minnows and God in heaven knows what it was like to bat on them in that era.

Again, not saying he can't be recognized in his era, but it s a stretch to think or believe that it's comparable in anyway to modern cricket.

I am of the belief then we can't include Jack Hobbs in AT teams?? Surely then he can't be compared with Hutton and Gavaskar? They started playing over similar time. Also, I just wanted him to get a mention in the nominees which includes Mohammad Asif and Vernon Philander. Is it too much to ask? Also, there was literally no one directly compared with Barnes back then. Lillee and Akram do get overrated, but they still are almost undisputed Top 10s. Yes, cricket was a different game back then, and it had both it's ups and downs. For starters, he played so few games for England just because he used to play in Lancashire League. Heck, when Windies first toured England in the 30s, they said a 56 years old Barnes was the best bowler they ever faced on that tour. If we just disregards him due to him not playing in the "modern era", then just the comparison is for the players who played in the Last Century.

 

[kyear2]

I am of the belief then we can't include Jack Hobbs in AT teams?? Surely then he can't be compared with Hutton and Gavaskar? They started playing over similar time. Also, I just wanted him to get a mention in the nominees which includes Mohammad Asif and Vernon Philander. Is it too much to ask? Also, there was literally no one directly compared with Barnes back then. Lillee and Akram do get overrated, but they still are almost undisputed Top 10s. Yes, cricket was a different game back then, and it had both it's ups and downs. For starters, he played so few games for England just because he used to play in Lancashire League. Heck, when Windies first toured England in the 30s, they said a 56 years old Barnes was the best bowler they ever faced on that tour. If we just disregards him due to him not playing in the "modern era", then just the comparison is for the players who played in the Last Century.

First of all my openers are Gavaskar and Hutton, but that's another story.

I think you're missing my point a little, part of this analysis is observation of the bowlers to see and compare how they operated. We look at the batsmen they faced and how they got them out. How they used the new ball.... We can't definitively comment on that with regards to Barnes.

My secondary point is with regards to the point that he did play a different era. 1901 to 1914 was a different game with different rules and a much less competitive field of opponents.

Yes, I understand your argument with that he deserves a mention, but that too takes away from the argument between the primary protagonists (as it ended up doing anyways).

 

[kyear2]

Who gets choice of ends?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

No Hadlee takers at all seems strange.

I can only presume all the Kiwi posters have put subshakerz on ignore.

 

[kyear2]

The Anderson vote was equally mystifying