capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Nah, Siraj isn't a bad bowler by any stretch.Mohammed Siraj
Nah, Siraj isn't a bad bowler by any stretch.Mohammed Siraj
Asif debuted a no. 10 but rapidly became a specialist batsmen. Someone who has a Cricket Archive subscription what his batting was like prior to his test debut and whether he really was a specialist bowler. He did 60% of his career bowling in his first 11 tests (out of 58).Found someone better. Asif Iqbal. 53 wickets in 58 matches.
Don’t have a sub but I like to sneak behind the paywall.Asif debuted a no. 10 but rapidly became a specialist batsmen. Someone who has a Cricket Archive subscription what his batting was like prior to his test debut and whether he really was a specialist bowler. He did 60% of his career bowling in his first 11 tests (out of 58).
Which pure bowler averaging less than 30 will you rate lower than him?Nah, Siraj isn't a bad bowler by any stretch.
Geoff DymockWhich pure bowler averaging less than 30 will you rate lower than him?
Confirmed.You are a disgrace to cricket and society in general. I'm not even giving you an angry emoji as that would add a point to your clearly arbitrarily gained reaction score. Woakes is quite clearly the best bowler to average less than 30 and I would expect the ultimate arbiter @Red_Ink_Squid to confirm this for me.
I will remove Bhuvi, Jones and Hilfenhaus here but otherwise, agreed with the rest of the list. It is tough to remember these bowlers.Geoff Dymock
Bhubaneswar Kumar
Shabbir Ahmed
Dean Headley
Doug Bollinger
Hasan Ali
Simon Jones
Bapu Nadkarni
Abdur Rahman
Kasun Rajitha
Ajaz Patel
Ernie Jones
Billy Whitty
Duanne Olivier
Ben Hilfanheus
On counting bowling all rounders:
Axar Patel
Billy Bates
George Ullyett
A lot of them are betterGeoff Dymock
Bhubaneswar Kumar
Shabbir Ahmed
Dean Headley
Doug Bollinger
Hasan Ali
Simon Jones
Bapu Nadkarni
Abdur Rahman
Kasun Rajitha
Ajaz Patel
Ernie Jones
Billy Whitty
Duanne Olivier
Ben Hilfanheus
On counting bowling all rounders:
Axar Patel
Billy Bates
George Ullyett
Which 6?? I have my doubts on Hilfanheus, Olivier and somewhat Jones; but don't know if I would really place Bollinger, Headley or Bhuvi ahead...A lot of them are better
And when I say a lot I mean the ones I know
Which is like 6 of them
Interesting, looks like he could always play a useful innings but took a long time to learn to get the bigger scores.
I'd also have Headley over Siraj in a heartbeat; was a genuinely very good bowler whose career was ruined by injuries.I will remove Bhuvi, Jones and Hilfenhaus here but otherwise, agreed with the rest of the list. It is tough to remember these bowlers.
I think Jones was known more for being really quick than his effectiveness in terms of wickets.Ernie Jones was pretty highly rated for his time; might have failed in Test relatively.
Don't think so. His best season was 1979/80 against India in India, England and West Indies in Australia and Pakistan in Pakistan, averaging 23.73 in 13 tests that season despite going for 129 in four innings in Pakistan. This was a better average than against clearly much weaker New Zealand in 1973/74 (24.76), his second best season. The only side he played that might have been Packer-era weakened was England (and then not really) in 1978/79, but he averaged 36.9 that season.Geoff Dymock? Took most of his wickets during the Packer era when sides were weakened and (in so far as recall) there were some low scoring matches.
Bhuvi is good though, doesnt belong hereGeoff Dymock
Bhubaneswar Kumar
Shabbir Ahmed
Dean Headley
Doug Bollinger
Hasan Ali
Simon Jones
Bapu Nadkarni
Abdur Rahman
Kasun Rajitha
Ajaz Patel
Ernie Jones
Billy Whitty
Duanne Olivier
Ben Hilfanheus
On counting bowling all rounders:
Axar Patel
Billy Bates
George Ullyett
He was great in White ball; but he played wayyyyyy fewer Test matches than he should had though....Bhuvi is good though, doesnt belong here
cuz of injuries more than anythingHe was great in White ball; but he played wayyyyyy fewer Test matches than he should had though....
Yes he was quite decent with both bat and ball in the matches he played. Unfortunate not to play more, especially in swinging conditions.Bhuvi is good though, doesnt belong here
conditions specific Bhuvi still did okay enough in India, albeit helped by strong performances at Eden GardensBhuvi was a condition specific bowler, Siraj is an all conditions bowler.
Siraj > Bhuvi. If Bhuvi and Siraj plays in same era, Siraj is playing ahead of Bhuvi comfortably.