Wasim Akram vs Malcolm Marshall

[Johan]

I would choose Akram and so would a decent majority of cricket fans, pundits and pkayers

 

[kyear2]

 

[kyear2]

There are three bowlers, at most 4 that falls into that category. But definitely two at the top.

Ummm, but yeah, does Steyn make it 4 or is it really just the top 3 guys?

 

[DrWolverine]

You have to choose two bowlers to win you a match or series in any (random) condition, country and vs any opponent. Which two or three gives you the best opportunities to be successful?


It's not all conjecture.

Marshall and Hadlee.

 

[DrWolverine]

Top 2, or even top 1.

Hadlee is the only bowler I can consider his equal and I would still rate Macko ahead of him

 

[sayon basak]

Hadlee is the only bowler I can consider his equal and I would still rate Macko ahead of him

I rate murali quite high.
Marshall
Murali (could swap murali and marshall the other day)
Hadlee
McGrath
Warne
Barnes;
Top 6 for me.

 

[DrWolverine]

Marshall. Hadlee. McGrath.

Top 3 fast bowlers ever.

 

[Johan]

I rate murali quite high.
Marshall
Murali (could swap murali and marshall the other day)
Hadlee
McGrath
Warne
Barnes;
Top 6 for me.

Warne victim

 

[DrWolverine]

Sydney Barnes is difficult to judge. For one, he played between 1901-1914 and there is zero video footage of his bowling.

He played against two teams - the best opposition Australia and the minnows SouthAfrica.

In the same time period, Wilfred Rhodes took 84 wickets at an average of 22.8, ER of 2.75 and SR of 49.

Against Australia, he took 106 wickets at an average of 21.5, SR of 54 and ER of 2.4.

Against South Africa was his greatest success- 83 wickets in 7 Tests at an unbelievable average of 9 and SR of 25.

Obviously he has an unparalleled bowling record but he benefitted from his Bradmanesque record against SA

 

[kyear2]

Marshall and Hadlee.

I would place Pigeon just over Paddles, but they are the only 3 I would trust.

 

[kyear2]

Sydney Barnes is difficult to judge. For one, he played between 1901-1914 and there is zero video footage of his bowling.

He played against two teams - the best opposition Australia and the minnows SouthAfrica.

In the same time period, Wilfred Rhodes took 84 wickets at an average of 22.8, ER of 2.75 and SR of 49.

Against Australia, he took 106 wickets at an average of 21.5, SR of 54 and ER of 2.4.

Against South Africa was his greatest success- 83 wickets in 7 Tests at an unbelievable average of 9 and SR of 25.

Obviously he has an unparalleled bowling record but he benefitted from his Bradmanesque record against SA

Exactly.

And in an era, not remotely comparable to our own.

 

[DrWolverine]

I have a soft spot for one man armies like Hadlee, Flower and even Murali.

To play with little support, take the entire burden and still deliver the greatest of results is something I admire a lot.

 

[ma1978]

There are three bowlers, at most 4 that falls into that category. But definitely two at the top.

Ummm, but yeah, does Steyn make it 4 or is it really just the top 3 guys?

I rate murali quite high.
Marshall
Murali (could swap murali and marshall the other day)
Hadlee
McGrath
Warne
Barnes;
Top 6 for me.

There is no basis to distinguish this group from Steyn, Ambrose, Akram, Donald, Imran, Lillee etc

 

[Johan]

I can distinguish McGrath from Steyn, Akram and Lillee pretty easily.

 

[kyear2]

I can distinguish McGrath from Steyn, Akram and Lillee pretty easily.

So can I.

You watch these guys often enough and you know who was better.

 

[ma1978]

So can I.

You watch these guys often enough and you know who was better.

No you are just creating false precision to justify your personal preferences

 

[Johan]

The Verdict serves the Analysis, the Analysis does not serve the verdict.

 

[kyear2]

No you are just creating false precision to justify your personal preferences

Or, could it be possible that your preferences came as a result of whom you considered to be better.

Some players also proved them selves in multiple and various scenarios while others just didn't.

 

[sayon basak]

There is no basis to distinguish this group from Steyn, Ambrose, Akram, Donald, Imran, Lillee etc

In fact, these are the very next names. Except for Donald, whom I rate below Garner, O'Reilly and Trueman, making my top 15.

 

[ma1978]

In fact, these are the very next names. Except for Donald, whom I rate below Garner, O'Reilly and Trueman, making my top 15.

no basis for this other than personal preference