Is there a difference between a greater cricketer and a better cricketer?

[subshakerz]

Murali is the GOAT bowler by an appreciable margin, but there's an argument for other bowlers being as good as him.

Mutually conflicting statements.

 

[Bolo.]

Without starting WW3 this statement is garbage and you know it

Nope. He is the highest wicket taker by a big margin, and it didn't come from spamming tests. Highest WPM by a huge margin, and best average of any bowler remotely in his wicket class. Best peak. Best at consistently destroying opposition.

Whatever advantages he had over other bowlers, that is still the greatest career in most of the measures I consider critical. And whether or not you consider them important, most people do. The fact that I'm applying them to a particular bowler doesn't somehow make them controversial.

Hasn't Warne been given the nod as the slightly better bowler? @Migara

You won't get a proper consensus on this. I think Murali is a smidge better, but have no issues with anyone thinking the opposite.

 

[Migara]

Hasn't Warne been given the nod as the slightly better bowler? @Migara

If you consider all formats, Murali and McGrath are in their own class, with possibility of Hadlee and Akram in it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you consider all formats, Murali and McGrath are in their own class, with possibility of Hadlee and Akram in it.

Weren't special in T20Is though...... Bumrah for the GOAT!!!!

 

[Migara]

Weren't special in T20Is though...... Bumrah for the GOAT!!!!

Murali and McGrath hardly played T20s. When they played, they were good too. There is no indication that they could go past Bumrah, even in that format.

 

[Slifer]

I was thinking this recently given the ' 'greatest ever' rankings outside our forum tend to be all over the place.

Is it fair to say that a cricketer can be technically better based on career output, but somehow not greater? So Warne is seen unanimously as a greater cricketer than McGrath but McGrath is a better bowler?

Is greatness in cricket intrinsically linked to things such as contribution to the game, legacy, flair and box office value (along with career output) and is that equation necessarily bad and should it be reflect in our analysis too?

Yes because Imran is a better cricketer than Sachin, Hobbs etc but they are rated greater cricketers.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes because Imran is a better cricketer than Sachin, Hobbs etc but they are rated greater cricketers.

Yes

 

[Fuller Pilch]

James Anderson is a greater bowler (wickets, longevity, legacy), but Kyle Jamieson is a better bowler.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Bumrah is better than saw Waqar, but Waqar is still seen as better because of the accomplishments over his career.

If you are talking about tests Waqar is MILES better than Bumrah.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you are talking about tests Waqar is MILES better than Bumrah.

Hell nah at the MILES part.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hell nah at the MILES part.

Bumrah's 5 tests vs NZ
Played 5, lost 5. 9 wickets @ 45.44

Waqar's 1st 5 tests vs NZ.
Played 5, won 5. 44 wickets @ 10.84


I still think Bumrah will end up being one of the very best though.

 

[Coronis]

Bumrah's 5 tests vs NZ
Played 5, lost 5. 9 wickets @ 45.44

Waqar's 1st 5 tests vs NZ.
Played 5, won 5. 44 wickets @ 10.84


I still think Bumrah will end up being one of the very best though.

The near symmetry of those numbers is quite astounding

 

[JBMAC]

Calling murali the greatest bowler is perfectly justifiable.

It isn'thard to work out why though isn't It Warne bowled

 

[OverratedSanity]

It isn'thard to work out why though isn't It Warne bowled

True but Warne was a drug cheat, took money from bookies and also died. All three things which only lame people do.

 

[Coronis]

Based on everything I can barely seperate Murali and Warne by a hair’s breadth. It somewhat amuses me when people claim that one was clearly better than the other. But again that’s just me.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Based on everything I can barely seperate Murali and Warne by a hair’s breadth. It somewhat amuses me when people claim that one was clearly better than the other. But again that’s just me.

Imo Murali was better just because he was the Greatest home bowler of All Time, by a really big margin. Ofcourse their home conditions aren't comparable, but this just puts Murali firmly ahead in my mind. Not a big gap, but Murali ahead.

 

[subshakerz]

Based on everything I can barely seperate Murali and Warne by a hair’s breadth. It somewhat amuses me when people claim that one was clearly better than the other. But again that’s just me.

Aus record is a clear stat distinction between them for me. I have no confidence Murali would have succeeded there.

 

[subshakerz]

Imo Murali was better just because he was the Greatest home bowler of All Time, by a really big margin. Ofcourse their home conditions aren't comparable, but this just puts Murali firmly ahead in my mind. Not a big gap, but Murali ahead.

Warne deserves more credit for his home record frankly.