Battle of the Test Bowling

[LongHopCassidy]

Sarfraz. It's always harder to snatch a win from your opponenets rather than stomping them into the ground, repeatedly.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Nawaz for me.

 

[Jono]

Nawaz, just.

Would like someone to explain why Hadlee's is 'miles better', other than the fact that it was Hadlee who actually bowled that spell.

 

[nightprowler10]

Delighted to see Nawaz ahead.

 

[silentstriker]

Nawas wins it 10-7

A bit suprising really, I would have rated Hadlee's spell to be the best of all time.

In any case....the GRAND FINAL:

JC Laker 9 for 37 Eng Aus Old Trafford 1956
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1950S/1956/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T4_26-31JUL1956.html

vs.

Sarfraz Nawaz 9 for 86 Pak Aus Melbourne 1978-79
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1978-79/PAK_IN_AUS/PAK_AUS_T1_10-15MAR1979.html

 

[silentstriker]

Delighted to see Nawaz ahead.

Really? I really considered Hadlee's to be the clearly superior spell. But then again, I seem to be alone on a lot of issues.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Any particular reason? Nawaz won a game from nowhere, dismissed 9 batsmen against a decent batting lineup, including a burst of 7 for 1. It may be that Hadlee's is better, but it's surely at least close.

Anyway, Nawaz for me in the final too. A good candidate for the best spell of all time, and didn't have the rather absurd assistance from the surface that Laker did. If Laker had taken all 10 in this innings with the better figures instead of the other one after the rain I'd have voted for it, but as it is it's Nawaz.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Jimbo

 

[silentstriker]

Any particular reason? Nawaz won a game from nowhere, dismissed 9 batsmen against a decent batting lineup, including a burst of 7 for 1. It may be that Hadlee's is better, but it's surely at least close.

Well, this one is just bias, I'll admit. I loved that Hadlee spell, and I love the fact that he caught another ball, when a lot of us might have dropped it.

 

[grecian]

Laker

 

[shankar]

Nawaz

 

[Xuhaib]

Nawaz.

 

[Jono]

Well, this one is just bias, I'll admit. I loved that Hadlee spell, and I love the fact that he caught another ball, when a lot of us might have dropped it.

You keep mentioning the catch, but honestly its irrelevant. It makes a good story, but that's it.

Everyone says they love the Hadlee spell yadda yadda, andi ts obviously one of the best of all time, but why its understood to be so far ahead of the rest is weird to me. Look at the match situation of some of the bowling performances here like Tayfield, Willis and Nawaz.

Mind you in no way am I denigrating that terrific performance from Sir Rich, just pointing out the oddity I believe to be occuring.

Nawaz for me.

 

[a massive zebra]

Laker.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'll go the patriotic way: Laker.

Whatever assistance he had no-one could surely argue he didn't use it to the nth degree, could they?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah, Laker. Nawaz' twenty-odd wicketless overs against Border and Hughes has got to cost him someday.

 

[GIMH]

Laker

a-Great figures, great bowling
b-against those damn Aussies
c-he's English
d-I want him to win

 

[Goughy]

Laker
but Hadlee's was better than both

 

[nightprowler10]

Taking into account that a better bowler than Nawaz, Imran Khan, went wicketless in that inning, and that the 10th wicket was a runout, I think Nawaz's figures are much greater than people give him credit for. On top of which I am sick of Laker

So Nawaz for me.

 

[Loots]

It's really tough, and I don't want to vote against Laker, but I have got to say Sarfraz.