• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Battle of the Test Bowling

Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
What a spell by McGrath! If he had stopped after an hour or if someone else had taken wickets he could have ended up with 5 for very very little. If he had finished with 5-10 I may have voted for him.

Also devalued a little by the fact that Harmison bowled very well for better figures in Australias 1st Innings (though without quite the drama of the opening McGath spell)

Obviously Laker
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Has to be Laker. That said McGrath's spell on the Thursday evening was as close to unplayable as I've ever seen a seamer get. KP rather ruined his figures when he took the long handle to him on the Friday morning, so 5/53 doesn't really do the performance justice.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
McGrath's spell included a burst of 5 for 2, incidentally.

I'm going to vote for McGrath, for two reasons. One is that Laker's other spell from that match is already through, and I'm not sure that it's right to have to spells from the same bowler in the same match into the last 32. The other is that he did get a rather absurd amount of assistance from the conditions. The 10 wicket haul is obviously a unique achievement, but this is a 9-for on an absolutely horrific wicket that was first a dustbowl and then got rained on for 3 days. There are various horror stories one hears about the pitch, the actions of the groundsman under direction from the English captain, and the incompetence of that particular Australian team against spin, and I'm not sure that the 9-for rates as one of the best spells of all time. Certainly a great achivement, but not realistically that much more amazing than, say, Michael Clarke's 6 for 9.

McGrath's 5-fer is one of the best spells of bowling I've ever seen, and basically single-handedly won a test match in the space of an hour. Remarkable stuff.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
FaaipDeOiad said:
McGrath's spell included a burst of 5 for 2, incidentally.

I'm going to vote for McGrath, for two reasons. One is that Laker's other spell from that match is already through, and I'm not sure that it's right to have to spells from the same bowler in the same match into the last 32. The other is that he did get a rather absurd amount of assistance from the conditions. The 10 wicket haul is obviously a unique achievement, but this is a 9-for on an absolutely horrific wicket that was first a dustbowl and then got rained on for 3 days. There are various horror stories one hears about the pitch, the actions of the groundsman under direction from the English captain, and the incompetence of that particular Australian team against spin, and I'm not sure that the 9-for rates as one of the best spells of all time. Certainly a great achivement, but not realistically that much more amazing than, say, Michael Clarke's 6 for 9.

McGrath's 5-fer is one of the best spells of bowling I've ever seen, and basically single-handedly won a test match in the space of an hour. Remarkable stuff.
Click to expand...
McGrath's spell was wonderful, but you could equally argue that Lord's on that Thursday evening was equally tailor-made for his style of bowling as OT was for Laker in 1953. If we were voting for spells of bowling I'd say McGrath would be one of the favourites (Ambrose's spell when WI dismissed us for 40-odd would be the other one that springs to mind), but his innings performance was spray-painted all over by Pietersen's cameo.
 
Magrat Garlick

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
FaaipDeOiad said:
The 10 wicket haul is obviously a unique achievement, but this is a 9-for on an absolutely horrific wicket that was first a dustbowl and then got rained on for 3 days. There are various horror stories one hears about the pitch, the actions of the groundsman under direction from the English captain, and the incompetence of that particular Australian team against spin, and I'm not sure that the 9-for rates as one of the best spells of all time.
Click to expand...
Hm. The scorecard says that the 9-for was before the 10-for - then it rained, and Tony Lock bowled very, very badly, and Laker could take all ten - in nearly 52 overs, as opposed to the 16 he took his nine-for in.

Oh well. I'm sure this will come up when the two feats meet in the final. :p
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Samuel_Vimes said:
Hm. The scorecard says that the 9-for was before the 10-for - then it rained, and Tony Lock bowled very, very badly, and Laker could take all ten - in nearly 52 overs, as opposed to the 16 he took his nine-for in.

Oh well. I'm sure this will come up when the two feats meet in the final. :p
Click to expand...
===BEGIN MODERATORS' ATTEMPT TO 'SWAY' OPINION..MARC71178 AND SANZ STOP READING====

I'm going to get slammed for this, but from what I hear the 9 wicket haul was a better exhibition of bowling than the 10 wicket final. However, I do hope that both of them don't meet each other in the final, only because its not as exciting, and part of the fun is all the emotional defenses of various players. Laker v Laker wouldn't be as fun imo. But one of them will make it, I am pretty certain of that.

===END MODERATORS' ATTEMPT TO 'SWAY' OPINION...MARC71178 AND SANZ START READING====
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
===BEGIN MODERATORS' ATTEMPT TO 'SWAY' OPINION..MARC71178 AND SANZ STOP READING====

I'm going to get slammed for this, but from what I hear the 9 wicket haul was a better exhibition of bowling than the 10 wicket final. However, I do hope that both of them don't meet each other in the final, only because its not as exciting, and part of the fun is all the emotional defenses of various players. Laker v Laker wouldn't be as fun imo. But one of them will make it, I am pretty certain of that.

===END MODERATORS' ATTEMPT TO 'SWAY' OPINION...MARC71178 AND SANZ START READING====
Click to expand...
Thats my general understanding as well. From what I've picked up over the years, the 9fer was better.

I hope they dont meet in the final but if they do so be it. I have a soft spot for another that I hope will go all they way.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Samuel_Vimes said:
Hm. The scorecard says that the 9-for was before the 10-for - then it rained, and Tony Lock bowled very, very badly, and Laker could take all ten - in nearly 52 overs, as opposed to the 16 he took his nine-for in.

Oh well. I'm sure this will come up when the two feats meet in the final. :p
Click to expand...
Actually, you're quite right about that, the 9-for was almost certainly better. Obviously though, the 10-for was a unique achivement, which counts for something. Also, I'd say the McGrath spell was much more worthy of the top 32 than the Flintoff one, and one of the spells from the 19 wicket haul was already through to the last 32 when it came up.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Donald for me. Fairly straightforward one.

One set up a win against the best team in the world at the time (or close to it, at least), while the other ran through Zimbabwe at Kandy. Muralitharan almost certainly bowled extremely well, and the Zimbabwe team did contain one excellent player of spin in Andy Flower, but I couldn't vote for anything against Zimbabwe in this match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top