Cricketweb decides the greatest bowler ever in a 64 player bracket. Contest thread.

[kyear2]

There's no 'right' in these things.

I meant the finalists and the winners. There was a vote, a series of votes. Just because you may disagree with the results doesn't make it wrong.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I meant the finalists and the winners. There was a vote, a series of votes. Just because you may disagree with the results doesn't make it wrong.

Yeah and because you agree with the vote it doesn't make it 'right'.

 

[kyear2]

No it doesn't

Never said it did.

There is precious little, if anything at all, to separate Sobers, Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Hutton etc and Chappell, Gavaskar et all isn't far behind either.

similarly Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Hadlee are just as close.

But again, I believe the best persons won, though I couldn't split Richards and Sobers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think we had the "right" winner. "Right" in the sense that Marshall would come out as top bowler on Cricket Web no matter what the format of the vote. Whether Murali would be runner up given other formats I think is more debatable. There might be one or two other fast bowlers who would beat him either in a head to head or different format of voting.

 

[Slifer]

I think that we've accidently selected a first rate team. WG Grace, Ambrose, and two spinners instead of the usual one make it more interesting.

Thanks for running the show MM.

I'd really appreciate it if we reserved the letters "MM" for the one and only the late Sir Malcolm.....jk

 

[mr_mister]

you can shorten mine to mrmr

 

[Red]

Some people just don't rate spinners. Silent Striker reckoned they were a pop group and Richard reckoned there isn't a single spinner that would be chosen ahead of Ian Bishop in an all time bowlers list.

****ers that think cricket is played with a new ball all the time.

 

[miscer]

Murali's WPM was so high because the SL captains bowled him just about non-stop for the majority of the innings. I remember when SL came here some years back (the series where McCullum ran out Murali) and he bowled 40 overs out of one 90-over NZ innings.

If these SL captains had had the rest of the WI pace quartet to call on or Gillespie, McGrath, Warne et al. then Murali would have a far lower WPM.

That's the point. A fast bowler can bowl at best half to 2/3rds the overs a spinner can bowl before getting tired and his effectiveness dropping off. You run the risk of overbowling and injury and shortening careers. The spinners main advantage is his runup and delivery requires far less effort and so despite a slightly higher average he delivers 30-50% more wickets per match. A spinner can literally bowl half the overs of the team. Try that with a fast bowler and he'll retire in one series after busting his joints. Take an extreme example. One fast bowler with a strike rate of 30 and average of 15. But he has no stamina and can only bowl 10 overs per innings. Vs a spinner with an average of 25 and strike rate of 60 but he can bowl 40 overs an innings no problem. Who is more valuable? This isn't LO cricket where overs are capped

 

[TheJediBrah]

Take an extreme example. One fast bowler with a strike rate of 30 and average of 15. But he has no stamina and can only bowl 10 overs per innings. Vs a spinner with an average of 25 and strike rate of 60 but he can bowl 40 overs an innings no problem. Who is more valuable? This isn't LO cricket where overs are capped

Depends on the rest of your attack. Bit of a silly example though because your hypothetical fast bowler doesn't exist but quite a few have fit the bill for your hypothetical spinner

 

[honestbharani]

That's the point. A fast bowler can bowl at best half to 2/3rds the overs a spinner can bowl before getting tired and his effectiveness dropping off. You run the risk of overbowling and injury and shortening careers. The spinners main advantage is his runup and delivery requires far less effort and so despite a slightly higher average he delivers 30-50% more wickets per match. A spinner can literally bowl half the overs of the team. Try that with a fast bowler and he'll retire in one series after busting his joints. Take an extreme example. One fast bowler with a strike rate of 30 and average of 15. But he has no stamina and can only bowl 10 overs per innings. Vs a spinner with an average of 25 and strike rate of 60 but he can bowl 40 overs an innings no problem. Who is more valuable? This isn't LO cricket where overs are capped

Your overall point on the utility of having a spinner in the attack and for the team is well made but that example is not the best. Most fast bowlers can and do bowl 15-20 overs per day.

 

[harsh.ag]

Division 1

Shoaib Akhtar vs Shane Bond
Bert Ironmonger vs Kapil Dev
Richard Hadlee vs Shaun Pollock
Ray Lindwall vs Imran Khan

Division 2

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar vs Harold Larwood
Shane Warne vs Wes Hall
Dennis Lillee vs George Lohmann
Mike Procter vs Bill O'Reilly

Division 3

Richie Benaud vs Frank Tyson
Fred Trueman vs Clarrie Grimmett
Johnny Briggs vs Curtly Ambrose
Erapalli Prasanna vs Bishan Bedi

Division 4

Anil Kumble vs Derek Underwood
Charlie Turner vs Neil Adcock
Jason Gillespie vs Bob Willis
Hedley Verity vs Brian Statham

Division 5

Colin Croft vs Jeff Thomson
Andy Roberts vs Waqar Younis
Malcolm Marshall vs Jimmy Anderson
Fred Spofforth vs Glenn McGrath

Division 6

Jim Laker vs Abdul Qadir
Hugh Trumble vs Fazal Mahmood
Peter Pollock vs Allan Donald
Ian Botham vs Joel Garner

Division 7

Alan Davidson vs Alec Bedser
Mohammad Asif vs Keith Miller
Wasim Akram vs Michael Holding
Courtney Walsh vs Sydney Barnes

Division 8

Hugh Tayfield vs John Snow
Muttiah Muralitharan vs Arthur Mailey
Ian Bishop vs Dale Steyn
Maurice Tate vs Subhash Gupte

 

[mr_mister]

Interesting Mailey made the cut

 

[miscer]

Your overall point on the utility of having a spinner in the attack and for the team is well made but that example is not the best. Most fast bowlers can and do bowl 15-20 overs per day.

The strawman seems to have distracted too much from the argument, which at the most fundamental level is that the spinners energy conserving action allows him to bowl a lot more and take ~30% more wickets per match.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The strawman seems to have distracted too much from the argument, which at the most fundamental level is that the spinners energy conserving action allows him to bowl a lot more and take ~30% more wickets per match.

Yeah this isn't reinventing the wheel. Most sides will pick a spinner for these reasons unless circumstances are extreme enough to make it not worth it regardless.