These things we are running at the moment can in no way be considered a ranking, they are purely exercises to find one clear best/second best.(this was wrong for a first round)
Garner is probably the better bowler, but the question is not about who is the best but rather who is the greatest? Once you use the term greatest the exercise becomes more than just a number crunching exercise, and assessment of technique.@ watson
Botham over Garner?
Wtf are you talking aboutEven as a bowler Botham's contribution to cricket and the enjoyment we get from it was huge, and so he trumps Garner IMO.
27 x 5fers, and 4 x 10fers highlight his importance to the English bowling attack. Plus very few bowlers can boast a spell of 5 for 1 to help win a match on the last day by 29 runs. This is the stuff of cricketing legend.Wtf are you talking about
At their absolute best, Botham was the better bowler but he was equally erratic also. Garner comparatively may not have been as flashy but was more consistent.27 x 5fers, and 4 x 10fers highlight his importance to the English bowling attack. Plus very few bowlers can boast a spell of 5 for 1 to help win a match on the last day by 29 runs. This is the stuff of cricketing legend.
While groups 4 and 6 are cake walks.It's too late in the day to give this too much thought now. But looking through the match-ups the second round is going to include Hadlee v Imran and Marshall v McGrath. I see half the forum refusing to vote.