• 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.

Cummins/Smith vs Lillee/Chappell vs Warne/Ponting

Best Combo


  • Total voters
    24

DrWolverine

International Regular
Barnes was ahead of his peers and his stats are so damn good that he should be the greatest bowler ever. I can understand if someone is hesitant to rank him because he played the sport when it was just starting but silly to rank him between few of the greats and not ahead or behind all
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Barnes was ahead of his peers and his stats are so damn good that he should be the greatest bowler ever.
But I can understand if someone is hesitant to rank him because he played the sport when it was just starting.
He was another pre war superman we have to have an asterisk on his record.
 

capt_Luffy

International Coach
Yeah except he wasn't as skillful or nearly as penetrative a bowler and much more reliant on his pace to get wickets which showed as soon as his pace declined, unlike Lillee who took 5WPM all stages of his career even after back injury.

And by more spread out you are referring to a handful of series in NZ, SA and Pak where he took 3WPM. It's not like Steyn who won game everywhere.
All I see is a bunch of excuses for Lillee basically doing everything at home (where he wasn't even that Great), in England and a minnowish NZ; while sucking horse balls in Pakistan. Now add a 3 run lower average and yeah....... No.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
All I see is a bunch of excuses for Lillee basically doing everything at home (where he wasn't even that Great), in England and a minnowish NZ; while sucking horse balls in Pakistan. Now add a 3 run lower average and yeah....... No.
Pakistan is a low series sample and that too a scandalous dead pitch series nobody got wickets.

England he was legit awesome. As he was in Australia I don't even know why you bring that up.

You guys are so easily influenced by low averages it's kinda sad honestly.

Get it through heads: A low average doesn't compensate for low wicket taking capacity.
 

Johan

Cricketer Of The Year
That’s the reason I don’t rank these pre war statistical outliers and also don’t compare them to modern day greats
how many times do I need to slap and Subs down on this nonsense for you two to learn how to shut up and keep it to yourself. I get it, not all of us can have good takes, but atleast don't publically spread this brainrot.
 

Johan

Cricketer Of The Year
and just for reference

Barnes
189 @ 16.43
Other English
305 @ 29.59

Murali
800 @ 22.73
Other Lankans
1,168 @ 36.50

and guess whose record the tards bitch about?
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
True, If I drive to a pub right now, someone as talented in bowling as Imran would be serving me my drinks, really a different era.
You gotta learn how to control yourself when your favorites get critiqued. Argue the merits, please don't freakout like you did with Hobbs.
 

Top