• 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.

Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

B

Bolo.

International Captain
subshakerz said:
This is basic cricket logic and it is weird that it is being debated against.

Anyone who watched McGrath in his career can attest to the pressure he created just by building up to a wicket and keeping things in control.

For some reason, CW seems to fetishize low SR bowlers like Steyn, etc. but the reality is that he was the most hittable and loose of any ATG.

I tend to think what is the situation when the bowlers is not taking wickets and in the case of a low ER bowler, the situation is still under control. It doesn't matter as much if he takes an extra over to get a wicket.

Also as mentioned, low SR bowlers like Waqar, Rabada and Steyn tend to bowl less overs per test for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
That's almost 1 extra over of someone else bowling too:
-Someone worse bowling
-Other bowlers getting tired
-The ball condition typically getting worse for bowling
-Bowlers having to bowl at a set and higher quality bat.

OFC 1 extra over per wicket isn't giving a big advantage. But that's a function of comparing 2 bowlers with very similar SRs. If you have a bowler that takes one for twenty every over, you have an ATG bowling lineup even if the rest of your bowlers are poor. A bowler taking 1/20 every 10 overs is only pulling a poor attack up to the level of decent.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
I think Warne's selection by Wisden in 99 over any of Imran, Hadlee, or Marshall at that point, was a dead giveaway of the shortsightedly parochial (and hence ultimately invalid) nature of the voting.
Click to expand...
As great as Vivian was, and I believe he was, he wasn't the most impactful or best player of that team during the most dominant of years.

I think that Marshall and Imran could have easily and justifiably replaced Warne and IVA, though I understand that those two in addition to being magnificent were also pure box office and in many ways changed the game.

Fast bowlers have been somewhat underappreciated by the pundits during the years, always taking a back seat to the batsmen.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Coronis said:
D-disregard a peer rating?

No, I won’t have it!
Click to expand...
We have agreed on this previously. It's Subz that's the peer review guy.

I use it in the absence of imperial evidence, as with Barry, but his first class, WSC records speak for themselves.

Plus let's not pretend that the source doesn't matter.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
kyear2 said:
He also believed Roberts to be the best of the bowlers, so we can thankfully disregard most of what he had to say
Click to expand...
That isn't as controversial an opinion as you're suggesting. Roberts had an extremely high peer rating as well and also was seen as a trailblazer for the other members of the quartet. So it's not like Gavaskar's opinion in this regard is totally useless.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
smash84 said:
That isn't as controversial an opinion as you're suggesting. Roberts had an extremely high peer rating as well and also was seen as a trailblazer for the other members of the quartet. So it's not like Gavaskar's opinion in this regard is totally useless.
Click to expand...
He was undoubtedly the trailblazer, and filled the void left absent by Hall. But he wasn't the best, and I personally tend to disregard most of what Mr. Gavaskar has to say about west indies cricketers and fans.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
kyear2 said:
Fast bowlers have been somewhat underappreciated by the pundits during the years, always taking a back seat to the batsmen.
Click to expand...
The fat, old ****s in the press boxes don't see anything of themself in a player that is remotely athletic, so that eliminates appreciation for most fast bowlers, unfortunately.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Trailblazers are generally overrated e.g Lillee. Its cool and all to be the first but it doesn’t mean you were necessarily the best. (though sometimes you are)
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Coronis said:
Trailblazers are generally overrated e.g Lillee. Its cool and all to be the first but it doesn’t mean you were necessarily the best. (though sometimes you are)
Click to expand...
It also depends on the batsman. Probably Sunny G found him toughest to face and so thought he was the best. My point is that it's not a ridiculous opinion to think that Roberts was the best of the quartet. IIRC many players of the 70s rated Roberts as the best of the WI lot. And Sunny played most of his career in the 70s too. Was Roberts the best of them? Maybe not. But it's not an opinion that is so outrageous that it nullifies all judgment of the person making this call.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Same with regards to Sarfaraz Nawaz.

Imran was literally just a straight improvement, and perfecter of his invention.

Same with Tomo in Street Fighter II or Shark with mutalisk stacking in Starcraft Brood War.
 
Last edited:
M

ma1978

International Debutant
kyear2 said:
He was undoubtedly the trailblazer, and filled the void left absent by Hall. But he wasn't the best, and I personally tend to disregard most of what Mr. Gavaskar has to say about west indies cricketers and fans.
Click to expand...
Good to know you’ve played against the quartet and have the ability to judge
 
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
capt_Luffy said:
@honestbharani ,@CricAddict @Xix2565 do you guys really consider Jadeja to be a better bowler than the likes of Kumble, Underwood and Bedi; or are you guys voting for him as a FU to Subs?? Because as it stands, Jadeja would be the next bowler at 35 and I am not sure how I will feel about the validity of this poll afterwards.
Click to expand...
@capt_Luffy I am a huge fan of Jadeja. I haven't watched Underwood or Bedi but having watched both Kumble and Jadeja over the years, I do genuinely think that Jadeja is slightly the better bowler compared to Kumble. India had such a strong batting lineup during Kumble's time but Kumble and Co flattered to deceive when it came to bowling the opposition out, home or away, many a times. Jadeja has been a genuine match winner bowling with or without Ashwin and has turned the match with the ball quite a few times when the Indian batsmen failed. Hence, my vote to him over Kumble.

I would be interested to hear @ataraxia thoughts on the Jadeja vs Kumble comparison too since he voted for Jadeja over the other spinners as well and is quite knowledgeable on all of them from what I've seen on playing drafts with him.

To clarify, I understand the reasons if everyone else votes for others over him. It is not connected to subz at all.
 
Last edited:
X

Xix2565

International Regular
capt_Luffy said:
@honestbharani ,@CricAddict @Xix2565 do you guys really consider Jadeja to be a better bowler than the likes of Kumble, Underwood and Bedi; or are you guys voting for him as a FU to Subs?? Because as it stands, Jadeja would be the next bowler at 35 and I am not sure how I will feel about the validity of this poll afterwards.
Click to expand...
I think only Kumble has a good argument to be better, but I voted for Jadeja first earlier and it'd be considered weak and inconsistent to switch order now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top