Greatest Bowler of All Time

[Fiery]

Sir Richard Hadlee
* A natural, born to play cricket. Comes from great cricketing pedigree.
* Throughout his career responded to dramatic situations to win historic games and series for NZ on his own, e.g India '76, England '78, Australia '85/86 to name just a few.
* He timed the shortening of his run to perfection to maximise his effectiveness and career length despite opposition.
* He could bowl off-cutters, leg-cutters, in-swingers, out-swingers, yorkers and a viscious short ball as quick as anyone.
* His captains would throw him the ball and he would simply get wickets.
* He got wickets at the start of the innings, got vital breakthroughs and cleaned up the tail.
* Was solely responsible for NZ going from strugglers to world-beaters.
* He played the least number of tests of all the guys who have taken over 400 test wickets.
* Has the most 10 wicket bags and most 5 wicket bags in history for anyone with a ligitimate bowling action.
* Has the 5th best ever ODI economy rate.
* Underrated by overseas people because he comes from an unfashionable cricketing nation
* Has big feet (and you know what they say about big feet)

 

[a massive zebra]

* Has the most 10 wicket bags and most 5 wicket bags in history for anyone with a ligitimate bowling action.

 

[Top_Cat]

Glenn McGrath.

 

[Fiery]

You'll get a sore head doing that

 

[Anil]

very subjective question...first of all spinners and pacers can't be compared like that so there should be separate lists for both, secondly it is very difficult to compare bowlers of different eras just on the basis of stats and unless there is someone who has actually seen all the greats in action through all the eras, it is very difficult for anyone to judge and even such a judgement cannot but be subjective...

after that mouthful, my pick would be marshall among the speed merchants and murali among the spinners from people i have watched....

 

[Fiery]

very subjective question...first of all spinners and pacers can't be compared like that so there should be separate lists for both, secondly it is very difficult to compare bowlers of different eras just on the basis of stats and unless there is someone who has actually seen all the greats in action through all the eras, it is very difficult for anyone to judge and even such a judgement cannot but be subjective...

after that mouthful, my pick would be marshall among the speed merchants and murali among the spinners from people i have watched....

Of course it's subjective and opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one.
In saying that, there is no doubt that Hadlee was the greatest ever by miles.

 

[Gangster]

George Lohmann was generally considered "slow-medium" (McGrath for most of his career was fast-medium if not fast - he certainly could touch 90mph and still comes pretty close on occasions), and I can't help highly doubting he'd have been anywhere near as successful in the 20th-century, let alone from the 1930s onwards.
Barnes was another matter and many correspondants who saw him and cricket of the 1930s (when it started to take-on some of it's identity of today) said he was the greatest bowler ever.
Of those named above (the lack of Barnes is unforgivable) I'd go for Marshall every time.

The only way Glenn McGrath could touch 90 mph is if he met someone named 90 mph. He needs a radar gun which adds 5 mph just to hit 85. Forget about 90. Glenn McGrath is on the border between Medium Fast and Fast Medium. Never ever fast.

 

[Top_Cat]

The only way Glenn McGrath could touch 90 mph is if he met someone named 90 mph. He needs a radar gun which adds 5 mph just to hit 85. Forget about 90. Glenn McGrath is on the border between Medium Fast and Fast Medium. Never ever fast.

I've got a few videos which say you're wrong. Most relevantly, I had video of McGrath bowling against Zimbabwe at the WACA about two years ago and consistently (i.e 5 out of 6 balls per over) clocking in at 144-146 km/h (89.5m/h - 90.7m/h). This is assuming a conversion rate of 1.6093 km = 1 mi. Unfortunately, my girlfriend of the time taped over the game...........

But yeah, to say that McGrath has never beaten 90m/h is just plain wrong. To say he could never do it now is almost equally wrong. He can but just chooses not to because he's a far more effective bowler when bowling mid-130's. I saw in a recent interview he said that he gets more bounce at that speed which I hadn't heard before.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've got a few videos which say you're wrong. Most relevantly, I had video of McGrath bowling against Zimbabwe at the WACA about two years ago and consistently (i.e 5 out of 6 balls per over) clocking in at 144-146 km/h (89.5m/h - 90.7m/h). This is assuming a conversion rate of 1.6093 km = 1 mi. Unfortunately, my girlfriend of the time taped over the game...........

But yeah, to say that McGrath has never beaten 90m/h is just plain wrong. To say he could never do it now is almost equally wrong. He can but just chooses not to because he's a far more effective bowler when bowling mid-130's. I saw in a recent interview he said that he gets more bounce at that speed which I hadn't heard before.

Indeed. It is a major part of McGrath's success that he isn't of express pace I think. When express bowlers do well they tend to bowl extremely aggressive lines (eg: Lee in the VB series). They pitch short of a length and at the body, or full and on the stumps. McGrath gets his wickets bowling with accuracy, not with pace, and aims it at the corridor outside off-stump. If he were to sacrifice some of that accuracy for an increase in pace he would undoubtedly give the batsman more let-offs and get less wickets through rash shots.

 

[Fiery]

McGrath, McGrath, McGrath.
McGrath is the bowling equivalent of watching Chris Tavare or Bruce Edgar bat. Boring as batshit. He's just a metronomical bowling machine who simple bores batsmen to death. OK he's got a ton of wickets doing it but to say he is the best bowler of all time is madness. It's like saying Geoff Boycott is better than Bradman. The closest thing to the Bradman of bowlers is clearly Sir Richard Hadlee. No contest.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

McGrath, McGrath, McGrath.
McGrath is the bowling equivalent of watching Chris Tavare or Bruce Edgar bat. Boring as batshit. He's just a metronomical bowling machine who simple bores batsmen to death. OK he's got a ton of wickets doing it but to say he is the best bowler of all time is madness. It's like saying Geoff Boycott is better than Bradman. The closest thing to the Bradman of bowlers is clearly Sir Richard Hadlee. No contest.

How does entertainment quality affect greatness? Ridiculous insinuation.

That said, neither McGrath nor Boycott are the greatest.

 

[Fiery]

How does entertainment quality affect greatness? Ridiculous insinuation.

That said, neither McGrath nor Boycott are the greatest.

Cricket is a game played to entertain people. Of course it affects greatness. A "ridiculous insinuation" to suggest entertainment quality does not affect greatness. I would rank players who entertain like Botham, Sobers, Lara and Warne way ahead of medium-pace bores who take loads of wickets or stone-wallers who score 20 centuries at a strike rate of 40.
Sport is entertainment.

 

[Top_Cat]

McGrath, McGrath, McGrath.
McGrath is the bowling equivalent of watching Chris Tavare or Bruce Edgar bat. Boring as batshit. He's just a metronomical bowling machine who simple bores batsmen to death. OK he's got a ton of wickets doing it but to say he is the best bowler of all time is madness. It's like saying Geoff Boycott is better than Bradman. The closest thing to the Bradman of bowlers is clearly Sir Richard Hadlee. No contest.

If I remember correctly, Hadlee was one who was known for *his* metronomic accuracy. Funny how players are remembered more fondly when they're long retired.

I have a book Dean Jones co-wrote who describes that even though Hadlee was one of the very best and he certainly had much success against Jones, when Jones had his own successes against Hadlee, it was when Jones took a punt on where the ball would land (i.e. accuracy = predictable) and play accordingly. When Hadlee had most of his success against Jones, it was when Jones allowed Hadlee's consistency and accuracy to suffocate him. Sounds like a strong endorsement to me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Cricket is a game played to entertain people. Of course it affects greatness. A "ridiculous insinuation" to suggest entertainment quality does not affect greatness. I would rank players who entertain like Botham, Sobers, Lara and Warne way ahead of medium-pace bores who take loads of wickets or stone-wallers who score 20 centuries at a strike rate of 40.
Sport is entertainment.

Sport is entertainment yes, but skill as a cricketer has nothing to do with entertainment value. If that was the case, we'd never have Test matches. If Boycott averaged nigh on 100 and Bradman was down in the 50s or 60s, who would you call greater?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

McGrath, McGrath, McGrath.
McGrath is the bowling equivalent of watching Chris Tavare or Bruce Edgar bat. Boring as batshit. He's just a metronomical bowling machine who simple bores batsmen to death. OK he's got a ton of wickets doing it but to say he is the best bowler of all time is madness. It's like saying Geoff Boycott is better than Bradman. The closest thing to the Bradman of bowlers is clearly Sir Richard Hadlee. No contest.

Absolutely disagree. McGrath is among my favourite bowlers to watch, he has an absolutely flawless action and is wonderfully accurate. He is also an intelligent bowler who can think batsmen out. As a New Zealander you might remember Astle's dismissal on the flat Adelaide wicket this summer, where McGrath got him caught at short midwicket with a slower ball. Absolute mastery of his craft, and it will stick in my mind a hell of a lot longer than watching Shoaib knock a stump out of the ground.

Simply because you find him boring does not mean anyone else does, and if you are going to talk about being "entertaining" as a bowler, surely someone like Shane Warne, Dennis Lillee or Shoaib Akhtar does more to bring in crowds than Hadlee. Fast bowling and flamboyant characters may be popular with the crowds, but I'd rather go for quality when discussing "the greatest bowler of all-time", and McGrath is about as high quality as you will ever find.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If I remember correctly, Hadlee was one who was known for *his* metronomic accuracy. Funny how players are remembered more fondly when they're long retired.

Fair point actually. Hadlee and McGrath actually have a fair bit in common as bowlers.

 

[Fiery]

If I remember correctly, Hadlee was one who was known for *his* metronomic accuracy. Funny how players are remembered more fondly when they're long retired.

I have a book Dean Jones co-wrote who describes that even though Hadlee was one of the very best and he certainly had much success against Jones, when Jones had his own successes against Hadlee, it was when Jones took a punt on where the ball would land (i.e. accuracy = predictable) and play accordingly. When Hadlee had most of his success against Jones, it was when Jones allowed Hadlee's consistency and accuracy to suffocate him. Sounds like a strong endorsement to me.

You obviously never saw Hadlee bowl. He would mix up his overs, bowling off-cutters, leg-cutters, swinging it both ways or dropping in lightning pace bouncers as he worked a batsman out . The fact that the ball was always accurate didn't mean it was the same shape. Jones was Hadlee's bunny and has no right to comment on his bowling because he had absolutely no idea how to play him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You obviously never saw Hadlee bowl. He would mix up his overs, bowling off-cutters, leg-cutters, swinging it both ways or dropping in lightning pace bouncers as he worked a batsman out . The fact that the ball was always accurate didn't mean it was the same shape. Jones was Hadlee's bunny and has no right to comment on his bowling because he had absolutely no idea how to play him.

And you don't think McGrath does these things? McGrath, like Hadlee, is known for his supreme control and accuracy, but it is his variation as often as not which gets wickets. Honestly, I suggest in the coming Australia v New Zealand series you watch him bowl a few overs closely and see just how much of a "bowling machine" he is.

 

[Fiery]

Fair point actually. Hadlee and McGrath actually have a fair bit in common as bowlers.

No, nothing really, apart from their accuracy. McGrath has nowhere near the variation or range of arsenal Hadlee had to choose from and bowls a lot slower. He cant bat either.

 

[Fiery]

Sport is entertainment yes, but skill as a cricketer has nothing to do with entertainment value. If that was the case, we'd never have Test matches. If Boycott averaged nigh on 100 and Bradman was down in the 50s or 60s, who would you call greater?

So you place greatness purely on stats?