Greatest Bowler of All Time

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hey, before you start getting rude and calling my opinion rubbish, think about it! The player who scores his runs quickly is a lot more valuable than someone who mucks around. Who would you prefer to have in your side or consider the better player Adam Gilchrist or Mark Richardson if they had both scored the same amount of runs.

I didn't label it your opinion. I stated a situation and suggested that one who believes such and such in such a situation is grounded in rubbish of the highest order. Don't make assumptions now.

Besides, my point still stands... at least until you respond to it properly.

 

[Fiery]

And you'll get a sore head going-on about legitimate actions when we now know for certain that there is no such thing as one by the old ideals, Hadlee was as illegal as anyone else if you use them.
Fortunately, we now know that no-one can.

Hadlee's action was as pure as the driven snow. In fact it was poetry in motion. To suggest otherwise is sacrilege.
This idea that Murali's action is OK and that "we now know for certain that there is no such thing as one by the old ideals" is absolute horse manure.

 

[Fiery]

I didn't label it your opinion. I stated a situation and suggested that one who believes such and such in such a situation is grounded in rubbish of the highest order. Don't make assumptions now.

Besides, my point still stands... at least until you respond to it properly.

All I'm trying to argue is that entertainment value is a contributing factor in a player's greatness...greatness being a subjective thing and personal opinion. I personally love players who entertain. I understand that defensive, unfashionable players like Mark Richardson are of value too but if I had to rate 2 players with similar total runs and averages I would prefer the one who scored his runs quicker. The Aussie have shown that scoring runs at 4 or 5 an over in tests takes the game away from the opposition and scoring at 3 an over usually results in a tame draw.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And you'll get a sore head going-on about legitimate actions when we now know for certain that there is no such thing as one by the old ideals, Hadlee was as illegal as anyone else if you use them.
Fortunately, we now know that no-one can.

Well, we know that apparently there were very few bowlers at the Champions Trophy considered to be legal under the old system. I'm not sure how they applied this to older players no longer in the game, or even players who weren't playing in the trophy...saying that 99% of players bowl illegally is a bit of a fallicy as far as I'm concerned. You have to test them all under the same system first. We don't KNOW anything about bowlers who haven't been tested, you'd have to subject them to the same system players underwent in England. Anything else is just speculation.

What surprises me is that they've apparently found a system that was good enough to make these claims under real-time testing, but once the new regualtions are brought in they're going back to the lab testing scenario we had before. If the real-time setup was that accurate and that good, why isn't it being used once these new regulations come into play?

 

[dinu23]

why is murali's name is in italics?

 

[Dasa]

why is murali's name is in italics?

Where? If you're referring to the poll, I think the one you voted for is in italics...

 

[dinu23]

Where? If you're referring to the poll, I think the one you voted for is in italics...

i'm feeling a bit stupid at the moment!

 

[SJS]

i'm feeling a bit stupid at the moment!

And I am feeling secretly smart for not having asked the same question myself

 

[Richard]

I think it's the option you voted for that appears in italics... either that or it's the leader.

 

[Richard]

Well, we know that apparently there were very few bowlers at the Champions Trophy considered to be legal under the old system. I'm not sure how they applied this to older players no longer in the game, or even players who weren't playing in the trophy...saying that 99% of players bowl illegally is a bit of a fallicy as far as I'm concerned. You have to test them all under the same system first. We don't KNOW anything about bowlers who haven't been tested, you'd have to subject them to the same system players underwent in England. Anything else is just speculation.

What surprises me is that they've apparently found a system that was good enough to make these claims under real-time testing, but once the new regualtions are brought in they're going back to the lab testing scenario we had before. If the real-time setup was that accurate and that good, why isn't it being used once these new regulations come into play?

From what I can see looking at the primative methods used by Sky in something they used to give us an impression of the situation it's very possible to say with something close to certainty that almost every did break the old ideals.
And I can't emphasise enough how good that is.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I didn't label it your opinion. I stated a situation and suggested that one who believes such and such in such a situation is grounded in rubbish of the highest order. Don't make assumptions now.

It was pretty much his opinion, even if you didn't put it in black and white. It left nobody in any doubt as to what you were thinking.

As much as I agree with you, you were effectively rubbishing his opinion.

 

[Greg Blewett]

As much as I love and respect many of those bowlers (esp. Trueman & Lillee) Marshall is the best of that list hands down.

Although on second thought, this is quite a stupid thing here, there is so many types of bowlers, who come from different times and all played against different sides of different strengths.

.....and the debate over the whole chucker with "Hadlee was as illegal as anyone" - I really don't think you've seen Hadlee bowl to make a comment like that, he has one of the cleanest actions I have ever seen.

 

[Richard]

Err - of course I've seen Hadlee's action, d'you really think I haven't? Many, many times.
The point is it's totally impossible to have a clean action by the old ideals, no matter how perfect you're perceived to be.

 

[dinu23]

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

what do u mean by that?

 

[dinu23]

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.

 

[Fiery]

what do u mean by that?

I mean that Muttiah Muralitharan throws the ball rather than bowling it with a straight arm as is or was the law in cricket before the fishheads showed how spineless they are and changed the rule to sweep the problem under the carpet.

 

[Dasa]

I mean that Muttiah Muralitharan throws the ball rather than bowling it with a straight arm as is or was the law in cricket before the fishheads showed how spineless they are and changed the rule to sweep the problem under the carpet.

Almost every bowler was/is a chucker... probably including your beloved Hadlee.

 

[sledger]

IMO, Glenn McGrath.

in recent times i would agree whole heartedly there.

and loving the avator LOOOOOOOOOL

 

[Fiery]

Almost every bowler was/is a chucker... probably including your beloved Hadlee.

That's just something the ICC came up with to justify their decision to change the rules to accommodate the true chuckers like Murali and Akhtar and to keep the huge cash cow of Asia happy. To suggest Hadlee and all the other great bowlers were all chuckers is ignorance.

 

[Dasa]

That's just something the ICC came up with to justify their decision to change the rules to accommodate the true chuckers like Murali and Akhtar and to keep the huge cash cow of Asia happy. To suggest Hadlee and all the other great bowlers were all chuckers is ignorance.

No, to dismiss scientific evidence as part of some wild conspiracy is ignorance.