subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Mutually conflicting statements.
-
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.
Is there a difference between a greater cricketer and a better cricketer?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
Nope. He is the highest wicket taker by a big margin, and it didn't come from spamming tests. Highest WPM by a huge margin, and best average of any bowler remotely in his wicket class. Best peak. Best at consistently destroying opposition.
Whatever advantages he had over other bowlers, that is still the greatest career in most of the measures I consider critical. And whether or not you consider them important, most people do. The fact that I'm applying them to a particular bowler doesn't somehow make them controversial.
You won't get a proper consensus on this. I think Murali is a smidge better, but have no issues with anyone thinking the opposite.
Migara
International Coach
If you consider all formats, Murali and McGrath are in their own class, with possibility of Hadlee and Akram in it.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Weren't special in T20Is though...... Bumrah for the GOAT!!!!
Migara
International Coach
Murali and McGrath hardly played T20s. When they played, they were good too. There is no indication that they could go past Bumrah, even in that format.
Slifer
International Captain
Yes because Imran is a better cricketer than Sachin, Hobbs etc but they are rated greater cricketers.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yes
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
James Anderson is a greater bowler (wickets, longevity, legacy), but Kyle Jamieson is a better bowler.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
If you are talking about tests Waqar is MILES better than Bumrah.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Hell nah at the MILES part.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Bumrah's 5 tests vs NZ
Played 5, lost 5. 9 wickets @ 45.44
Waqar's 1st 5 tests vs NZ.
Played 5, won 5. 44 wickets @ 10.84
I still think Bumrah will end up being one of the very best though.
Last edited:
Coronis
International Coach
The near symmetry of those numbers is quite astounding
JBMAC
State Captain
It isn'thard to work out why though isn't It Warne bowled
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
True but Warne was a drug cheat, took money from bookies and also died. All three things which only lame people do.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Imo Murali was better just because he was the Greatest home bowler of All Time, by a really big margin. Ofcourse their home conditions aren't comparable, but this just puts Murali firmly ahead in my mind. Not a big gap, but Murali ahead.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Aus record is a clear stat distinction between them for me. I have no confidence Murali would have succeeded there.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Warne deserves more credit for his home record frankly.
I think VVS Laxman can be a relevant example here.
He is a part of cricketing folklore given his performances in big games, but a total dud against the moving ball.
Nice nit-picking, you can have a gala time given India's recent performance against NZ.
How about we compare their numbers against Australia, England both home and away?