Yeah...but he could've included Fred Spofforth and Courtney Walsh. Allan Davidson could be there, too, as could Bob Willis and Brian Statham. There are also others I've failed to mention...Umm... well he's certainly better than Bishen Bedi and Anil Kumble.By quite a bit, too, IMO.
SF Barnes > the lot of 'em too TBH.
-
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.
Lee vs Akhtar
- Thread starter Murtaza Nasir
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
There's always hundreds, which is why top10\top20s are largely such pointless excercises.
I've always seen Yawer's point that Shoaib is patronised too often about the amount of cricket he's missed, but I wish he wouldn't use top-X to emphasise it, because it inevitably leads to arguments the like of which Whelan appears to have started now.
I've always seen Yawer's point that Shoaib is patronised too often about the amount of cricket he's missed, but I wish he wouldn't use top-X to emphasise it, because it inevitably leads to arguments the like of which Whelan appears to have started now.
Talking about the strike rate and avergae .
see ,for an example i am a fast bowler (assume ) ,i bowled first test of a 3 test series in high pace and stamina . Because of my high pace i was very destructive .But i got injured and missed rest of the series .Here my ''series '' average looks wonderful.
Then again i came back to the next series after taking enough rest ,once again repeating the heroics of fiery spell .Then as routine got injured .
Again my statistics look impressive .
How misleading is that ? What about those bowler bowling full series ? If u play more ,u will get tired , u can't bowl that fast ,ur figures won't look that impressive .
see ,for an example i am a fast bowler (assume ) ,i bowled first test of a 3 test series in high pace and stamina . Because of my high pace i was very destructive .But i got injured and missed rest of the series .Here my ''series '' average looks wonderful.
Then again i came back to the next series after taking enough rest ,once again repeating the heroics of fiery spell .Then as routine got injured .
Again my statistics look impressive .
How misleading is that ? What about those bowler bowling full series ? If u play more ,u will get tired , u can't bowl that fast ,ur figures won't look that impressive .
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
I thought better of including pre-WWI players. Barnes is about as justified as Turner or Spofforth.Umm... well he's certainly better than Bishen Bedi and Anil Kumble.
SF Barnes > the lot of 'em too TBH.
Bedi I'll grant was ill-advised, but Shoaib > Kumble is contentious in the extreme.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You jest, surely? A line would make much more sense drawn at 1900 than 1914.The 19th-century produced cricket of a notably different nature to the 20th, mostly based on the nature of pitches. Barnes' feats are of inestimably greater note than Spofforth or Turner (or Lohmann, to pick another example), because by the time he came along pitches were being prepared, rather than merely cut.
BhupinderSingh
Banned
Imran Khan,Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis,Fazal Mahmood,Khan Muhammad,Saqlain Mushtaq & Muhammad Asif all better bowlers than Shoaib IMO.I'm sure some people would also rate Abdul Qadir,Mushtaq Ahmed & Sarfaraz Nawaz as better than Akhtar.
He wouldn't make my top 20 as well.
Last edited:
Asif better than Akhtar ,was that a joke ? The guy has hardly played 10 matches .
Shoaib is faster than all of the above mentioned . Qadir is no way near the Shoaib's strike rate . Fazal had fewer good series than Shoaib . Asif is better than Shoaib (only in dreams) . Khan Mohammad hasn't got a record worthy enough to be mentioned along with Shoaib . Mushtaq is fat and Sarfraz is a failed politician with an abnormally large face and tongue . Imran committed adultery (according to Sarfraz) . Wasim threw a match against Australia during the WC 1996 (rumors?) .And Waqar Younis simply has lesser page hits than Shoaib any day and any time ...............
Mohammed Zahid is the fastest ,so he is the best IMO .
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yep, those matting wickets he played on in SA were prepared beautifully - rolled, watered, and cut to perfection
The 19th-century produced cricket of a notably different nature to the 20th, mostly based on the nature of pitches. Barnes' feats are of inestimably greater note than Spofforth or Turner (or Lohmann, to pick another example), because by the time he came along pitches were being prepared, rather than merely cut.
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Heh
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Do you have any idea how shocking most pitches of the 19th-century, in England and Australia, were?Yep, those matting wickets he played on in SA were prepared beautifully - rolled, watered, and cut to perfection
neville cardus
International Debutant
By the time Test cricket came around, though, they weren't half bad. Only the Lohmann-Turner era genuinely matches the batsman's bane that was the pre-1870s.