Ranking the Batsmen

[FaaipDeOiad]

Between Pollock and Waugh IMO.

I'll go Pollock.

 

[Matt79]

Headley

 

[chaminda_00]

For me it's a toss up between Weekes, Headley and Pollock. I think I'll go for Everton Weekes.

Finally someone else is voting for Weekes, so i'll go for him as we. Should have been in at 2 or 3 IMO, though.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh yea, thats great. So Shoibh Akhtar is the best bowler of all time then, right? I suppose a 130km bowler doesn't "do" anything for you, except you know, demolish entire top orders. Maybe specializes in the wickets of the Tendulkars of the opposing line up. But that 80mph ball, I mean I'd rather have that Harmison bowling at second slip than a mediocre 80mph taking out the off stump time after time after time, right?

Who wants to see the a guy destroy the top five batsman, game after game, series after series, year after year, when you can see someone york a #11batsman and make the highlights. At the end of the day, the purpose of bowlers is to bowl as fast they can, and damn the wickets...thats only for the scrappers like McGrath. Let them take all the wickets, as long as the speed gets the glory.

For example, lets look at that all time great THOMPSON. I mean, it was awesome when he hit the site screen behind the batsman on first bounce. Who would rather see an opening batsman nicking one to slip, when you can see the awesome speed demon Thommo bowl deliveries to the second level spectators at the Gabba?

I'm coming around to your view, it makes complete sense.

I just want to add to this post.

The speed demon Lee has 1 wicket, the awesome Harmison 1 wicket, whereas the mediocre McGrath with his 80mph is 4/37.

Thanks. Come Again.

 

[Anil]

george headley

 

[Anil]

I just want to add to this post.

The speed demon Lee has 1 wicket, the awesome Harmison 1 wicket, whereas the mediocre McGrath with his 80mph is 4/37.

Thanks. Come Again.

you really think you need to try that hard to convince anyone that mcgrath is better than harmison or lee?

 

[Slifer]

Steve Waugh

 

[aussie tragic]

Everton Weeks, just over Clyde Walcott

 

[silentstriker]

Oh, and another mediocre 80mph bowler now has 3/20.

So both of them combined have 9 wickets, with a six-for for McGrath.

OK, I'll stop now .

 

[aussie tragic]

Oh, and another mediocre 80mph bowler now has 3/20.

So both of them combined have 9 wickets, with a six-for for McGrath.

OK, I'll stop now .

What has Clarks figures, plus McGraths current 6 wkts got to do with whether he is better than the names I mentioned. What would Marshall, Lillee, Garner, Holding, Hadlee or Imran have done on that pitch?

Whats next, You going to say Clark should be in the top 10 because he now averages 17

p.s. sorry to clutter the batting thread with bowling irrelevencies.

 

[silentstriker]

What has Clarks figures, plus McGraths current 6 wkts got to do with whether he is better than the names I mentioned. What would Marshall, Lillee, Garner, Holding, Hadlee or Imran have done on that pitch?

Whats next, You going to say Clark should be in the top 10 because he now averages 17

p.s. sorry to clutter the batting thread with bowling irrelevencies.

No, I;m saying that you not 'rating' bowlers who bowl at 80mph purely because they don't bowl 'fast enough' is ludicrous. I mean if you say your 'favorite' players are those who bowl fast, well thats fine, but you can't then make that quantum leap and say they are 'better'.

And Lillee would have done what Lee has done, bowled fast and maybe gotten a wicket or two. I mean my favorite batsman could be those who bat fastest, and Dhoni might be my most favorite player in the world (he isn't), but that doesn't mean I'd take him over Dravid.

Basically you are comparing Dhoni to Dravid and saying Dhoni is better.

 

[shortpitched713]

Ponting. Can see this being a very long string of futile votes, but worth it.

 

[silentstriker]

Of course I can, it's my opinion.

I do concede that McGrath may be one of the greatest 80 mph bowlers ever, however he still doesn't make my all-time top 10 of pace bowlers. If you think he does, fine you are also entitled to your opinion.

Well, I guess that's that. I can understand that, but your criteria for best bowlers must include something other than taking heaps of wickets, and heaps of top order wickets consisting of the best batsmen in the opposing team. Oh, and also taking them in all conditions and in all countries.

Oh, and doing it for 15 years.

 

[shortpitched713]

And Lillee would have done what Lee has done, bowled fast and maybe gotten a wicket or two. I mean my favorite batsman could be those who bat fastest, and Dhoni might be my most favorite player in the world (he isn't), but that doesn't mean I'd take him over Dravid.

Basically you are comparing Dhoni to Dravid and saying Dhoni is better.

Probably the most fallacious argument ever, and this is coming from a McGrath supporter.

 

[aussie tragic]

I mean my favorite batsman could be those who bat fastest, and Dhoni might be my most favorite player in the world (he isn't), but that doesn't mean I'd take him over Dravid.

Basically you are comparing Dhoni to Dravid and saying Dhoni is better.

No I'm not, you are (are you seriously saying Marshall, Lillee, Garner etc. vs McGrath is like comparing Dhoni vs Dravid)

I would however always take Ponting over Dravid for the reason you state above.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Headley

 

[adharcric]

Really can't choose between Headley and Pollock. I'll go with the flow, Headley it is.

 

[Dasa]

Headley.

 

[a massive zebra]

Pollock

 

[Johnners]

Ponting