Ranking the Bowlers

[Buddhmaster]

Are you saying the people at CW are pathetic?

Well yes. I just went through the whole thread and Warne got 2nd or 3rd most votes in pretty much every position but only got in at 6. I would've had him at 2, after Marshall. Can't really go on what i've seen, as besides highlight videos and dvds, i've hardly seen any cricket pre-1995.

 

[Matt79]

Akram.

Just noticed this thread, can't believe Warnie's at 6. That's pathetic.

 

[Dravid]

Donald

 

[grant28]

add vaas to sri lanka and maybe kallis to rsa

 

[silentstriker]

Akram.

Just noticed this thread, can't believe Warnie's at 6. That's pathetic.

Well maybe because there are five bowlers better than him?

 

[Buddhmaster]

That's the thing, there isn't.

 

[silentstriker]

That's the thing, there isn't.

Sure, name one of the five that went before him that is worse?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No but you said it wouldn't have credibility in serious circles. Now you're going to say that your local pub is a more serious circle than Wisden.

Well now you come to mention it their list of batsman has Allan Border at 5 and Ken Barrington at 7 .... with Gavaskar, Greg Chappel and Lara at 8,9, and 10.
Wisden obviously knows best.

 

[silentstriker]

Well now you come to mention it their list of batsman has Allan Border at 5 and Ken Barrington at 7 .... with Gavaskar, Greg Chappel and Lara at 8,9, and 10.
Wisden obviously knows best.

So pray tell, what 'serious' circle are you talking about?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So pray tell, what 'serious' circle are you talking about?

I don't what point you're trying to make with that question.
The fact is that Wisden has Allan Border at 5 and Ken Barrington at 7 .... with Gavaskar, Greg Chappel and Lara at 8,9, and 10.
If that makes Wisden the most credible source of ranking players then the vote had better be re-started.
In fact I think I'll start a new thread with the Wisden lists instead of distracting away from the voting on this thread.

 

[marc71178]

Well yes. I just went through the whole thread and Warne got 2nd or 3rd most votes in pretty much every position but only got in at 6. I would've had him at 2, after Marshall. Can't really go on what i've seen, as besides highlight videos and dvds, i've hardly seen any cricket pre-1995.

The concept of 3-2-1 voting wasn't added unfortunately...

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't what point you're trying to make with that question.
The fact is that Wisden has Allan Border at 5 and Ken Barrington at 7 .... with Gavaskar, Greg Chappel and Lara at 8,9, and 10.
If that makes Wisden the most credible source of ranking players then the vote had better be re-started.
In fact I think I'll start a new thread with the Wisden lists instead of distracting away from the voting on this thread.

Okay, so your opinions are right because Wisden doesn't agree with you?
I don't see what you're trying to get at here.

 

[silentstriker]

Except the other folks who were chosen ahead of Warne do not have his [very few] weaknesses, have better averages and better strike rates. I am not saying thats the only criteria, and its fair enough to disagree, but its not out of the realm of possibility. He'd be in my all time team though, partly because of his cricketing brain, in addition to his bowling.

I'd have Warne at like #5 or so, personally.

1. McGrath
2. Marshall
3. Ambrose
4. Hadlee
5. Warne

I left out Murali but if his doosra (and the rest of him) are legal, then he'd be #2 all time and Warne would drop to #6.

Of course, I change this list every day a little bit, but that's the general idea .

But in the end, its utterly unfair to compare seamers to spinners (IMO). And in the battle of the spinners, its pretty much a two horse race (and if you belong to the 'he chucks' camp, a one horse race).

 

[adharcric]

I don't what point you're trying to make with that question.
The fact is that Wisden has Allan Border at 5 and Ken Barrington at 7 .... with Gavaskar, Greg Chappel and Lara at 8,9, and 10.
If that makes Wisden the most credible source of ranking players then the vote had better be re-started.
In fact I think I'll start a new thread with the Wisden lists instead of distracting away from the voting on this thread.

You know, people might actually consider what you're saying if it made any sense.

 

[adharcric]

The concept of 3-2-1 voting wasn't added unfortunately...

Why was it necessary? So that Warne could get in earlier?

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously all that would mean is a small number of people wanted to get Warne in higher while the majority waited until what they thought was the right time.

I wouldn't be in favor of 3-2-1 system.

 

[adharcric]

The closest race yet - Donald 9, Akram 8.

The List
1. Malcolm Marshall (WI)
2. Muttiah Muralitharan (SRI)
3. Glenn McGrath (AUS)
4. Curtly Ambrose (WI)
5. Richard Hadlee (NZ)
6. Shane Warne (AUS)
7. Fred Trueman (ENG)
8. Dennis Lillee (AUS)
9. Sydney Barnes (ENG)
10. Imran Khan (PAK)
11. Allan Donald (RSA)

The vote for the #12 bowler of all-time begins now.

The Contenders

 

[Fusion]

Wasim

 

[silentstriker]

About time a left armer gets in there.

Wasim

 

[shankar]

Akram