Ranking the great fast bowlers

[Jager]

Doesn't make mine either. Neither does Hammond. I take Greame Pollock at #4.

Have you got Barry Richards too?

 

[ankitj]

Have you got Barry Richards too?

I have a weird thing of being egalitarian for an ATG XI. So I give representation to all major 8 teams. So, having taken Greame, Barry has to miss out. Even otherwise, I think Barry will miss the opening slots.

 

[Red]

I have a weird thing of being egalitarian for an ATG XI. So I give representation to all major 8 teams. So, having taken Greame, Barry has to miss out. Even otherwise, I think Barry will miss the opening slots.

So, who do you have? Can I guess?

Um...


1. Hobbs (Eng)
2.
3. Bradman (Aus)
4. Pollock (SA)
5. Tendulkar (Ind)
6.
7. Imran Khan (Pak)
8.
9. Hadlee (NZ)
10. Marshall (WI)
11. Murali (SL)

 

[hang on]

By what criteria is Tendulkar better than Chappell? That he played on and on?

what a clever response.

better record in a diverse variety of conditions over a longer period of time. handled pace well. handled spin -- two of the best of all time, actually - well. did well in conditions most inimical to the style of play of subcontinental batsmen - england, saf, aus. did well against the best team of his time, a team that was an alltime great team. and also seems to have the stamp of approval of many of the cognoscenti, and his peers, even if it might end up irritating some on here.

 

[uvelocity]

I think one reason is McGrath had that average extending into what is often regarded as a flat track era in the 2000s.

Everyone likes to say Tendulkar and Lara are so special because they excelled in the 90s whereas blokes like Ponting get down graded slightly as their efforts were mostly in the 2000s (which may well be a valid point). The problem is people sometimes (often) don't give credit to McGrath who had similar stats to other blokes but did it in the more batsman-friendly era for the most part.

it's irrelevant mate, he was the spearhead for the most dominant team in history, that's all that matters

 

[Migara]

Outside of S/L and if one takes out the minnows, Murali's stats are less overwhelming. Additionally Warne was a more than handy lower order batsman and a great slip fielder. Warne also revived leg spin, and it is a trickier disipline to master.

Disagree. Murali averages better than Warne against almost all oppositions. Like Murali feasted on minnows, Warne feasted on English batsmen. Head to head against each opposition Murali has better stats. Warne only revived legspin in Australia (and perhaps England). Legspin was still living and Chandrashekar, Qadir, Hirwani and Kumble kept the torch burning brightly. Even minnow SL had a very handly leg break bowler called DS de Silva in early 80s. And Murali revived an even more trickier art of wrist spin off breaks, which has been just extinct after Erapalli Prasanna.

 

[kyear2]

it's irrelevant mate, he was the spearhead for the most dominant team in history, that's all that matters

Didn't know he opened for us in the 80's.

 

[uvelocity]

eh?

 

[kyear2]

Disagree. Murali averages better than Warne against almost all oppositions. Like Murali feasted on minnows, Warne feasted on English batsmen. Head to head against each opposition Murali has better stats. Warne only revived legspin in Australia (and perhaps England). Legspin was still living and Chandrashekar, Qadir, Hirwani and Kumble kept the torch burning brightly. Even minnow SL had a very handly leg break bowler called DS de Silva in early 80s. And Murali revived an even more trickier art of wrist spin off breaks, which has been just extinct after Erapalli Prasanna.

So since Murali is the best, kindly explain the eight run difference between his home and avay average and the eleven ball difference in strike rate. And of course Murali didn't play againts England and the averages of 16 and 13 againts Zim and Ban didn't help his overall record.
Also for the record, are you calling the England team of the last two decades minnows?
Great bowlers perform well home and away, which is what Warne, Marshall and Mcgrath did with out exploiting the minnows of their eras.
Additionally as stated Warne was a much better bat and one of the great slip fielders.

 

[uvelocity]

oh forgot you were windies. yeah they were good too. just looked, mcgrath played in 10 series whitewashes for australia. wow.

 

[watson]

So since Murali is the best, kindly explain the eight run difference between his home and avay average and the eleven ball difference in strike rate. And of course Murali didn't play againts England and the averages of 16 and 13 againts Zim and Ban didn't help his overall record.
Also for the record, are you calling the England team of the last two decades minnows?
Great bowlers perform well home and away, which is what Warne, Marshall and Mcgrath did with out exploiting the minnows of their eras.
Additionally as stated Warne was a much better bat and one of the great slip fielders.

It's also interesting that people will often quote Warne's 'failure' in India as their reason for choosing Murali as the greater bowler. However, in reality there is not a lot of difference;

Warne in India: Ave = 43.11 SR = 81.0

Murali in India: Ave = 45.45 SR = 86.0

 

[kyear2]

It's also interesting that people will often quote Warne's 'failure' in India as their reason for choosing Murali as the greater bowler. However, in reality there is not a lot of difference;

Warne in India: Ave = 43.11 SR = 81.0

Murali in India: Ave = 45.45 SR = 86.0

awta

Warne was named one of the five greatest cricketers of the century by Wisden and was a unanimous choice for the Cricinfo XI (joining Bradman and Sobers). When we picked our AT XI Warne was again an overwelming selection. It is time to accept that Warne is in the pantheon with Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs and Marshall with Richards, Tendulkar and Gilchrist right behind.

 

[ankitj]

So, who do you have? Can I guess?

Um...


1. Hobbs (Eng)
2. Gavaskar (Ind)
3. Bradman (Aus)
4. Pollock (SA)
5. Tendulkar (Ind) Sobers (WI)
6. Gilchrist (Aus)
7. Imran Khan (Pak)
8. Hadlee (NZ)
9. Marshall (WI)
10. Murali (SL)
11. Barnes (Eng)

That's my team. And I think it's gun

You could replace Gavaskar-Pollock with Richards-Tendulkar and still achieve the egalitarian objective without much affecting the quality.

 

[ankitj]

awta

Warne was named one of the five greatest cricketers of the century by Wisden and was a unanimous choice for the Cricinfo XI (joining Bradman and Sobers). When we picked our AT XI Warne was again an overwelming selection. It is time to accept that Warne is in the pantheon with Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs and Marshall with Richards, Tendulkar and Gilchrist right behind.

Nah. Warne has too much of hype behind him. I know he is greater than his numbers, but still a sub 25 average shouldn't put him in that pantheon. IMO at least. Still one of the top 15 or so cricketers.

 

[ankitj]

It's also interesting that people will often quote Warne's 'failure' in India as their reason for choosing Murali as the greater bowler. However, in reality there is not a lot of difference;

Warne in India: Ave = 43.11 SR = 81.0

Murali in India: Ave = 45.45 SR = 86.0

Murali's last series was terrible against India which gives him those poor numbers. He did have Indian batting down on the mat in Delhi back in 04-05 or so. Got a six-fer and IIRC had all or all but one of Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Sehwag in that haul. Additionally played a role in defeating India on a couple of occasions in SL, and so also in ODIs. Truth is Warne doesn't have any performance against India where he put India in a spot of bother. I mean ANY. His only five-for was in a match where India scored a mountain of runs and he only had Yuvraj (and perhaps one more, was it?) from the top order in that five-for.

Against India, Murali >>> India. Comfortably. It's not even a contest. Period.

 

[kyear2]

Nah. Warne has too much of hype behind him. I know he is greater than his numbers, but still a sub 25 average shouldn't put him in that pantheon. IMO at least. Still one of the top 15 or so cricketers.

He played his home matches in a country where except for the SCG, all of the pitches are prepared with pace in mind and possibly the most difficult pitches to bowl spin, compared to bowling at home on made to order turners. He was also one of the two main keys on one of the three greatest teams in history while changing the rules of the game and contributing with his slip fielding and his lower order batting. For me he will always be the second bowler put down on my AT team behind the incomparable Marshall and the only two guarenteed of a place.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, I know. That is why Warne is still in top 15 cricketers of all time. No one else with an average >25 would make it even to my top 50. So I think I am taking that into account and giving him enough consideration.

I know this debate is never ending...

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Great team Ankit.

 

[doesitmatter]

I also question Gilly's and Lillee's automatic selection into the ATG XI..Gilly no doubt is a great Batsman-WK..but if you have a team full of great-great batsmen why do you need Gilchrist? i would rather go for a great WK like Alan Knott(no slouch with the bat) or Ian Healy (again has played some crucial knocks)..Hadlee and McGrath have done more and in every country when compared to Lillee..btw these guys were complete bowlers as well..IMO Lara should be considered for the #5 spot

 

[kyear2]

I don't believe that anyone here besides Ikki has Lillee as an automatic first team selection in an all time team. Apparently the greatness with Lillee was watching him play and his aggression and ability to rise to any occasion and to decimate any line up.
As far as Gilly goes I really think that his keeping is under rated and that he kept superbly to Warne all of those years and his abilities along with Warne were the main reasons for Aussie dominancee, Gilchrist is a lock for the first team, Knott and Ames comes next.