Shane Warne vs Imran Khan

[kyear2]

I mean, you yourself have Hadlee outside that "GoAT tier".

I have him in my top tier.

I was responding to @Johan who called the top tier the goat tier, and to me that's a one man conversation with an argument to be made for one other, being McGrath. So if in that instance the top tier is the GOAT tier, then yes, I would only place those two.

But overall I still have him in my top tier.

 

[kyear2]

So top 11 becomes,

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn/Ambrose
Warne/Murali
Donald/Lillee/IK
Wasim

I think you meant Holding? You listed Donald twice.

It's close to what I think. Sometimes, a minor differences can flip the order but honestly I have not thought about exact ranking for too long. I did not even think about comparing spinners and pacers earlier.

The longer I hear for and against arguments, the less fluid conclusion becomes in my head. If I have watched players then it becomes much easier.

What's your rationale for rating McGrath definnately ahead? Is it flat pitch in 00?

Yes I mean Holding. Thanks.

And yes again, definitely the 2000's factor. Though there was still bounce, which was a major part of his M. O. He did well on one of the toughest eras since the mid 20's to late 40's.

There's also the fact that he was the spear head of arguably the greatest team ever. Yeah it seems unfair, but Brady is the GOAT because of 7 Superbowls, winning factors in for me.

Him and Marshall, along with Ambrose also have some of the highest value of wickets (if I recall correctly) and all 3 along with I believe Davidson, has the highest percentages of top order wickets.

They did the job up front and often took out the opposing team's best batsmen.

I have no doubt that Hadlee was great and top 3. But only two bowlers had the numbers, peer rating, home and away success and skill sets.

Marshall has the edge over him then for a few different reasons, but those two tick almost ever box. McGrath had his slight issues in his record, but everything else is there.

 

[akilana]

I can't rate a bowler I've never seen. Especially not one like him where everything about him has a shroud of uncertainty over it.

How do you think people have all these crazy takes? Read a few articles and you’re good to go.

 

[Johan]

Just because you're narrow-minded does not make anyone else's views crazy.

 

[akilana]

 

[Coronis]

Marshall. Hadlee. McGrath.

Steyn. Ambrose. Warne. Muralitharan.

Donald. Holding. O'Reilly. Lillee. Imran. Akram.

Trueman. Garner. Lindwall. Bumrah. Garner. Davidson. Pollock.

Top 20 for me.

Once for his batting and once for his bowling, I presume?

 

[Johan]

I was responding to @Johan who called the top tier the goat tier, and to me that's a one man conversation with an argument to be made for one other, being McGrath. So if in that instance the top tier is the GOAT tier, then yes, I would only place those two.

I don't generally discuss greatness linearly, but on the GOAT debate I think Barnes has as good a claim as anyone, even if I think McGrath and Marshall are better than him.

 

[kyear2]

Once for his batting and once for his bowling, I presume?

Now I have to figure out who I forgot.

 

[Coronis]

Now I have to figure out who I forgot.

I’d guess Waqar.

 

[Johan]

I’d guess Waqar.

No he sucks.

 

[Bolo.]

Holding a tier above Garner is a weird take. Garner had a clearly better record in the same team. While often not getting the new ball, and with fewer injury concerns.

 

[Coronis]

Holding a tier above Garner is a weird take. Garner had a clearly better record in the same team. While often not getting the new ball, and with fewer injury concerns.

And when he finally did get the chance to get the new ball he was better with it anyway imo.

with new ball

Holding 40 matches 75 innings 171 @ 23.96 SR 52.6 (2.28 WPI)
Garner 26 matches 49 innings 127 @ 20.22 SR 45.9 (2.59 WPI)

with old ball
Garner 33 matches 62 innings 132 @ 21.69 SR 55.5 (2.13 WPI)
Holding 21 matches 38 innings 78 @ 23.07 SR 47.2 (2.05 WPI)

Very surprising that Holding’s SR is markedly lower with the old ball. That 6/21 at the WACA in 84 probably helps.

 

[Bolo.]

And when he finally did get the chance to get the new ball he was better with it anyway imo.

with new ball

Holding 40 matches 75 innings 171 @ 23.96 SR 52.6 (2.28 WPI)
Garner 26 matches 49 innings 127 @ 20.22 SR 45.9 (2.59 WPI)

with old ball
Garner 33 matches 62 innings 132 @ 21.69 SR 55.5 (2.13 WPI)
Holding 21 matches 38 innings 78 @ 23.07 SR 47.2 (2.05 WPI)

Very surprising that Holding’s SR is markedly lower with the old ball. That 6/21 at the WACA in 84 probably helps.

Sample sizes as low as 78 wickets are going to produce some oddities. Think his strategy was mainly blast the bats our with pace, and in the right circumstances, that can be very productive.

 

[Coronis]

Sample sizes as low as 78 wickets are going to produce some oddities. Think his strategy was mainly blast the bats our with pace, and in the right circumstances, that can be very productive.

tbh seems like they would have been better off with Marshall/Garner opening and Holding coming in first change the whole time.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

My personal view is that Warne is better than any pacer bar

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Sydney Francis Barnes
4. Sir Richard Hadlee

and am currently on fence about Sir Curtly Ambrose and Dale Steyn.

Reasonable take.

 

[Bolo.]

tbh seems like they would have been better off with Marshall/Garner opening and Holding coming in first change the whole time.

Quite likely. It might be statistical noise or phases in career though.

Not a surprise they weren't swapped though. Even disregarding seniority, a team is not likely to swap the roles of players who are both doing an awesome job.

 

[Coronis]

Quite likely. It might be statistical noise or phases in career though.

Not a surprise they weren't swapped though. Even disregarding seniority, a team is not likely to swap the roles of players who are both doing an awesome job.

They were eventually swapped in 84. Unsure how that transition occurred whether Garner took over after an injury then continued with that setup or if it was just a choice.

 

[Coronis]

Hmm, seems like for Australia’s tour of Windies in 84, Holding didn’t play the first two matches and Marshall didn’t play the first. Garner took 9/142 and 7/95, including 2 6’fers and getting Steve Smith out twice. From then on he remained opening.

 

[Thala_0710]

Hmm, seems like for Australia’s tour of Windies in 84, Holding didn’t play the first two matches and Marshall didn’t play the first. Garner took 9/142 and 7/95, including 2 6’fers and getting Steve Smith out twice. From then on he remained opening.

Getting Steve Smith out in big 1984

 

[kyear2]

Reasonable take.

Barnes apart, it is.