Who is Sri Lanka's best ever cricketer?

[Pratters]

I consider Bill O'Reilly to be a top 15 player, but if you are looking for a career similar in length to his (27 tests), Sydney Barnes is a much crazier example. 16.43 @ 7.2 over 26 tests. And this isn't the Lohmann era of cheap wickets either.

You are again giving me stats only. I know about Barnes. I know about Alfred Mynn as well for that matter. I am asking you without stats tell me how Murali was better than O'Reilly conclusively for you. Which aspects of Murali's bowling do you consider more threatening than that of O Reilly's?

 

[mr_mister]

what is with this anti-stat crowd


its cricket folks, its a game of statistics

 

[viriya]

You are again giving me stats only. I know about Barnes. I know about Alfred Mynn as well for that matter. I am asking you without stats tell me how Murali was better than O'Reilly conclusively for you. Which aspects of Murali's bowling do you consider more threatening than that of O Reilly's?

He single-handedly won more games? I only care about results tbh, and Murali was just more effective over a longer period of time. O'Reilly was great but not over smaller period and not more effective than Murali during that period either.

 

[Pratters]

what is with this anti-stat crowd


its cricket folks, its a game of statistics

ffs.

 

[Pratters]

He single-handedly won more games? I only care about results tbh, and Murali was just more effective over a longer period of time. O'Reilly was great but not over smaller period and not more effective than Murali during that period either.

This is no way to analyse cricket my friend. I was seeing the Arthur Morris interview. He said O Reilly was the best bowler he has seen. Warne was the best orthodox spin bowler he saw. People went to play on tours on ships and they couldn't play as many test matches as they can now. That doesn't mean a player from that era couldn't be better than a legend today.

 

[cnerd123]

What on earth is happening here

 

[viriya]

This is no way to analyse cricket my friend. I was seeing the Arthur Morris interview. He said O Reilly was the best bowler he has seen. Warne was the best orthodox spin bowler he saw. People went to play on tours on ships and they couldn't play as many test matches as they can now. That doesn't mean a player from that era couldn't be better than a legend today.

Even for the 27 tests sample size, he didn't dominate as much as Barnes did?

I'm not Arthur Morris so I can't say I watched O'Reilly play.. how are you evaluating O'Reilly? Did you see him play?

 

[Pratters]

Barnes has an average of 16 but that doesn't mean some one who had an average of 21 20-30 years later isn't good.

I have read how O Reilly is regarded by his peers. He was an attacking bowler who didn't give you easy balls. I can at least see why these people regarded him so highly.

 

[Pratters]

Viriya you can say Murali is the greatest bowler you have seen. But you cannot say he is the greatest of all time. You have not seen bowlers through history. Try to understand what I am saying.

 

[harsh.ag]

Even for the 27 tests sample size, he didn't dominate as much as Barnes did?

Many accounts reiterate that batting conditions were easier in O'Reilly's time (yes, that means during Don's time as well for the all time batting fetishists) than in Barnes' time.

 

[viriya]

Barnes has an average of 16 but that doesn't mean some one who had an average of 21 20-30 years later isn't good.

I have read how O Reilly is regarded by his peers. He was an attacking bowler who didn't give you easy balls. I can at least see why these people regarded him so highly.

Ok so you prefer going by actual past player opinions. Fair enough.

Steve Waugh called Murali the "Don Bradman of bowlers" sometime back.

I'd rather not pick who I choose to believe and go with a slightly more unbiased approach.

 

[viriya]

Many accounts reiterate that batting conditions were easier in O'Reilly's time (yes, that means during Don's time as well for the all time batting fetishists) than in Barnes' time.

Yes, but O'Reilly didn't dominate his time the same way Barnes did.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yes, but O'Reilly didn't dominate his time the same way Barnes did.

Ugh. Okay.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Viriya you can say Murali is the greatest bowler you have seen. But you cannot say he is the greatest of all time. You have not seen bowlers through history. Try to understand what I am saying.

No, he can say Murali is the greatest ever. He just can't say Murali is undisputably the GOAT or use stats stupidly like he is.

 

[Pratters]

Ok so you prefer going by actual past player opinions. Fair enough.

Steve Waugh called Murali the "Don Bradman of bowlers" sometime back.

I'd rather not pick who I choose to believe and go with a slightly more unbiased approach.

My point is there is no one answer to who the greatest bowler is.

 

[viriya]

Viriya you can say Murali is the greatest bowler you have seen. But you cannot say he is the greatest of all time. You have not seen bowlers through history. Try to understand what I am saying.

That argument basically means no one can name a GOAT. That's ridiculous. It's like you can't have an opinion if you haven't seen a cricketer play?

I dunno what to say, if you hate stats and you want to evaluate past players, I guess just go by player opinions.

 

[viriya]

My point is there is no one answer to who the greatest bowler is.

You asked me who I think the GOAT is, I told you and gave you my criteria. It's just an opinion I don't make the rules.

 

[Pratters]

No, he can say Murali is the greatest ever. He just can't say Murali is undisputably the GOAT or use stats stupidly like he is.

How can he say Murali is the greatest ever. He has not seen O Reilly or Spofforth or Truman. I can't at least. I think it's arrogant to say so as we haven't really seen them bowl. Maybe after reading and watching a lot of videos we can get an idea but that s about it.

 

[hendrix]

It's fine to choose your GOAT, and it's fine to do it based on statistical reasons.

You have to be able to argue the point though. There are problems with placing too much value on WPM. I don't think Murali's peak is is strongest suit - I think it's his volume of wickets and consistency.

Certainly he's in contention to be GOAT. I think Marshall and Hadlee were more complete bowlers - statistically and based on their skill set.

 

[ankitj]

Imran, not Waqar has the greatest post ww 2 peak of any bowler. Something like 150 wickets at 14 or something ridiculous like that. Also from 1980-1988 236 wickets at an average of little over 17 and a half.

From 1980 to 88 Imran has a better avg and sr than hadlee or marshall. So if you are a stats guy you might want to check this out . Does make for compulsive reading

Stats analysis: Imran Khan | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

You and I commented on that article