Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Blocky]

well, the comparison between a spin bowling lone wolf and a pace bowling lone wolf might be different for a few other reasons (other than the fact that Murali might actually be a far superior bowler to Warne, which I don't agree with).

Murali played 97 of his 133 matches in the sub continent on pitches built for spin bowling. His away from home record (27 runs per wicket) shows how much he relied on home conditions to be effective. You compare that to Warne, who averaged near enough the same home and away and played on a lot more decks that weren't suited to spin bowling and that starts to tell a story. I also discount Murali because anyone in their right mind cannot say anything other than he was a chucker, rules had to be changed for him to play the game.

 

[watson]

I agree Vaas was a very good bowler but no where in the class of Glenn Mcgrath. Plus Shane Warne also bowled along side very good bowlers such as Jason Gillespie, Fleming, Macgill and Paul Reifel (all are as good as if not better than Vaas). Therefore relatively speaking, Murali was a 'lone' wolf compared to Warne but still had a better SR and Average (even if Ban/Zim are removed).

Warne's Average is 25.42 and Murali's minus Bang and Zim is 24.87 according to Bambi. I doubt that the small difference of less than 1 has any statistical relevance. They really are that close.

Warne's Average was helped by the pressure applied by McGrath at the other end, and Murali was helped by overly helpful home conditions. Although I don't whether the latter is true. I'm just taking people's comments at face value. In the end the two facets cancel each other out and we left with raw figures that are both extraordinary.

Now is everyone happy?

 

[hendrix]

Murali played 97 of his 133 matches in the sub continent on pitches built for spin bowling. His away from home record (27 runs per wicket) shows how much he relied on home conditions to be effective. You compare that to Warne, who averaged near enough the same home and away and played on a lot more decks that weren't suited to spin bowling and that starts to tell a story. I also discount Murali because anyone in their right mind cannot say anything other than he was a chucker, rules had to be changed for him to play the game.

so much misinformation.

 

[smash84]

So how do u explain Muttiah having a better SR and average than Warne. Muttiah being the 'lone' wolf in this scenario. Please note this isn't an attack or anything just seeking your opinion.

The question is not about Murali vs Warne here. There are a lot of other factors (some of them have been mentioned already like matches against minnows, wickets they played on etc).

Put somebody like the 2 Ws or McG and Gillespie or Walsh and Ambrose and I can't see how Murali's average would not go down. Sure his wickets would be less but his average would be a lot lower.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The question is not about Murali vs Warne here. There are a lot of other factors (some of them have been mentioned already like matches against minnows, wickets they played on etc).

Put somebody like the 2 Ws or McG and Gillespie or Walsh and Ambrose and I can't see how Murali's average would not go down. Sure his wickets would be less but his average would be a lot lower.

Just asking what the logic is here. You're saying a lone wolf would have a worse SR because he'd be seen off as carefully as possible by the batsmen. But wouldn't that mean his economy would be better? Consequently, his average shouldn't suffer at all, right? It's simple math

 

[hendrix]

Just asking what the logic is here. You're saying a lone wolf would have a worse SR because he'd be seen off as carefully as possible by the batsmen. But wouldn't that mean his economy would be better? Consequently, his average shouldn't suffer at all, right? It's simple math

no, the logic is that there would be other people to take the top order wickets with him so he'd get more of a shot at the lower order/tail while he's still fresh.

 

[Slifer]

The question is not about Murali vs Warne here. There are a lot of other factors (some of them have been mentioned already like matches against minnows, wickets they played on etc).

Put somebody like the 2 Ws or McG and Gillespie or Walsh and Ambrose and I can't see how Murali's average would not go down. Sure his wickets would be less but his average would be a lot lower.

Ok so again how do u explain the fact that Murali has a better average and sr than Warne (who bowled along side Mcgrath and Gillespie) even accounting for Bang and Zim. MMy opinion is, that u cant just say X bowler would have had X stats if he were a lone wolf or part of a group. IMO it depends on that individual bowler (skill, temperament etc), their opponents and the conditions they play under. I seriously, doubt Sir Richard would have achieved better stats than Marshall (for ex) if he were part of the WI team of their time. What it comes down to is the individual skills of the respective bowlers and imo MM >Hadlee regardless of what team they played in. Murali vs Warne I'm on the fence with this one.

 

[smash84]

[/B]

Ok so again how do u explain the fact that Murali has a better average and sr than Warne (who bowled along side Mcgrath and Gillespie) even accounting for Bang and Zim. MMy opinion is, that u cant just say X bowler would have had X stats if he were a lone wolf or part of a group. IMO it depends on that individual bowler (skill, temperament etc), their opponents and the conditions they play under. I seriously, doubt Sir Richard would have achieved better stats than Marshall (for ex) if he were part of the WI team of their time. What it comes down to is the individual skills of the respective bowlers and imo MM >Hadlee regardless of what team they played in. Murali vs Warne I'm on the fence with this one.

I agree with you to some extent on this. Of course these things matter but people are being disingenuous in this thread if they are suggesting that being a lone wolf has more advantages than bowling in packs or pairs. I have already given reasons for this statement. It is like saying that Andy Flower had more advantages playing in the Zim line up than he would have had in a more established line up.

 

[smash84]

Just asking what the logic is here. You're saying a lone wolf would have a worse SR because he'd be seen off as carefully as possible by the batsmen. But wouldn't that mean his economy would be better? Consequently, his average shouldn't suffer at all, right? It's simple math

No. It doesn't work so linearly. You are seen off with the new ball and the batsmen also get settled by facing **** bowlers and it gets harder for you to take wickets.

Also in order to get to the tail you need to work hard to get those lower order wickets. The other ****s with you aren't all that flash and you aren't so fresh anymore (basically what hendrix is referring to)

 

[Migara]

I think this was discussed before and it was shown lone strike bowlers have lesser chances of bowling to the tail.

 

[the big bambino]

On howstat you can compare Murali and Marshall. Admittedly not much more than a comparison btwn 2 men rather than a definitive comparison btwn bowlers who hunted in a pack v lone wolfs. 1st up Marshall. Top order 33%. Mid order 40%. Tail 27%.

Murali. Top order 25%. Mid order 42%. Tail 33%.

It would seem that the lone wolf got more opportunities at the tail. Though as a different kind of bowler than Marshall you would expect Murali to have a smaller % of top order wickets but there is nothing to differentiate either man from accessing mid order and tail end wickets with one exception being opportunity. On this skinny comparison it can indicate being a lone wolf gives you more tail end opportunities.

 

[watson]

I was thinking exactly the thing Bambi. Also, if you check Hadlee's stats you find that a tad under 30% of his wickets were 8 to 11 in the batting order. In other words Hadlee's wickets were fairly evenly spread (with a small bias to the top 3 batman) as you would expect for a fast bowler that needs to bowl as much as possible.

It appears that Migara is talking bollocks.

 

[Muloghonto]

Murali played 97 of his 133 matches in the sub continent on pitches built for spin bowling. His away from home record (27 runs per wicket) shows how much he relied on home conditions to be effective. You compare that to Warne, who averaged near enough the same home and away and played on a lot more decks that weren't suited to spin bowling and that starts to tell a story. I also discount Murali because anyone in their right mind cannot say anything other than he was a chucker, rules had to be changed for him to play the game.

If you'd met Murali in person and seen that his wrists were by far the most flexible wrists you'd ever see- enough to be the ONLY wristspinning offie in cricket, you wouldn't call him a chucker.

Warne bowled a lot more on pitches that didnt turn square but so what ? He bowled a lot more too on pitches with more bounce than Murali. Bounce is a big ally to spinners and this whole 'pitches that are good for/bad for spinners/pacers' ignores a simple fact that you excel more in familiar conditions. The bouncy pitches of OZ were familiar to Warne, it was alien to Murali. One would expect a bowler to bowl better at home than away. same with batsmen. Your whole favourable pitch argument is made null and void by the simple fact that most non-subcontinental spinners struggle on the spin-friendly subcontinental pitches, most subcontinental pacers have better home records than away records.

The argument between Murali and Warne is a close one but Murali wins it decisively oon the simple basis that he did much, much better than Warne in India, which is the indisputable best team in playing spin (atleast, up to the Warne-Murali era). Warne looked like Tahir more often than not in India. Absolutely smashed to bits. Murali didnt light the scene on fire in India but he held his own more often than not and didn't look like a club bowler.

In an ATG argument, where you face the best of the best, Murali should be ahead of Warne every single time because you don't get the like of Hick, Ramprakash or Cullian in an ATG lineup. You get the best of the best and against them, Murali is a much better candidate.

 

[benchmark00]

Which team was the best in the world in Murali and Warne's era, just out of interest?

 

[Muloghonto]

Which team was the best in the world in Murali and Warne's era, just out of interest?

For playing spin, which is the relevant point, it is indisputably, India.

 

[benchmark00]

Oh so ATG teams will only consist of spin dominant batsmen. K. Seems kinda weird that Muralitharan couldn't perform against a ****ty spin playing nation like Australia though. Mustn't have cared enough I spose.

 

[harsh.ag]

When Benchy trolls, it is so much fun

Btw, can anyone tell me about Larwood's swing ability?

 

[Burgey]

Which team was the best in the world in Murali and Warne's era, just out of interest?

You should know by now that this sort of thing is way out of line, mate.

 

[Burgey]

The question must always be "How did he/ they go in India/ the subcontinent?" never "How did the Indian/ subcontinental player/ team perform away from home/ against the best team of their era?"

It has to be this way because generally the answer to the latter question is "They weren't worth a squirt of piss".

 

[the big bambino]

For playing spin, which is the relevant point, it is indisputably, India.

You have probably read somewhere that Murali averaged 75 in Australia? 106 while representing Sri Lanka? But never mind. You know better than the facts.