richie benaud's greatest 11

[C_C]

Why cant we settle at saying Murali, the number one offie
Warne, the number one leggy

do we settle at saying Wasim the #1 leftie and Ambrose the #1 rightie ?
or Tendy the #1 rightie and Lara the #1 leftie ?

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

as has been said on numerous occasions, they are two completely different types of bowlers, who have played most of their cricket in different conditions.

welll then since conditions arnt completely the same for any given two players, we shouldnt be comparing ANY players then. right ?

 

[Swervy]

do we settle at saying Wasim the #1 leftie and Ambrose the #1 rightie ?
or Tendy the #1 rightie and Lara the #1 leftie ?

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.



welll then since conditions arnt completely the same for any given two players, we shouldnt be comparing ANY players then. right ?

we all know that there is a bigger difference between the skills employed by leggies and offies as opposed to the skills of a right handed batsman and a left hander....same for the bowling.

...and regarding your last point, well maybe there is no point in comparing players..these arguements tend to go round in circles and get nowhere..especially the Murali vs Warne debate...for mine, theyare both magical bowlers to watch, for differing reasons (because they are vastly differing bowlers),they are both match winners,and they have both brought the art of spinning the ball back into vogue around the world...quibbling over a few fractions of a strike rate or average is worthless, because we all know there is so much more to the game

 

[bryce]

barnes was primarily a pace bowler, just in those days they used alot of spinning variations as the channel 9 commentators were talking about yesterday

 

[Neil Pickup]

*Bangs head on wall*

 

[tooextracool]

Almost all evidence points to that Sydney Barnes was better.

even though he played on uncovered wickets?

 

[tooextracool]

how long before someone comes here and puts down his 13 reasons(all of which have already been argued) of why murali is better than warne?

 

[Richard]

i am sorry but a sport is not into maturity before its professional days. atleast not by professional standards.
Its still a picnic on sunday compared to professional era.

Professional cricket started sometime in the 1800s.

 

[Richard]

barnes was primarily a pace bowler, just in those days they used alot of spinning variations as the channel 9 commentators were talking about yesterday

Barnes was primarily a spinner, he was just quite a bit quicker than most spinners.

 

[Richard]

even though he played on uncovered wickets?

Yep - even though.

 

[Richard]

Then why in all hell is he picked in Richie's side as a seam bowler??

Because for most people the idea of someone who can bowl both seam and spin is an impossibility.
Barnes should be classified as "bowler" - full-stop, no seamer, no spinner. He was better than most, but he did tend to bowl spin more.

 

[Richard]

*Bangs head on wall*

I think you might have meant:

 

[tooextracool]

Yep - even though.

how do you know that he would have performed better than warne had he played on the pitches taht warne plays on now. its simply your opinion and its not like you watched barnes bowl to know much about him.

 

[marc71178]

Professional cricket started sometime in the 1800s.

No, Cricket was played for remuneration back then.

It's not been professional for very long at all.

 

[Richard]

There were professionals in the 1850s, certainly.
I'm pretty sure, too, that it dates back further still.

 

[Richard]

how do you know that he would have performed better than warne had he played on the pitches taht warne plays on now. its simply your opinion and its not like you watched barnes bowl to know much about him.

It's not like the first part - it is like the second.
By common consent, Barnes was the finest bowler to play the game - from everyone who saw the stuff from the 1860s to the 1930s. Of course we can't be totally certain but from stuff that was written about him it seems he was rather out of this World and capable of doing stuff with the ball that no-one else has ever been capable of.

 

[cric_manic]

as i said before warne has bowlers like McGrath and gillespie and lee and kasprowicz ect. who also take wickets, so for shane warne to take as many wickets as he has shows he his better

murali is a one man army for srilanka and takes most of the wickets for them

 

[tooextracool]

It's not like the first part - it is like the second.
By common consent, Barnes was the finest bowler to play the game - from everyone who saw the stuff from the 1860s to the 1930s. Of course we can't be totally certain but from stuff that was written about him it seems he was rather out of this World and capable of doing stuff with the ball that no-one else has ever been capable of.

and he had the conditions to help him do that. its extremely hard to say that someone would still have been able to bowl well if he didnt have the conditions to help him, and certainly we know off many bowlers who can be lethal when the conditions help them and yet go to become mediocre when they dont.

 

[bryce]

i'm sure George Lohmann wasn't too bad either but we don't hear an awful lot about him except when it comes to statistics

 

[C_C]

There were professionals in the 1850s, certainly.
I'm pretty sure, too, that it dates back further still.

professional cricket didnt start till the late 50s/60s.

 

[Deja moo]

^ 1850s/60s or 1950s/60s ?