Battle of the Test Bowling

[oz_fan]

Nawaz

 

[JBH001]

How can I vote for the inventor of reverse swing, and by all accounts, something of an individual in a team and from a country that seems to produce more than its fair share of cricketing personalities?

Besides Laker is over-rated and I am a little sick of that match and that series.

Sarfraz for me.

 

[Sanz]

Brainless Genius from the Land of Fast Bowlers. 5.3-5-1-7 deadly spell . One of the greatest in the history and deserves to win.

Sar-Fira Nawaz

 

[Perm]

Jim Laker. But like a few people have said, Hadlee's was better than both of the final options.

 

[aussie]

Nawaz superb amazing spell..

 

[Xuhaib]

Brainless Genius from the Land of Fast Bowlers. 5.3-5-1-7 deadly spell . One of the greatest in the history and deserves to win.

Sar-Fira Nawaz

You call the inventor of reverse swing brainless

 

[silentstriker]

The winner of the battle of bowling is:


Sarfraz Nawaz 9 for 86 Pak Aus Melbourne 1978-79


The creator of reverse swing wins it by a narrow margin!

 

[nightprowler10]

Wow. What an upset this is? I didn't Nawaz's spell to make it past the top four, but I definitely did not expect it to beat Laker.

Good stuff.

 

[Goughy]

Interesting how in Wisdens top 100 'Best' bowling our winner was 15th and our runner-up was 25th!

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bow100.htm

 

[silentstriker]

Interesting how in Wisdens top 100 'Best' bowling our winner was 15th and our runner-up was 25th!

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bow100.htm

They did it soely by rating. For example, Laker's 10-for is rated much higher than his 9-for, yet most agree that his 9 wicket haul was superior. Also, Kumble's wasn't the second best spell in cricket history....

And Ambrose 7/25 was a lot higher than 61.....so I don't really give any importantance to that list. I mean if you think there were SIXTY better spells in cricket history than Ambrose's 7/25, I really have nothing to say to you.



Even though Hadlee didn't win, I do like our rankings better.

 

[Goughy]

They did it soely by rating. For example, Laker's 10-for is rated much higher than his 9-for, yet most agree that his 9 wicket haul was superior. Also, Kumble's wasn't the second best spell in cricket history....

And Ambrose 7/25 was a lot higher than 61.....so I don't really give any importantance to that list. I mean if you think there were SIXTY better spells in cricket history than Ambrose's 7/25, I really have nothing to say to you.

Its not purely on wickets as you suggest. I dont completely agree with their results but they do have a criteria in place.

If you look Bothams 7fer is ranked 39 places above Gupte's 9fer.

And whilst Kumbles may not have been the 2nd best ever, we had Nawaz as 1, which is pretty far off base.

 

[silentstriker]

Its not purely on wickets as you suggest. I dont completely agree with their results but they do have a criteria in place.

If you look Bothams 7fer is ranked 39 places above Gupte's 9fer.

And whilst Kumbles may not have been the 2nd best ever, we had Nawaz as 1, which is pretty far off base.

No I am saying they did it by rating, which took into account a bunch of conditions, no doubt. But I am saying that our list overall is clearly superior to that list.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Its not purely on wickets as you suggest. I dont completely agree with their results but they do have a criteria in place.

If you look Bothams 7fer is ranked 39 places above Gupte's 9fer.

And whilst Kumbles may not have been the 2nd best ever, we had Nawaz as 1, which is pretty far off base.

I think they're rewarding Laker's 10for for comparatively few runs in a high total - which intuitively seems to make sense, but then consider that the ultimate goal of a bowler is to bowl a team out for the lowest score possible. When lots of overs go between each wicket, that's going to concede more runs.

The maths would probably take something away from Nawaz' twenty-odd wicketless overs too.

 

[Sanz]

You call the inventor of reverse swing brainless

I also called him genius.

 

[Jono]

Its not purely on wickets as you suggest. I dont completely agree with their results but they do have a criteria in place.

If you look Bothams 7fer is ranked 39 places above Gupte's 9fer.

And whilst Kumbles may not have been the 2nd best ever, we had Nawaz as 1, which is pretty far off base.

Explain why Hadlee's is better than Nawaz.

 

[Goughy]

Explain why Hadlee's is better than Nawaz.

Deal, if someone will argue for Nawaz.

Ill get to it tomorrow. Its bedtime now.

 

[Jono]

**** tease

 

[aussie]

Surprsing to see Nawaz win but it was an amazing spell, overall its probably right up there with the top 3 of all-time behind Ambrose's 7 for 1 & either on of Laker's hauls in 1956.