Glenn McGrath-Our Lord and Saviour V Glenn McGrath-The Fifth Best Australian Bowler

[Dravid]

And don't forget ZKBIPS

Much better than AAAS, which almost sounds like ass(which stands for Agarkar sucks society), and GM-FBAB

 

[PhoenixFire]

Zaheer Khan, Best Indian Player S?

 

[Dravid]

Zaheer Khan, Best Indian Player S?

Pacer*

 

[PhoenixFire]

Pacer, I see. Whats the S for?

 

[Dravid]

Pacer, I see. Whats the S for?

Society

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ok, I see.


To be fair, there are worse bowlers to pick on than Zaheer Khan, at least he's one sixteenth decent, unlike Pathan.

 

[silentstriker]

Zaheer Khan, Best Indian Player S?

Nah, they don't exist.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

When Lillee was in his prime Glenn MacGrath wouldn't even have made the team at all.

 

[silentstriker]

When Lillee was in his prime Glenn MacGrath wouldn't even have made the team at all.

Yea, Thommo would have been picked instead for his ability to launch balls directly into the stands.

 

[aussie tragic]

Nah, they don't exist.

Maybe that's why you rate McGrath so high, you haven't grown up seeing real pace bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Thomson, Willis, etc. etc.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yea, Thommo would have been picked instead for his ability to launch balls directly into the stands.

Spot on. I knew sanity was coming your way.

 

[aussie tragic]

Spot on. I knew sanity was coming your way.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe that's why you rate McGrath so high, you haven't grown up seeing real pace bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Thomson, Willis, etc. etc.

I've seem most of them bowl, and they were all great. But none of them live, except the 90's bowlers such as Allan Donald, Waqar, Wasim, etc.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Would I be right if I said that SS rates Marshall very highly?

 

[silentstriker]

Would I be right if I said that SS rates Marshall very highly?

#2 after McGrath. And its close, thats why I don't really get on adharcric. I can see why he would be rated higher, I just disagree.

Lillee, I really can't. He beats Lillee in most statistical categories despite playing in an era with more aggressive batsman and roads for pitches (how many average 50+ now, compared with then, whats the average RR now, compared with then?).

 

[aussie tragic]

Lillee, I really can't. He beats Lillee in most statistical categories despite playing in an era with more aggressive batsman and roads for pitches (how many average 50+ now, compared with then, whats the average RR now, compared with then?).

Yeah but with respect, that's the flaw in your logic, you seem to just rate stats. I saw quite a few pace bowlers live in the 80's and 90's and Lillee was by far the best IMO. It's only since Marshall retired that I placed him ahead of Lillee and I still cringe that I have now placed Warne ahead of him on the bowlers list.

I think a much fairer system would be as follows:

60 points for stats (i.e. 600/ave = 30 points; 750/SR = 15 points; 3* Wkts/match = 15 pts)
20 points from what is written (e.g. by Cricinfo/Wisden)
20 points from what peers thought of them (i.e. where they compared within their era, or how the pitches were).

I'm up for tweaking this system if you want to establish who is better once and for all, so that we at least give the perception we're mature

btw, I'll even up McGrath's Aussie rating if that what it shows

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah but with respect, that's the flaw in your logic, you seem to just rate stats. I saw quite a few pace bowlers live in the 80's and 90's and Lillee was by far the best IMO. It's only since Marshall retired that I placed him ahead of Lillee and I still cringe that I have now placed Warne ahead of him on the bowlers list.

I think a much fairer system would be as follows:

60 points for stats (i.e. 600/ave = 30 points; 750/SR = 15 points; 3* Wkts/match = 15 pts)
20 points from what is written (e.g. by Cricinfo/Wisden)
20 points from what peers thought of them (i.e. where they compared within their era, or how the pitches were).

I'm up for tweaking this system if you want to establish who is better once and for all, so that we at least give the perception we're mature

btw, I'll even up McGrath's Aussie rating if that what it shows

I think thats a bit unfair to some bowlers because Dennis Lillee was a much more '***y' bowler. I think it would be fairer, instead of going by what is written, to compare him with his peers in terms of statistics. Only 60 points of stats and 40 points of potential hype is unfair.

Something like 80 points for numbers (S/R, average, conditions, averages in countries, comparison with his peers in terms of performance, average against the best, average/wickets in matches won). 10% how his peers rated him compared to other bowlers they faced, and 10% what the media thought. You also have to look at his bowling average vs. the batting averages of batsman to get an indication of the era he played in.

If you average 15 with the ball but 80% of the batsman are averaging under 40...its quite different than if you average 15 when 80% of the batsman are averaging 48+.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

People from the sub-continent tend to be down on Lillee because he never achieved anything in that part of the world. But injury and other circumstances meant he only played one series there and that was on rolled mud where the much heralded Imran took only a handful of wickets in two matches. The spinners did the bulk of the bowling and the star man was the less than immortal Iqbal Quasim.

 

[silentstriker]

People from the sub-continent tend to be down on Lillee because he never achieved anything in that part of the world. But injury and other circumstances meant he only played one series there and that was on rolled mud where the much heralded Imran took only a handful of wickets in two matches. The spinners did the bulk of the bowling and the star man was the less than immortal Iqbal Quasim.

I realize that, and thats why despite his record I still put him in the top ten bowlers of all time.

 

[aussie tragic]

Part One - Stats

80 points for stats (800/Ave = 40; 1000/SR = 20; 4 x Wkts/Mat = 20)

1. Barnes: 100.7 (should be disqualified for being freakish)
2. Marshall: 78.9
3. Garner: 75.7
4. Trueman: 75.7
5. Hadlee: 75.6
6. Donald: 75.6
7. McGrath: 74.4
8. Younis: 74.1
9. Ambrose: 73.0
10. Lillee: 73.0
11. Davidson: 72.0
12. Imran: 70.1
13. Holding: 70.0
14. Akram: 68.1
15. Roberts: 66.6