Apart from Murali who Cameron mentioned, there aren't, I can't see, any bowlers who are currently undoubted on-the-road-to-greatness bowlers. Mohammad Asif, if all goes well, probably will end-up being so. And Stuart Clark looks likely to be rather good, if only in a relatively short Test career.
Yes but Hoggard still has a bit of his career left.
And then he would be rememberd.
He'll be remembered anyway. Still won't be a great though.
Indeed, on both counts. I'm hoping he can play for a good 4 or 5 years yet. But even if he gets 400 Test wickets, I can't ever see him becoming the sort of bowler who can be categorised as all-time great material. He just doesn't have the raw materials, and never has. He's not especially tall (almost all the very best bowlers have been pretty big, and the exceptions - Malcolm Marshall always the first to be thought of - were extremely special) and his accuracy is not a given. He can bowl pinpoint of times, but he can also go around the park.
Tbh, I don't think that anyone was really suggesting that he was 'all time great material', maybe a great of the era or something, because 400 wickets nowadays for a 77-78mph swing bowler is no mean feat.
Would swap Clarke and Cook in that list tbh, Clarke is probably more underrated because he plays for a better side, Australia and Cook overrated because he plays for a side not as good, England.
Michael Clarke has the potential but I don't think he will be noticed as much because he won't dominate the batting in his team like Pietersen and Cook will for England.
"Great"'s such a difficult thing to pin down, TBH.
You were also very confident of India doing well in the WC
You were also very confident of India doing well in the WC
How long will it take him to get in the team on a regular basis and prove himself though? If anything, I think Chawla will be a playing of 2010's era - I don't see him getting a regular place in the team and then proving himself within in the next two and a half years. Asif and Malinga have already laid the groundwork.
Me to actually, he has been good in domestic cricket overall and impressed in the few ODI games he has played. However I don't like seeing him in the side at such a young age, I think it would be far better for his development as a bowler if he continued to work away in domestic cricket instead of learning his trade in international cricket.
There are two types of great "great" As in very good As like many old players and "All time great" Hoggard is great not all time great I'm sure he will be rememberd as great but not "legend great". I will remember him as great but not all time great.
Yeah, that's difference between being great and being a great. At least that's how I always used the terms, anyway. This thread is about the latter really.