We all know Glenn was more of an off spinner but we all call him a fast bowler because...well SS has a gun.Glenn McGrath was never a fast bowler...but I know I'm being pedantic
A fast medium bowler would not be express like an Akhtar but he would still be considered in the fast bowler category.Glenn McGrath was never a fast bowler...but I know I'm being pedantic
Ian Bishop was amazing and could have been one of the greatest Windies fast bowlers ever had he not been injured. Jason Gillespie was pretty good - just look at his record.Not sure what Ian Bishop and Jason Gillespie is doing in that company
That is an excellent point Manee. Some one like Younis was more lethal earlier compared to a Walsh who was more lethal later in his career.Most others have veered off somewhat but Mcgrath was top from start to end.
Huge callIan Bishop was amazing and could have been one of the greatest Windies fast bowlers ever had he not been injured. Jason Gillespie was pretty good - just look at his record.
matches won 84 3296.4 7945 414 8/24 10/27 19.19 2.41 47.7 18 3
44 1695.3 3863 229 8/45 11/84 16.86 2.27 44.4 13 3
matches drawn 20 784.5 2162 62 8/38 9/103 [B]34.87[/B] 2.75 75.9 4 0
28 983.5 2108 81 5/35 7/90 [B]26.02[/B] 2.14 72.8 5 0
matches lost 20 793.1 2079 87 7/76 9/220 23.89 2.62 54.7 7 0
26 1004.3 2530 95 6/51 8/79 26.63 2.51 63.4 4 0
in series lost 12 455.2 1246 51 5/53 9/82 24.43 2.73 53.5 2 0
19 611 1467 63 6/51 9/65 23.28 2.40 58.1 4 0
in series drawn 10 432.5 1066 41 5/28 10/78 [B]26.00[/B] 2.46 63.3 4 1
21 857.5 2120 92 6/52 8/101 [B]23.04[/B] 2.47 55.9 5 0
in series won 102 3986.3 9874 471 8/24 10/27 20.96 2.47 50.7 23 2
58 2215 4914 250 8/45 11/84 19.65 2.21 53.1 13 3
Put them in CODE tags, see how much better it looks.One stat I found which favours Ambrose -
Ambrose was more effective in drawn matches and series compared to McGrath stats wise (although the series sample sizes are lower and such stats should be taken with a lot of salt) :
McGrath
Ambrose
Code:matches won 84 3296.4 7945 414 8/24 10/27 19.19 2.41 47.7 18 3 44 1695.3 3863 229 8/45 11/84 16.86 2.27 44.4 13 3 matches drawn 20 784.5 2162 62 8/38 9/103 [B]34.87[/B] 2.75 75.9 4 0 28 983.5 2108 81 5/35 7/90 [B]26.02[/B] 2.14 72.8 5 0 matches lost 20 793.1 2079 87 7/76 9/220 23.89 2.62 54.7 7 0 26 1004.3 2530 95 6/51 8/79 26.63 2.51 63.4 4 0 in series lost 12 455.2 1246 51 5/53 9/82 24.43 2.73 53.5 2 0 19 611 1467 63 6/51 9/65 23.28 2.40 58.1 4 0 in series drawn 10 432.5 1066 41 5/28 10/78 [B]26.00[/B] 2.46 63.3 4 1 21 857.5 2120 92 6/52 8/101 [B]23.04[/B] 2.47 55.9 5 0 in series won 102 3986.3 9874 471 8/24 10/27 20.96 2.47 50.7 23 2 58 2215 4914 250 8/45 11/84 19.65 2.21 53.1 13 3
Oh dear.Huge call
1989-1995 24 894.3 2347 110 6/40 8/57 [COLOR="Red"]21.33[/COLOR] 2.62 48.7 6 0
Career 43 1401.1 3909 161 6/40 8/57 24.27 2.78 52.2 6 0
Amazing!!!Oh dear.
Ian Bishop :
Code:1989-1995 24 894.3 2347 110 6/40 8/57 [COLOR="Red"]21.33[/COLOR] 2.62 48.7 6 0 Career 43 1401.1 3909 161 6/40 8/57 24.27 2.78 52.2 6 0
I suggest you brush up a bit of recent cricket history mate because to say that Bishop was not amazing is nothing shot of ludicrous. Watch some tapes, read a bit or some thing.Amazing!!!
He's not "amazing" mate. Brush up on your definition of the word. I watched his whole career btwI suggest you brush up a bit of recent cricket history mate because to say that Bishop was not amazing is nothing shot of ludicrous. Watch some tapes, read a bit or some thing.