Who is the better Bowler

[Dan]

Andrew Symonds
Michael Clarke
Shane Watson
Cam White

I voted for Symonds

 

[Athlai]

Rather tricky question, they can all be quite dire at times, I'm going to go WATSON. Symonds and Clarke are handy but no more, Watson is just a little more. White hasn't looked to great from what I've seen from him.

Watson may also become a good bowler one day.

Maybe.

 

[Prince EWS]

White is absolutely dire. Treating him as the ITO.

Watto here, quite comfortably. His bowling is far from what it could be, but he's still a better bowler than Symonds and Clarke who are nothing more than very good part-timers.

 

[Dan]

Ito?

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Ian Salisbury.

 

[pup11]

I think the starter of this thread is probably trying to take a dig at Watto, ok he hasn't set the world on fire with his bowling but their is noway one can compare him with the likes of Clarke, Roy and Whitey (who are just decent part-timers, though i hope Whitey would develop his bowling with time).
Watson is a much improved bowler since the ICC Super Series, after that series he had very decent season or two with the ball in odi cricket. Its only his fitness problems and injuries that have let him down time and again and that is why his career has failed to gain any momentum, though Watson's bowling is nowhere near test standard (atm) he is more than a handy bowler in odi cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

These polls are tough to answer these days, because are you talking TEST, ODI or Twenty20?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah Watson by a mile, don't really rate the other 3 much.

 

[Jamee999]

Ito?

Irrelevant Third Option

eg, in a poll of:

Lara
Sachin
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

the last one would be your ITO.

 

[steds]

Who the ****'s bear?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Who the ****'s bear?

Cam White I think.

 

[Richard]

Cameron "Bear" White indeed.

 

[Richard]

Watto here, quite comfortably. His bowling is far from what it could be, but he's still a better bowler than Symonds and Clarke who are nothing more than very good part-timers.

Absolutely. Watson's the only one of the four who even has any pretence as an all-rounder - the others are all batsmen who happen to bowl (and not especially well).

 

[PhoenixFire]

Symonds is probably best out of the other lot, then Clarke and White are probably as good as each other.

 

[Richard]

Symonds is probably best out of the other lot, then Clarke and White are probably as bad as each other.

Post corrected.

 

[grant28]

watson by far. although is unfair as other 3 are part timers.