The value of Anil Kumble was underestimated

[Francis]

I've been watching plenty of cricket lately. I watched Australia bat better than South Africa in two Tests, and saw them unable to finish them off in the second Test. I saw them beat a very bad Sri Lankan side, but only barely, in Hobart.

One thing kept popping into my head: We never fully appreciated Anil Kumble when he played cricket.

Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest Indian cricketer ever... and these days I might even say he's the best player I've ever seen. But in hindsight, Kumble was responsible for almost as many Test victories. The old adage is true: Batsman draw you the game, bowlers win it for you.

He didn't take as many wickets as Warne and Murali, but he got the wickets and that's what mattered. There's five days in a Test. It matters less the speed you get the wickets at, than actually getting the wickets.

And as huge a fan as I am of Shane Warne (the best bowler ever for mine), it has to be said Kumble could bowl for longer than Warne could in his last four years or so. Where Warne could get fatigued (he looked old and slow in South Africa in 2006), Kumble kept going and going.

People also didn't appreciate the fact that Kumble was so accurate and consistent. He was a player who wasn't always going to take wickets immediately, but only after long continuous pressure. When many bowlers get tired and lose their accuracy and have to be rested, Kumble kept going and going...

The more cricket I watch, the more I feel it's more important to just get the wickets rather than having a great average or strike rate - although those things are important. Anil Kumble got more wickets per Test than Glenn McGrath!

I think I could name seven or eight bowlers I've seen better than him, but in hindsight I'm not sure those bowlers were as necessary to winning Tests as Kumble was.

Lastly, he was a pretty good captain.

Kumble = underrated.

[benchmark00]

It's like people have come together just to make troll threads towards me today.

Expecting a 'Herath is god' thread to pop up at some point.

[zorax]

Kumble is an ATG IMO. Just behind Warne and Murali for me.

[Arachnodouche]

Plenty of times when he really frustrated while bowling overseas and in those situations there didn't seem to be much strategy about the way he was bowling either. But yeah, would give an arm to have his sort again.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

It's like people have come together just to make troll threads towards me today.

Expecting a 'Herath is god' thread to pop up at some point.

[weldone]

Originally Posted by Francis

I think I could name seven or eight bowlers I've seen better than him

From when are you watching cricket? If early/mid 90s, then I'm sure you can manage 10 easily.

Ambrose, Muralitharan, McGrath, Walsh, Pollock, Wasim, Steyn, Warne, Donald, Waqar - these 10 were better than Kumble surely..

[Monk]

Fourth best spinner I've seen (in 30ish years) behind Warne, Murali, MacGill.

[Daemon]

so OP basically wants to give him bonus points for bowling in a largely **** bowling lineup.

[smalishah84]

no...the OP basically wants to give him points for bowling marathon spells day in and day out

[8ankitj]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

It's like people have come together just to make troll threads towards me today.

Expecting a 'Herath is god' thread to pop up at some point.

Herath is God

[Debris]

Originally Posted by weldone

From when are you watching cricket? If early/mid 90s, then I'm sure you can manage 10 easily.

Ambrose, Muralitharan, McGrath, Walsh, Pollock, Wasim, Steyn, Warne, Donald, Waqar - these 10 were better than Kumble surely..

Unfair to compare fast bowlers to spinners. Fast bowlers are always better given roughly equal talent levels.

[Francis]

Ambrose, Muralitharan, McGrath, Walsh, Pollock, Wasim, Steyn, Warne, Donald, Waqar - these 10 were better than Kumble surely..

Honestly, I'd take Pollock, Steyn (maybe not if he continues the way he is), Waquar, and maybe... maybe Donald out.

Pollock was an excellent player, but averaged about 4 wickets per Test IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong). Kumble bowled marathon spells that got you the Test.

Waquar... bowled one of my favourite deliveries ever - the yorker to Brian Lara that swept him off his feet. But again, about four wickets per Test... I rate Waquar better than Pollock, so it's close with Kumble.

I guess Donald was a better bowler, but I think Kumble was more necessary for India winning Tests.

Walsh... yeah he's probably better. Played his best cricket towards the end of his career. There was a period where I thought Ambrose was much, much better.

I'll rate the bowlers...

1. Warne
2. Murali
3. McGrath (just... just ahead of Akram. I'd prefer watching Akram 9/10)
4. Akram
5. Ambrose
6. Walsh
7. Donald/Kumble
8. Waquar
9. Pollock
10. Steyn (will be much higher when he's finished)

Edit: Actually maybe Steyn should be higher... nearly 5 wickets per Test at under 24...

[8ankitj]

[Spark]

Wickets per match is really such a poor measure beyond a certain point. Places faaaaaar too much emphasis on things which have nothing to do with a bowler's quality.

[BoyBrumby]

A more interesting discussion is maybe whether the Injuns disposed of the great man's services preciptately.

Yes, on the one hand it allowed Dhoni to take over (whether that was an unambiguous positive is a discussion for another thread), but on the other India has never had Australia's adversion to ex-skippers returning to the ranks and, I'd warrant that the performances of the slow options India has used since don't hold a candle to Kumble's, even in his dotage.