Greatest Bowler

[Coronis]

did he play enough ?
its easy to crown him as the greatest bowling all rounder though..

7 Tests, 41 wickets @ 15.02


In terms of Warne vs Murali, I haven't objectively been able to separate them. My heart says Warne, possibly because I grew up watching him. Apart from that though nobody's ever been able to convince me otherwise. You guys can try! Always wanted to see them bowling together but noooooo, Warne/Murali/Sobers and 2 ATG pacers is too weak of an attack apparently.

 

[watson]

I think that on raw numbers alone Murali would have to be the greatest bowler in Test cricket.

However, all Doosra bowlers 'chuck' by definition as it's only way that the delivery can be bowled. This discounts Murali in my mind as I can't see past the ugliness of that irregularity

This leaves me with Malcolm Marshall, Glenn McGrath, Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee, or Shane Warne as next on the list. It's a close run thing but on the whole any successful team pivots foremost on its incumbant fast bowler. And Malcolm Marshall was the best fast bowler of the lot.

Malcolm Marshall for me.

 

[doesitmatter]

Tough one . So many great bowlers. But i went for Dennis Lillee for the following reasons
1) Aggressive long run-up with a flowing mane
2) beautiful action
3) Abort his run-up or go all the way near the batsman and give him a stare basically asking whytf r u here?
4) After taking the batsman's wicket wave both the hands manically basically asking the batsman to gtfo to the pavilion
5) After taking the batsman's wicket sometimes runup to the wickets and give a mock kick to the stumps
6)oh yes small matter of ability to bowl all kind of deliveries and inspiration-al coming back from serious injury and all..

Last but not the least he chose India to teach fast bowling of all places..

I know the poll is about selection of a great bowler which he is (overlooking his SC record) and i should have used technical reasoning to base my selection but i thought i will go with the above reasons. Btw most of the reasoning are just by watching youtube videos .. Great bowler..What a performer..

 

[Cricketismylife]

THAT was an outstanding analysis? You have got to be kidding me. The criticism of Warne's record against India is of course a fair one but frankly, virtually every great spinner has been smashed around by Indian batsmen. Bowling against India was their greatest challenge and both the great spinners failed.

Also, the "didn't play against teammates" argument is the absolute worst, the fungus scraped off the bottom of the barrell of silly criticisms aimed at great players' records. Warne's "big limitation" is that he was Australian? What was Warne supposed to do? Do a KP-esque country switch just to complete some arbitrary list of "things to do to call myself ATG"? You get judged on how you actually perform, not on some imaginary scenario of what ifs about which you can NEVER actually know what the outcome would have been.

You've misunderstood my point. Of course it's not Warne's fault that he didn't play Australia, but at the same time he has benefited from not playing them, in the same way that Murali benefited from playing Bang and Zim far more than Warne did. It's inconsistent to cancel Bang and Zim and not take into account other factors (bowling at top order and Australia). In effect you are blaming Murali for playing Bang and Zim but not crediting him for having to face Australia.

Also Murali dominated India in Sri Lanka and had the wood over Tendulkar, so Murali didn;t fail against India he only failed in India.

 

[dhillon28]

THAT was an outstanding analysis? You have got to be kidding me. The criticism of Warne's record against India is of course a fair one but frankly, virtually every great spinner has been smashed around by Indian batsmen. Bowling against India was their greatest challenge and both the great spinners failed.

Also, the "didn't play against teammates" argument is the absolute worst, the fungus scraped off the bottom of the barrell of silly criticisms aimed at great players' records. Warne's "big limitation" is that he was Australian? What was Warne supposed to do? Do a KP-esque country switch just to complete some arbitrary list of "things to do to call myself ATG"? You get judged on how you actually perform, not on some imaginary scenario of what ifs about which you can NEVER actually know what the outcome would have been.

As above.

 

[Red]

I change my opinion regularly. If I was planning a bowling attack to win a test, I'd take the following:

Lillee
McGrath
Garner
Warne
(plus Sobers)

Bit Australian-centric, I know, but at the moment I think this attack would nearly be impossible to win against. Lillee is the master quick bowler imo, vicious, economical, charismatic, intimidating. I enjoyed watching McGrath bowl so much. Beautiful action of economy, ball on the spot, tempting the batsman to make a mistake against him, or attempt to attack him. Also, for someone who didn't seem really quick, McGrath had a deadly bouncer. Garner for first change because he filled that role so well for so long for the West Indies. Garner was relentless, building pressure and striking regularly. Could bowl long spells while the other quicks bowl shorter bursts. Height, intimidation and the ability to shut down scoring. Warne is Warne. I'm a massive fan of his. Will to win is second to none, and his mastery of cricket's hardest skill is also second to none.

The only thing I'd add to this is a left armer, but with Sobers it kind of works out ok. Wasim and Davidson are the clear contenders for that spot, and I'd be more than comfortable with either of them replacing Garner on another day.

I'm sure Marshall fans will be disgusted, but I don't rate him quite as highly (this is obviously splitting hairs as he was a great) as others. I just think with him it's a bit of a raw stats thing. His avg and SR are incredibly low. But yeh, I'd prefer the guys above in an attack, and there's a few others I'd take above him as well.


tldnr? Lillee. And Warne.

 

[watson]

I change my opinion regularly. If I was planning a bowling attack to win a test, I'd take the following:

Lillee
McGrath
Garner
Warne
(plus Sobers)

Bit Australian-centric, I know, but at the moment I think this attack would nearly be impossible to win against. Lillee is the master quick bowler imo, vicious, economical, charismatic, intimidating. I enjoyed watching McGrath bowl so much. Beautiful action of economy, ball on the spot, tempting the batsman to make a mistake against him, or attempt to attack him. Also, for someone who didn't seem really quick, McGrath had a deadly bouncer. Garner for first change because he filled that role so well for so long for the West Indies. Garner was relentless, building pressure and striking regularly. Could bowl long spells while the other quicks bowl shorter bursts. Height, intimidation and the ability to shut down scoring. Warne is Warne. I'm a massive fan of his. Will to win is second to none, and his mastery of cricket's hardest skill is also second to none.

The only thing I'd add to this is a left armer, but with Sobers it kind of works out ok. Wasim and Davidson are the clear contenders for that spot, and I'd be more than comfortable with either of them replacing Garner on another day.

I'm sure Marshall fans will be disgusted, but I don't rate him quite as highly (this is obviously splitting hairs as he was a great) as others. I just think with him it's a bit of a raw stats thing. His avg and SR are incredibly low. But yeh, I'd prefer the guys above in an attack, and there's a few others I'd take above him as well.


tldnr? Lillee. And Warne.

I see Lillee and McGrath as similar types of bowlers in that they are both accurate 'corridor bowlers'. Therefore, the attack doesn't need both of them if it's variety that you are after.

Lillee-Marshall-Garner would would give the team 3 very different fast bowlers and be more varied I think.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I voted Malcolm Marshall. The great Wasim Akram also thought Marshall was the best.

My ATG team bowlers

Imran
Marshall
McGrath
Warne
Sobers

 

[Red]

I see Lillee and McGrath as similar types of bowlers in that they are both accurate 'corridor bowlers'. Therefore, the attack doesn't need both of them if it's variety that you are after.

Lillee-Marshall-Garner would would give the team 3 very different fast bowlers and be more varied I think.

I view McGrath and Lillee as different bowlers. I reckon they'd compliment each other really well. Lillee is ultra aggressive with a really dominant personality, while McGrath is calculating and consistent

I kind of categorize bowlers who are "similar" as such:

- Lillee, Steyn, Donald, Trueman, Marshall, Lindwall, Miller, Holding

- McGrath, Garner, Ambrose, Statham

Kind of only a height thing maybe.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I see Lillee and McGrath as similar types of bowlers in that they are both accurate 'corridor bowlers'.

Please tell me your hair was on fire when you wrote that.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah what. Lillee was not like McGrath at all.

 

[Red]

Yeah what. Lillee was not like McGrath at all.

Who do you reckon is the greatest Benchmark?

 

[Slifer]

Malcolm Marshall. And this is without a second's breath. When one thinks about the greatestt ever bowler for me,it comes down to that bowler who can perform home and away in all conditions vs all teams. All the other contenders (Warne, Murali, Lillee, Ambrose, Wasim) just dont have as complete a resume. MM excelled every where and against everyone. I'm wating for someone to come up with a decent argument against MM and so far all I'm hearing/reading is hot air about how his teamates helped to create pressure yadda yadda yadda. IMO that's grasping at draws for so many reasons.....More to follow

 

[kyear2]

Yes but kyear you were claiming that Sangakkara should be marked down for playing on batting pitches, now you are marking Murali down for playing in spin friendly conditions. How can someone take this argument seriously?

Secondly you claim that Warne had less opportunity to bowl at the top order but that is exactly my point. Given that he bowled at lesser quality batsman on the line up than McGrath don't you think he should have taken wickets much more cheaply.

I'll make this quick as I dont want this to go into the Murali Warne thread but as I've said before you can't simply blank out Zim and Bang even though I accept those teams should count for less. Zim were actually a proper team before 2003 and by excluding them you are excluding Murali's 10 wickets against Grant Flower yet you are happy to include Warne's 10 wickets against Harmison. Then after blanking out Zim and Bang you fail to blank out Australia, who Warne didn't have to play so by your logic they should not be included.

Lastly, and this is not to do with test cricket but I'm curious all the same, when Murali and Warne played first class cricket in England how do you explain that Murali took wickets at 15 and Warne at 25?

I'll make this quick before it goes onto the Murali Warne thread.

Sangakkara performs better on the low slow pitches of Sri Lanka than he does on faster, higher bouncing wickets (New Zealand, Australia, South Africa) and he has played the great majority of his career in these conditions, and his dominace has been similar but not to the same extent as Sehwag and Mahela. These pitches are not suited for fast bowling but very condusive to spin bowling as are the pitches we just witnessed in India. When most people call pitches flat it is with fast bowling in mind and that it is slow and low, doesn't carry to slip or seam where few fast bowlers thrieve (Marshall, Holding, Mcgrath) and are a true test (one Lillee never passed and does factor into his rating).
Is anyone denying the fact that Murali benefitted from playing his home matches in Sri Lanka and in particular his home ground. The pitches were tailor made to suit spin bowling and the batsmen that grow up in these conditions. How else can you explain the difference between his home average of 19 and his away average of 27, that is not the home and away numbers of the greatest bolwer ever. Again in terms of Sanga, most touring teams don't have spinners of the catergory of Murali or Warne (he averaged 20 in Sri Lanka) and so when most teams travel with substandard spinners or unprepared fast bowlers they are taken apart. Also part of the knock on Sanga is not only the home pitches, but the way he murders the minnows after struggling againts a less than mighty Aussie attack down under.
So with regard to Murali it is the home pitches and the fact that he did take so many wickets againts Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (and he played againts England as well and got to bowl to Harmisson and other tailenders and still averaged more than he averaged vs the minnows) that works againts him. And for Warne being penalised for not bowling to his own team, (this would be the same Ponting who in another thread being called weak againts quality spin) he played againts the two best players of spin ever with Lara calling him the best he has seen, and two. In another thread when comparing the relative merrits of Bradman and Headley and pointing out that since they had similar averages vs England nd where the separation came was that Bradman got to play againts India and South Africa at home, Headley got to face Grimmett, Ironmonger and co in Australia. It was suggested that Bradman would have done the same to O'Reilly and Grimmett as he would have done to the minnow of his day, so as laughable as that was (Bradman averaged over 170 vs both teams), why is it so hard to fathom that Warne would have been succesful againts the Aussie batsmen, especially considering how he mastered bowling in one of the most spin unfriendly coutries (outside of the SCG) at home.
When Cricinfo voted for their All Time XI three players were unanimous selections, they were Bradman, Sobers and Warne. When Wisden selected their players of the century they were Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Warne and Richards. Warne mastered the most difficult art in cricket (along with opening) and did it better than anyone else. Unlike Murali he performed just as well at home and away and did it while helping make that Australian team one of the two best in history.
Enough for me to be called the greatest spinner ever.

 

[kyear2]

Malcolm Marshall. And this is without a second's breath. When one thinks about the greatestt ever bowler for me,it comes down to that bowler who can perform home and away in all conditions vs all teams. All the other contenders (Warne, Murali, Lillee, Ambrose, Wasim) just dont have as complete a resume. MM excelled every where and against everyone. I'm wating for someone to come up with a decent argument against MM and so far all I'm hearing/reading is hot air about how his teamates helped to create pressure yadda yadda yadda. IMO that's grasping at draws for so many reasons.....More to follow

This.

 

[Coronis]

Yep, Sanga really struggled against Australia. He failed once, in the first test, scoring 4. He top scored in the next 2 innings, and then broke his thumb, while he was looking set to go on and make a decent score.

 

[watson]

Please tell me your hair was on fire when you wrote that.

My hair was not on fire when I wrote that.

Their personalities are obviously different but anyone who isn't sight impaired can see that their style was to bowl on, or just outside, the off stump - the so-called 'corridor of uncertainty'. Hence, the much repeated "Caught Marsh, Bowled Lillee".

Greg Chappell once joked that he had to wait a decade of playing Shield cricket before Lillee accidently bowled him a loose ball he could hit through the on-side. Lillee really was that accurate. And we all know about Glenn McGrath's ability to consistently hit the top of off-stump.

Sorry, but the trajectory and stock-delivery of both Lillee and McGrath was pretty much identical. Lillee was more outrageous/extroverted in his conduct, that's all.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

My hair was not on fire when I wrote that.

Their personalities are obviously different but anyone who isn't sight impaired can see that their style was to bowl on, or just outside, the off stump - the so-called 'corridor of uncertainty'. Hence, the much repeated "Caught Marsh, Bowled Lillee".

Greg Chappell once joked that he had to wait a decade of playing Shield cricket before Lillee accidently bowled him a loose ball he could hit through the on-side. Lillee really was that accurate. And we all know about Glenn McGrath's ability to consistently hit the top of off-stump.

Sorry, but the trajectory and stock-delivery of both Lillee and McGrath was pretty much identical. Lillee was more outrageous/extroverted in his conduct, that's all.

As you're the only one in the history of the Universe to see any similarity you either have 21/20 vision or spend most of your time drunk.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm pretty sure that the person who saw the most of Fred Trueman's bowling was Fred Trueman, I'll put my faith in Fred Trueman's opinion.

 

[Howe_zat]

I vote for Dennis Lillee just so he can be temporarily ahead of Imran Khan before his groupies start voting.

Imran's currently sitting at a dominating 0 votes, it must relieve you to see his "groupies" evidently removed from the forum

Why let what people are actually saying get in the way though, huh