The bowler of the 90s and 00s

[kyear2]

afaik O'Reilly was a leg-spinner and Barnes bowled "medium-pace-all-sorts"?

O'Reilly also bowled quite quickly as did Underwood of more recent vintage.

 

[marc71178]

Hmmmmm, however in the other two tests he played in that series, Australia were comprehensively outplayed at OT and only survived by the skin of their teeth due to one of the all time great rearguard knocks by Ponting. Then at the Oval McGrath and his fellow bowlers were smacked out of the game by a rampant Pietersen.

Would he of made a difference? Of course. Would he of made the difference? I'm not so sure.

Would he have been so relatively poor if he hadn't picked up the injury before the 2nd Test that clearly hampered him in the games he did play after that? My vote is for no.

 

[Coronis]

Fully agree with that. Just like Ponting with the batsman poll, Donald is just behind the two I voted for and would have been my 3rd pick ahead of Warne and Muralitharan.

Your bias towards fast bowlers is once again recognised.

McGrath and Murali.

 

[Adders]

Hmmmmm, however in the other two tests he played in that series, Australia were comprehensively outplayed at OT and only survived by the skin of their teeth due to one of the all time great rearguard knocks by Ponting. Then at the Oval McGrath and his fellow bowlers were smacked out of the game by a rampant Pietersen.

Would he of made a difference? Of course. Would he of made the difference? I'm not so sure.

I think yes.

I'm with Monk on this, if he hadn't have stood on that ball Pontings "we'll have a bowl" wouldn't have been such a poor call and I think the Aussies would have almost certainly won that test.. Personally I can't see any way that England would have come back from 2-0 down. On his first game back at OT McGrath recorded his worst ever test figures........as much as I'd like to put that down to England's brilliance I think it is probably more realistic that McGrath was far from OK.

As richly deserved as the England win was the series was won before play that morning at Edgbaston.

 

[Red]

Hmmmmm, however in the other two tests he played in that series, Australia were comprehensively outplayed at OT and only survived by the skin of their teeth due to one of the all time great rearguard knocks by Ponting. Then at the Oval McGrath and his fellow bowlers were smacked out of the game by a rampant Pietersen.

Would he of made a difference? Of course. Would he of made the difference? I'm not so sure.

I take your point and it's all debatable anyway. My point wasn't meant to sound arrogant, it was more to illustrate how important McGrath was to us. We tended to fall apart without him there to settle things down and strike regularly. We weren't helped in that series by Gillespie basically being shot after a great career. Tait bowled like **** and Kaspa just did his normal adequate workman thing. Lee was just ok. We needed McGrath when it got tough and we noticed his absence heaps.

England were bloody spectacular in that series. Destroyed us tactically and Pieterson and Flintoff were beast. Your openers were class and the whole team functioned better than any other English team i can recall.

 

[kyear2]

Ambrose falling behind to fourth, but no shame finishing behind those three.

 

[Slifer]

Amby for the 90s and Mcggrath for the 2000s onwards.

 

[watson]

I take your point and it's all debatable anyway. My point wasn't meant to sound arrogant, it was more to illustrate how important McGrath was to us. We tended to fall apart without him there to settle things down and strike regularly. We weren't helped in that series by Gillespie basically being shot after a great career. Tait bowled like **** and Kaspa just did his normal adequate workman thing. Lee was just ok. We needed McGrath when it got tough and we noticed his absence heaps.

England were bloody spectacular in that series. Destroyed us tactically and Pieterson and Flintoff were beast. Your openers were class and the whole team functioned better than any other English team i can recall.

There was also the fact that Gilchrist went missing with the bat - 181 runs at 23 with a top score of 49*.

As I recall, Gilchrist had little answer to Flintoff peppering the top of his off stump from around the wicket.

 

[ankitj]

Murali and Ambrose. Could have easily been McGrath or Warne too in place of Ambrose on another day.

 

[Red]

There was also the fact that Gilchrist went missing with the bat - 181 runs at 23 with a top score of 49*.

As I recall, Gilchrist had little answer to Flintoff peppering the top of his off stump from around the wicket.

Heard plenty of people say Flintoff worked Gilchrist out, and they might be right. But I don't think many left hander's in the game's history would've dealt with Flintoff particularly well in that series.

 

[CricAddict]

Yesterday I conducted a group discussion for our employees and chose this as the topic. There were 3-4 guys who vehemently supported Kumble. Surprised but was interesting. Here, he has 0 votes.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yesterday I conducted a group discussion for our employees and chose this as the topic. There were 3-4 guys who vehemently supported Kumble. Surprised but was interesting. Here, he has 0 votes.

Fire those 3-4 people

 

[Coronis]

Yesterday I conducted a group discussion for our employees and chose this as the topic. There were 3-4 guys who vehemently supported Kumble. Surprised but was interesting. Here, he has 0 votes.

Well, you are in India.

 

[Adders]

Heard plenty of people say Flintoff worked Gilchrist out, and they might be right. But I don't think many left hander's in the game's history would've dealt with Flintoff particularly well in that series.

Fred certainly was awesome in the series and I think he did work him out and paved the way for all that bowled to him afterwards. Gilly went into that 2005 series averaging mid 50's...........he finished his career less than 30 tests later averaging 47.

 

[Furball]

Hmmmmm, however in the other two tests he played in that series, Australia were comprehensively outplayed at OT and only survived by the skin of their teeth due to one of the all time great rearguard knocks by Ponting. Then at the Oval McGrath and his fellow bowlers were smacked out of the game by a rampant Pietersen.

Would he of made a difference? Of course. Would he of made the difference? I'm not so sure.

In fairness McGrath rampaged through England's top order before Pietersen switched on God Mode.

 

[viriya]

In terms of record Steyn is already in the top 5. Regardless of what happens I don't think that will change too much. On criteria like ''skill'' and ''completeness'' (as a bowler, not of his record) maybe there will always be a murmur or two about him vs lefties and or him not being able to bowl the inswinger and in a comparison with say Wasim Akram, he might be rated a little lower because of that. Not that I think Steyn isn't a complete bowler...greatest post McGrath for me..quite easily. He also scored more runs than Rohit Sharma in that series so that is a plus as well (and ofc that sledge!)

Steyn doesn't really qualify for this since only half his career so far has been in the 2000s.

 

[viriya]

Fire those 3-4 people

While I agree that Kumble was a clear #3 to the top spinners of his time, I think he is pretty underrated because of that. If he played in a different era people would look at his career more positively. A few points to consider:

• He did decently vs the top team of his time (111 wkts in 20 tests at 30 - compare that to Murali who averaged 36 and Warne who never had to bowl to that amazing line-up). I realize that Kumble didn't have to bowl to Ind, but I think he would've done ok.
• He did well vs all opposition - his worst average being 32 vs Pak. Murali vs Aus and Warne vs Ind were worse.
• He averaged almost 5 wkts/match.. as a spinner you expect a higher average and a higher wkts/match - I would say his record is equivalent to a fast bowler who averaged 25 with 4 wkts/match (albeit in helpful conditions).
• He was a great matchwinner - averaging 19 at 7 wkts/match in wins with 288 wickets. Probably only Murali has done better
• He didn't get to cash in much vs Ban - only played 4 tests vs them.

The clear negative in his career that he only averaged 35 away, but in my view he is a clear ATG considering his consistency and 619-wkt long career. If he had played in the 60s/70s/80s he would be rated higher, just that he had the misfortune of plying his craft while the two greatest were as well.

 

[Dissector]

I think Murali is the clear no.1 and I went with McGrath for no.2.

 

[Jassy]

Steyn doesn't really qualify for this since only half his career so far has been in the 2000s.

I did not say he qualifies for this.

 

[Jassy]

Jesus, Kumble was not even close to the bowler Warne was; numbers be damned. Kumble was a legend of Indian cricket only, not even close to ATG.