I don’t really care who people pick. But it is not a no contest given the simalarities between the bowlers’ records.
The gap between their averages is nearly double the gap between Willis' and Lillee's. WpM arguments aside I don't see anyone suggest that the former is of the caliber of the latter.
"lol ok" "WTF" and stuff like that and aggressive posting is why I ignore people. Mr Miyagi engages in proper debate with my post and I haven't had a problem with him, can't be a coincidence can it. I notice all the posters that have issue with Miyagi are very immature posters. Nonsensical posts also shouldn't be on a cricket forum, I call them out softly whereas others do it aggressively.
He is yet to make one comment on why Morkel is better than Willis. Because he literally has no substance for the claim and is most likely a troll.
The problem is you do sometimes make blanket statements without the requisite strength of support. That's when people make those sorts of posts. If you think the posting here is aggressive then you've a lot to learn.
Umm, no. I don't think you've tried engaging a debate of a contentious point with him, either that or you're too similar to him to notice his nature. Those posters you are calling immature are sick of having their words twisted while being treated in a condescending manner and seeing him then claim victim status when called out.
So whinging and saying you're putting someone on ignore is calling out a 'nonsense' post softly? I think your perception there needs to be fine tuned.
He's not a troll, but the rest of your statement has a good amount of truth.
No he didn't, he never passed Lillee (355).
Let's just say, there a precious few bowlers who have a performance even approaching Willis' 8/43, let alone having produced it in the situation he did. Whereas Morkel's best innings came in a drawn test and best match was overshadowed by a huge scandal.
Willis wasn't fully fit for half his career either, by 1975 he had both knees operated on (yet played tests until 1984) and bowled in pain for pretty much his whole career. A great bowler.
I wish I could ignore you, ****.
Or he is him.
It'd be an impressive effort to be a dyed-in-wool England fan and obvious NZedder at the same time.
Morkel played in the most batsmen friendly era of all time. He also had to share wickets with arguably the greatest bowler ever and another very good bowler. Morkel’s average is very similar to Anderson’s and is pretty good for his era.
Yea I don't know how much the back-of-the-length style has lost effectiveness relative to the pitch-it-up-and-swing style. The latter still accounts for basically all the best quick bowlers during Morkel's career - Steyn, Anderson, Ryan Harris, Boult, Southee, Asif, Amir, Philander, etc. The former really only has Morkel, Broad, and peak Mitchell Johnson as the standouts (and Wagner I suppose), the rest just seem to bowl that style because they get hit if they pitch it up.
People who agree with anyone 100% of the time are dumb.
Bowlers in general just don't get results from back of a length. Good length works. Full can work depending on the circumstances. There's an idea that back of a length helps the other bowlers. There is definitely merit to it, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea relative to having the bowler himself perform better. England into it hard with the enforcer idea for Broad. RSA may have bought into it with Morkel- I'm not sure if they wanted him bowling back of a length, or if he just wasn't capable of bowling fuller for much of his career (anyone have some thoughts?). Both of these guys started to get some really good results when they pitched it up more, and while they probably helped their teammates by bowling short, it was a bad idea. They both might be a bit better than their figures suggest because of their value add to the bowling outfit, but they were extremely good when pitching it up, and it's a lost opportunity.