Greatest Bowler

[Anil]

My list would be:

Dennis Lillee
Malcolm Marshall
Andy Roberts
Michael Holding
Richard Hadlee
Curtly Ambrose
Wasim Akram
Imran Khan
Glenn McGrath
Waqar Younis

roughly in that order.

 

[royGilchrist]

Interesting discussion...

TC,

Please explain the comment about Waqar not being an all conditions type bowler. I think generally the conditions can be divided into three types, Aus - very bouncy, Eng - Seam of the wicket, and swing in the air, SubContinent/WI (thre have been some pitches in these areas which were different like Sabina Park I think) - slow, low bounce, not much swing in the air. Waqar has done well in all conditions, maybe not so much in Aus, but he didnt get a series in Aus when he was bowling at his peak, he either got injured, got underbowled, or was too young in Aus.

The comment abot Mushy, is totally spot on, overall he could turn the ball much more than any other contemporary of his time (Qadir came before him), and had much more variety. But he was just not mentally tough enough (u can call it lack of consistency or whatever).

[Edited on 7/17/02 by royGilchrist]

 

[Top_Cat]

Let me re-iterate (my avatar icon is getting more apt by the day. ), I am and always will be a huge fan of Waqar and he has influenced the way I personally bowl WAY more than Glenn McGrath. Okay?

That said:

Please explain the comment about Waqar not being an all conditions type bowler. I think generally the conditions can be divided into three types, Aus - very bouncy, Eng - Seam of the wicket, and swing in the air, SubContinent/WI (thre have been some pitches in these areas which were different like Sabina Park I think) - slow, low bounce, not much swing in the air. Waqar has done well in all conditions, maybe not so much in Aus, but he didnt get a series in Aus when he was bowling at his peak, he either got injured, got underbowled, or was too young in Aus.

The 'underbowled' and 'too young' part are both excuses. They cannot be arguments for why he hasn't bowled so well against the Aussies in Australia because he didn't bowl THAT well against them in Pakistan either. The fact is, the last time the Aussies lost in Pakistan, NO-ONE bowled THAT well because the pitches were absolute batting paradises. This is where the line-and-length bowling comes to the fore and I've never seen evidence that Waqar could just slip back a cog and bowl a boring line. To me, he was always above that sort of thing and regardless of the conditions, would try his heart out. THIS is what I admire about him. The problem is, sometimes that ultra attacking attitude can translate into less-then-satisfactory returns.

Believe me, I 'admire' Waqar WAY more than Glenn McGrath for pure ability. I loved and still love watching Waqar bowl more than Glenn McGrath and in most conditions, they are on par for their wicket-taking ability. However, for ALL conditions, I personally am of the opinion that Waqar is only slightly below Glenn McGrath.

 

[royGilchrist]

TC,

First of all I really dont care about who u admire or have idolized. I only read ur comment about Waqar not being an all conditions bowler, which I thought was totally wrong, and was trying to prove otherwise.

Here are a few stats:

90/91 against WI 18 16 3 in Pak (wkts,avg, mtchs)
97/98 against SA 16 22 3 in SA
92 against Eng 22 25 5 in Eng
92/93 against WI 19 20 3 in WI
93/94 against NZ 18 22 3 in NZ
94/95 against SL 14 16 2 in SL

The above stats clearly show that he bowled well on all kinds of pitches and conditions.

If, you are trying to pick individual series where Waqar did not bowl well, then there has not been a bowler in this world who has had a long career and hasnt had a single bad series.

And the point about Waqar not doing well against Aus is difficult to compare, as McGrath has never had to bowl against the Aussie powerhouse batting lineup. Its anyone's guess how he would have fared if he had to bowl against them.

In 95-96 Waqar took 8 wkts at 32 in 3 matches, and McGrath took 15 wkts at 22 in 3 matches. But if the roles were reversed it would be diffuclt to say; perhaps their performances might also have been reversed. Also, to furhter my point in Pak when Aus toured, Waqar took 10 wkts at 25 in 2 matches, and McGrath took 7 wkts at 35 in 2 matches. So, my point being McGrath has had the good fortune to not bowl against Aus, and obvioulsy its much more rewarding for a bowler to bowl against Pak in Aus , then to bowl against Aus in Aus.

 

[cozmiccoyoete]

Cat--
"Bowling isn't about 'how' but 'how many'. The wickets are all that matter, not how you get them or how many batsmen you bowl to do so."

Yeah, finally we do agree on something, wts are something that actually do count.

Waqar has a st/rt of 42.8, Glen has a st/rt of 51.7 !! Thats says it all.

As for Laxman, whether u like it or not , he's not an opener.Das suxs, u can give him all the time u want, he isn't gonna do anything.Sohail was good for a while, so what, even Ramesh was good for a while!
Afridi was in the team coz there wasn't any better batter, this is what i'm trying to explain.These days apart from Eng and Aus there aren't good openers comming along.Afridi,Taufeeq,Ramesh,Gupta,Bangar,Das, all were/are losers!

 

[Top_Cat]

First of all I really dont care about who u admire or have idolized. I only read ur comment about Waqar not being an all conditions bowler, which I thought was totally wrong, and was trying to prove otherwise.

That's not really what I said. I've seen Waqar bowl well in varying conditions myself. I just reckon Glenn does it slightly better. Just my opinion, neither right nor wrong.

I can't deny (nor am I trying) that Waqar is a very good all-wicket fast bowler. But I still believe Glenn McGrath is that little bit better.

Waqar has a st/rt of 42.8, Glen has a st/rt of 51.7 !! Thats says it all.

And Malcolm Marshall's strike rate is around 46. Does this instantly mean that Waqar is that much a better bowler? The strike rate in terms of number of balls bowled before a wicket is taken means little, especially when you're talking about just over two over's difference. It's no secret that Glenn McGrath takes longer to take his wickets. As has been said, he mainly bowls a decent line-and-length, moves the ball either way and waits for the batsmen to make mistakes. So obviously his strikerate is going to be slightly higher (anything below 60 is OUTSTANDING)

Some people would say that a more potent indicator is the number of wickets per Test on average and in this, McGraths's is 4.63 per Test and Waqar's 4.44 per Test.

As you can see, both sets of stats are VERY close and DON'T 'say it all' by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a statistician by trade these days so trust me.

As I said, having seen plenty of both of these guys bowl, I believe Glenn to be the superior wicket-taker by a VERY small margin. That's just my opinion based upon what I've seen of both of them. You disagree. That's fine.

And cozmic, since you seem so intent on telling us how bad the openers are, let's see you do better.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

lol top thats soem whack avatar

lol .. now getting back to the topic

i would rate Muralitharan a better spinner who has done good against india ,compared to warne whenever he tries things against india he is never successful

 

[luckyeddie]

Isn't this the beauty of
a) Cricket and
b) web sites for enthusiasts like ourselves.

We will never know what would have happened if such-and-such had occurred, not occurred etc. Suffice to say, over short time periods, you can look at the records and say 'I think that he was better than him because the stats bear it out'. I'll give you one 'for instance' : the 'Golden Jubilee Test' between England and India in Mumbai in Feb, 1980. Bob Taylor took a world record 7 catches in the first innings, 10 in the match. Now, I remember watching the highlights of the match (Bob was another of my heroes, of course) and he will be the first to tell you that every single catch was dead straightforward. The people who deserved the record were Stevenson and Botham (actually, just give it to 'Both' because 8 of Taylor's 10 were off his bowling, he took 13 in the match and scored a ton as well).
Could Knotty have done as well? Of course he could. So would Bairstow, JT Murray, Faroukh Engineer, Marsh, Parks, Deryck Murray, any top keeper of his era you chose to mention.
Now make it a leg-side stumping chance standing up to Mike Hendrick and you will get a different answer. Just circumstances. Luck, if you like - right place, right time.

But we'll carry on arguing about cricket and cricketers just as long as there is a game somewhere because we all have an opinion.

That lot's just mine, of course.

Now how did an answer citing a wicket-keeping achievement end up in a bowling thread?

 

[Top_Cat]

Now make it a leg-side stumping chance standing up to Mike Hendrick and you will get a different answer. Just circumstances. Luck, if you like - right place, right time.

You're kidding, right??? Geezus, that's insane! That's not right place right time, that's just skill!!

I don't doubt Bob Taylor was an awesome keeper, actually. You need the bowlers to give you the chances but then you need a decent keeper to take them and Bob Taylor was up there with the best.

lol top thats soem whack avatar

[Beavis and Butthead impersonation] Huh uh uh uh.........he said 'whack'.......huh uh uh.......[/Beavis and Butthead impersonation]

But we'll carry on arguing about cricket and cricketers just as long as there is a game somewhere because we all have an opinion.

Also because sometimes it's HOW cricketer's do things which make them famous. I mean Leary Constantine was considered one of the greatest allronders who ever lived yet his Test stats were ordinary. A quote from the time about him:

"Anyone who saw him give his astonishing one man performance against Middlesex at Lords in 1928 will not think of him in terms of runs scored and wickets taken anymore than they would count the number of crotchets and quavers in a Beethoven symphony"

Stats will nere say truly how good a player Mark Waugh was or Zaheer Abbas was because they were beyond that and were probably more worried about just playing rather than how many runs they scored.

That's the best thing about cricket; there are a lot of stats but it in no way compares to something like baseball. I mean, the stats are so detailed you could seriously say something like:

"Yeah well, Babe Ruth MAY have been a great player but against left handed pitchers with 4-finger knuckle balls whilse playing on windy days in Georgia on a field with a 405 foot long boundary, HE WAS CRAP!!"

 

[luckyeddie]

You misunderstand me.

The 'right place, right time' thing was intended to refer to the fact that any one of the named keepers could have matched Bob's achievement at Mumbai. It was a most un-Indian of Indian wickets, seaming about all over the place (I have a feeling that they used the old Kook as well, so there would have been a heap of swing).

Introducing Hendo bowling with Bob standing up was me trying to point out that IMHO, Taylor was perhaps the greatest keeper of them all, and that he was the master of the leg-side stumping, and (possibly) the only one of those named to have been able to pull it off.

If a picture paints a thousand words, I must have smudged the painting.

 

[royGilchrist]

I dont disagree with ur assessment that McGrath is a better all round bowler in all kinds of conditions than Waqar, kind of indifferent about this actually, because its difficult to say such a thing outright, especially with the kind of performances Waqar has given. But still I dont necessarily disagree, its ur opinion and thats fine.

But, maybe I misunderstood, but in one of ur posts u had said Waqar was not good in all conditions, and this was not in comparison with McGrath, but it was a general statement. A bit like, if u say that Wasim has been slower than Waqar, I would agree with it, but if u say that Wasim has been a slow bowler, I would emphatically disagree.

This is one of the reasons I did not give McGath's stats in comparison for all kinds of opposition/conditions.

 

[Top_Cat]

I dont disagree with ur assessment that McGrath is a better all round bowler in all kinds of conditions than Waqar, kind of indifferent about this actually, because its difficult to say such a thing outright, especially with the kind of performances Waqar has given. But still I dont necessarily disagree, its ur opinion and thats fine.

Thanks. Nice of you to say.

But, maybe I misunderstood, but in one of ur posts u had said Waqar was not good in all conditions, and this was not in comparison with McGrath, but it was a general statement. A bit like, if u say that Wasim has been slower than Waqar, I would agree with it, but if u say that Wasim has been a slow bowler, I would emphatically disagree.

Well okay I can see how that may have come across and I really see your point. In short, I wasn't making the logical connection of:

Glenn McGrath = better all-wicket bowler than Waqar therefore;

Waqar is not a great bowler in all conditions.

Not at all. Waqar is to me is the quintessential fast bowler; pace, accuracy, aggression, variation and that one ball which is unplayable. I just reckon Glenn has a slightly greater chance of being effective in all conditions. Only slightly, though. There's little to separate them.

 

[royGilchrist]

Waqar always came across to me as a 'treat to watch' kinda bowler, when he had that magic delivery to Logie, I literally jumped out of my seat and just frantically started yelling, 'what a delivery', my mom was seriously worried.

But Wasim, and to some extent McGrath also, was the bowler batsmen must have hated to face. The laterl movement at express speed wasnt there (maybe it was occasioanlly), but he had movement both ways and deliveries were not pitched up (although this proved to be Wasim's downfall as well I think, he could have taken a lot more wickets had he pitched the ball consistently up like Waqar). With Waqar the batsman must have thought that he had a chance as the ball would most probably be pithced up, and if he could negotiate the swing, it will be an easy boundary. Sanjay Majrekar was particularly ruthless on Waqar in one series, as he was understanding the swing well, playing the ball late, and as soon as the ball was straying on the leg side (due to excessive inswing or poor line), the ball was quickly dispatched to the boundary. Now, Waqar has managed to develop an outswinger but its too late, and he just doenst have the pace anymore.

 

[Top_Cat]

Waqar always came across to me as a 'treat to watch' kinda bowler, when he had that magic delivery to Logie, I literally jumped out of my seat and just frantically started yelling, 'what a delivery', my mom was seriously worried.

Exactly what I thought of him, except my experience was when he bounced Robin Smith in a one-dayer a few years. LETHAL.

But Wasim, and to some extent McGrath also, was the bowler batsmen must have hated to face. The laterl movement at express speed wasnt there (maybe it was occasioanlly), but he had movement both ways and deliveries were not pitched up (although this proved to be Wasim's downfall as well I think, he could have taken a lot more wickets had he pitched the ball consistently up like Waqar). With Waqar the batsman must have thought that he had a chance as the ball would most probably be pithced up, and if he could negotiate the swing, it will be an easy boundary. Sanjay Majrekar was particularly ruthless on Waqar in one series, as he was understanding the swing well, playing the ball late, and as soon as the ball was straying on the leg side (due to excessive inswing or poor line), the ball was quickly dispatched to the boundary. Now, Waqar has managed to develop an outswinger but its too late, and he just doenst have the pace anymore.

You've pretty much summed up what I think of him and Wasim except I think he's actually a better bowler now. Smarter, if you will. Sure we'll never see those searing inswinging yorkers anymore but as you said, he has a pretty effective out-swinger these days. Now for someone to lose their primary weapons (pace and inswinger) and scome back to be as good as he still is, I reckon that's amazing.

Still, the two best balls I ever saw bowled were the ones by Wasim to bowl Alan Lamb and Chris Lewis in the World Cup final of 1992. I ain't NEVER seen balls move that much before or since.

 

[scorpio]

Waqar ,lee, akhtar they are grt bowlers. hell even all wicket bowlers.
but when it comes to rating bowlers who do it day in and day out every where they usually give way to line lenght peddlers like mcgrath, ambrose, walsh etc.

thts the nature of his game

as for waqars strike rate and wicket rate.
it is highly skewed.

there used to be a website called as cricketx.com
they did some super articles. i wish they do a analysis of mcgrath and others now.
a significant percentage of waqars wickets were tailenders. it rated donald and mcgrath and ambrose very high coz they got top order batsmen waqar was not even in the top 10..
i will post the link or the article if i can find it

cheers

 

[aussie_beater]

The only problem with Akhtar that I see is that he probably cannot continue long enough to be considered among the game's greatest.He is so injury prone and so obssessed with the speed that he stretches himself too much and I feel he won't be in the reckoning a few years from now.

 

[scorpio]

The only problem with Akhtar that I see is that he probably cannot continue long enough to be considered among the game's greatest.He is so injury prone and so obssessed with the speed that he stretches himself too much and I feel he won't be in the reckoning a few years from now.

word brother

 

[Top_Cat]

they did some super articles. i wish they do a analysis of mcgrath and others now.
a significant percentage of waqars wickets were tailenders. it rated donald and mcgrath and ambrose very high coz they got top order batsmen waqar was not even in the top 10..

I remember seeing just that watching the cricket once. As I said earlier in the thread, something like 30%+ of Glenn McGrath's wickets were top-order batsmen.

The only problem with Akhtar that I see is that he probably cannot continue long enough to be considered among the game's greatest.He is so injury prone and so obssessed with the speed that he stretches himself too much and I feel he won't be in the reckoning a few years from now.

I agree. He pushes himself far to much and his action puts a lot of strain on his back. It's only a matter of time, unfortunately.

Then again, Frank Tyson was similar. All he wanted to do was bowl fast so when he couldn't do that anymore, he quit.

 

[royGilchrist]

is that gay spiderman, Scorpio?
(no offense intended to anyone)

the best delivery I ever saw was by far the Wasim leg cutter to Allan Lamb in WC92, the one to which u alluded to. We had a bit of a discussion on this topic on sports.com. And the topic had started because someone (probably me?) thought that Shane Warne's famous delivery to Gatting is nothing more than hype.

Its true that Waqar got a lot of tailenders out. But I always used to feel that Wasim was a bigger culprit in this case, he rarely got top wickets. And the guy who goes a bit unnoticed is Mushy in this aspect as he normally used to get the top order batsmen, and 2Ws used to come in and wrap up the tail. It would be interesting to c this site, and how they rate Wasim and Mushy. In Englnad I think 1994/95(?), Mushy used to get all the top order. Ditto in Aus 1996 I think.

 

[scorpio]

i have saved some interesting articles. i will post them soon..
cheers

and and spidey in my icon sure is gay..lol...just like the movie was smack