The bowler of the 90s and 00s

[watson]

Not really. MacGill was closer to Kumble than he was to Warne's/Murali's ilk. The closest spinners to Warne and Murali appeared about 50 years prior in Grimmett and O'Reilly. Not likely to see spinners as good as them for a while.

A McGrath-like bowler occurs basically every generation for Australia. Even McGrath (as well as most people during their careers considered Warne the better bowler.

"He was for us indisputably the first ever off-spinner of great impact and the most complete off-spinner. The Wisden Illustrated History of Cricket, 1989, by Vic Marks (English off spinner incidentally), says, “Laker possessed all the necessary qualities – a classical action, superb control of flight and spin, and the ability to assess swiftly his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses…."

Murali was the first ever and probably only wrist spinning off spinner. Apart from a classical action, Murali has all those things you mentioned and more. Apart from Hadlee , no team relied as much on one man to produce a match winning performance as Murali. Any way you look at it, Murali > Laker in skill and greatness. By a significant distance.

Hope this doesn't ago turn into a discussion on his action but I'm not hopefu.

I hope not too. But I think that it was worth while spending a few pages challenging Ikki's original statement. Either sucessfully or unsuccessfully.

 

[viriya]

Given Laker's technical brilliance there is absolutely no reason to suppose that he would achieve the same results as Murali given the equivalent amount of overs against equivalent calibre of batsman.

No one in the history of Test cricket has done what Murali achieved in the 2000s. A Bradman decade.

 

[fredfertang]

Nah, Qadir was playing before these two. Would throw in DS de Silva of late 70s as well. These two easily better than any other spinner playing today. There were a host of Indian spinners as well who had decent records before M & W.

I said really high class and terrific bowler that he was, and I know Dickie Bird rated him higher than Warne, all the evidence suggests that Qadir's record wouldn't have been as good as it is, which in absolute terms isn't that flash anyway, if he'd played today with neutral umpires - and as for Somachandra De Silva, well words fail me, you'll be telling us next that Tommy Kelaart > Wasim Akram

 

[Ikki]

Yes, actually, I'll agree it was an exaggeration. Laker is at least an ATG spinner whereas Martyn isn't as a batsman. Just trying to show there is a discernible, significant, gap between the two players being compared. The above posts also show IMO the fallacy in relying too much on subjective opinion. It's certainly important but should be tempered with stats.

 

[Migara]

I said really high class and terrific bowler that he was, and I know Dickie Bird rated him higher than Warne, all the evidence suggests that Qadir's record wouldn't have been as good as it is, which in absolute terms isn't that flash anyway, if he'd played today with neutral umpires - and as for Somachandra De Silva, well words fail me, you'll be telling us next that Tommy Kelaart > Wasim Akram

Well Qadir will be really high class IMO. If he played for a team which dields better and has lesser brain farts, would have been lot better. DS de Silva was quite good actually, because he kepy nipping away lot of IND and PAK sides in FC cricket, IMO better than some test countries in playing spin. It was sad when SL got test status he was 37. I'd easily put him better than Herath.

 

[Burgey]

This is the most ridiculous statement in the history of the internet.

Hang on, wasn't it you who posted in the England-India thread that Ashwin could be the greatest all rounder of all time?

Apologies if it was some other numpty, but whoever it was, that comment surpasses the one you've quoted by the length of the Flemington straight.

 

[viriya]

Hang on, wasn't it you who posted in the England-India thread that Ashwin could be the greatest all rounder of all time?

He does though.. if he figures out bowling away from home, he will be a 40-45 batting avg, 27.5-30 avg bowling avg all-rounder long-term, which over a 100 test career can make him the greatest. A lot of ifs for this to happen, but there is a possibility. Only Aubrey Faulkner would compare, and he would be a genuine all-rounder.. not the batting first type like Sobers or Kallis or the bowling first type like Imran or Botham.

More realistically, if he gets his act together overseas when it comes to bowling, his only competition is Shakib of the current all-rounders (who might not even play again). That's much more plausible.

 

[Burgey]

There's possibility I might make a p0rno with Scarlett Johansson too. But that doesn't mean it's likely to happen again.

 

[Burgey]

Rohit Sharma could be the greatest batsman of all time if he learns how to cope with a ball bouncing above navel height.

Ben Stokes could be the next Ian Botham if he learns how to hit it off the square.

David Warner could surpass the career of every opening batsman in history if he stops being a ****.

And if Chris Jordon gets his run up right he'll be the next Chris Lewis.

There's a million what ifs in every sport. These have been four of them.

 

[smash84]

There's possibility I might make a p0rno with Scarlett Johansson too. But that doesn't mean it's likely to happen again.

 

[viriya]

You have to admit though Ashwin becoming the best all-rounder in world cricket (considering his only real competition is Shakib and maybe Philander) is a real possibility. You don't get guys who average 40+ with the bat but can also win you games with the ball (admittedly only at home atm) very often.

 

[viriya]

Rohit Sharma could be the greatest batsman of all time if he learns how to cope with a ball bouncing above navel height.

Ben Stokes could be the next Ian Botham if he learns how to hit it off the square.

David Warner could surpass the career of every opening batsman in history if he stops being a ****.

And if Chris Jordon gets his run up right he'll be the next Chris Lewis.

There's a million what ifs in every sport. These have been four of them.

None of these players have shown that they can do that for even a short period of time though. With the numbers Ashwin has in the 20 tests he has played so far, it's a much more realistic possibility (it would help if he gets picked to play consistently of course).

 

[Burgey]

No it isn't. There's not a chance in hell of it happening. Here's why.

He bats eight. Seven at the highest. Unless he bats at the lowest number seven, or preferably in the top six, he won't be considered on a par with the likes of Sobers, Imran, Dev, Botham, Miller, Kallis etc.

He bowls off spin. It's not a form of bowling, Murali aside, which lends itself to long term success all around the globe (and Murali in Australia was ordinary anyway).

His bowling stats away from home are deplorable. I understand your view point being predicated on the basis that those numbers improve, but the chances of that happening to the point where he would be regarded as a great all rounder are miniscule.

He's a very decent player, and IMO he should be picked for India. But to say he will end up the greatest all rounder of all time is out there. Kuipier Belt out there.

 

[Dan]

Overemphasising statistics here imo #StatingTheObvious

 

[viriya]

But to say he will end up the greatest all rounder of all time is out there.

I never said he will be. Just that there is a possibility. It's clear that he can bat at 6 or 7 in the indian line-up - he has consistently (home and away) averaged ~40. I think he clearly has more potential with the bat than an Imran or a Botham. He also has more potential with the ball than Sobers or Kallis.

I'm not going to try to argue with your "not a real form of bowling" point

 

[Burgey]

I'm not saying it isn't a real form of bowling, I'm saying it's not a form of bowling which historically lends itself to massive success everywhere.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, offies tend to really, really struggle in Australia in particular.

TBH I think Ashwin can bat at 7 for India long-term (Jadeja can chill and troll people at 8 if he keeps playing), given his relatively solid technique. Heck, he opened the batting at previous levels, right? Tastle him if Dhawan/Vijay doesn't work out.

But his bowling is, IMO, never going to be good enough to make him an ATG all-rounder. He may come out with a batting average of 40 and a bowling average in the high 20s, but there will be so many random holes in his record to never really challenge the likes of Miller/Imran/Botham in that respect.

 

[viriya]

If he bowls as well as Harbhajan (who also was relatively average overseas), and bats at 40+, would he not qualify as a great all-rounder? I guess this ties into Bhajji being underrated for being terribad later in his career imo so it depends on how you rate that career too.

 

[Dan]

He'd be a Test-class batsman and a Test-class bowler overall, which would make him an extremely good all-rounder indeed. But Sobers and Kallis were both ATG batsman and Test-class bowlers, while Imran was the inverse. Miller, Faulkner, Flintoff and Botham occupy a spot where they were better than Test class at both.

It would make him a very, very good all-rounder indeed. But nowhere near the 'greatest ever'.

 

[hendrix]

He also has more potential with the ball than Sobers or Kallis.

No he doesn't.

Kallis bowled 145kph outswing and had a mean bouncer.