Best bowler to tour England?

[Johan]

Those were good English batting line ups on batting friendly wickets too.

1998 was not, Tail ender level Hick, Well below average Butcher, Average Crawley and a decent Stewart. 3 of the 4 quality batters in the country were not there. McGrath is clear.

also, they were pretty conventional english fast bowling pitches. English pacers obliterated Sri Lanka.

 

[DrWolverine]

Finally decided
Terry Alderman

 

[reyrey]

1998 was not, Tail ender level Hick, Well below average Butcher, Average Crawley and a decent Stewart. 3 of the 4 quality batters in the country were not there. McGrath is clear.

also, they were pretty conventional english fast bowling pitches. English pacers obliterated Sri Lanka.

That was 1 game out of 6. The rest of the games were against 00s England and that 1998 pitch was batting friendly.

 

[subshakerz]

1998 was not, Tail ender level Hick, Well below average Butcher, Average Crawley and a decent Stewart. 3 of the 4 quality batters in the country were not there. McGrath is clear.

also, they were pretty conventional english fast bowling pitches. English pacers obliterated Sri Lanka.

98 was batting friendly

 

[Johan]

That was 1 game out of 6. The rest of the games were against 00s England and batting friendly pitches.

That's 16 wickets. In 2000s, Warne and McGrath have better numbers in England. Anyway, as you said 2000s England but they weren't flat, Sri Lanka scored.

162
272
253
208
192
537/9
141
231
231
322

if they were actually flat, both sides would score, not just one.

 

[reyrey]

That's 16 wickets. In 2000s, Warne and McGrath have better numbers in England. Anyway, as you said 2000s England but they weren't flat, Sri Lanka scored.

162
272
253
208
192
537/9
141
231
231
322

if they were actually flat, both sides would score, not just one.

Maybe, just maybe England were a really good side and that's why Sri Lanka didn't score as many. That era England side did beat an ATG side at home...

Also Warne and McGrath played around half their Tests against 90s England and they still don't have better numbers than Murali

 

[Johan]

Maybe, just maybe England were a really good side and that's why Sri Lanka didn't score as many. That era England side did beat an ATG side at home...

Also Warne and McGrath played around half their Tests against 90s England and they still don't have better numbers than Murali

Hoggard, Tudor, Plunkeet is not an elite lineup that should easily bowl out sides, simply put, they were conventional english wickets and when Murali failed, they could not bowl out England in any condition.

In 2001/5 Ashes, Warne took 71 wickets @ 19 (10 games) and McGrath around 50 wickets @ 19 (in 8 games)

 

[capt_Luffy]

Warne has no argument honestly because he played alongside a bowler who was definitely better than him in these series.

Murali taking 8WPM deserves a mention.

And then he had arguably the best Series ever......

 

[reyrey]

Hoggard, Tudor, Plunkeet is not an elite lineup that should easily bowl out sides, simply put, they were conventional english wickets and when Murali failed, they could not bowl out England in any condition.

In 2001/5 Ashes, Warne took 71 wickets @ 19 (10 games) and McGrath around 50 wickets @ 19 (in 8 games)

And Murali took 24 wickets at 16.87 in 2006 against the team that beat ATG Australia the previous year. It's easy to pick and choose...

The fact stands that Murali has a better average in England. He did this without much bowling support, and even without getting to bowl much at England during their 2nd innings at bat when conditions for him would have been more favorable

 

[MasterBlaster24]

McGrath outbowled Warne in 97 and 2001.

Replace him getting injured in 2005 with Warne and Australia still win comfortably.

Yep, Warne had a better bowler (McGrath) than him to support him at the other end in these two series compared to Murali, who literally didn't have any bowling support at all and single-handedly won them a series and drew another one with the ball in England. Murali just ran through batting lineups singlehandedly in England. (His WPM in England was 8.)

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;orderby=wickets;player_involve=2041;team=8;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Johan]

Yep, Warne had a better bowler (McGrath) than him to support him at the other end in these two series compared to Murali, who literally didn't have any bowling support at all and single-handedly won them a series and drew another one with the ball in England. Murali just ran through batting lineups singlehandedly in England. (His WPM in England was 8.)

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;orderby=wickets;player_involve=2041;team=8;template=results;type=bowling

Inflated by a second string England

 

[Johan]

And Murali took 24 wickets at 16.87 in 2006 against the team that beat ATG Australia the previous year. It's easy to pick and choose...

The fact stands that Murali has a better average in England. He did this without much bowling support, and even without getting to bowl much at England during their 2nd innings at bat when conditions for him would have been more favorable

34 @ 16 like McGrath did in 2001 ~> what Murali did in 2006.

Average inflated by a second string England lineup in 1998, the fact stands that you mentioned 2000s and both Warne/McGrath outbowled in that context over a much larger sample size. Just give it up, he has a decent record in 2000s in England, outdone by Warne and McGrath on averages and on the account of their body of work being much bigger. It's like saying Chris Broad is the greatest touring Batsman of Australia

 

[MasterBlaster24]

The damage Terry Alderman did to English Cricket is incomprehensible.

Yep, the best thing he did was reducing Gooch's batting average (where it should be) by some points, IMO.

 

[Johan]

Yep, the best thing he did was reducing Gooch's batting average (where it should be) by some points, IMO.

alright now you're just being a dickhead mate. (jk, that was good)

 

[reyrey]

34 @ 16 like McGrath did in 2001 ~> what Murali did in 2006.

Average inflated by a second string England lineup in 1998, the fact stands that you mentioned 2000s and both Warne/McGrath outbowled in that context over a much larger sample size. Just give it up, he has a decent record in 2000s in England, outdone by Warne and McGrath on averages and on the account of their body of work being much bigger. It's like saying Chris Broad is the greatest touring Batsman of Australia

You're conveniently leaving out that Warne and McGrath played half their tests in England against second string 90s batting line ups.

And McGrath got 34 @17 (not 16) in 5 tests. Muralis 24 in 3 tests was better and still at a better average

 

[Johan]

You're conveniently leaving out that Warne and McGrath played half their tests in England against second string 90s batting line ups

No, Murali's 1998 game was against a second string of the 1990s batting lineup, if you think 90s England was so bad...then I can't even imagine how bad a second string of that lineup would be, no wonder he got 16 eh?

 

[reyrey]

No, Murali's 1998 game was against a second string of the 1990s batting lineup, if you think 90s England was so bad...then I can't even imagine how bad a second string of that lineup would be, no wonder he got 16 eh?

Funny you're calling 1998 England second string when the 2001 line up Mcgrath was bowling to included Butcher, Ramps, Ian Ward and Usman Afazal

 

[subshakerz]

Volume would be a good argument and the 40 wicket series is extremely iconic. But Yeah, I think Alderman>McGrath>Warne>Lillee is what I'm thinking of leaning.

Meh, inflated due to a second string side, Warne/McGrath/Alderman/Lillee are ahead

I think the 40 wicket Warne series is a tad overrated.

McGrath wins them the first game and without a fit McGrath, Eng get 400 in 1st innings of each of the next three tests at 5RPO and Aus has to play catch up. Warne basically couldn't stop Eng from gaining that advantage

 

[Johan]

Funny you're calling 1998 England second string when the 2001 line up Mcgrath was bowling to included Ramps, Ian Ward and Usman Afazal

Objectively second string, There were four test class batters in England in late 1990s.

Michael Atherton
Nasser Hussein
Alec Stewart
Graham Thorpe

Three of them missed out in 1998. atleast 2001 had four test class batters in Trescothick (43), Athers (39), Alec (40) and Nasser (37). 1998 had one In Stewart (40). Keep pretending the 1998 lineup was first line if it gives you peace

 

[reyrey]

Objectively second string, There were three test class batters in England in late 1990s.

Michael Atherton
Nasser Hussein
Alec Stewart
Graham Thorpe

Three of them missed out in 1998. atleast 2001 had four test class batters in Tresc, Athers, Alec and Nasser. 1998 had one.

Atherton could barely move in 2001 due to his back and promptly retired. Nasser didn't play all 5 Tests. 2001 was pretty much a 2nd string team