Between September 2001 and the day of this post...

[Richard]

Even if you want to change the rules:

a. "most of his career" (i.e. not all); and

b. "almost ever been" (i.e. close but no cigar)

just dont quite cut the mustard

There's no changing of rules; Kumble on a turning pitch is about as good as any bowler and always has been, but for most of his career he's been wholly average on non-turning surfaces. There has been the odd spark-up, but no more than that; Angus Fraser (and many others) on a non-turning surface (ie, the vast majority outside India and some in India) is a far better bowler.

And I repeat: I'm not going around saying "well, Malcolm Marshall, Ray Lindwall, Andy Roberts..." Any fool can easily look-up a list of top-notch seam-bowlers, I'm not wasting my time typing that out.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Good grief, did anyone actually think I genuinely was saying there were 40 better bowlers in 2001\02-2005\06 than Pollock?.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not exactly the wildest of assumptions (even for us LT's of this world).

I could easily name 30 or 40 better seamers than Pollock between 2001\02 and 2005\06

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Perm]

I, for one, would be interested in seeing the list.

As would I.

 

[Richard]

Not exactly the wildest of assumptions (even for us LT's of this world).

Yeah, the phraseology wasn't the best having read the post again.

Either way, I've clarified now.