Can a bowler who averages 30+ be considered as greats ?

[aussie]

In theory, certainly.

Firstly, as I alluded to in this thread, all averages have to be taken into the context of the time they were achieved - greatness should be measured to relative success to one's peers. It hasn't quite happened yet, but it's quite feasible to suggest could experience an era of cricket whereby averaging 30 with the ball is exceptional - the ways things are going, that might not be too far off.

Secondly, as has already been pointed out in this thread, players who are picked too early or even those who are retained too long shouldn't have it held against them. If you can sustain greatness for a long period of time you should be judged on that and not came before or after.

All that said, I don't think there are any great bowlers who average in excess of 30 as it stands. Great cricketers certainly, but great bowlers - not yet.

This.

 

[Sanz]

Can a food which looks too yellow considered very tasty ?

 

[Furball]

Yeah, I know. It all comes down to how subjective greatness is. Some would say that being able to perform overseas is crucial, I would say it's desirable but not essential.

There's two points about Kumble that swing it for me. The first is that, in a specific set of circumstances- a slow but deteriorating subcontinental pitch and an opposing side trying to bat out the draw- he's quite possibly the greatest player ever to play the game. The second is the absolutely vast number of matches he made the difference for India in. When someone uses the term, "match-winner", I think of Kumble.

That Kumble was India's greatest ever match winner is not something I will dispute.

In terms of great spin bowlers, he is most certainly a rung below his two contemporaries though. While Kumble is probably a greater match winner than either Warne or Murali, those 2 didn't rely on conditions to be effective as much as Kumble did IMO, and it's what puts them above him IMO.

On a wearing subcontinental deck, give me Kumble every day of the week. In virtually every other set of conditions, I'd want Warne or Murali, with my personal preference being for Shane Warne.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Iain O'Brien?

 

[Black_Warrior]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion but most spinners have pretty poor records away from home. The exceptions of course are Warne and Murali and even they had their share of problems. Warne had a miserable time against India in India, and Murali's stats in Australia and India are atrocious. I am not trying to suggest that Kumble was as good as Warne was or Murali is, he definitely wasn't. But most spinners have less than impressive records outside home.

Not true.
Murali actually has a fantastic record at most places except Australia and India..
Warne has a fantastic record in most places except India. Inffact Warne was pretty decent in the 04 series.
Mushtaq Ahmed won Pakistan test matches in Australia and England.
Saqlain almost won Pakistan a test match in Australia in 1999, only to be denied by dubious umpiring, but thats a different issue.
Its not one or two countries or one or two series I am talking about here with regard to Kumble. I am talking about a major part of his career, where he has bowled say 40 overs, and did not once look threatening to the batsman. I am not saying he didnt pick up wickets, if you keep bowling 40 overs, you are bound to be 4/150 something.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I've said no earlier in this thread, but then again having said that, WG Grace is one of the game's all time great batsmen, and his FC average is under 40, which on first look doesn't look like being anything special.

If there came a time in the future where batting was so aggressive/pitches were even flatter/bowling was at an all time low in terms of quality, where averaging below 40 was a challenge, and someone came along and averaged 31, he'd certainly be a great of his era.

Also, if Shakib were to take say 600 Test wickets @ 32, and during his career see Bangladesh emerge as a truly competitive Test nation, there's absolutely no way you couldn't say he wasn't a great.

Very good point, and thats why I said that we have to assess this player by player, taking into consideration each player's situation, specific context etc.
Also, the regularity with which people score over 500 these days in a test match, bowler in general will be more expensive and have higher averages!

 

[Uppercut]

That Kumble was India's greatest ever match winner is not something I will dispute.

In terms of great spin bowlers, he is most certainly a rung below his two contemporaries though. While Kumble is probably a greater match winner than either Warne or Murali, those 2 didn't rely on conditions to be effective as much as Kumble did IMO, and it's what puts them above him IMO.

On a wearing subcontinental deck, give me Kumble every day of the week. In virtually every other set of conditions, I'd want Warne or Murali, with my personal preference being for Shane Warne.

Yeah, Warne and Murali are definitely better the vast majority of the time. They're, uhm, greater greats

I don't think he was one of the best spin bowlers of all time, but I do have him as an all-time great. I don't really think that's a contradiction.

 

[Flem274*]

Iain O'Brien falls into this great with average over 30 category.

 

[Richard]

Great is a vague and sacred term.

Anyone can be considered it; I prefer not to use it at all.