CMJ's top 100

[Richard]

Over the last decade, they have

On occasions in the last decade maybe, but on occasions in the previous decade as well - and the one before that, and the one before that...

Simple fact is top-quality bowling has usually had the wood on England, recently and less recently. Seam or spin, quality is quality.

Of course, top-quality bowling has the wood on most.

But even though a team of Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash (ie, England circa 1998) certainly wasn't weak against quality seam as such, certainly nor was one consisting of Sidhu, Dravid, Tendulkar and Azharuddin as four of your main five (Ganguly was indeed often suspect against quality seam until right at the end of his career). I'd have the latter over the former anyday.

 

[Richard]

He never played in India

Yeah, that's one of the other tiny little gaps in Ambrose's CV that remain, and one reason why considering McGrath > Ambrose is perfectly fair enough.

 

[oitoitoi]

(Ganguly was indeed often suspect against quality seam until right at the end of his career).

Ganguly post comeback gave a glimpse of the batsmen he always should have been, the lighter bat, the more slightly more open stance (openging the stance seems to improve every batsmen these days) the improvement was massive, if he hadn't gotten the captaincy so early I'm convinced he could have been a test great rather than merely good. Also if he'd batted further up (averaged over 70 at 4...) who knows what he could have done, he was clearly a man who thrived on responsibility. One of the great what if's of Indian cricket.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, that's one of the other tiny little gaps in Ambrose's CV that remain, and one reason why considering McGrath > Ambrose is perfectly fair enough.

True that and considering the demolition job Walsh did to India in 1994 i dont think its too far fetched to assume that Ambrose may have done well in India

 

[Richard]

Ganguly post comeback gave a glimpse of the batsmen he always should have been, the lighter bat, the more slightly more open stance (openging the stance seems to improve every batsmen these days) the improvement was massive, if he hadn't gotten the captaincy so early I'm convinced he could have been a test great rather than merely good. Also if he'd batted further up (averaged over 70 at 4...) who knows what he could have done, he was clearly a man who thrived on responsibility. One of the great what if's of Indian cricket.

Could have fo' sho', but unfortunately for much of his career - captaincy or no captaincy - Ganguly was a non-seaming-track bully (certainly not a rank flat-track bully as he was an outstanding player of spin).

Only in about one game - in South Africa in 1996/97 - did Ganguly ever give a glimpse of any ability to score against top-class seam bowling until his return to South Africa a whole decade later.

 

[Cruxdude]

Could have fo' sho', but unfortunately for much of his career - captaincy or no captaincy - Ganguly was a non-seaming-track bully (certainly not a rank flat-track bully as he was an outstanding player of spin).

Only in about one game - in South Africa in 1996/97 - did Ganguly ever give a glimpse of any ability to score against top-class seam bowling until his return to South Africa a whole decade later.

Actually Ganguly wasn't that great at playing spin also. He was good against orthodox left arm spinners. I vividly remember him struggling to pick Brad Hogg.

 

[bagapath]

True that and considering the demolition job Walsh did to India in 1994 i dont think its too far fetched to assume that Ambrose may have done well in India

considering indian batsmen handled him superbly in west indies it is not too far fetched to imagine they would have tore him apart in their own backyard

not being argumentative with u slifer. just pointing out the logical direction the argument should go in

 

[Migara]

Actually Ganguly wasn't that great at playing spin also. He was good against orthodox left arm spinners. I vividly remember him struggling to pick Brad Hogg.

Brad Hogg was the only spinner who had would on him, but when brad Hogg first toured India, he was taken to the cleaners by Ganguly. By the time he was playing Hogg for the second time, Gangily's reflexes had slown down, and he did struggle big time against Murali, whom he have taken to the cleaners in the past. Ig Hogg managed to bowl to ganguly in his youth, te result would have been much different.

 

[Richard]

Actually Ganguly wasn't that great at playing spin also. He was good against orthodox left arm spinners. I vividly remember him struggling to pick Brad Hogg.

Ganguly massacred MacGill, any number of right-arm fingerspinners and also had far less difficulty against Warne and Murali than most. The fact that he struggled on a handful of occasions against Brad Hogg is neither here nor there.

In other news, you might well be Precambrian.

 

[Uppercut]

Nah, it is and will always be Marshall, he could do it all, quite simply the perfect quick. Sub 21 average over 81 tests is quite incredible, more than 4.5 wickets a test is also amazing considering the quality of bowlers he was competing with for wickets. Understood how to adapt to conditions better than perhaps any bowler ever. Shaun Pollock once said that he learnt everything he knew about bowling in about 3 weeks from Malcolm Marshall and that it was largely responsible for his success. In terms of stats his 'worst' opposition was Australia against whom he average just 22.51, his best opposition was England against whom he averaged 19.18, that's incredible.

Mcgrath was doubtless a great bowler, but IMO Marshall was just a distance above the rest. For example Mcgrath averaged over 27 against South Africa, suprising considering he only ever played them in pretty favourable conditions, he also averaged over 25 against New Zealand whom he only ever played in favourable (sometimes very favourable) conditions. Also he averaged over 31 in Pakistan where his lack of pace and/or reverse swing seriously reduced his effectiveness, Marshall on the other hand averaged just 21.45 in Pakistan. Also if you look back to the 2000/01 series in Australia where New Zealand basically looked to leave as many balls as possible against Mcgrath they really neutered him, he averaged over 65 (just 5 wickets in 3 tests) with the ball, by doing this they showed with real application against Mcgrath you could see him off, they didn't clam up too much either as Mcgrath's economy rate was 2.79. Marshall's extra pace and variations meant that this wasn't possible against him. Basically my point is while Mcgrath was a brilliantly bowler whose strenghts were accuracy and bounce, Marshall had more than this and combined with his astonishing cricket brain made him effective everywhere against everyone.

I'd go for Marshall too, (although for reasons other than those you've listed). They're almost impossible to split on ability but Marshall's style and excitement wins the day.

In a way it just proves the original point about bowlers not getting the same criticism based on conditions that batsmen get. Players like Ponting and Hayden get nothing but criticism for scoring their runs in a period of flat pitches, it's rarely ever mentioned that Marshall or Ambrose took their wickets in an era of good conditions for fast bowling.

 

[Cruxdude]

Ganguly massacred MacGill, any number of right-arm fingerspinners and also had far less difficulty against Warne and Murali than most. The fact that he struggled on a handful of occasions against Brad Hogg is neither here nor there.

In other news, you might well be Precambrian.

Regarding Macgill, of two short balls an over fame, any self respecting Indian would have massacred him.

Among the Indian batsmen I would say he is one of the lesser players against spin. Comparing with Sachin, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Gambhir, Sidhu, Azhar is not fair but yeah he is lesser than them against spin.

People generally consider him to be a great player against spin because of his ability to hit huge sixes of a few of them. Against Warne he was perhaps more comfortable than English players, but he never did too well against him.

By the way who the hell is precambrian?

 

[GIMH]

A banned poster who has set up a ton of duplicate accounts before and since his ban

 

[Cruxdude]

A banned poster who has set up a ton of duplicate accounts before and since his ban

I assure you I am not him.

 

[Slifer]

I'd go for Marshall too, (although for reasons other than those you've listed). They're almost impossible to split on ability but Marshall's style and excitement wins the day.

In a way it just proves the original point about bowlers not getting the same criticism based on conditions that batsmen get. Players like Ponting and Hayden get nothing but criticism for scoring their runs in a period of flat pitches, it's rarely ever mentioned that Marshall or Ambrose took their wickets in an era of good conditions for fast bowling.

I get what ur saying. But u have to remember in Marshall's case he didnt just perform well in bowler friendly conditions he also did well in India and Pakistan and also note that he didnt play against ne minnows as such to improve his record. Also, I have no doubt Ponting is class. I've been following him for years and seen him make runs against many of the greats : Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim etc. Hayden on the other never convinced me that he had a clue against quality sustained fast bowling. Im not talking about facin a single Shoaib Ahktar or an injured Waqar but an inform Ambrose or Donald etc.

 

[GIMH]

I assure you I am not him.

I didn't think you were mate, just answering your question

 

[Richard]

Regarding Macgill, of two short balls an over fame, any self respecting Indian would have massacred him.

Not if they were a poor player of spin.

Among the Indian batsmen I would say he is one of the lesser players against spin. Comparing with Sachin, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Gambhir, Sidhu, Azhar is not fair but yeah he is lesser than them against spin.

People generally consider him to be a great player against spin because of his ability to hit huge sixes of a few of them. Against Warne he was perhaps more comfortable than English players, but he never did too well against him.

More comfortable than English players (with the odd exception) and most of those from other countries. Being not quite so good as Tendulkar, Sidhu, Azharuddin etc. is hardly relevant. Ganguly was still a very fine player of spin.

 

[Migara]

Among the Indian batsmen I would say he is one of the lesser players against spin. Comparing with Sachin, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Gambhir, Sidhu, Azhar is not fair but yeah he is lesser than them against spin.

I beg to differ. Probably Sidhu, Kapil and Azhar were the best, Ganguly has to be the next. I have seen Azhar constantly struggling agaisnt Paul Strang, unable to pick his googly. I have never seen Sidhu and Kapil struggle against spin. Kapil got out due to his overambitious shots against spin. Tendulkar was exceptional against both Warne and Murali up to about 2000. Then Murali took over, and constantly troubled Tendulkar. Sehwag is very very good against spin, but I am yet to see how he will fare against a Kumble type spinner, who are flat and fast. Sehwa is very good in playing anything loopy.Dravid has been Murali's bunny for a long time. Laxman did not impress either against Murali. But both these played Warne and Saqlain very well.

People generally consider him to be a great player against spin because of his ability to hit huge sixes of a few of them. Against Warne he was perhaps more comfortable than English players, but he never did too well against him.

By the way who the hell is precambrian?

He has hit sixes of almost everyone of them. Warne never faced him in full cry, but Murali has. He played Murali even better than Lara! And he was good against every type of spin, whether thery are thrown up or flat.

 

[zaremba]

Kapil v Eddie Hemmings 1990
Sidhu v John Emburey 1992/3

Admittedly not two of the most fearsome spin bowlers in history, but both of them perfectly competent - and both were absolutely destroyed (Hemmings in 4 balls, Emburey in a succession of matches)

 

[Migara]

Add Warn vs Sidhu and Murali vs Sidhu, and you'll get the complete picture of how good was Sidhu. IMO best player of spin, cricket has ever produced.

 

[Uppercut]

I get what ur saying. But u have to remember in Marshall's case he didnt just perform well in bowler friendly conditions he also did well in India and Pakistan and also note that he didnt play against ne minnows as such to improve his record. Also, I have no doubt Ponting is class. I've been following him for years and seen him make runs against many of the greats : Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim etc. Hayden on the other never convinced me that he had a clue against quality sustained fast bowling. Im not talking about facin a single Shoaib Ahktar or an injured Waqar but an inform Ambrose or Donald etc.

If you're comparing to McGrath, just take the minnows out of his stats. It doesn't make any difference.

Sure, Marshall played on flat ones too, just like Hayden played on seamers, but not to the same extent McGrath did. Nowhere near it in fact. Wasim Akram is another fast bowler who did remarkably well considering he played so much of his cricket in the subcontinent.