Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

[CricAddict]

I think we can keep debates of the ranking to this thread and leave that thread only for votes.

 

[howitzer]

I think we can keep debates of the ranking to this thread and leave that thread only for votes.

I debate Murali being ahead of Warne. Discuss.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I debate Murali being ahead of Warne. Discuss.

Warne averaged close to 30 at home against non minnow teams in this millenium.

 

[howitzer]

Warne averaged close to 30 at home against non minnow teams in this millenium.

But Murali averaged 75 in the same conditions.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But Murali averaged 75 in the same conditions.

In 5 games. And he played those Tests in some really bad mental space. I think mental health isn't taken into consideration enough while rating players.

 

[Line and Length]

While I can understand the interest in discussing the 2024 Bowling poll I am conducting, I would respectfully request that, as is the case up to now, that these discussions/debates are restricted to players currently voted into the places decided.

 

[subshakerz]

While I can understand the interest in discussing the 2024 Bowling poll I am conducting, I would respectfully request that, as is the case up to now, that these discussions/debates are restricted to players currently voted into the places decided.

That's not fun.

 

[Coronis]

That's not fun.

Just like your posts and your face.

 

[kyear2]

Someone had mentioned there was an argument for Wasim to be seen as the best ever, I'll be interested in continuing that argument. Note I didn't say among the best, which he clearly was, but even among that top 4 or 5, what's the argument?

 

[Coronis]

Someone had mentioned there was an argument for Wasim to be seen as the best ever, I'll be interested in continuing that argument. Note I didn't say among the best, which he clearly was, but even among that top 4 or 5, what's the argument?

Peer rating. Plus he was “more skilled” than any other bowler.

Unfortunately for him, being more skilled didn’t quite bring the results you’d hope for.

 

[kyear2]

Peer rating. Plus he was “more skilled” than any other bowler.

Unfortunately for him, being more skilled didn’t quite bring the results you’d hope for.

And that's the crux of the matter

 

[kyear2]

He was way better to watch than McGrath, by no metric was he as good, far less better.

And I do acknowledge he played longer than most and his fielding support was down right horrible and that helps push him back up and higher than his stats would indicate.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He's rated highly because a majority of his peers, his fellow great pacers and the great batsmen of his era all rated him as the best/most complete/most skillful whatever word you want to use. Peer opinion isn't everything, it also shouldn't be completely dismissed.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Akram had a really high ceiling like Lara or Viv

 

[Coronis]

A high ceiling means squat if you don’t actually reach it.

 

[ma1978]

A high ceiling means squat if you don’t actually reach it.

the difference between Akram and any other top bowler is statistically insignificant.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim between his peak from 90 to 97 was likely as good as McGrath. He suffers on longevity.

 

[Socerer 01]

Someone had mentioned there was an argument for Wasim to be seen as the best ever, I'll be interested in continuing that argument. Note I didn't say among the best, which he clearly was, but even among that top 4 or 5, what's the argument?

skill

 

[kyear2]

skill

That's not an argument, lol

But yes, he was skillful.

 

[Socerer 01]

That's not an argument, lol

But yes, he was skillful.

im not arguing tbh, im saying why that argument exists