Players who were indisputably the best of their time

[Furball]

Are you serious? The entire skysports panels voted him at the best, so thats hussain, atherton, bumble and a couple others, I think Gower was there too. Then there's all sorts of literature on Akram.

I'm not saying its unanimous and Marshall has a shout for sure but you're talking like you've never heard Akram being the best is a load of bs, excuse my french.

Atherton isn't making a fair comparison as he didn't survive long enough against McGrath to rate his old ball skills.

 

[listento_me]

Atherton isn't making a fair comparison as he didn't survive long enough against McGrath to rate his old ball skills.

lol fair enough

But like I said, if we're arguing who is the best fast man of all time, Akram is going to get a lot of votes, it's crazy that the other poster (windies something) is so surprised by that so thats what Im responding too.

Objectively speaking, Akram, Marshall, Khan, Lillee, Holding, possibly McG and...Ambrose (??) are all up for debate. Often, Akram gets the nod. Marshall does too sometimes. McGrath probably fewer times BUT I always feel we cant talk of him as a "fast" bowler exactly.

If someone ranks Marshall higher, I wouldn't argue too much about that but if they're going to post all shocked and literally start saying theyve never heard of Akram being ranked higher then I'll call them out on their bs.

 

[Zinzan]

lol fair enough

But like I said, if we're arguing who is the best fast man of all time, Akram is going to get a lot of votes, it's crazy that the other poster (windies something) is so surprised by that so thats what Im responding too.

Objectively speaking, Akram, Marshall, Khan, Lillee, Holding, possibly McG and...Ambrose (??) are all up for debate. Often, Akram gets the nod. Marshall does too sometimes. McGrath probably fewer times BUT I always feel we cant talk of him as a "fast" bowler exactly.

If someone ranks Marshall higher, I wouldn't argue too much about that but if they're going to post all shocked and literally start saying theyve never heard of Akram being ranked higher then I'll call them out on their bs.

There was also the guy called Richard Hadlee, who played for NZ, You may not have heard of him though, since he played prior to 1990.

He's not a bad shout to be spoken with in the company of the likes Holding & Imran Khan.

You should check him out on Wikipedia, he's wasn't a bad bowler.

 

[Zinzan]

lol fair enough

But like I said, if we're arguing who is the best fast man of all time, Akram is going to get a lot of votes, it's crazy that the other poster (windies something) is so surprised by that so thats what Im responding too.

Objectively speaking, Akram, Marshall, Khan, Lillee, Holding, possibly McG and...Ambrose (??) are all up for debate. Often, Akram gets the nod. Marshall does too sometimes. McGrath probably fewer times BUT I always feel we cant talk of him as a "fast" bowler exactly.

If someone ranks Marshall higher, I wouldn't argue too much about that but if they're going to post all shocked and literally start saying theyve never heard of Akram being ranked higher then I'll call them out on their bs.

Mate, you need to sharpen up, philosophically-speaking you're all over the shop in your arguments.

When it suits you, you act like any consensus view of what cricket historians & contemporaries of the time think counts for very little, like your ignorant & absurd claim that Clive Lloyd keeps the likes of Headley, and the 3Ws out of an alltime West Indies Test XI. You clearly couldn't care less what cricket historians think about that, since there's a clear consensus that Headley and the 3Ws are all held in a higher regard than Lloyd, even if Lloyd was a great captain and fine batter in his own right.

However now that it suits your argument, suddenly it seems to hold a lot of water that some of the sky commentary team said they rated Akram very highly, and in some cases the best.

You then pretend there's this "objectively speaking" list of the very top bowlers of all-time, that doesn't appear to include Hadlee and Steyn, but does include Holding and Imran. Give me a break!

And this is after you listed your all time greatest English Test XI, with Gooch and Cook in the side, lol, which I could guarantee NONE of the sky commentators would agree with, not even Cooks' mum would agree with that, so why suddenly pretend you care about what cricket historians and past players think?

And incidentally, what gives the English Sky commentary team of Botham Athers and co, any more authority than any other group of past players? Akram didn't make Benaud's greatest Test XI, does that mean it's the end of any argument either? Of course not.

It's all well & good to have personal favourites when it comes to players, but this cricket community is much too smart and knowledgeable not to see through philosophical inconsistencies in posters arguments. If you have personal favourties, just be honest & say so, but making out there's some sort of objective universal consensus among past players and cricket historians that have Holding & Imran at some level above Steyn and Hadlee as bowlers, does make you look a tad foolish.

As someone who has read a lot of historians, past cricketers & cricket fans views, I can tell you quite confidently than if there's any universal consensus at all regarding the best modern pace bowler, then it's quite clearly Malcolm Marshall. I'd have thought most really knowledgeable fans would know this. This doesn't make Marshall categorically the best, & doesn't mean every past or current player thinks that, but it's certainly the consensus.

 

[Flametree]

Getting back to the original question, a name that sprang to my mind was Botham, for the period 77-83. Averaged about 21 with the ball and nearly 40 with the bat. Can someone dig out Imran's stats for the period when Botham was at his peak?

Was Jim Laker a cut above the likes of Benaud, Lock and Wardle?

And just to go against the grain... how much did Flower's career overlap with Gilchrist's ? I know Flower wasn't in the same league as a keeper, and their batting was in very different styles, but he did end his career with a 50+ average which Gilchrist couldn't match.

 

[stephen]

In an all-time team I'd probably have Marshall, McGrath and Wasim as my pacers. Those three all were very different bowlers and we're extremely effective. The variety offered by Wasim sets him slightly above Ambrose, Holding, Garner, Hadlee and others. That's not to say those bowlers were crap, because they weren't but I think that bowling combination would be the most effective in all bowling environments. I'd take Warne over Murali for his batting and because I'm a biased Aussie and loved watching him bowl. Gilchrist as my keeper would round out the bottom 5.

Then at the top I'd have Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards and Sobers.

The thing is that none of these players other than Bradman, Gilchrist and Sobers were clearly the best in their craft during their time. (Richards would be closest of the others).

It's virtually impossible to separate the fast bowlers of the 80s and 90s. The best bowler probably depended more on the day of the week and what side of the bed they woke up on. The 80s had some great fast bowlers but they were mostly West Indians. The 90s had great fast bowlers from the West Indies, Australia, South Africa and Pakistan. What a great decade of cricket that was (in both tests and ODIs).

Speaking of ODIs, Bevan was a class above his contemporaries for his entire career. Probably the only time you'll see an all time great in one form not kick on in another.

 

[Zinzan]

The thing is that none of these players other than Bradman, Gilchrist and Sobers were clearly the best in their craft during their time. (Richards would be closest of the others).
.

Who compared to Kallis in his era in terms of a batting all-rounder averaging 50 & taking anywhere close to 290 odd test poles?

 

[Johnners]

Who compared to Kallis in his era in terms of a batting all-rounder averaging 50 & taking anywhere close to 290 odd test poles?

Watto, obviously.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Are you serious? The entire skysports panels voted him at the best, so thats hussain, atherton, bumble and a couple others, I think Gower was there too. Then there's all sorts of literature on Akram.

I'm not saying its unanimous and Marshall has a shout for sure but you're talking like you've never heard Akram being the best is a load of bs, excuse my french.

So a sky panal that Akram has worked alongside chose him as "the best" so that means it's true? Come on man .

 

[WindieWeathers]

A few that I remembered and can easily post

'The most complete fast bowler I've seen' . Allan Donald

My XI : Wasim Akram | 'The most complete fast bowler I've seen' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

"Skill-wise I don’t think there has been a better fast bowler." Glenn McGrath

McGrath?s favourite speed merchants - The Hindu

“There was no better fast bowler in the world with a new ball or an old ball,” Lara said of Akram." Brian Lara

Home | Live Scores & Latest News | Fox Sports

“In my opinion Wasim Akram of Pakistan was the best pace bowler that I ever faced." Jacques Kallis

Wasim Akram was the best I ever faced, says Kallis - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

Well done. But I'm not sure the quotes from Lara and Kallis relate to the question at hand? Kalis saying "he's the best I've faced" doesn't mean he believes Akram is the "best pacer the game has seen". Same thing with Lara praising Akram's use of the new and old ball. Akram's skills were undeniable but again he didn't say "he's the best pacer of all time" did he? I appreciate you providing some articles though.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Yeah.. but smiley, when we discuss the greatest of all time, surely performances trump skills. Performance is usually backed by facts while skills are usually backed by perception. That is why it is tough to rate fast bowlers sometimes. No one stands out like Bradman but yes, Marshall seems like a bit of an unanimous choice amongst those who have played with or watched him as well as the subsequent great ones. Wasim is definitely regarded as amongst the best, if not the best, skillswise by many in the cricketing community but I really do not see how you can say he was better than McGrath on the basis of test match performances, which is how we usually rate players here in CW. Coz doing it any other way basically is just opinion vs opinion and hardly any real room for any kind of consensus then.

Totally agree sir.

 

[WindieWeathers]

lol fair enough

But like I said, if we're arguing who is the best fast man of all time, Akram is going to get a lot of votes, it's crazy that the other poster (windies something) is so surprised by that so thats what Im responding too.

Objectively speaking, Akram, Marshall, Khan, Lillee, Holding, possibly McG and...Ambrose (??) are all up for debate. Often, Akram gets the nod. Marshall does too sometimes. McGrath probably fewer times BUT I always feel we cant talk of him as a "fast" bowler exactly.

If someone ranks Marshall higher, I wouldn't argue too much about that but if they're going to post all shocked and literally start saying theyve never heard of Akram being ranked higher then I'll call them out on their bs.

Well actually YOU responded to my post first and seemed quite upset at the notion that Maco has been looked at as the best. Then when asked to provide proof about your claims you couldn't provide any and just spoke about a "sky panal" that no-one has seen. So needless to say if you did "call me out" you didn't do a good job imo.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Mate, you need to sharpen up, philosophically-speaking you're all over the shop in your arguments.

When it suits you, you act like any consensus view of what cricket historians & contemporaries of the time think counts for very little, like your ignorant & absurd claim that Clive Lloyd keeps the likes of Headley, and the 3Ws out of an alltime West Indies Test XI. You clearly couldn't care less what cricket historians think about that, since there's a clear consensus that Headley and the 3Ws are all held in a higher regard than Lloyd, even if Lloyd was a great captain and fine batter in his own right.

However now that it suits your argument, suddenly it seems to hold a lot of water that some of the sky commentary team said they rated Akram very highly, and in some cases the best.

You then pretend there's this "objectively speaking" list of the very top bowlers of all-time, that doesn't appear to include Hadlee and Steyn, but does include Holding and Imran. Give me a break!

And this is after you listed your all time greatest English Test XI, with Gooch and Cook in the side, lol, which I could guarantee NONE of the sky commentators would agree with, not even Cooks' mum would agree with that, so why suddenly pretend you care about what cricket historians and past players think?

And incidentally, what gives the English Sky commentary team of Botham Athers and co, any more authority than any other group of past players? Akram didn't make Benaud's greatest Test XI, does that mean it's the end of any argument either? Of course not.

It's all well & good to have personal favourites when it comes to players, but this cricket community is much too smart and knowledgeable not to see through philosophical inconsistencies in posters arguments. If you have personal favourties, just be honest & say so, but making out there's some sort of objective universal consensus among past players and cricket historians that have Holding & Imran at some level above Steyn and Hadlee as bowlers, does make you look a tad foolish.

As someone who has read a lot of historians, past cricketers & cricket fans views, I can tell you quite confidently than if there's any universal consensus at all regarding the best modern pace bowler, then it's quite clearly Malcolm Marshall. I'd have thought most really knowledgeable fans would know this. This doesn't make Marshall categorically the best, & doesn't mean every past or current player thinks that, but it's certainly the consensus.

Brilliant post sir.