Best Bowlers to Debut post 2000

[sayon basak]

But the issue still is that it's only 27 games

Stupid statement.

 

[DrWolverine]

O'Reilly was a much better bowler than Lillee

If I could pick just one bowler, I will pick Lillee

 

[DrWolverine]

Headley, who is a Top 12 bat

Pollock who is 15.

In terms of pure talent, maybe.
In terms of actual achievements, nope

 

[Fuller Pilch]

And they can't be rated rightly either

What?
Headley can.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If I could pick just one bowler, I will pick Lillee

You can be wrong, yes.

In terms of pure talent, maybe.
In terms of actual achievements, nope

Achievements != Being Great


It's like rating Alastair Cook over Graeme Pollock because he played well in Asia.

 

[peterhrt]

Between O'Reilly's Test debut in 1932 and his last match fourteen years later, Australia played 27 Tests. O'Reilly appeared in all of them. Three different opponents in four different countries.

Bradman missed seven of those matches, and didn't bat in two more due to injuries in the field.

When Benaud retired in 1964 he had played 63 Tests (seven fewer than Lillee later managed). Six different opponents in six different countries.

Nobody ever placed Benaud ahead of O'Reilly as a leg-spinner.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Steyn
Bumrah
Cummins
Rabada
Anderson
Hazlewood

 

[sayon basak]

Nobody ever placed Benaud ahead of O'Reilly as a leg-spinner.

Looks like people weren't stupid back then.

 

[DrWolverine]

It’s because Benaud neither had the numbers, reputation or skills.

If anyone thinks a spinner who played 25 Tests against 2 opponents in 1930s is superior to a Murali or Warne, I don’t know what to say

 

[Coronis]

It’s because Benaud neither had the numbers, reputation or skills.

If anyone thinks a spinner who played 25 Tests against 2 opponents in 1930s is superior to a Murali or Warne, I don’t know what to say

If you don’t know, why are you saying it?

 

[peterhrt]

It’s because Benaud neither had the numbers, reputation or skills.

At one time Benaud was the second-highest all-time Test wicket-taker and had taken far more wickets in India and Pakistan combined than any other visiting bowler: 71 wickets in 12 matches.

As far as the second record in concerned, Benaud remains joint second after Courtney Walsh.

 

[DrWolverine]

James Anderson has the most wickets but no one is calling him better than Marshall or Hadlee. If I have to choose ATGs in the same tier, modern ATGs > pre war ATGs.

 

[capt_Luffy]

James Anderson has the most wickets but no one is calling him better than Marshall or Hadlee. If I have to choose ATGs in the same tier, modern ATGs > pre war ATGs.

Ok but, sadly Lillee isn't on Tiger's level like Root isn't on Viv's level. So eras simply do not matter.

 

[mcgmelb]

Ok but, sadly Lillee isn't on Tiger's level like Root isn't on Viv's level. So eras simply do not matter.

This must be a sarcastic post , i reckon.

 

[mcgmelb]

Sir Jack Hobbs: 61 Tests, 102 innings, 5410 runs at 56.94. 15 hundreds.

Joe Root in his 30s: 60 Tests, 109 innings, 5528 runs at 56.40, 20 hundreds.

 

[DrWolverine]

So eras simply do not matter.

Eras matter. At least to me for same tier players

If I have to choose between Hobbs & Sachin, Sachin.

 

[Thala_0710]

Tier is a very broad term I'd say. Until it's like very very close in level I would say eras don't matter. But if let's say there are two players who both stand out from their peers by a similar margin, I'd go with the more modern guy, because over time as sport gets more professional and technology and facilities improve, it becomes harder to stand out imo

 

[DrWolverine]

Until it's like very very close in level I would say eras don't matter.Let's say there are two players who both stand out from their peers by a similar margin, I'd go with the more modern guy, because over time as sport gets more professional and technology and facilities improve, it becomes harder to stand out imo

 

[DrWolverine]

I don’t rate pre-war cricketers very highly. While there are clear exceptions, I feel it was significantly easier to stand out in that era compared to today. The talent pool was smaller, the game was less professional and the competitive depth wasn’t anywhere near what modern players face. Of course WG Grace/Fred Spofforth were legends of their time and their impact on the sport is undeniable. But I struggle to rank them ahead of someone like Steven Smith or Dale Steyn. I can’t realistically place them above modern greats who excelled against far tougher and deeper competition.

 

[Agonizingly Awkward]

Sir Jack Hobbs: 61 Tests, 102 innings, 5410 runs at 56.94. 15 hundreds.

Joe Root in his 30s: 60 Tests, 109 innings, 5528 runs at 56.40, 20 hundreds.

This has to be a joke. No one can be this dumb.