Best Bowler Ever.

[Cricketman]

They way he's match fixing he's not going to be playing, ever.

 

[Symptom_Control]

ok, I would propose that the best ever is in this list

Barnes
O'Reilly
Lillee
Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Imran Khan
Hadlee
Akram
Murali
Warne

Unlucky to miss out, but I think justified are

Garner - generally the most under-rated of the west indians but I think he is generally considered behind the three already listed
Grimmett - I think O'reilly was generally accepted as the superior pre-warne spinner
Waqar - can't be considered as Akram his opening bowling partner is considered the superior.
Mcgrath - great record but there isn't many aussies who would pick him as the greatest fast bowler even australia has produced. Walsh is in the same boat, though unlike mcgrath who has only lillee ahead of him Walsh has about 6 or 7 team mates ahead.
Indian spin quartet - lacked a stand out and I doubt anyone would put them ahead of murali or warne.
all english bowlers were mucked about a bit and none stood out for a signifcant time.
Kumble - great player, but playing alongside murali and warne makes it easy to discount him as the greatets spinner ever as he was not the greatest spinner of even his own era.

Of the ones I've listed

I would say Barnes (on ground of playing on stupid wickets and in days when the game was in it's infancy) and O'reilly (i think it's safe to say the best spinner ever is one of murali and warne) can be taken out

leaving us with

Lillee
Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Imran Khan
Hadlee
Akram
Murali
Warne

can't really make a clear case for any of those above the others. Lillee is maybe the most precariously placed but even he has his trumpeters. Hadlees determination and discipline, Imrans inspiration, charisma and record, Holdings Action and speed, Ambroses menace, Marshalls stats, skill and longevity in a team where fast bowling competition was fierce as possible, Akrams artistry and pure talent, warnes intelligence, charisma and match winning ability, murali's sheer turn and skill, his record and that he took a minnow up to competing with the best teams almost single handedly.

I don't think anyone else can get into that shortlist, but the two I took out I suppose could end up going back in.

An excellent argument, I agree totally with the short list, I would only rate Lillee higher than you do .

 

[P Squared]

I think probably Glen McGrath cause he's the best and most disciplined bowler that I've seen, though I've not seen much, I only started watching cricket from 2003.

 

[Shoaib87]

i Think thats a misconseption people have that McGrath wasn't as devasting as Wasim.I believe he was alot more devasting that Wasim in that most deliveries were on target hence he had an opportunity to pick up a wicket just about every delivery.Its simple McGrath record vs Wasims record in each conditions speaks for itself.McGrath has better stats than Wasim in just about every statistical category, dismissed the worlds best batsmen more than Wasim.I don't believe stats should be the be all and end all but if a guy has better stats than another guy in just about every category then that says something surely.I agree Wasim was deadly with his swing , McGrath was deadly with his accuracy ,seam movement,swing at times( yes he could swing it as well), bounce.Its his style of bowling and speed of bowling particularly which makes people believe that McGrath wasnt as devasting as the other great bowlers when in fact he was just as if not more devasting that any fastbowler.If i was a captain and needed to get a batsman out with one delivery and i had to pick a fast bowler my choice would be McGrath simple because of the attributes i stated earlier.People need to seperate whats pleasing to the eye to whats best.I don't even believe Wasim was better than Ambrose.As i said McGrath style of bowling especially he wasnt overly quick for a good part of his career will always mean he'll be abit ''underated'' just shows you how great he was even then he's in quite a few peoples top 10.No knock on Akram who i thought was a great bowler as well, just felt McGrath was better.In those i've seen i rate:McGRATH,AMBROSE,
WASIM,DONALD,WALSH,WAQUR,POLLOCK

Well,I think u r mistaken here.McGrath always used to bowl with a plan trying to force the batsman to play silly shots by bowling at good line & length whereas Wasim mostly depended on his pace & reverse swing,toe crunching yorkers & lethal bouncers.Wasim & McGrath are both alltime greats but the point I was trying to make was they were different bowlers alltogether.I think u need to go through some of these videos to know that.He was capable of producing some unbelievable,unpredictable & magic stuff like this.

Wasim To Lara

Wasim to Dravid

Wasim to Croft

Tendulkar on facing Wasim in his first test

Wasim destroying Australians

Wasim to Tendulkar

Wasim vs England

 

[Trini Boi]

Just a point here,
For someone to be concidered the "best bowler ever," it cannot be justified with a single ball they've produced. The best bowler ever, spinner or pacer, should be able to take wickets, trouble batsmen, have a certain style to his game, etc.
They should also be not only consistant, but entertaining to watch as well.
- Just keep that in mind.

 

[Shoaib87]

Just a point here,
For someone to be concidered the "best bowler ever," it cannot be justified with a single ball they've produced. The best bowler ever, spinner or pacer, should be able to take wickets, trouble batsmen, have a certain style to his game, etc.
They should also be not only consistant, but entertaining to watch as well.
- Just keep that in mind.

Right but Imran,Hadlee,Marshall,Wasim,Ambrose,Donald etc all had those attributes.McGrath was consistent but not as entertaining as others but u can't say he was not an alltime great & can claim to be best bowler ever .

 

[subversive]

I've always wondered why people generally rate Wasim over Waqar. And even McGrath over Waqar. No bowler with over 250 Test wickets has beaten Waqar's awesome strike-rate of 43.4. Closest to him is Malcolm Marshall at 46.7.

I'd rate personally rate Marshall as the best fast bowler - mainly because he has a better average and economy rate, followed by Waqar Younis at 2nd place.

Yes, unlike most people here I rank players based on stats and not on how good they look, how "smooth" their action is, how elegant/graceful their technique is, how fast they are, or how entertaining they are. After all, cricket isn't a beauty pageant :laugh

In the current crop of fast bowlers, I only see Steyn with the potential of becoming a future great/legend.

 

[Shoaib87]

I've always wondered why people generally rate Wasim over Waqar. And even McGrath over Waqar. No bowler with over 250 Test wickets has beaten Waqar's awesome strike-rate of 43.4. Closest to him is Malcolm Marshall at 46.7.

I'd rate personally rate Marshall as the best fast bowler - mainly because he has a better average and economy rate, followed by Waqar Younis at 2nd place.

Yes, unlike most people here I rank players based on stats and not on how good they look, how "smooth" their action is, how elegant/graceful their technique is, how fast they are, or how entertaining they are. After all, cricket isn't a beauty pageant :laugh

In the current crop of fast bowlers, I only see Steyn with the potential of becoming a future great/legend.

Thats because Waqar averaged 18 with a mid 30ish strike rate from 1989-1994 but from 1995-2003,he averaged 28 which includes 20 wickets against Bangladesh.So,the main reason is that despite having a peak 2nd to Imran han only amongst modern greats,he was not much of a threat to batsmen in that second half of his career whereas Wasim remained consistent almost ever.

 

[subversive]

Thats because Waqar averaged 18 with a mid 30ish strike rate from 1989-1994 but from 1995-2003,he averaged 28 which includes 20 wickets against Bangladesh.So,the main reason is that despite having a peak 2nd to Imran han only amongst modern greats,he was not much of a threat to batsmen in that second half of his career whereas Wasim remained consistent almost ever.

Eh, he averaged 26.97 with a SR of 49.0 from 1996-2003. Don't count 1995, that was the crappiest year for him.

Never knew a bowler with a SR of 49 in his worse years isn't considered a threat :laugh

 

[Shoaib87]

Eh, he averaged 26.97 with a SR of 49.0 from 1996-2003. Don't count 1995, that was the crappiest year for him.

Never knew a bowler with a SR of 49 in his worse years isn't considered a threat :laugh

Its not about strike rate or average only,dude.He had not only lost his pace considerably(Some of those who've watched him at his prime say he was quicker than Shoaib Akhtar then) & wasn't that much of a threat to batsmen anymore.Above all,he wasn't consistent in second half of his career.He's an alltime great no doubt but those who were more consistent & threatning than him e.g Imran,Hadlee,Marshall,Wasim,McGrath,Ambrose,Donald etc have to be rated above him.Surely an alltime great but not top 10 ever IMO.

 

[lethalhughes]

Well,I think u r mistaken here.McGrath always used to bowl with a plan trying to force the batsman to play silly shots by bowling at good line & length whereas Wasim mostly depended on his pace & reverse swing,toe crunching yorkers & lethal bouncers.Wasim & McGrath are both alltime greats but the point I was trying to make was they were different bowlers alltogether.I think u need to go through some of these videos to know that.He was capable of producing some unbelievable,unpredictable & magic stuff like this.

Wasim To Lara

Wasim to Dravid

Wasim to Croft

Tendulkar on facing Wasim in his first test

Wasim destroying Australians

Wasim to Tendulkar

Wasim vs England

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
McGrath always used to bowl with a plan trying to force the batsman to play silly shots by bowling at good line & length ??????? Wait a minute, Did you actually watch most of McGrath's matches?Batsman were more or so trying to survive against McGrath , i would describe McGrath as a bowler who mainly tested batsman's technique more so than any other great i have seen.Hope you've watch some of McGRATH battles with the great Brian Lara.If McGrath waited on batsman playing silly shots why does he have a better strike rate than Wasim or even Ambrose?Or do batsman only play silly shots quite often against McGrath?I think you're doing McGrath a great disservice to say he tries to force batsman to play silly shots.As good and as magical as Wasim can be McGrath in my opinion was more devasting as he not only took wickets cheaper but also quicker in just about all venues.A few miracles clips wouldnt tell u who was more devasting or who was the greatest if that was the case i could simple show you some of Aktars clips and we might as well conclude he was more devasting than McGrath which we know would be a silly thing to conclude.As i say people who casually followed McGrath career would have a misconseption that he waited on batsman error but there really was more to McGrath than that, there had to have been more for a guy to average 21 at a strike rate of 51 and take over 550 wickets.I was reading an expert analysis on McGrath some where wish i could have remembered the link so you could have read it.I also think although Pollock wasnt as good as those guys he is abit underrated. Guys like McGrath and Pollock one feel will always be underrated.From what i've seen McGrath was just better than Wasim which is no knock on Wasim as i believe he was also great bowler.I dont believe in entertainment = best.If i did i would say Donald was better than McGrath since Donald was my favourite bowler to watch but McGrath has it over him as well

 

[Symptom_Control]

I'm Australian and saw McGrath bowl many times and while he was not the best in my eyes I sometimes wonder whether I underrate him due to the lack of 'glamour' about his bowling. He may well have been the most effective bowler. Surely he was the best ever fast-medium bowler?

McGrath's hat trick vs WI was some of the most cunning, deadly bowling imaginable: three very different deliveries zeroing in on each batsmans weaknesss, with Lara bang in the middle. The least lucky hat trick I have ever seen.

Plus no batsman in the world ever really got the better of him for very long.

As for Waqar, well he just didn't cope so well when he lost a bit of pace, unlike Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Marshall (well he probably didnt lose much but he sure was able to bowl clever cutters off the short run when needed). I wonder what we would think of him if he quit while he was at his peak?

 

[lethalhughes]

I'm Australian and saw McGrath bowl many times and while he was not the best in my eyes I sometimes wonder whether I underrate him due to the lack of 'glamour' about his bowling.
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes thats what am trying to say,McGrath lack of glamour can so easily lead to him being underrated.However i did enjoy watching him bowl cause of the various plans he had for each batsman.I didnt see guys like Lillee but judging by some of the arguments made by people as to why McGrath shouldnt be in the top5 (in different forums),i'm lead to believe McGrath was incredible underrated and most people didn't realise how good this guy was.Well we all agree McGrath would make Australia best ever world 11 with ease, Warne as well.Amazing opening pair that would be McGrath and lillee.McGrath suffocating the batsman and testing their technique while at the same time being a strike weapon, Lillee 's pace and aggression and also a strike weapon as well.

 

[Dare]

Here would be my top 10 of all time

Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
McGrath
Lille
Wasim
Donald
Ambrose
Pollock
Walsh

 

[sifter132]

I'm Australian and saw McGrath bowl many times and while he was not the best in my eyes I sometimes wonder whether I underrate him due to the lack of 'glamour' about his bowling.
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes thats what am trying to say,McGrath lack of glamour can so easily lead to him being underrated.However i did enjoy watching him bowl cause of the various plans he had for each batsman.I didnt see guys like Lillee but judging by some of the arguments made by people as to why McGrath shouldnt be in the top5 (in different forums),i'm lead to believe McGrath was incredible underrated and most people didn't realise how good this guy was.Well we all agree McGrath would make Australia best ever world 11 with ease, Warne as well.Amazing opening pair that would be McGrath and lillee.McGrath suffocating the batsman and testing their technique while at the same time being a strike weapon, Lillee 's pace and aggression and also a strike weapon as well.

As well as being unglamorous and not very quick, the other reason McGrath is underrated is Warne's presence. And so the argument goes that McGrath would have been less effective without Warne. Yet it doesn't seem to make much difference to the reputation to other famous bowlers. Any 70s/80s/90s West Indies fast bowler had help at the other end from Holding to Ambrose. Wasim Akram had Waqar Younis, Allan Donald had Pollock and Ntini. There aren't many great bowlers who did it alone. Murali and Hadlee would be the best examples.