Who is the greatest bowler ever?

[h4te]

warne

you're kidding, right? warne even isn't the greatest leg-spinner there is.....

[Guest Gunner]

only if you measure greatness purely in terms of statistics.

Could you please start your sentences in upper case. Thanks.

[Guest Gunner]

no i couldn't because i don't waste my best writing on people like you.

Personal insults rarely win you debates, I am sure you were acquainted with this fact by your tutors at Cambridge.

[h4te]

no i couldn't because i don't waste my best writing on people like you.

"couldn't"? native english speaker's don't make simple mistakes like this....even when they're not trying to write their "best"

[Mr. Wicket]

Well, Manka's insults just reflect his desperation to reach for an ad hominem argument as last recourse, now that all his other methods of arguing have failed.

[bunny]

Malcolm Marshall. There are a bunch of interesting stats which show that Marshall was easily the greatest test bowler of the last 50 years. (and Barnes the best pre-WW2). Of course, having watched him torment Gavaskar and co, I'm sure the guy doesnt need any statistical support.

[SJS50]

I was joking PJ' date=' BTW i am sure most wouldn't even give a go at the posts too long to read :eyedance:[/quote'] Well if you are born too late to know about cricketers other than 10-15 percent of the time the game has been played AND are unwilling to try and learn about the century and a quarter that you haven't a clue about, then why even pretend to debate issues like . . . Who is the greatest bowler ever?

[SJS50]

SJS, Dont worry about the trolls ... but going back to your nomination of SF Barnes based on written accounts from about 100 yrs ago ... the problem is that these guys did not have a benchmark to asses. With the huge benefit of hindsight we know that Cricket was still pretty much in its infancy back then and yet they called it the Golden Era ! You can see that there is a huge amount of embellishment that goes behind these accounts. Also they obviously did not have the option of comparing with modern masters. And the problem I have is that I know how good a Curtley Ambrose was and I dont need any writter to wax lyrically about Curtley (it will anyways be deemed as biased by hardass fans like yours truly ) as I have plenty of footage to watch and find out for myself but I cant do the same for past masters for obvious reasons. To put it in other words as with any field things evolve and become better with time . However during this progress every era thinks they have had the best(its natural human tendency) and they will make elaborate attempts to record their observations and opinions. In past this used to be on paper. Now its a bit more scientific and precise. This same dilemma may happen for future generations too where they may pooh-pooh current generation greats. But what will not happen is that there will be plenty of footage to show where the current greats stood. Its sad that the older generation players will be severely disadvantaged by this but to simply trust the writings of cricket writers and take them verbatim is a bit too much for me.

1. It is true the game keeps changing over time but these factors can and should be kept in mind when debating anything as contentious as the topic of this thread. 2. The changes in the basic game (evolution of batting and bowling) have to be differentiated from the changes in conditions offered to the players (covered wickets, new ball laws , helmets and other protective equipment etc). 3. The evolution of the game was complete by the end of the 19th century which is why the Golden Era (1895-1914) is almost always included in such debates. You will be astonished if you could see the pictures of batsmen from that time a hundred years ago. There isn't much that was added afterwards that is significant. The strokes that the modern day greats play are no different from those that were played by the likes of Victor Trumper. There are action pictures available of him playing each and every stroke in the game with fabulous technique and elegance. 4. It is true the changes in condition have mostly benefited batsmen. Thus the early wickets being under prepared meant that the batting averages (and bowling averages) were low but it is easy to see when the batsmen started coming into their own and this is (yet again) the Golden Era. Its not difficult to go back and look at the stats of the twenty years before it and the twenty years of the Golden Era to see that the balance had changed. The inter war period was probably the best for the batsmen and so on. So one can and SHOULD always keep that in mind when comparing players across eras. 5. When discounting the bowlers for bowler friendly conditions one cant then ignore the tremendous qualities it took for batsmen to do well. One cant have it both ways. If bowlers had it easy the batsmen must have had it tough but I do not see people taking that in consideration too and this just shows that we first decide what we stand for and then chose our words and stats to support that line. 6. The game may have lasted 140 years (Test cricket) but it hasn't been a broken chain. People watched and played with old timers. Thus Hobbs watched WG batting and Bradman played with Hobbs. Bradman also saw Sobers playing and Sobers is still alive. I have just made a short chain but one can make it much longer and then see the recorded memoirs of so many of these greats that are available to us to be able to judge how great the old cricketers may have been. Its not difficult when we are talking of those at the very top of the lists. Thus while one may be able to argue whether Murdoch was as good as, say, Woodfull one cant argue the same about Trumper and Woodfull. Those at the very top of the tree have had much written about them by those who came before, during there time and after. We can read about what is written of Bradman by those like Noble who came much before him, by those like Hammond who were his contemporaries and those like Bedser who just entered the game as he was leaving. The opinion about Bradman is unanimous. AND it is not based on stats alone. The same is true for Jack Hobbs or Sobers or Syd Barnes. Even Bradman who never saw Barnes bowl, agrees that he has to be one of the greatest bowlers of all time but thought O'Reilly pipped him for THE GREATEST tag and the reason he gave for his preference for O'Reilly was that the latter could bowl the googly. Barnes when confronted with this (he was almost 90 then) wryly remarked, "I never needed the wrong one" The point is that no one denies Barnes's greatness because of the time he was born in. AND no one even cites his bowling averages to say he was the greatest. People just talk of what he bowled. 6. The changing conditions of cricket did not ALWAYS favour batsmen. In the case of Barnes, for example, only one new ball was used throughout the innings. AS Cardus wondered, "imagine what he would have done with a second new ball before the day's play was over" 7. The correct way to judge a player (if one wants to use only statistics to do so) is to see these in the light of those of his contemporaries. Take into account the opposition etc and then make an educated assessment. Just to decry the older players because you do not know enough (and couldn't be bothered) or because you have made up your mind about the cricket of those times (with no knowledge of it to back up your claim) is as silly as those who just claim that no modern player is good enough to hold a light to the older ones. Both sides of the debate could afford to be more objective about it and look at it with more dispassionate mind or, at least be honest enough to say, the comparisons are odious.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[SJS50]

By the way, the argument that things become better, ALWAYS, is not always valid in areas other than the physical side of sport. Thus the speeds in athletic events keep improving as do the heights and distances of jumps or the distance people can throw so its possible that the speed at which bowlers bowl may yet see improvements (given conditions) but to say that someone plays better strokes or is a more beguiling a spinner is to be a bit naive. There is no way to say with unquestioned authority that Maradonna, for example, is a better footballer than Pele or the current Indian hockey has better stick men that Dhyan Chand and Roop Singh. There are skills beyond the physical which may get better or may not but these are not "guaranteed to improve over time". Venus Williams may be hitting the ball much harder but no one in their right senses can claim that she (or any other modern) is a better player than Martina. WG went on to play into his late 40's. Of course he was not improving as a player. A quick look at his stats shows clearly that he was a far better batsman in his twenties than he was even in his 30's let alone in his 40's when he was a shadow of himself as a young man. But so good was he as a young man that even in his twilight, when he got into the zone (to use a modern phrase) or ran into form inspite of his age tha . . .

- he scored 2346 runs in all first class games in 1897 - with an average of 51 - with 9 centuries and a top score of 288. - He also got a 1000 runs in May that year. - Ranji who was 24 years his junior scored 1775 at 49.3 and he played half his innings at one of the finest batting tracks in England at home in Sussex. - The next two batsmen in the season's card have to be added together to come to the number of centuries WG scored that year. - WG was 49.

The point here is that while WG clearly declined as a player with age (as a human is expected to) so great were his skills that when he hit a high, anyone could see what a tremendous player he must have been at his peak. The runs he scored a year short of his 50th birthday are not what he had been scoring in the years before that.

- He had scored so many runs 19 years ago, no less! - He hadn't scored so many centuries in a season since 24 years ago! - He had averaged in the 50's only once in the previous 19 years and NEVER EVER after his 40th birthday.

He was getting old and the game had moved on for he was truly a man from an earlier era. He was not the complete batsman of the Golden Era in the sense that he went back only to defend his wicket or to cut. Backfoot drives were not in his repertoires. He was essentially a front foot driver of the ball and a beautiful cutter for that is how the game was played as the transition started from under arm bowlers (just before his time) to round arm and then over arm) but in this slightly restricted range, he was still masterful enough to do what he did in 1897. That's skill. You have to ask yourself what it takes to play at fifty, with the huge weight that WG had put on (contrary to poular modern perception he was a very athletic young man and put on weight only late in his career) how many batsmen will score the runs he did against bowlers and amongst batsmen two decades his juniors. Those youngster who saw him play did not need to talk of old timers being "under-evolved" (for want of a better word) to see WG for what he "must have been". They could see it! . . . To be continued. . .

[SJS50]

will respond in a little more detail later but on item 7 my take (which I posted on the Bradman thread) was that you cant take accomplishments of past masters and extrapolate them to arrive at all time greatness at the expense of modern masters. This is simply because of standards. I'am yet to come across any cricket expert who thinks overall standards were more competitive and professional during the times you are referring to.

Depends on what is your definition of a "cricket expert" :) I never said they were better or more professional. By putting words in my mouth you are avoiding all that I have said. Read again . . .

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

1. It is true the game keeps changing over time but these factors can and should be kept in mind when debating anything as contentious as the topic of this thread. 2. The changes in the basic game (evolution of batting and bowling) have to be differentiated from the changes in conditions offered to the players (covered wickets, new ball laws , helmets and other protective equipment etc). 3. The evolution of the game was complete by the end of the 19th century which is why the Golden Era (1895-1914) is almost always included in such debates. You will be astonished if you could see the pictures of batsmen from that time a hundred years ago. There isn't much that was added afterwards that is significant. The strokes that the modern day greats play are no different from those that were played by the likes of Victor Trumper. There are action pictures available of him playing each and every stroke in the game with fabulous technique and elegance. 4. It is true the changes in condition have mostly benefited batsmen. Thus the early wickets being under prepared meant that the batting averages (and bowling averages) were low but it is easy to see when the batsmen started coming into their own and this is (yet again) the Golden Era. Its not difficult to go back and look at the stats of the twenty years before it and the twenty years of the Golden Era to see that the balance had changed. The inter war period was probably the best for the batsmen and so on. So one can and SHOULD always keep that in mind when comparing players across eras. 5. When discounting the bowlers for bowler friendly conditions one cant then ignore the tremendous qualities it took for batsmen to do well. One cant have it both ways. If bowlers had it easy the batsmen must have had it tough but I do not see people taking that in consideration too and this just shows that we first decide what we stand for and then chose our words and stats to support that line. 6. The game may have lasted 140 years (Test cricket) but it hasn't been a broken chain. People watched and played with old timers. Thus Hobbs watched WG batting and Bradman played with Hobbs. Bradman also saw Sobers playing and Sobers is still alive. I have just made a short chain but one can make it much longer and then see the recorded memoirs of so many of these greats that are available to us to be able to judge how great the old cricketers may have been. Its not difficult when we are talking of those at the very top of the lists. Thus while one may be able to argue whether Murdoch was as good as, say, Woodfull one cant argue the same about Trumper and Woodfull. Those at the very top of the tree have had much written about them by those who came before, during there time and after. We can read about what is written of Bradman by those like Noble who came much before him, by those like Hammond who were his contemporaries and those like Bedser who just entered the game as he was leaving. The opinion about Bradman is unanimous. AND it is not based on stats alone. The same is true for Jack Hobbs or Sobers or Syd Barnes. Even Bradman who never saw Barnes bowl, agrees that he has to be one of the greatest bowlers of all time but thought O'Reilly pipped him for THE GREATEST tag and the reason he gave for his preference for O'Reilly was that the latter could bowl the googly. Barnes when confronted with this (he was almost 90 then) wryly remarked, "I never needed the wrong one" The point is that no one denies Barnes's greatness because of the time he was born in. AND no one even cites his bowling averages to say he was the greatest. People just talk of what he bowled. 6. The changing conditions of cricket did not ALWAYS favour batsmen. In the case of Barnes, for example, only one new ball was used throughout the innings. AS Cardus wondered, "imagine what he would have done with a second new ball before the day's play was over" 7. The correct way to judge a player (if one wants to use only statistics to do so) is to see these in the light of those of his contemporaries. Take into account the opposition etc and then make an educated assessment. Just to decry the older players because you do not know enough (and couldn't be bothered) or because you have made up your mind about the cricket of those times (with no knowledge of it to back up your claim) is as silly as those who just claim that no modern player is good enough to hold a light to the older ones. Both sides of the debate could afford to be more objective about it and look at it with more dispassionate mind or, at least be honest enough to say, the comparisons are odious.

Then you no doubt think Lohmann is the greatest bowler ever then. As if applying your criteria he wins hand down. In fact suprised that the cricinfostats gurus who live and breath by the stats do not come out and say Lohmann is number 1, when the stats for him are overwhelming!

[SJS50]

Then you no doubt think Lohmann is the greatest bowler ever then. As if applying your criteria he wins hand down.

I thought I wrote in detail in the Lomann thread about why, inspite of his stats, I did not think he was the greatest. Here . . . Here and also here They were probably my first posts in this forum :)