jimmy anderson vs glenn mcgrath

[zarathustra]

2 hours ago, gothamprince said:

shane bond is great but there are many bowlers much better than him like west indies bowlers of 80s and dennis lillee, jeff thompson, allan donald, shaun pollock, glenn mcgrath, wasim, waqar, kapil dev

Also I mentioned him in the category of bowlers that didn't have a long career. 

The list you mentioned had lengthy careers so it's an apples to oranges comparison. 

You perhaps don't know about Richard Hadlee, he was at his peak one of the greatest ever bowlers and an all rounder at that 

[Prince_Fan]

mcgrath lanti bowler future lo inka raadu....ademi domination ra.....

[Prince_Fan]

Indian batsmen ki mcgrath bowling chetshunte vuccha padedi chusthunte

[Prince_Fan]

tendulkar gadu emi peekalekapoyadu mcgrath ki....Lara gadu kuda except one or two series emi peekaledu

[gothamprince]

1 hour ago, zarathustra said:

Also I mentioned him in the category of bowlers that didn't have a long career. 

The list you mentioned had lengthy careers so it's an apples to oranges comparison. 

You perhaps don't know about Richard Hadlee, he was at his peak one of the greatest ever bowlers and an all rounder at that 

i know about richard hadlee but kapil dev , imran ian botham were better than him

[gothamprince]

1 hour ago, zarathustra said:

Also I mentioned him in the category of bowlers that didn't have a long career. 

The list you mentioned had lengthy careers so it's an apples to oranges comparison. 

You perhaps don't know about Richard Hadlee, he was at his peak one of the greatest ever bowlers and an all rounder at that 

mohmmad aamir is better than shane bond even if you compare short career

[gothamprince]

1 hour ago, zarathustra said:

Also I mentioned him in the category of bowlers that didn't have a long career. 

The list you mentioned had lengthy careers so it's an apples to oranges comparison. 

You perhaps don't know about Richard Hadlee, he was at his peak one of the greatest ever bowlers and an all rounder at that 

even patrick patterson is better than shane bond in short creer

[dasari123]

2 hours ago, Prince_Fan said:

Indian batsmen ki mcgrath bowling chetshunte vuccha padedi chusthunte

If it was lolbob vuccha you would have drank adding some sugar to it 

[zarathustra]

9 hours ago, gothamprince said:

mohmmad aamir is better than shane bond even if you compare short career

LOL this proves you don't know what you are talking about, 

From cricinfo

However, it is in Test cricket, the format supposedly perfectly designed for him to express his wizardry, that he has disappointed most profoundly. Magical spells with the new ball have been all too fleeting, and his performances in the three countries where conditions are arguably best suited to him, have been largely indifferent. With the ball, he averaged 42.41 in England in 2016, 28.83 in New Zealand that same year, and 61.60 when Australia whitewashed Pakistan at the turn of the year. The prodigious banana swing from that titillating left-arm angle - and that quite beautiful bowling action - does come, but not nearly as potently or regularly as memory suggests it did in his teenage years. In other words, Amir, in Test cricket, has flattered to deceive.

Even going by statistics, here's Mohammad Aamir's record

 

36

67

7619

3627

119

6/44

7/64

30.47

2.85

64.0

6

4

0

 

And here's Shane Bond's

 

 

18

32

3372

1922

87

6/51

10/99

22.09

3.41

38.7

7

5

1

 

Shane Bond has more wickets per match, a far superior average, a strike rate which is almost half that of Aamir, and one 10 wickets in a match in a short span of 18 test matches while Aamir has ZERO 10 wickets in a match in twice the number of tests as that of Bond. 

And he's better aaa, how 

 

Just because you say so??? 

[zarathustra]

10 hours ago, gothamprince said:

even patrick patterson is better than shane bond in short creer

Again, this is his record

28

53

4829

2874

93

5/24

9/88

30.90

3.57

51.9

4

5

0

 

A pretty great record I have to say, but not as good as Bond's considering that he had to play 10 test matches more to take 6 more wickets compared to that of Bond. 

At almost 5 wickets per match, if Bond had played 10 more games he would have taken anywhere from 45-50 wickets. Also Bond's strike rate(number of balls bowled to take a wicket) was 38.7 compared to 51.9 of Patrick Patterson. His strike rate(runs given per each wicket taken) was 22.09 compared to Patterson's 30.9. 

No comparison here, Bond was far far superior. 

[zarathustra]

10 hours ago, gothamprince said:

i know about richard hadlee but kapil dev , imran ian botham were better than him

No way Kapil Dev was better than Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev took some 131 matches to get to wicket 434 to break Richard Hadlee's record. 

Richard Hadlee took some 433 wickets in 86 test matches, his strike rate, average and match winning figures were far far superior to that of Kapil Dev. In fact, in his last 5 years Kapil Dev had become a liability and kept himself purely to break Hadlee's record blocking the entry and perhaps the best days of then tearaway fast Javagal Srinath. 

 

[gothamprince]

5 hours ago, zarathustra said:

No way Kapil Dev was better than Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev took some 131 matches to get to wicket 434 to break Richard Hadlee's record. 

Richard Hadlee took some 433 wickets in 86 test matches, his strike rate, average and match winning figures were far far superior to that of Kapil Dev. In fact, in his last 5 years Kapil Dev had become a liability and kept himself purely to break Hadlee's record blocking the entry and perhaps the best days of then tearaway fast Javagal Srinath. 

 

i am not saying richard hadlee is not great but kapil dev i his peak is far better it is difficult for fast bowler to take wickets in sub continent than in new zealand pitches which are suitable for fast bowling

[gothamprince]

5 hours ago, zarathustra said:

LOL this proves you don't know what you are talking about, 

From cricinfo

However, it is in Test cricket, the format supposedly perfectly designed for him to express his wizardry, that he has disappointed most profoundly. Magical spells with the new ball have been all too fleeting, and his performances in the three countries where conditions are arguably best suited to him, have been largely indifferent. With the ball, he averaged 42.41 in England in 2016, 28.83 in New Zealand that same year, and 61.60 when Australia whitewashed Pakistan at the turn of the year. The prodigious banana swing from that titillating left-arm angle - and that quite beautiful bowling action - does come, but not nearly as potently or regularly as memory suggests it did in his teenage years. In other words, Amir, in Test cricket, has flattered to deceive.

Even going by statistics, here's Mohammad Aamir's record

 

36

67

7619

3627

119

6/44

7/64

30.47

2.85

64.0

6

4

0

 

And here's Shane Bond's

 

 

18

32

3372

1922

87

6/51

10/99

22.09

3.41

38.7

7

5

1

 

Shane Bond has more wickets per match, a far superior average, a strike rate which is almost half that of Aamir, and one 10 wickets in a match in a short span of 18 test matches while Aamir has ZERO 10 wickets in a match in twice the number of tests as that of Bond. 

And he's better aaa, how 

 

Just because you say so??? 

hatsoff to your cricket knowledge ba but i think aamir issuperior talent terrific swing bowler i lik shane bond too

[zarathustra]

3 minutes ago, gothamprince said:

i am not saying richard hadlee is not great but kapil dev i his peak is far better it is difficult for fast bowler to take wickets in sub continent than in new zealand pitches which are suitable for fast bowling

Yeah that's true as well. 

[zarathustra]

Just now, gothamprince said:

hatsoff to your cricket knowledge ba but i think aamir issuperior talent terrific swing bowler i lik shane bond too

So Aamir might be better at swing however if you consider overall talent Bond is a superior strike bowler. 

Bond is one of those bowlers whom you would love to give the ball to as a captain to get the opposition's best batsman. It's a pity he lasted so little