Exsactly he doesnt deserve to be up there he is a drug user to enhance his preformance what you have now got too ask how many of those pecial preformances were drug enhanced??? and also i think now inzis retiered they will be looking for a complete new intake of players with umar gul the spear head for the attack and malick the rock in the middle

__________________
Finally England have risen from the ashes.

I agree. I had a chat with Ernest about that.

A couple of quick points. I think its a bit strange that people should think Akhtar shouldn't be on the list because of the drug issue and some doubt cast over his past performances. I should just point out that as the question is whos the best now Warne's packed up, that we should remember Warne himself is a convicted drug cheat. Quagmire states that Akhtar took steroids to recover from injury; Warne was found guilty of taking a masking agent whilst he was recovering from surgery. Surely if the benchmark for the poll is a drug cheat other offenders should be up for consideration?

To answer the question Murali is by far the best bowler in the world in all conditions. There will always be an asterix against his record for some and his action does tend to polarise cricket fans the world over. What can't be disputed is his record which is why he gets my vote.

They weren't performance enhancing as far as i am aware. Just as mentioned above, merely a help to recovery i think.

Moving on, if we are to be talking about the pakistan attack without Shoaib then in my opinion Mohammad Asif is as bright as the future gets in terms of fast bowling; indeed a very bright future i might add too. Don't get me wrong, Gul is very highly promising but it is in Asif that Pakistan's bowling future is most fruitful, i believe.


I was just thinking that presumming Akhtar does bowl in test matches again the Pakistani attack looks ruthless!


Kaneria
Ahktar
Gul
Asif

Who would not fear that?

Interesting points discussed here. Nearly my thoughts exactly.

No Warne was caught using a banned diuretic, and he got banned for a year where Ahktar was caught using steriods its a little bit more serious but for some ridiclous reason he is still allowed to play. Why? He should had a life ban.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Sorry quaggy. I know warne is a brilliant cricketer but lets get this right. The dieretic is a banned masking agent. If you need an expert impartial view google Dick Pound's( a Canadian and head of the world anti doping agency) views on this.

Warne was banned for only a year because he didn't appeal as this would have resulted in a longer ban because the evidence was so conclusive. The fact he only got a year still remains an absolute traversty and to suggest the pakistani quick and the aussie hero should receive different sentences for the same offence is hypocracy of the highest order.

I repeat warne is undoubtedly one of the finest players the game has known but please do not defend the indefensible.

Im not saying what Warne did was not wrong and did not deserve what happened to him, but I do not know how Ahktar got off with steriods which is probably the worst thing you could get caught for if your the fastest bowler in the world. Looks a little sus to me

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

There is IMO a matter of degree here, Warne took diuretics - which are not performance enhancing, while Ahktar took steroids - which do effect performance in a positive way.

So while both did take drugs, taking steroids is more likely to have given Ahktar an advantage over the opposition, while taking diuretics is nor breaking the rules to the same degree.

Even though both are murder - you would not give the same degree of punishment to person who commited a crime of passion, to a person who had premedicated the same crime.

__________________
Ern

Why did Warne take diuretics?