Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[BhupinderSingh]

Imran had a better home record against the best side, Check out Akram's record in Australia and Imran's record in WI, you will know who performed better in away conditions.

Imran didn't play against minnows ? So who were Srilanka in the 80s ? Take out his performances against SL and his average goes up to 24 with a strike rate of 55.9, Take Akram's performance against Zim/BD out and Akram's avg. is 24.03 with strike rate of 55.4

Did Imran play against SA one of the best sides of Akram's era ?

Imran was more likely to run through batting lineup than Akram - And you make that assumption because of some 7/8fers Imran took? Akram played with guys like Waqar, Shoaib, Saqi etc and rarely had the chance to take 7 wickets in an innings.

For more than half of Wasim's test career(when he was at his best),West Indies were the best side in the world.Imran averages 25.12 while Wasim averages 26.88 in West Indies.

And was it Imran's fault that ICC didn't allow SA to play cricket for whole of his career?Since their return to cricket,South Africa has been nowhere near as good as West Indies 1976-1993 & Australia 1998-present in the batting department.So,even if South Africa were there to play tests from 1977-1992,Imran would've done well against them especially in South Africa given the bowling friendly conditions there.

Imran also had a much longer & more destructive peak period than Wasim,in fact better than any modern day bowler(Only Barnes & Lohmann have better peak than Imran).Personally,I think no Pakistani bowler comes close to Imran Khan.Wasim makes my alltime XIs & lists because he gets the advantage of being a left armer,otherwise he was nowhere near being as good as Imran Khan.


Sri Lanka have never been a sub-standard Test side,Richard has already explained it in a perfect manner in his posts in this thread.

 

[subshakerz]

What? No.

McGrath is an all-time great and for many times he swayed the match in our favour before it could get out of hand, but he didn't rescue innings like Warne did. If we weren't taking wickets when we were under the pump, Warne showed up usually.

The very fact that McGrath was there meant Australia were rarely in trouble during their dominance. The truth is Warne benefitted more from the pressure created by McGrath, not the other way around, and also took a higher proportion of lower order wickets. In fact, you can try every concievable analysis of their records, and McGrath will always come on top. That's says something to me.

And that's your reasoning? Poor argument. Warne had an all-time series performance against England in that series. Some say the best ever. Tied for the most wickets in a series ever. And because Australia didn't win, Warne didn't make a difference?

You might have forgetten that first morning at Edgbaston in 2005. Australia had just steamrolled England in the previous test, and were expected to do the same. Suddenly the news came that McGrath was injured. What happened? England ran riot and scored over 400 runs on the first day. That's no coincidence. That's how much McGrath meant to Australia.

I dont want to demean Warne's excellent performance in that series, but face facts. Bowlers are meant to win matches and Warne didnt win a single one in the series.

In 1997 against India, with the pace bowlers injured, Warne was expected to step up and lead the attack. Instead, he was butchered throughout the series.

The clincher for me is to see how the two compare against the best batsmen of the era, Lara and Tendulkar. Warne was more or less second-best in his contests against them, whereas McGrath had a noticeable edge over both batsmen. Unlike Warne, nobody can claim to have the advantage over McGrath throughout his career.

 

[Slifer]

Marshall/McGrath
Hadlee
Imran
Murali
Ambrose
Warne
Trueman
Donald
Akram

 

[Days of Grace]

Marshall/McGrath
Hadlee
Imran
Murali
Ambrose
Warne
Trueman
Donald
Akram

Please tell me who to give ten points to: Marshall or McGrath?

No ties please.

 

[Days of Grace]

Not a great fan as all know, and am only prepared to pick from the 20th century and not the 19th, but anyway...

1, SF Barnes - the ultimate bowler. Never, I doubt, has anyone offered such threat while being so difficult to score from. Wristspin at speed no-one has likely ever bowled it aside from him.

2, Malcolm Marshall - the ultimate seam-bowler, as close as anyone comes to perfection in that art. Had everything.

Really, though, exactly like the batsmen, after Barnes and Marshall you can have them in any order and it's a bit silly to try and split four to ten. So please count all these as equal - listed in alphabetical order.

Curtley Ambrose - limited mostly to the leg-cutter and movement off the seam - but what does that matter when you can bang the ball down on a perfect line and back of a length from well over 7ft (foot-to-shoulder to and arm-length) as regularly as anyone has ever done.

Allan Donald - again, the complete seam-bowler pretty much, probably even more than Marshall because he bowled reverse-swing which virtually no-one had heard of in Marshall's day. Never gets the credit he deserves as far as I'm concerned, mostly due to 3 worthless Tests at the end of his career. Also did perhaps best of all against the best batting side of his time, which is very unusual.

Alan Davidson - another who never gets the credit he deserves. A quiet achiever, but an astonishingly effective one.

Sir RJ Hadlee - very possibly the second-best seam-bowler ever. Had everything also, just did it slightly less well than Marshall. And didn't have the nastiness which Marshall occasionally dabbled in.

Imran Khan - possibly the greatest swing-bowler of them all, when conventional and reverse is combined. Conquered more dead Pakistan wickets than probably anyone, and not just through swing either.

Ray Lindwall - Australia's greatest seam-bowler for mine, and Fred Trueman thought so too.

Glenn McGrath - basically read Curtley Ambrose.

Muttiah Muralitharan - a nod to spin, the most extraordinary bowler ever beyond doubt, more even than Barnes, and a superlative one. Could have been Warne too, or any of several other bowlers.

To cut things down to 10 is not really possible to do with any decency.

Can you please rate 3-8. Otherwise, I can't count your list.

 

[Days of Grace]

1 Marshall 143
2 Hadlee 94
3 Barnes 87
4 Warne 82
5 McGrath 79
6 Lillee 79
7 Ambrose 66
8 Muralitharan 62
9 Imran Khan 56
10 Wasim Akram 41
11 O'Reilly 23
12 Trueman 23
13 Lindwall 18
14 Donald 12
15 Waqar Younis 10
16 Garner 9
17 Walsh 8
18 Holding 7
19 Lohmann 7
20 Thomson 7

Marshall with a relatively huge lead over the rest of the pack. Lillee and McGrath tied. Only 3 spinners in the top 20. Again, like the top 10 test batsmen list, this list looks okay.

 

[pasag]

Doesn't look too bad at all, but the discrepancy between Warne and Murali is too high for my liking.

 

[Ikki]

The very fact that McGrath was there meant Australia were rarely in trouble during their dominance. The truth is Warne benefitted more from the pressure created by McGrath, not the other way around, and also took a higher proportion of lower order wickets. In fact, you can try every concievable analysis of their records, and McGrath will always come on top. That's says something to me.

McGrath means a lot to Australia. But how did that benefit Warne? How does Warne benefit when his support is not there and it is to Murali's detriment when he has none't?

Every conceivable analysis? Rubbish argument. We've already gone through this, maybe you should read some older threads.

You might have forgetten that first morning at Edgbaston in 2005. Australia had just steamrolled England in the previous test, and were expected to do the same. Suddenly the news came that McGrath was injured. What happened? England ran riot and scored over 400 runs on the first day. That's no coincidence. That's how much McGrath meant to Australia.

And? McGrath one-handed would stem that tide? Warne had one of if not the greatest performance of all-time in that series. Something McGrath cannot touch. How could this be demeaned simply because McGrath wasn't there?

I dont want to demean Warne's excellent performance in that series, but face facts. Bowlers are meant to win matches and Warne didnt win a single one in the series.

The fact is that no single player can win any match by himself. But in that, the series was being kept alive mainly due to Warne's efforts - which says it all. BTW, you can't demean Warne's effort, even if you tried.

In 1997 against India, with the pace bowlers injured, Warne was expected to step up and lead the attack. Instead, he was butchered throughout the series.

Might have had something to do with being injured. In that period Warne does not only perform poorly against India (actually, India is not as bad as some other series) he does poorly against England right after (avg. 55; SR 117), WI (avg. 134; SR 251), plays India in 2 more series (avg, 41, 50; SR, 95, 91) and a very poor series vs. NZ (avg. 76; SR 124). In this period in Warne's career he had to, as he has said himself, learn to bowl all over again due to his shoulder and finger injury.

The clincher for me is to see how the two compare against the best batsmen of the era, Lara and Tendulkar. Warne was more or less second-best in his contests against them, whereas McGrath had a noticeable edge over both batsmen. Unlike Warne, nobody can claim to have the advantage over McGrath throughout his career.

Oh, what an undeniable clincher! It's not because of McGrath that both Lara and Tendulkar average 50+, only because Warne was poor.

 

[subshakerz]

My list:

1. Marshall
2. Lillee
3. Hadlee
4. McGrath
5. Murali
6. Warne
7. Imran
8. Ambrose
9. Wasim
10. Donald

 

[Richard]

In that period Warne does not only perform poorly against India (actually, India is not as bad as some other series) he does poorly against England right after (avg. 55; SR 117), WI (avg. 134; SR 251), plays India in 2 more series (avg, 41, 50; SR, 95, 91) and a very poor series vs. NZ (avg. 76; SR 124).

Cannot believe you have the nerve to decry what I say about Waqar if you genuinely believe this (which I do too BTW).

 

[Richard]

Can you please rate 3-8. Otherwise, I can't count your list.

Oh, OK, for the sakes of things to try and even-up as many discrepancies as I can find on the the-tally-so-far...
3, Donald
4, Hadlee
5, Imran Khan
6, Lindwall
7, Ambrose
8, McGrath
9, Davidson
10, Muralitharan

 

[Fiery]

Oh, OK, for the sakes of things to try and even-up as many discrepancies as I can find on the the-tally-so-far...
3, Donald
4, Hadlee
5, Imran Khan
6, Lindwall
7, Ambrose
8, McGrath
9, Davidson
10, Muralitharan

Alan Donald > Hadlee...you're having a laugh

 

[Richard]

It's not outrageous, for my money Hadlee's probably done a bit more but it's not by that much. As I said, it's more to try and do as much as I can to correct some bad discrepancies. Was tempted to put Murali at four to bump him up a bit.

 

[Fiery]

It's not outrageous, for my money Hadlee's probably done a bit more but it's not by that much. As I said, it's more to try and do as much as I can to correct some bad discrepancies. Was tempted to put Murali at four to bump him up a bit.

Not long ago you told me Ian Bishop > Murali and Warne. You talk so much rubbish you forget what you've said and your opinions get all muddled. It's embarassing

 

[Ikki]

Cannot believe you have the nerve to decry what I say about Waqar if you genuinely believe this (which I do too BTW).

What did you say about Waqar; refresh my memory? You seem to stop-start when you feel like it. I've only made a mention where there obviously should be one. Warne has a series here and there in that time where he looks good, but he is largely poor and against most everybody. Whereas usually when you are mentioning something like this, it's a trough, or a few at the most, in the middle of plenty of good performances.

 

[Richard]

Not long ago you told me Ian Bishop > Murali and Warne. You talk so much rubbish you forget what you've said and your opinions get all muddled. It's embarassing

Not as embarrassing as "scientific testing poppycock". As I said, I know exactly what I'm doing, and it's more to do with awarding points to who most needs them than trying to put a number on something that is extremely difficult to put a number on.

 

[Richard]

What did you say about Waqar; refresh my memory? You seem to stop-start when you feel like it. I've only made a mention where there obviously should be one. Warne has a series here and there in that time where he looks good, but he is largely poor and against most everybody. Whereas usually when you are mentioning something like this, it's a trough, or a few at the most, in the middle of plenty of good performances.

No, I said exactly what you did: Warne was not poor exclusively against India at the time - ergo, he can't be said to be being bettered by one set of batsmen, more simply not bowling as well as he usually did. Exactly what I said about Waqar, which you refused to accept, because as far as you're concerned it was Waqar being bettered by a set of Australian batsmen.

Couldn't possibly be because Warne's an Aussie and Waqar's not?

 

[Ikki]

No, I said exactly what you did: Warne was not poor exclusively against India at the time - ergo, he can't be said to be being bettered by one set of batsmen, more simply not bowling as well as he usually did. Exactly what I said about Waqar, which you refused to accept, because as far as you're concerned it was Waqar being bettered by a set of Australian batsmen.

Couldn't possibly be because Warne's an Aussie and Waqar's not?

If you could point me to the thread I'd give you a proper answer. And, I'm not sure you were saying the above at all. And if you were, usually your 'stats/facts' are very selective.

 

[Fiery]

Not as embarrassing as "scientific testing poppycock"

God, that's the 4th or 5th time you've said that in 2 days, which in itself is embarassing that you can't come up with something else...and to be honest there's not a lot wrong with me saying that because that's what I think of the chucking testing and law changes. Get some more material please mate...it's getting boring

 

[Richard]

If you could point me to the thread I'd give you a proper answer. And, I'm not sure you were saying the above at all. And if you were, usually your 'stats/facts' are very selective.

I'm certain I was saying exactly the above, because it was me who was saying it and I remember it very well.

Stats are by nature selective - it's possible, as I've always said, to show the "Warne was collared by India" to be far less of a set-in-stone case than it's oft assumed to be, more a case of "Warne often wasn't bowling very well when he happened to come-up against India". Likewise, the "Waqar couldn't bowl at Australia" is nonsense, it's simply "Waqar wasn't bowling that well when he happened to come-up against Australia".