Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Richard]

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

There's not a lot wrong with me saying what I've said about various bowlers either, and I've shown why. It's supposed to get boring, as it does you saying this-and-that which I've said is "embarrasing". Absolutely ridiculous.

It's far more substantiated to rate Ian Bishop as one of the best bowlers ever than to say scientific testing is "poppycock" and anyone who says that has no right to call what others say "embarrasing".

 

[Ikki]

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".

Yeah, it was this thread: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28612&page=8&highlight=waqar

And no, you weren't saying anything to that point at all. You were skewering stats and arguing with them. And it wasn't just me who called you on it. So much for Aussie bias.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, it was this thread: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28612&page=8&highlight=waqar

And no, you weren't saying anything to that point at all. You were skewering stats and arguing with them. And it wasn't just me who called you on it. So much for Aussie bias.

Oooh, Sanz "called me out" on it, big wow. There aren't many on CW who take him seriously, I'm afraid, banking on his support in no way disproves any bias.

And I wasn't skewing anything, I was showing a very clear pattern, which you do not recognise because it clashes with the opinion you've already formed.

 

[Fiery]

There aren't many on CW who take him seriously

 

[subshakerz]

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?

You misunderstand. I am suggesting that Warne benefits due to pressure created by McGrath having already made inroads into the opposition and keeping the scoring down.

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?

Didn't McGrath do that, stem the tide, in the Lord's test by ripping through England? His absence resulted in a series loss, showing how he's very much the main man in the Aussie bowling. Without him, Australia couldnt win, despite Warne's best efforts.

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.

Yes, injuries. Still, you would think that someone purported to be the 'greatest bowler ever' would have at least produced one match-winning or great performance in 14 tests against the best batting lineup he faced and best players of spin. At least one. Is that too much too ask for the supposed number one spinner? Instead, he just has a big hole in his resume.

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

Did I mention their averages? Lara and Tendulkar were the best of modern day batsmen (fact). McGrath had a noticable edge over both of them (fact). Warne was more than often a clear second-best against both of them (fact). You dont think McGrath should get credit for that?

You seem to have a pretty loose definition of 'greatest bowler ever'. For me, I think anyone claiming that should have a proven impressive record against all countries, in all countries and against all top batsmen throughout their career. Someone who conquered and dominated every challenge put before him and with no major discrepancy to speak of. Sounds more like McGrath or Marshall than Warne.

 

[Richard]

You can laugh all you want, unlike Lillian Thomson (and, dare say, yourself) I've actually spoken to people - lots of them - and know who thinks what of who, including myself and Sanz.

 

[Fiery]

You can laugh all you want, unlike Lillian Thomson (and, dare say, yourself) I've actually spoken to people - lots of them - and know who thinks what of who, including myself and Sanz.

I don't see many of these people leaping to your support

 

[Days of Grace]

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.

Mate, that doesn't cut it, because you have to make the list based on what you think, not so some people can gain on the table. Do it again please.

That's why I was afraid to post an updated top 20, because it may influence people's lists.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, fella, not doing it any differently. As I said - there's no way I find you can split those last 7 I gave, so that way I did it was as good as any.

Unless you fancy giving 3 points to all.

 

[Richard]

I don't see many of these people leaping to your support

Not on the forum, perhaps (though that's not unheard-of either) but believe it or not the forum isn't the only place I talk to people. It's the only one you see, though, obviously.

 

[Fiery]

Not on the forum, perhaps (though that's not unheard-of either) but believe it or not the forum isn't the only place I talk to people. It's the only one you see, though, obviously.

Surprised you have time to do anything else tbh considering you live and breathe on the forum

 

[Richard]

I don't, though. I've plenty and plenty of time to do anything else I fancy doing, including MSN.

 

[Fiery]

I don't, though. I've plenty and plenty of time to do anything else I fancy doing, including MSN.

right

 

[pasag]

Cut the crap people.

Anyways, my arbitrary list because I decided on a number one:

Barnes
Warne
Murali
Lillee
Marshall
Hadlee
Ambrose
Larwood
O'Reilly
Lindwall

Sure to raise a few eyebrows with the order and no McGrath and no Imran. Four Australians is probably too many, but there you go. Larwood makes it because even though he didn't have the career to match the others, he had the series and for those few moments he was perhaps the greatest bowler of all time. I'd like to make room for Imran there somewhere tbh and really I'd have Warne=Murali, but since the thread starter doesn't allow that, I've put Warne a fraction ahead on personal preference. Wasim, Trueman and Donald were also really tough to leave out. This is way too hard, tbh.

 

[Fiery]

Problem solved (well for me anyway). I've put Richard on ignore.

 

[SJS]

• Barnes
• Grimmett
• Hadlee
• Lillee
• Lindwall
• Marshall
• Muralitharan
• O'Rielly
• Spofforth
• Warne

In alphabetical order

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Problem solved (well for me anyway). I've put Richard on ignore.

The ignore feature is just forum testing poppycock, you know

Oh - and by the way. I still think Peter Such was a significantly better bowler than Ashley Giles, but as you've professed before Sir Richard that you don't concede a point ever, I cannot be bothered arguing wit ya. Life's too short.

 

[Richard]

I doubt I've persuaded that many to concede points either TBH, but I cannot see how Such was a better bowler than Giles at either domestic or international level. A natural, where Giles wasn't - that's all Such has over him.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I doubt I've persuaded that many to concede points either TBH, but I cannot see how Such was a better bowler than Giles at either domestic or international level. A natural, where Giles wasn't - that's all Such has over him.

Your argument that Giles is a better bowler is based solely on GIles having some 'winning' performances in him. The fact of the matter is that Such only played against Aus and NZ and bowled very well in the opportunities afforded him. If he'd been a vaguely decent batsman and fielder, he'd have played many more games - consigning GIles to the wheelie bin of history (apologies for that).

 

[Fiery]

A slightly better bowler than Ashley Giles

Oh - and by the way. I still think Peter Such was a significantly better bowler than Ashley Giles, but as you've professed before Sir Richard that you don't concede a point ever, I cannot be bothered arguing wit ya. Life's too short.

You agreed with me