• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

shortpitched713

International Captain
Trueman and Wasim Akram for starters. Hadlee and Imran I can stomach easily, Ambrose and McGrath I can begrudgingly accept. Lillee disappoints me, naturally.
I'd have Donald over Trueman and Akram, just. However, Lillee comes comfortably ahead of him I think.
 

funnygirl

State Regular
Trueman and Wasim Akram for starters. Hadlee and Imran I can stomach easily, Ambrose and McGrath I can begrudgingly accept. Lillee disappoints me, naturally.

Only bowlers I'd place unequivocally ahead of Donald would, as I said, be Marshall and the ubiquitous, almost unplaceable Barnes. But I simply cannot fathom how anyone would seriously put two, never mind three, spinners ahead of Donald. Can only hope, as I said, that the passage of time might lend truer perspective. Can't help but feel that pure weight of wickets has made too much of an impact.

Reckon those who truly admire Ray Lindwall might be pretty sour at some of the names above him too.
Opinion differs from person to person .If u think Donald is top 3 pacer of all time ,ur opinion .I respect that .Then u say Wasim is an inferior bowler to Donald ,i won't agree .My opinion . Thats all .If u ask Lara ,he won't agree as well .Also Aussies ,so basically it is all one's perception .Atherton might agree with u .His opinion .
 
Last edited:

Days of Grace

International Captain
I would be apprehensive about rating Barnes as the 'Bradman' of bowling as some people on this forum do.

T.b.f. he did have one or two series against a hapless South African side on uncovered wickets that boosted his figures A LOT.

Still, he is very worthy of a top ten spot and it is a shame no one good footage of him bowling.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Trueman and Wasim Akram for starters. Hadlee and Imran I can stomach easily, Ambrose and McGrath I can begrudgingly accept. Lillee disappoints me, naturally.

Only bowlers I'd place unequivocally ahead of Donald would, as I said, be Marshall and the ubiquitous, almost unplaceable Barnes. But I simply cannot fathom how anyone would seriously put two, never mind three, spinners ahead of Donald. Can only hope, as I said, that the passage of time might lend truer perspective. Can't help but feel that pure weight of wickets has made too much of an impact.

Reckon those who truly admire Ray Lindwall might be pretty sour at some of the names above him too.
The best side in the world for most of Donald's carer was Australia and he averaged 31 against tem - not bad, but hardly indicative of a top 3 or 4 bowler imo.

Fine bowler though - saw him bowl anunbelieveable spell against Australia at the MCG in 1993-94 when the bowled ferociously quick and moved the ball every which way. Was also very good to watch.
 

Matteh

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Lower than Murali against Aus though. Based on that Donald has a claim to be in the top 7.
 

ChipSomeSixes

Cricket Spectator
shane warne
pidge
marlon black
murray bennett
hilfy
douggie hondo
mark taylor & boonie in tandem
wasim akram
richies mcflippers
the demon
 

soulfulofunk

Cricket Spectator
Best Bowlers

1. Dennis Lillee
2. Curtley Ambrose
3. Shane Warne
4. Imran Khan
5. Richard Hadlee
6. Malcom Marshall
7. Wasim Akram
8. Glenn McGrath
9. Sidney Barnes
10. Allan Donald
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
1. Dennis Lillee
2. Curtley Ambrose
3. Shane Warne
4. Imran Khan
5. Richard Hadlee
6. Malcom Marshall
7. Wasim Akram
8. Glenn McGrath
9. Sidney Barnes
10. Allan Donald
Thats an interesting list. Nine of the worlds top 16 aggregate wicket takers, all from 1970 onwards PLUS the old master SF Barnes, from 100 years ago.

No good bowlers in the intermediate peiod?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The best side in the world for most of Donald's carer was Australia and he averaged 31 against tem - not bad, but hardly indicative of a top 3 or 4 bowler imo.

Fine bowler though - saw him bowl anunbelieveable spell against Australia at the MCG in 1993-94 when the bowled ferociously quick and moved the ball every which way. Was also very good to watch.
Complete misreprisentation (not on your part - is a very common one).

For one thing, Australia weren't the best team in The World the first time he faced them, West Indies were; he faced them in 1993\94 and then again in 1996\97\98, half-and-half. Nor were they ever the best batting side, India pretty well invariably were, and he went brilliantly against them.

For two, a more accurate average for Donald against Australia is 27, I fail to see how anyone can possibly attach any meaning whatsoever to those last 3 games when he was clearly nothing of the bowler he once had been.

Donald's average of 27 against Australia is less good than it is against other sides, and equally McGrath's is less good against South Africa than others. There's holes of some sort in the records of most bowlers. Donald did enough for mine to be counted as top-five material.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd have Donald over Trueman and Akram, just. However, Lillee comes comfortably ahead of him I think.
I don't. Donald did everything Lillee did and more. Really frustrating the way the Lillee legend allows him to be looked at as ahead of Donald almost as a matter of course.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Probably but he can only be judged on what he did factoring how many times he played.
I think he can TBH, same as George Headley can be. People will play less if there are less Tests being played. 27 Tests in the modern context isn't many; in the 1900s it's plenty and plenty.
 

Top