Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[river end]

For players before WW2 I'd say 22-25 tests and 100 wickets is fair enough to qualify for a greatest bowlers list.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That's true. If you study Saunder's career, had he played against South Africa as often as Barnes, he would have had an identical record.

 

[Richard]

Richard... Alan Igglesden was a better fast bowler than Allan Donald. Discuss.

No

'Tis all the discussion needed TBH.

 

[river end]

Here's some interesting set of stats from a current article. I'm not putting this up to support arguments, certainly not by itself anyway.

Best matchwinners in Tests (at least 200 wickets in wins)

Bowler---------------------------- Tests---Wickets---Average---Strike rate---5WI/ 10WM
Muttiah Muralitharan-----------45------- 373---------15.19--------- 41.4--------- 36/ 16
Malcolm Marshall-------------- 43------- 254---------16.78--------- 38.1--------- 17/ 4
Curtly Ambrose----------------- 44------- 229---------16.86--------- 44.4--------- 13/ 3
Waqar Younis------------------- 39------- 222---------18.20--------- 35.0--------- 14/ 4
Dennis Lillee--------------------- 31------- 203---------18.27--------- 39.0--------- 17/ 6
Shaun Pollock------------------ 48---------218---------18.33---------47.8--------- 9/ 1
Anil Kumble---------------------- 41--------279---------18.41--------- 44.1--------- 20/ 5
Wasim Akram------------------- 41--------211---------18.48--------- 42.3--------- 13/ 2
Glenn McGrath----------------- 84--------414----------19.19--------- 47.7--------- 18/ 3
Courtney Walsh---------------- 52--------239----------19.72--------- 46.2--------- 10/ 2
Shane Warne------------------- 92--------510----------22.47--------- 51.2--------- 27/ 7

 

[Ikki]

I saw that. TBF, pretty disgraceful way to compile stats and name it "matchwinners".

 

[Fiery]

Those are interesting stats but why make the cut-off point 200 wickets? If you made it say 150, Sir Richard Hadlee would lead them all:

Bowler---------------------------- Tests---Wickets---Average---Strike rate---5WI/ 10WM
Richard Hadlee-------------------- 22 -------173---------13.06---------33.5---------------17/8

 

[Fiery]

I saw that. TBF, pretty disgraceful way to compile stats and name it "matchwinners".

Why disgraceful?

 

[river end]

Yeah, I thought Hadlee might have stats something like that. Impressive stuff.

Because of Murali's recent achievement they wanted to make sure he was on top of the list, is my guess.

 

[Fiery]

Yeah, I thought Hadlee might have stats something like that. Impressive stuff.

Because of Murali's recent achievement they wanted to make sure he was on top of the list, is my guess.

tbh, I haven't done any other bowlers who took between 150-200 match-winning wickets so there may be someone better... but I doubt it

 

[Ikki]

Why disgraceful?

Because the stats are heavily skewed and aren't directly contributing to match-winning performances.

You could have a bowler who gets 2 wickets a test in every win, 18 average and low SR but 2 wickets does not win you a match. Not by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, as can be clearly seen, bowlers with little wicket-taking support will lead the guard here. Also, 19 of Murali's wins, for example, also come against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Also, it doesn't take such low figures to win a match. You could take 5 wickets at 25 a piece and at a rate of 55 balls and you've got a match-winning performance there. I mean, there are a lot of things you can think of. How about 1 bowler getting fairly few wickets one match, but at a good rate and blitzing it in the next? His figures would suggest he had a match-winning performance in both innings whereas he had only 1. I think the best figure in that study is the wickets per match in that analysis, but even that is skewed towards guys like Murali and Hadlee.

It has a poor title, it should be named "best figures in tests won".

 

[Fiery]

Because the stats are heavily skewed and aren't directly contributing to match-winning performances.

You could have a bowler who gets 2 wickets a test in every win, 18 average and low SR but 2 wickets does not win you a match. Not by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, as can be clearly seen, bowlers with little wicket-taking support will lead the guard here. Also, 19 of Murali's wins, for example, also come against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Also, it doesn't take such low figures to win a match. You could take 5 wickets at 25 a piece and at a rate of 55 balls and you've got a match-winning performance there. I mean, there are a lot of things you can think of. How about 1 bowler getting fairly few wickets one match, but at a good rate and blitzing it in the next? His figures would suggest he had a match-winning performance in both innings whereas he had only 1.

It has a poor title, it should be named "best figures in tests won".

Gee,..you could be as churlish about any stats if you take that attitude

 

[Richard]

It has a poor title, it should be named "best figures in tests won".

Exactly what I thought TBH. Basically exactly what I was saying a couple of days ago about people bandying-about with the term "matchwinner" to try and give credit where it's not really due. Not that said players won't have won many matches, but the term is too often used inaccurately.

 

[JBH001]

You're blinding me with science. Crikey, if you want to over-analyse and pick holes in it then I suppose you could but why bother, they're pretty basic stats

Agreed, lol. Its the same, more or less, yardstick when we look at batsmen's performances in tests won/lost. How have they performed in these tests and so on - if they have performed exceptionally well then it stands to reason that their contribution has at least something to do with the win. In the case of bowlers these stats carry even more weight due to the well known adage that bowlers win matches - and are thus far more concretely captured in stats than are batsmen whose century may or may not set up a win (and is therefore possibly more dependant on context).

However, I agree that the nomenclature of the stats is perhaps a little ill advised. And as I said on another thread, Hadlee should be given the recognition he deserves. I mean his SR improves by about 20 or so in tests won!!!

 

[Ikki]

Gee,..you could be as churlish about any stats if you take that attitude

I think the stats would be okay if it didn't have such a bad title. It's very misleading and there is very few ways you can calculate properly who actually made a match-winning contribution without having seen the matches.

 

[Ikki]

Exactly what I thought TBH. Basically exactly what I was saying a couple of days ago about people bandying-about with the term "matchwinner" to try and give credit where it's not really due. Not that said players won't have won many matches, but the term is too often used inaccurately.

I agree, unless you use very in-depth calculations, you're not going to discover much without having seen the matches.

 

[Fiery]

I think the stats would be okay if it didn't have such a bad title. It's very misleading and there is very few ways you can calculate properly who actually made a match-winning contribution without having saw the matches.

You're just reading too much into the title and the word "matchwinning" imo. Dissociate it with Man of the Match and think of it more if "In Match's That Were Won", if you like, and there's no problem

 

[Ikki]

Excluding Hadlee and Murali, for their lone ranger efforts, Lillee stacks up very very well. Out of the list, he has great figures in wickets per match, 5wi/10wi per match as well.

 

[Fiery]

These latest stats prove beyond doubt, once and for all, that Sir Richard Hadlee is/was the greatest bowler of all time

 

[JBH001]

Nice graph, Kaz. Take you long?

I thought the same thing re: Lillee when looking at the original compilation from the cricinfo people. Namely Lillee's superlative SR and wkts/test in tests Australia won (as are the 5fer and 10 fer stats). But really, Hadlee reigns supreme. And his overall figures are a good indication of how crucial his performances were to New Zealand's chances of victory (especially when you compare them to his career stats).

 

[Ikki]

These latest stats prove beyond doubt, once and for all, that Sir Richard Hadlee is/was the greatest bowler of all time

Notice the colour scheme?

Nice graph, Kaz. Take you long?

I thought the same thing re: Lillee when looking at the original compilation from the cricinfo people. Namely Lillee's superlative SR and wkts/test in tests Australia won (as are the 5fer and 10 fer stats). But really, Hadlee reigns supreme. And his overall figures are a good indication of how crucial his performances were to New Zealand's chances of victory (especially when you compare them to his career stats).

No mate, thank the lord for Excel.