Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[river end]

Yeah, but for how many South Africans do you would think "1999 World Cup semi-final run out" as their first thought when they hear the name "Allan Donald"?
Or any other country other than Australia?

You'd probably be hard pressed to find one.

That game just happened to be against Australia too.
And that run-out was is the first thing that comes to your mind when remembering Allan Donald? And he wasn't even a batsman? And to top it off, it was Kluesner's fault?

I'm not suggesting people are openly bias towards their own players, it's often more a subconscious thing, reinforced by the media over time - and it's usually hard for most people to make an objective comparison because we see a lot more of our own players than the opposition.

I'm assuming you're Australian of course. If not, I take it all back.

For example,
If Ian Chappell did his list there's a high chance Lillee would be in his top 3.
If Arjuna Ranatunga did his, probably Murali top 3
If Mark Taylor did his, probably Warne top 3
Jeremy Coney, probably Hadlee top 3 etc.......

What I would do to make a more accurate combined list is for everyone to do their own list then take out the players from their own country for an updated list, then combine all the lists (whatever formula you would do for that).

 

[Engle]

The biggest difference between the two is that Lillee was widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent fast bowler of his time and commanded fear and respect in the hearts of batsmen.
Donald didn't.

Besides, the one thing I hold against Donald is his short-pitched ball to a batsman from the UAE in an ODI that struck him on his unprotected head.
Lillee as aggressive and intimidating a character as he was, I doubt would stoop so low

 

[Richard]

The biggest difference between the two is that Lillee was widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent fast bowler of his time and commanded fear and respect in the hearts of batsmen.
Donald didn't.

What? Donald did not command fear and respect in the hearts of batsmen? Sorry, that's nothing short of plain madness.

Donald has a very strong claim to being the pre-eminent bowler of his era - being a better bowler than Ambrose, McGrath and Wasim Akram. Lillee has an unequivocable claim on being the pre-eminent bowler of his era - being better than the likes of Vanburn Holder, John Snow, Chris Old and Asif Masood.

WoW, that's such a phenominal feat.

Besides, the one thing I hold against Donald is his short-pitched ball to a batsman from the UAE in an ODI that struck him on his unprotected head.
Lillee as aggressive and intimidating a character as he was, I doubt would stoop so low

WTF? Donald is acknowledged, pretty well universally, as far more of a gentleman than Lillee ever was. Lillee rarely bowled at batsmen with helmets, all career - you think he never bowled any short-pitched deliveries? That's a ridiculous argument.

 

[Matteh]

The biggest difference between the two is that Lillee was widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent fast bowler of his time and commanded fear and respect in the hearts of batsmen.
Donald didn't.

Given that Donald was one of the most hostile and aggressive bowlers of his time this statement is baffling.

 

[Richard]

Richard,

I understand you are basing your opinion on what you've seen and that's fine. But you cannot ignore a player's record in certain places/ agaisnt certain teams when the same argument gets used to down play another player. We've had entire threads on why Lillee < Marshall because, inter alia, of 4 tests on the subcontinent where he has a poor record.

If that's acceptable in measuring people, why shouldn't Donald's record vs Australia be taken into account?

Of course it should, and of course it'd have been nice if Donald had an average of 19 against Australia. If he did, I'd probably rank him alongside Marshall. What I was trying to say is that it makes no sense to say Lillee was unequivocally greater, because of Donald's less-than-brilliant record against Australia, when Lillee has even more holes.

Lillee was successful in 3 countries. Donald did so much more. And he, like Lillee, had the complete armoury of a seam-bowler - it's possible to argue that he had an even better one, as Donald could bowl a briliant Yorker, Lillee did not, and Donald was a high-calibre reverse-swing merchant. The latter is not entirely fair, any more than it is to say Jack Hobbs did not succeed in West Indies, because never played there, and likewise no-one other than Sarfraz Nawaz and Imran Khan were known to bowl reverse-swing during Lillee's career. So I don't tend to dwell overtly on that.

I'm not saying Donald is the greatest seam-bowler who ever lived. He cannot make this grade because of his no-more-than-decent average of 27 against Australia. Equally, all I've ever said about Lillee is that he too cannot be the greatest seam-bowler who ever lived, because of the fact he did not have success in the subcontinent (or West Indies). I've no truck at all with anyone putting Lillee at four or five in a list of greatest-seam-bowlers. But one - no. And the same applies to Donald. There's no inconsistency there.

 

[The Sean]

Lillee has an unequivocable claim on being the pre-eminent bowler of his era - being better than the likes of Vanburn Holder, John Snow, Chris Old and Asif Masood.

WoW, that's such a phenominal feat.

Indeed. As well as hacks like Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Thommo, Kapil, Willis, Botham, Sarfraz and even - many would argue - Hadlee and Imran.

And FWIW, John Snow was a great bowler.

 

[Richard]

What about this for a theory (off the top of my head):

a lot of the Test teams Lillee played against in the 70s and 80s were stronger than a lot of the sides Donald played against in the 90s an 00s (remembering the last 7 years are supposedly the worst ever for test cricket or something, aren't they?)

Seems to me England were better in the 70s and early 80s than they were in the 90s and the 00s; WI were infinitely stronger; Pakistan were pretty competitive (the side they sent out here in 76-77 was none too shabby) - probably on a par in terms of batting line ups with the ones Donald bowled to if not better; India would probably have been better in the 90s, but the 70s-80s India with Vengsakar, Gavaskar and Viswanath was pretty damn good too and it would be a toss up. Would agree NZ not that great in the 70s compared with 90s.

Some of the names DK bowled to - Lloyd, Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kalicharan, Richardson, Rowe, Dujon, Gavaskar, Vishy, Vengsakar, Zaheer Abbas, Javed Miandad, Majid Khan, Imran Khan, Gower, Botham, Boycott, Knott - they're storied cricketers in the annals of the game. It was a great era, and his being a dominant figure in an era of so many household names in cricket history may be a reason why people look on him as a better bowler.

The dominant side in Lillee's era (apart form Australia in the mid-70s, which he had a lot to do with) was the Windies, against whom he averaged 27 ish, and that includes the 1972 series where he played one test, didn't take a wicket for 132 and broke down with stress fractures. Take out that one test, and he averaged 25 against one of the great batting line ups of all time.

Donald's average vs Australia, the dominant side in his era, is 31, so not a huge difference between the two of them - 4 runs per wicket overall, 6 if you take out the errant test of Lillee's in 1972. It's not like Donald averaged 60 or something against Australia and that's a point of difference.

One thing I wonder about is if Lillee's deeds getting Australia home or setting up an Aussie win have a lot to do with his perception compared with that of Donald. When I think of the two, they both had wonderful actions, both bowled at high speed, both made the ball talk.

But when I think of Lillee, I always think of moments like the Centenary Test at Melbourne (6 for 26 defending 120 odd then 5-139 in the 2nd dig to win the game for us); 74-75 and 75-76 with Thommo; that spell at the end of day 1 in Melbourne when he bowled Viv off the last ball then came back next day and finished with 7 for; his spell in Perth v the World XI; the look of fear in the eyes of even very good players when they faced him and his dander was up with the crowd behind him; his partnership with Thommo in the 75 WC final; his duels with Javed (not the idiotic kicking incident, but actually with the ball); 5 for on debut v England; 5 for 15 off 15 v England at Birmingham in 1975; 31 wickets in 1972 Ashes, then 39 in the 1981 Ashes (in a well beaten team); beating Botham 5 balls in a row then walking down the pitch aftert he last time and saying "Look Beefy, just hang the bat there and let me try and hit the bloody thing will you?"; and his bowling long spells in even the hardest conditions.

Now I'm not saying that Donald did not or could not produce things like that, because he was a truly great bowler as well, but those are the things I'll always take with me when I think of Lillee.

Sadly, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of AD is that tragic run out in the WC semi of 99, and that's not fair. But it's what springs to mind, and I wonder whether the juxtaposition of their team's achievements and their personas may have combined to some extent to have Lillee shade AD in a lot of peoples' minds when there may not be that much between them, if anything.

So I don't think you could say Donald lacked heart and Lillee puffed out his chest and that was the difference. If puffing out your chest and being macho was the key to it, Andre Nel would be the greatest bowler of all time. No one should denigrate either of these great bowlers by making such a trite observation as that. They both had their own personas, and both were wonderfully effective bowlers.

It's not always a question of raw analysis of figures which you point to in saying one fella was a better bowler than the other. If you filter their records, overall there is very little between them in their averages in matches won, matches lost and overall. All I can say is that I saw a fair bit of both of them live and on TV/ film, and I would say there is very little between them but I would go for Lillee - just.

On watching Lillee and others from the 70s and earlier on film, I so wish we had the camera angles and technology we have now. Just to be able to look at, for example, some of that 1972 footage where you see Massie or Lillee bowling from behind the keeper and the replays are all blurry - you'd get such a better idea of the amount of swing they got and of them in general if you could compare apples with apples. Likewise having the radar on some of the fellas form the 70s and 80s in their pomp would have been very illuminating - especially Thommo pre-shoulder, Lillee pre-back and Holding, Imran and Croft in general to name but a few.

God it was a great era - I know, I was there, I saw it.

That's a fantastic post in so many ways... a couple of nitpicks though...

beating Botham 5 balls in a row then walking down the pitch aftert he last time and saying "Look Beefy, just hang the bat there and let me try and hit the bloody thing will you?"

Think it was Gatting TBH.

a lot of the Test teams Lillee played against in the 70s and 80s were stronger than a lot of the sides Donald played against in the 90s an 00s (remembering the last 7 years are supposedly the worst ever for test cricket or something, aren't they?)

Donald's Test career, for all intents and purposes, finished in May 2001. His departure was one of the things that made the last 6 years so roundly lesser.

Donald's average vs Australia, the dominant side in his era, is 31, so not a huge difference between the two of them - 4 runs per wicket overall, 6 if you take out the errant test of Lillee's in 1972. It's not like Donald averaged 60 or something against Australia and that's a point of difference.

It's quite fair enough to take out that Lillee Test in 1973 (not 1972 ). Equally, as I've said about 5 times now (), you must do the same for Donald, and remove the 3 Tests in 2001\02, which gives a much better indication of how he did against Australia - average 27. Really, there's nothing between that and Lillee's average of 25 against West Indies.

And this, as I said, in addition to the fact that the 1990s equivalent of West Indies' 1970s batting side was more India than Australia. India were almost beyond dispute the finest batting side of the 1990s, and Donald's record is better against them than anyone. He is the only bowler ever to make Sachin Tendulkar look like a mortal between 1990 and 2002. This, for me, is the "standout" thing I always think of for him, far more than that hook from Elliott, or that run-out, or that horrible injury in 2001\02.

 

[Richard]

Indeed. As well as hacks like Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Thommo, Kapil, Willis, Botham, Sarfraz and even - many would argue - Hadlee and Imran.

And FWIW, John Snow was a great bowler.

Those were bowlers from later in his career, though - what made Lillee such a standout in 1970\71 was the relatively barren period seam-bowling was in at the time, Snow aside.

And, well, Lillee's competition with Hadlee and Imran is about as close-run a thing as Donald's with Ambrose, McGrath and Wasim Akram. Certainly there was no other bowler to suggest he held a torch to him despite there being many fine merchants around, as there was none who held a torch to Lillee despite there being many fine merchants around.

 

[The Sean]

What about this for a theory (off the top of my head):

a lot of the Test teams Lillee played against in the 70s and 80s were stronger than a lot of the sides Donald played against in the 90s an 00s (remembering the last 7 years are supposedly the worst ever for test cricket or something, aren't they?)

Seems to me England were better in the 70s and early 80s than they were in the 90s and the 00s; WI were infinitely stronger; Pakistan were pretty competitive (the side they sent out here in 76-77 was none too shabby) - probably on a par in terms of batting line ups with the ones Donald bowled to if not better; India would probably have been better in the 90s, but the 70s-80s India with Vengsakar, Gavaskar and Viswanath was pretty damn good too and it would be a toss up. Would agree NZ not that great in the 70s compared with 90s.

Some of the names DK bowled to - Lloyd, Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kalicharan, Richardson, Rowe, Dujon, Gavaskar, Vishy, Vengsakar, Zaheer Abbas, Javed Miandad, Majid Khan, Imran Khan, Gower, Botham, Boycott, Knott - they're storied cricketers in the annals of the game. It was a great era, and his being a dominant figure in an era of so many household names in cricket history may be a reason why people look on him as a better bowler.

The dominant side in Lillee's era (apart form Australia in the mid-70s, which he had a lot to do with) was the Windies, against whom he averaged 27 ish, and that includes the 1972 series where he played one test, didn't take a wicket for 132 and broke down with stress fractures. Take out that one test, and he averaged 25 against one of the great batting line ups of all time.

Donald's average vs Australia, the dominant side in his era, is 31, so not a huge difference between the two of them - 4 runs per wicket overall, 6 if you take out the errant test of Lillee's in 1972. It's not like Donald averaged 60 or something against Australia and that's a point of difference.

One thing I wonder about is if Lillee's deeds getting Australia home or setting up an Aussie win have a lot to do with his perception compared with that of Donald. When I think of the two, they both had wonderful actions, both bowled at high speed, both made the ball talk.

But when I think of Lillee, I always think of moments like the Centenary Test at Melbourne (6 for 26 defending 120 odd then 5-139 in the 2nd dig to win the game for us); 74-75 and 75-76 with Thommo; that spell at the end of day 1 in Melbourne when he bowled Viv off the last ball then came back next day and finished with 7 for; his spell in Perth v the World XI; the look of fear in the eyes of even very good players when they faced him and his dander was up with the crowd behind him; his partnership with Thommo in the 75 WC final; his duels with Javed (not the idiotic kicking incident, but actually with the ball); 5 for on debut v England; 5 for 15 off 15 v England at Birmingham in 1975; 31 wickets in 1972 Ashes, then 39 in the 1981 Ashes (in a well beaten team); beating Botham 5 balls in a row then walking down the pitch aftert he last time and saying "Look Beefy, just hang the bat there and let me try and hit the bloody thing will you?"; and his bowling long spells in even the hardest conditions.

Now I'm not saying that Donald did not or could not produce things like that, because he was a truly great bowler as well, but those are the things I'll always take with me when I think of Lillee.

Sadly, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of AD is that tragic run out in the WC semi of 99, and that's not fair. But it's what springs to mind, and I wonder whether the juxtaposition of their team's achievements and their personas may have combined to some extent to have Lillee shade AD in a lot of peoples' minds when there may not be that much between them, if anything.

So I don't think you could say Donald lacked heart and Lillee puffed out his chest and that was the difference. If puffing out your chest and being macho was the key to it, Andre Nel would be the greatest bowler of all time. No one should denigrate either of these great bowlers by making such a trite observation as that. They both had their own personas, and both were wonderfully effective bowlers.

It's not always a question of raw analysis of figures which you point to in saying one fella was a better bowler than the other. If you filter their records, overall there is very little between them in their averages in matches won, matches lost and overall. All I can say is that I saw a fair bit of both of them live and on TV/ film, and I would say there is very little between them but I would go for Lillee - just.

On watching Lillee and others from the 70s and earlier on film, I so wish we had the camera angles and technology we have now. Just to be able to look at, for example, some of that 1972 footage where you see Massie or Lillee bowling from behind the keeper and the replays are all blurry - you'd get such a better idea of the amount of swing they got and of them in general if you could compare apples with apples. Likewise having the radar on some of the fellas form the 70s and 80s in their pomp would have been very illuminating - especially Thommo pre-shoulder, Lillee pre-back and Holding, Imran and Croft in general to name but a few.

God it was a great era - I know, I was there, I saw it.

What a magnificent post.

 

[Ikki]

Those were bowlers from later in his career, though - what made Lillee such a standout in 1970\71 was the relatively barren period seam-bowling was in at the time, Snow aside.

And, well, Lillee's competition with Hadlee and Imran is about as close-run a thing as Donald's with Ambrose, McGrath and Wasim Akram. Certainly there was no other bowler to suggest he held a torch to him despite there being many fine merchants around, as there was none who held a torch to Lillee despite there being many fine merchants around.

Disagree vehemently. I'd say all 3 bowlers listed beside Donald were better than him. Above all Akram in the 90s, IMO. Not so much McGrath till later on.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Only 2:

Kazo,did u take all matches that the respective teams of these bowlers won into account or u just took a specific period?

 

[Ikki]

Kazo,did u take all matches that the respective teams of these bowlers won into account or u just took a specific period?

All matches won for their teams, and this is their figures - the ones Cricinfo cared about, anyway.

 

[shortpitched713]

I would argue the maximum amount of test wickets you can take with no heart will be however many Shoaib Akthar finishes with .

 

[Richard]

TBF, the PH34R makes it a pretty harmless line.

 

[shortpitched713]

The biggest difference between the two is that Lillee was widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent fast bowler of his time and commanded fear and respect in the hearts of batsmen.
Donald didn't.

Besides, the one thing I hold against Donald is his short-pitched ball to a batsman from the UAE in an ODI that struck him on his unprotected head.
Lillee as aggressive and intimidating a character as he was, I doubt would stoop so low

The batsman was an idiot and got what was coming to him. If your going for the macho approach then don't complain when you can't take the heat.

I suppose then it would be a viable strategy to take on all the quickest bowlers helmetless, because the decent ones would refrain from bouncing you.

 

[The Sean]

I would argue the maximum amount of test wickets you can take with no heart will be however many Shoaib Akthar finishes with .

TBF, the PH34R makes it a pretty harmless line.

I can't be the only person who would agree at least in some way with Burgey's comment, even without the PH34R.

Can I?

 

[shortpitched713]

I can't be the only person who would agree at least in some way with Burgey's comment, even without the PH34R.

Can I?

The fact that he doesn't give up after the 999th droped catch of the innings off his bowling means he definitely has a bigger heart than most fast bowlers.

 

[Richard]

If there's one thing Shoaib's not it's lacking in heart when ball is in hand. Guilty of acting without brain in gear - both with ball in hand and off the field - beyond question. In possession of a wholly unhelpful ego - beyond question. Someone Pakistan cricket might well have been better-off if he'd never picked-up a cricket-ball? Quite possibly.

Lacking in heart with ball in hand? No.

 

[Burgey]

If there's one thing Shoaib's not it's lacking in heart when ball is in hand. Guilty of acting without brain in gear - both with ball in hand and off the field - beyond question. In possession of a wholly unhelpful ego - beyond question. Someone Pakistan cricket might well have been better-off if he'd never picked-up a cricket-ball? Quite possibly.

Lacking in heart with ball in hand? No.

FTR, my post was made in half-jest.

I don't doubt his efforts on field. I have, however, questioned the selectivity of his availability in the past, and his attitude from time to time.

 

[Richard]

You read my replies to your other posts this time didn't you?