Your Top Ten One-Day International BOWLERS of all-time

[Perm]

You're quite wrong. SR is one of the most important statistics in that evaluation. In fact, if you reason it out into a game-situation: 3 less runs per wicket, will yield a difference of about 6 runs, considering usually these bowlers take no more than 2 wickets per match. Yet if we look at the SR, a difference of 3 balls per wickets taken, assuming the same 2 wickets are taken, will save you 6 balls. So what would you rather have in a ODI match, 6 runs to lead or 6 balls to spare?

In comparison to the other statistics (average and economy rate) then strike rate isn't all that important. An ODI game is about restricting the opposition from scoring runs, and you don't have to take wickets to do so and that factor makes the strike rate of a bowler relatively unimportant. If you were taking even weighting on strike rate and economy rate then Warne is still behind bowlers like Akram, Muralitharan, McGrath and Lillee while a number of others aren't too far behind and are superior in other ways (Garner for instance).

So quite easily he compares with the greatest ODI bowlers of all time. Considering the heroics he's had in WCs - the only ODI tournament that actually means something - and how far ahead he is of the others it is quite senseful to put him ahead of most if not all of them.

He compares, to an extent, but still isn't amongst the greatest bowlers the ODI game has seen. Your claim that the World Cup is the only tournament that matters is purely your opinion, and one not shared by a number of other cricket fans. Undoubtedly it is more important than other tournaments and series, but you can't discredit an entire career to compare it to 17 World Cup games that Warne played.

So, whether putting Warne at #1 is wrong is not the question because there is no real 'right' answer anyway and his nomination for the top spot is just as good as any.

AFAIC that is incorrect. There are several other bowlers who have much better claims of being the #1 ODI bowler of all-time, and their performances will support that claim. As I said earlier, it's just a shame that Garner couldn't have played 2 more ODIs.

 

[Beleg]

As I said earlier, it's just a shame that Garner couldn't have played 2 more ODIs.

This is nonsense. Two more games wouldn't suddenly catapult him to a totally different level...

 

[Perm]

This is nonsense. Two more games wouldn't suddenly catapult him to a totally different level...

Perhaps not, but IMO he hasn't played enough. I know two games doesn't sound as if they would make a huge amount of difference, but it would allow Garner to meet the criteria I use to judge ODI players.

 

[Fiery]

Perhaps not, but IMO he hasn't played enough. I know two games doesn't sound as if they would make a huge amount of difference, but it would allow Garner to meet the criteria I use to judge ODI players.

It's generally accepted that Garner is/was one of the great OD bowlers. They didn't play as many games in his era remember

 

[Ikki]

In comparison to the other statistics (average and economy rate) then strike rate isn't all that important. An ODI game is about restricting the opposition from scoring runs, and you don't have to take wickets to do so and that factor makes the strike rate of a bowler relatively unimportant.

No, it is always important in getting wickets if you are chasing. Because whilst there are wickets there is always a chance to win the game, even if the economy is being held low. The difference between a ER of 3.5 and 4 in a game is 25 runs. It simply is not a sizable gap and wickets are much more important.

If you were taking even weighting on strike rate and economy rate then Warne is still behind bowlers like Akram, Muralitharan, McGrath and Lillee while a number of others aren't too far behind and are superior in other ways (Garner for instance).

Why would you given an even weighting to SR and ER? Even if you did, same thing as the averages:

Bowler X bowls with econ of 3.5 with his 10 overs which means conceding 35 runs whilst Bowler Y bowlers with an econ of 4 with his 10 overs which means conceding 40 runs. A difference of 5 runs, whilst, again assuming 2 wickets taken, 6 balls are saved. 5 runs lead or 6 balls to spare?

He compares, to an extent, but still isn't amongst the greatest bowlers the ODI game has seen. Your claim that the World Cup is the only tournament that matters is purely your opinion, and one not shared by a number of other cricket fans. Undoubtedly it is more important than other tournaments and series, but you can't discredit an entire career to compare it to 17 World Cup games that Warne played.

He compares very well. He doesn't have to be the best statistically, otherwise Akram is as far as Warne in terms of being the best. Yet, the ratings don't reflect that.

The point is I am not discrediting an entire career to compare it with simply WC games. In overall comparison taking into account everything there is very little difference between the bowlers statistically. That itself is enough reason to put him that far up. The fact that he has this so much better to me is very important. Especially the way he went about doing it.

AFAIC that is incorrect. There are several other bowlers who have much better claims of being the #1 ODI bowler of all-time, and their performances will support that claim. As I said earlier, it's just a shame that Garner couldn't have played 2 more ODIs.

Why do they have better claims? Please explain that.

 

[Perm]

It's generally accepted that Garner is/was one of the great OD bowlers. They didn't play as many games in his era remember

I've said a few times now that maybe I need to review my criteria and if I did then Garner would be head and shoulders above all other bowlers IMO. He did have a 10 year career, but unfortunately only played a solitary game in 1997 and 1998 IIRC, which is very unfortunate.

 

[Ikki]

I've said a few times now that maybe I need to review my criteria and if I did then Garner would be head and shoulders above all other bowlers IMO. He did have a 10 year career, but unfortunately only played a solitary game in 1997 and 1998 IIRC, which is very unfortunate.

Really, what would that 2 more ODI matches prove already what he hadn't in the 98 previous matches? I really wasn't happy with my list, I actually now think B.Lee was massively underrated - quite possibly the best. Can't see too much argument that could be headed against him. But the others also have a great case. Really, the top 5 are interchangeable.

Here's Lee:

 

[Perm]

Really, what would that 2 more ODI matches prove already what he hadn't in the 98 previous matches? I really wasn't happy with my list, I actually now think B.Lee was massively underrated - quite possibly the best. Can't see too much argument that could be headed against him. But the others also have a great case. Really, the top 5 are interchangeable.

Here's Lee:

Those extra two matches wouldn't have proven anything, but they would have allowed me to include Garner alongside the likes of McGrath, Wasim, Muralitharan etc as the best ODI bowlers of all-time. The situation is similar (but not quite the same) as Pollock, Headley and Paynter. If only they had played another 10 or so Tests, then people would be more willing to judge them alongside other great players. It's just a personal thing, and I'd rather have a bowler or batsmen have played 100 ODIs or 30 Tests to include them on these sort of lists.

Regarding Brett Lee, his economy rate is too high for him to stake a genuine claim as the greatest ODI bowler of all-time.

 

[Perm]

No, it is always important in getting wickets if you are chasing. Because whilst there are wickets there is always a chance to win the game, even if the economy is being held low. The difference between a ER of 3.5 and 4 in a game is 25 runs. It simply is not a sizable gap and wickets are much more important.

You can win games by bowling accurately when defending a total. Obviously accurate bowling is more likely to take wickets, but wicket-taking isn't as vital as keeping the runs down when playing an ODI game. In the 40th over when the opposition need 70 runs from 60 balls (a fairly common scenario, or somewhere thereabouts), what is more important? Bowling a maiden, or taking a wicket? I know what I would rather have.

Why would you given an even weighting to SR and ER? Even if you did, same thing as the averages:

Bowler X bowls with econ of 3.5 with his 10 overs which means conceding 35 runs whilst Bowler Y bowlers with an econ of 4 with his 10 overs which means conceding 40 runs. A difference of 5 runs, whilst, again assuming 2 wickets taken, 6 balls are saved. 5 runs lead or 6 balls to spare?

Because I think economical bowling is more important, while you feel wicket-taking is. By giving each an even rating, I was able to make a statistical judgement without my own opinion interfering. Even so, your argument doesn't relate to Shane Warne at all. Assuming that he and all the other top ODI bowlers will take 2 wickets per game, then we can say the following. On average Warne will give away 42 runs per game while Sir Richard Hadlee (for example) will conceed only 33. It's a difference of 9 runs, which doesn't appear to be that great, yet they both take two wickets. Once again, Warne is statistically inferior. This applies to a number of bowlers, not just Hadlee.

He compares very well. He doesn't have to be the best statistically, otherwise Akram is as far as Warne in terms of being the best. Yet, the ratings don't reflect that.

The point is I am not discrediting an entire career to compare it with simply WC games. In overall comparison taking into account everything there is very little difference between the bowlers statistically. That itself is enough reason to put him that far up. The fact that he has this so much better to me is very important. Especially the way he went about doing it.

We disagree in the way we assess players, not just our assessment of them, so there is little point taking the argument in that direction

Why do they have better claims? Please explain that.

Because other bowlers (there are around 10 I could name) have performed better over their careers than Shane Warne, and that is reflected in their average, economy rate and strike rate.

 

[Days of Grace]

In comparison to the other statistics (average and economy rate) then strike rate isn't all that important. An ODI game is about restricting the opposition from scoring runs, and you don't have to take wickets to do so and that factor makes the strike rate of a bowler relatively unimportant.

Sorry, but have to completely disagree. So, you don't many take wickets but are economical, and the opposition are 170/2 after 40 overs. If you are the bowling team, you are in trouble, son.

And what's more, I had a laugh when you said Garner cannot be considered because he didn't play 100 matches. FFS, have you not realised that he played in the 1970s and
1980s when ODI games were a lot more scarse then they are these days. IMO, 50 matches are more then enough to judge a player from Garner's era.

 

[Days of Grace]

Updated list. Quite what Ian Harvey is doing on there is beyond my understanding. And, what's more, Bond21 didn't vote for him either.

1 Wasim Akram 167
2 Garner 138
3 McGrath 135
4 Muralitharan 97
5 Waqar Younis 90
6 Saqlain Mushtaq 65
7 Pollock 62
8 Ambrose 59
9 Hadlee 49
10 Warne 36
11 Donald 33
12 Lillee 29
13 Lee 21
14 Bond 19
15 Holding 14
16 Marshall 8
17 Imran Khan 6
= Harvey 6
19 Botham 3
= Abdul Qadir 3
= Vass 3

Vass not getting the respect he deserves IMO.

 

[Days of Grace]

If anyone has ever noticed, the average is the combination of S/R and E/R.

Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to just look at a bowler's average and E/R. A bowler with a low E/R will of course have a lower average because he concedes less runs between taking wickets.

But, if he takes 10 overs to take a wicket, then he has a high S/R and is thus no so great a bowler.

Thus, in doing my own ratings for ODI bowlers, I take into account S/R and E/R and not average. Because, someone like Garner, has an average of 18, E/R of 3.0 and a S/R of
36.

If I just took into account his average and E/R, then he benefits in two ways.

But if I take into account just his E/R (the best there is) and his S/R (good but not outstanding), then I get a much better perspective of Garner as an ODI bowler.

 

[Perm]

Sorry, but have to completely disagree. So, you don't many take wickets but are economical, and the opposition are 170/2 after 40 overs. If you are the bowling team, you are in trouble, son.

Why be sorry? I enjoy arguing .

When I was talking about economical bowling, I was thinking 3.5-4 runs per over, which is what bowlers like Sir Richard Hadlee and Malcolm Marshall were capable of. Even so, if the opposition are 170/2 after 40 overs then you aren't in major trouble, IMO, if you keep your bowling accurate. Let's say the bowlers send down 10 more overs for 60 runs, that's only a total of 230.

And what's more, I had a laugh when you said Garner cannot be considered because he didn't play 100 matches. FFS, have you not realised that he played in the 1970s and
1980s when ODI games were a lot more scarse then they are these days. IMO, 50 matches are more then enough to judge a player from Garner's era.

I don't begrudge others from including Garner in their lists, it's their choice. I won't include him because he hasn't played enough matches to quality under the criteria I've set down for myself. Criteria that I've since said may need revision.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yes, it may need revision, lad.

 

[Ikki]

You can win games by bowling accurately when defending a total. Obviously accurate bowling is more likely to take wickets, but wicket-taking isn't as vital as keeping the runs down when playing an ODI game. In the 40th over when the opposition need 70 runs from 60 balls (a fairly common scenario, or somewhere thereabouts), what is more important? Bowling a maiden, or taking a wicket? I know what I would rather have.

It depends on the scenario. If your team is trying to get wickets, most likely there won't be many wickets left and, supposing 1-2 wickets are left, I'd want wickets rather than runs.

Because I think economical bowling is more important, while you feel wicket-taking is. By giving each an even rating, I was able to make a statistical judgement without my own opinion interfering. Even so, your argument doesn't relate to Shane Warne at all. Assuming that he and all the other top ODI bowlers will take 2 wickets per game, then we can say the following. On average Warne will give away 42 runs per game while Sir Richard Hadlee (for example) will conceed only 33. It's a difference of 9 runs, which doesn't appear to be that great, yet they both take two wickets. Once again, Warne is statistically inferior. This applies to a number of bowlers, not just Hadlee.

Why doesn't it refer to Shane Warne? By your assessment even Wasim Akram is inferior to Hadlee statistically. Pure statistics are never one thing that should be used to judge a player. Which is why Warne is MORE than good enough to be in that top echelon of players and more importantly his feats when his talents have been needed - because not all wickets are going to be of equal value - is legend. Quite easily in that echelon of players.

We disagree in the way we assess players, not just our assessment of them, so there is little point taking the argument in that direction

I respect you as a poster because you're not really one to put some outlandish gibberish out like Richard does, but to be honest this is beginning to sound like something he'd argue.

Because other bowlers (there are around 10 I could name) have performed better over their careers than Shane Warne, and that is reflected in their average, economy rate and strike rate.

Like who? If stats are important Brett Lee is probably the best bowler in that group. If you're judging by pure stats, as you seem to be suggesting, then your list is essentially the top 10 best statistically. Also, why don't you use the same method for Tests? Essentially the same logic here.

Fair enough about your 100 ODI rule, which I disagree with BTW, but this is really not a logical argument you've got going here. Especially when the examples you named previously as superior to Warne are inferior even by your own reasonings.

 

[Perm]

It depends on the scenario. If your team is trying to get wickets, most likely there won't be many wickets left and, supposing 1-2 wickets are left, I'd want wickets rather than runs.

It does depend on the situation, correct. But bowling a maidenwhen the opposition need 70 runs from 60 balls is infinitely preferrable to taking a wicket IMO.

Why doesn't it refer to Shane Warne? By your assessment even Wasim Akram is inferior to Hadlee statistically. Pure statistics are never one thing that should be used to judge a player. Which is why Warne is MORE than good enough to be in that top echelon of players and more importantly his feats when his talents have been needed - because not all wickets are going to be of equal value - is legend. Quite easily in that echelon of players.

Statistics tell what the player has acheived, they are fact. The situation you described doesn't apply to Warne because his economy rate is 4.25, not 4. The likes of Hadlee, Holding and Ambrose all have economy rates of under 3.5. Yes Wasim Akram is statistically inferior to Sir Richard Hadlee, his average and economy rate are worse, while his strike rate is only 3 balls better.

I respect you as a poster because you're not really one to put some outlandish gibberish out like Richard does, but to be honest this is beginning to sound like something he'd argue.

Thank you, but how is it 'outlandish gibberish'? Judging a player on what they acheive, which is reflected in their statistics, is the best way to judge them IMO.

Like who? If stats are important Brett Lee is probably the best bowler in that group. If you're judging by pure stats, as you seem to be suggesting, then your list is essentially the top 10 best statistically. Also, why don't you use the same method for Tests? Essentially the same logic here.

How could you possibly think that Brett Lee is a better bowler than Sir Richard Hadlee, Michael Holding and a few others if you were just using statistics to judge them? Granted Lee has a healthy average and good strike rate, but his economy rate is far inferior. Judging ODI players on statistics is harder, and I haven't investigated as thoroughly as I want to, but I stand by my statements. Who is to say I don't use the same method for Tests? Those who acheive highly, more consistently, are the better players than those who don't acheive as well as them.

Fair enough about your 100 ODI rule, which I disagree with BTW, but this is really not a logical argument you've got going here. Especially when the examples you named previously as superior to Warne are inferior even by your own reasonings.

Who have I named that is superior to Warne that doesn't make the 100 ODI cut-off? There must be some limit on the number of games players have participated in for us to make judgements about them and consider them as 'great', and the same applies in Tests.

 

[Ikki]

It does depend on the situation, correct. But bowling a maidenwhen the opposition need 70 runs from 60 balls is infinitely preferrable to taking a wicket IMO.

In which case neither bowlers are guaranteed of doing. And if anything harks back run-scoring, it is taking wickets. It may not show up on your personal stats when you rapid-fire 2-3 wickets as Warne does, but it will lift your team's confidence and scare batsmen into not taking run-scoring risks.

You are placing too much value on economy when in reality the difference in a match is minuscule. Warne is going to concede less than 1 run more per every over he bowls in comparison to Hadlee. You're really pushing the limits here.

Statistics tell what the player has acheived, they are fact. The situation you described doesn't apply to Warne because his economy rate is 4.25, not 4. The likes of Hadlee, Holding and Ambrose all have economy rates of under 3.5. Yes Wasim Akram is statistically inferior to Sir Richard Hadlee, his average and economy rate are worse, while his strike rate is only 3 balls better.

Wrong, statistics are statistics. They are not facts. The situation I described doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is 4.25 or 3.5

Your entire stance was on who will concede less runs even though they will take the same amount of wickets. Well, still, Hadlee will take the same amount of wickets as Wasim AND concede less runs. So is Hadlee better than Wasim? Hardly think your criteria is even worth debating TBH.

Thank you, but how is it 'outlandish gibberish'? Judging a player on what they acheive, which is reflected in their statistics, is the best way to judge them IMO.

Because your criteria folds on itself. If we want pure statistics then you should have never pulled Malcolm Marshall as one of those bowlers that comes before Warne. Or Chatfield and more than a handful of others.

How could you possibly think that Brett Lee is a better bowler than Sir Richard Hadlee, Michael Holding and a few others if you were just using statistics to judge them? Granted Lee has a healthy average and good strike rate, but his economy rate is far inferior. Judging ODI players on statistics is harder, and I haven't investigated as thoroughly as I want to, but I stand by my statements. Who is to say I don't use the same method for Tests? Those who acheive highly, more consistently, are the better players than those who don't acheive as well as them.

For the simple fact that he strikes 10 balls quicker and is only 1 run cheaper per wicket. Or that he is one of, if not the, best World Cup bowler of all. He also has quite a bit more 4w/5w hauls. Also, you have to factor in that ODIs have changed during Lee's time and the gap between their economies is smaller than you think.

Who have I named that is superior to Warne that doesn't make the 100 ODI cut-off? There must be some limit on the number of games players have participated in for us to make judgements about them and consider them as 'great', and the same applies in Tests.

You've misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the 100 ODI rule you seem to have but your other criteria. You mentioned bowlers who were supposedly statistically better but indeed I listed a table where many of them were inferior. I really don't think you've thought your argument out properly to be honest.

Again, I'll state, Warne can be up there with any of those great ODI and his claim is just as good or worse.

 

[Perm]

Just a few things, because I'm getting a bit tired of this argument. Fairly obvious neither of us will conceed ground to the other, and I've said just about all I need to.

Wrong, statistics are statistics. They are not facts.

That is wrong, plain and simple. Statistics, such as average, strike rate and economy rate, tell what has happened over the course of a bowlers career. You can't logically deny that they are facts.

Your entire stance was on who will concede less runs even though they will take the same amount of wickets. Well, still, Hadlee will take the same amount of wickets as Wasim AND concede less runs. So is Hadlee better than Wasim? Hardly think your criteria is even worth debating TBH.

Without having looked in-depth at the statistics of each other, whether or not they feasted on minnows etc, then I would say Sir Richard Hadlee is a better ODI bowler than Wasim Akram. Unfortunately for Hadlee he didn't get to play as many games.

Because your criteria folds on itself. If we want pure statistics then you should have never pulled Malcolm Marshall as one of those bowlers that comes before Warne. Or Chatfield and more than a handful of others.

Marshall and Chatfield have much better economy rates than Warne, inferior strike rates and their averages are only a point or two higher. I place higher emphasis on economy rate, hence my rating of them. You do have a point though, by judging on 'pure' statistics, where everything is equal, then Marshall and Chatfield aren't as good.

Again, I'll state, Warne can be up there with any of those great ODI and his claim is just as good or worse.

His claim is worse than Wasim Akram, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath, Allan Donald. The likes of Joel Garner, Shaun Pollock, Saqlain Mushtaq, Sir Richard Hadlee, Michael Holding aren't all that statistically inferior.

 

[Ikki]

That is wrong, plain and simple. Statistics, such as average, strike rate and economy rate, tell what has happened over the course of a bowlers career. You can't logically deny that they are facts.

That is wrong. Statistics are not facts. Statistics can be used to determine some facts, but alone they are not facts. Statistics do not tell us what happened over the course of a bowler's career, they only take into account the score achieved over a career. They have nothing to do with who performed when, where and how. Someone whose average is 1 point more than another's is not inferior overall based on that statistic.

Without having looked in-depth at the statistics of each other, whether or not they feasted on minnows etc, then I would say Sir Richard Hadlee is a better ODI bowler than Wasim Akram. Unfortunately for Hadlee he didn't get to play as many games.

OK.

Marshall and Chatfield have much better economy rates than Warne, inferior strike rates and their averages are only a point or two higher. I place higher emphasis on economy rate, hence my rating of them. You do have a point though, by judging on 'pure' statistics, where everything is equal, then Marshall and Chatfield aren't as good.

His claim is worse than Wasim Akram, Muttiah Muralitharan, Glenn McGrath, Allan Donald. The likes of Joel Garner, Shaun Pollock, Saqlain Mushtaq, Sir Richard Hadlee, Michael Holding aren't all that statistically inferior.

Which puts him smack middle in the pack statistically. Hardly 'not even close' is it? And some of those you named like Hadllee are statistically better than Akram. Why is Akram such a popular choice then? It might have to do with statistics not telling you the whole story.

Anyway, as you said, we're not going to change stances.

 

[JASON]

Brad Hogg - has a better ODI SR than Shane Warne, true story.

Absolutely agree with that. IMO He is Australia's best ever ODI spinner and in ODIs you could even argue he's as good as Murali - in fact he probably takes More wickets per game than Murali, tbh.