My Top 100 Test Bowlers of all-time

[honestbharani]

That's from a man who's watched the game for >50 years... Take note youngsters.

Another man who has watched cricket for >50 years and also played and administered it thinks there was nothing wrong with Murali's action...... I wonder if this youngster will take any note of that?












And BTW, that person was some Donald Bradman, I believe....

 

[Fiery]

Another man who has watched cricket for >50 years and also played and administered it thinks there was nothing wrong with Murali's action...... I wonder if this youngster will take any note of that?












And BTW, that person was some Donald Bradman, I believe....

opinions

 

[honestbharani]

I never knew that Harbhajan Singh was a much better bowler than Thommo........



Fair effort but as I pointed out in my post in the batting ratings, the perfect rating just does not exist and it is better that we don't try out because most ppl (myself included) tend to catch the mistakes in the ratings system first than applauding the effort.


I apologize for that, but still there are a lot of glaring mistakes in the ratings system just like there was in Goughy's........ (or was it Craig? for some reason I tend confuse the two of them. )

 

[honestbharani]

opinions

yep.... exactly. And the fact is no matter how conclusive the evidence of the other party here is, the ppl are not gonna change theirs. It is a futile attempt either way.

 

[Fiery]

yep.... exactly. And the fact is no matter how conclusive the evidence of the other party here is, the ppl are not gonna change theirs. It is a futile attempt either way.

that's right

 

[JBMAC]

Another man who has watched cricket for >50 years and also played and administered it thinks there was nothing wrong with Murali's action...... I wonder if this youngster will take any note of that?

And BTW, that person was some Donald Bradman, I believe....

Even GREAT Sportsmen do sometimes err.

 

[Fiery]

He was always a better player than he was a critic tbh

 

[PhoenixFire]

Harbhajan waaay too high for my liking, shouldnn't be above 70 tbh.

 

[Ikki]

Interesting that if you take out Murali's matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, his rating drops down to 1076.

Home and away games?

I thought I disagreed with your batting top 100, this one is a shocker, no offense. I agree with HB, Cricket is much too difficult to box into a formula.

 

[nightprowler10]

Great effort again, but I must say your other list was much more to my liking.

 

[Swervy]

I expect that Hadlee (and also Murali as well I guess) are slightly overvalued by my eyes in this system because they took a lot of 5-fors due to having little comparative support. Conversely the great West Indies quicks probably get a bit penalised. Hadlee is a top 15 all-time bowler for definite, but not sure if I'd have him number 4.

It's an interesting list, but I think it just doesn't look as 'right' as the one you formulated for batsmen (which overrated modern players a bit too much but otherwise was pretty good I thought).

Hadlee..only top 15?

Very harsh

 

[Dizzy #4]

MacGill>Gillespie? WTF?

 

[cover drive man]

Not a bad list although I ignore No.1

Agreed swap Warne with Murali.

 

[Fiery]

Hadlee..only top 15?

Very harsh

Very stupid iyam

 

[weldone]

I declare my top 41 bowlers in tests, my own list according to my own choice, and I don't invite any fights please.....If anyone is not happy with my list, he is free to declare his own list, but not to fight pointing at my list, please...If anyone feels this list is bad I acknowledge but don't invite any fight:

1 M. Muralitharan
2 G. McGrath
3 S. Warne
4 C. Ambrose
5 R. Hadlee
6 M. Marshall
7 C. Walsh
8 S. Pollock
9 W. Akram
10 I. Khan
11 W. Younis
12 A. Donald
13 F. Trueman
14 D. Lillee
15 J. Garner
16 R. Willis
17 M. Holding
18 D. Underwood
19 S. Barnes
20 R. Lindwall
21 J. Statham
22 A. Bedser
23 J. Laker
24 J. Gillespie
25 C. Grimmett
26 A. Davidson
27 A. Kumble
28 M. Ntini
29 R. Benaud
30 I. Botham
31 A. Roberts
32 J. Snow
33 K. Miller
34 W. Hall
35 S. Akhtar
36 C. McDermott
37 G. Lock
38 H. Streak
39 D. Gough
40 H. Tayfield
41 B. Bedi

 

[NUFAN]

I don't know why you would bother putting up your list if you don't want anyone to comment on it?

All I'm going to say is why 41? So Bedi could make it?

 

[weldone]

I don't know why you would bother putting up your list if you don't want anyone to comment on it?

All I'm going to say is why 41? So Bedi could make it?

Just for making people angry at not being able to criticize.... ..... By the way one is free to praise if one likes this list

No because it is based on some statistical analysis done by me (which I won't disclose)....There were some cut-offs for total no. of wickets, averages and certain other things and only these 41 could cross all those cut-offs....

By the way, I am not fully happy with this statistical analysis...I feel there's area to improve...

 

[Goughy]

Just for people to get angry at not being able to criticize....

No because it is based on some statistical analysis done by me (which I won't disclose)....There were some cut-offs for total no. of wickets, averages and certain other things and only these 41 could cross all those cut-offs....

By the way, I am not fully happy with this statistical analysis...I feel there's area to improve...

Ok, I will not make comments on the list (though there are obviously some I disagree with)

However, what is the statistical criteria? as Im amazed that neither Peter Pollock or Neil Adcock make the list.

 

[weldone]

Ok, I will not make comments on the list (though there are obviously some I disagree with)

However, what is the statistical criteria? as Im amazed that neither Peter Pollock or Neil Adcock make the list.

Statistical analysis is my job....This is the first time I applied it to cricket in a big way...Was it a decent job for a first timer?.....Yeah I am looking to work more on this and maybe after some months I'll come out with a slightly different but lengthier list....I'm working on some other lists as well, for both tests and ODIs.

 

[Goughy]

Statistical analysis is my job....This is the first time I applied it to cricket...Was it a decent job for a first timer?.....Yeah I am looking to work more on this and maybe after some months I'll come out with a slightly different but lengthier list....I'm working on some other lists as well, for both tests and ODIs.

Yeah, whilst the order could be argued pretty much all the expected guys are in the top 20.
In that regard it does the job. However, it does seem total career wickets may carry a little too much weight. Is that why Peter Pollock doesnt make it?