CW Ranks Top 25 Bowlers of All Time (Version 2010)

[Ikki]

Warne - 3
Lillee - 2
McGrath - 1

 

[ankitj]

Round 3

Murali - 3
Barnes - 2
Warne - 1

 

[zaremba]

Pringle D (3)
Pringle C (2)
Pringle M (1)

 

[Shri]

Thought you were arranging 'em in such a way that they spelt CDM tbh.

 

[Cevno]

Murali 3 points
Warne 2 points
Ambrose 1 point

 

[Burgey]

Round 3

McGrath 3
Barnes 2
Davidson 1

 

[NUFAN]

I think the only way for me to break this tie is to edit my own votes (I shall do this only when there is a tie for the first spot).

I don't know how fair this, I think in this instance just having a straight shoot out between Hadlee and Murali would be the way to go, the winner gets second, the loser gets third.

I'll vote for again
3 points - Muralitharan
2 points - Ambrose, C
1 point - Trueman

 

[bagapath]

If we are going aheah...

Round 3

Murali
Barnes
Mcgrath

 

[Blakus]

Guess I'll vote the same as last round

Barnes
Murali
Mcgrath

 

[Hurricane]

Murali
Arnel
Milne

 

[BoyBrumby]

1) SF Barnes (3 points)
2) FS Trueman (2 points)
3) Waqar Younis (1 point)

 

[G.I.Joe]

Glenn McGrath (3)
Muttiah Muralitharan (2)
Wasim Akram (1)

 

[Migara]

Murali, Barnes, Marshall

 

[Teja.]

Murali
Waqar
Trueman

 

[Prince EWS]

Lohmann
Barnes
McGrath

 

[Ikki]

Lohmann
Barnes
McGrath

Since you're one for rating how certain bowlers did in an era...how do you see Trueman?

 

[ankitj]

@ Weldone - If there is a tie, I think you should count which player got more highest ratings (3 points) in that round. A more objective (ergo fair) way to break ties, IMHO.

 

[Prince EWS]

Since you're one for rating how certain bowlers did in an era...how do you see Trueman?

I'll be honest - I haven't studied his career in great detail so I'm not really aware if he selected too early to played on past his prime for a long time, or indeed what sort of effect those disciplinary suspensions I'm aware of had on his career, but obviously 300 wickets at 21 is awesome in any era. A quick search reveals that the global batting average during his career was under 30 which is quite low, however, so my instinct is to put the McGraths and Hadlees of more recent decades - bowlers with similar records in harder times for bowlers - above him. The flip side of this of course is his brilliant First Class record in an era where country cricket was still seen as highly significant - that counts for something given when he played, IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

@ Weldone - If there is a tie, I think you should count which player got more highest ratings (3 points) in that round. A more objective (ergo fair) way to break ties, IMHO.

That'd just mean less people voted for them though.

In the case of a tie I'd knock out lower points from people who voted for bowlers - for example in the Hadlee/Murali tie, I'd cancel out any 2 or 1 votes for Hadlee from people who voted Murali 3 (or 1 votes for Hadlee from people who voted Murali 2) and vice versa.

 

[Ikki]

I'll be honest - I haven't studied his career in great detail so I'm not really aware if he selected too early to played on past his prime for a long time, or indeed what sort of effect those disciplinary suspensions I'm aware of had on his career, but obviously 300 wickets at 21 is awesome in any era. A quick search reveals that the global batting average during his career was under 30 which is quite low, however, so my instinct is to put the McGraths and Hadlees of more recent decades - bowlers with similar records in harder times for bowlers - above him. The flip side of this of course is his brilliant First Class record in an era where country cricket was still seen as highly significant - that counts for something given when he played, IMO.

I was really referring to his SR, which is unbelievably good for his era. When guys like Miller were in the low 60s or someone like Lindwall was just under it; Trueman is striking at 49.4 - ridiculous.