Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[smash84]

actually the huge difference between his home and away records (6 runs) is one of the reasons why marshall, hadlee, lillee, barnes and mcgrath get picked above him in most of the all-time XIs as fast bowlers. they had more all round success (in purely relative terms). it is difficult to shake off the criticism that imran benefited a bit from home advantage - though not as much as miandad or kumble who averaged with bat and ball, respectively 60/45 and 24/37 in home/away games. it is the same reason why ponting and lara lose out the middle order slot to tendulkar in these dream teams. their home record is significantly superior to their away records. we tend to recall overseas performances with more fondness.

Actually Lillee's away record is not that fantastic. That is not the reason that he gets picked ahead of pretty much every fast bowler. Lillee apparently had the ultimate X factor among fast bowlers and he was always on the attack apparently which gets him rated higher. McGrath as fine a bowler as he was is not rated nearly as good by Aussies as Lillee is. Hadlee, Imran and a host of other fast bowlers (among batsmen Viv and Sobers too I think) also rate Lillee as the ultimate fast bowler so there is just something about the guy

Barnes gets rated higher for a lot of reasons. That guy is almost the Bradman of bowling. Played in an entirely different era where you would also find other guys averaging around about his average.

Marshall is a different case altogether. His average in Pakistan, which is his highest, is less than 21.5 which is just phenomenal given that McGrath and Hadlee average 30 and 45 respectively.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, Marshall is just incredible. It would be an exaggeration to say that he is the Bradman of fast bowlers (or even bowlers in general!), but he is definitely ahead of everyone else in the last 30-40 years IMHO.

 

[bagapath]

Actually Lillee's away record is not that fantastic.

it is still better than imran's. and it is anyway closer to his overall record (viz a viz imran's away record and his career stats).

that was just my assumption anyways. why do you - the biggest imran fan in CW - think imran doesn't get picked above marshall/hadlee/mcgrath/lillee/barnes despite his stunning career average (and with batting skills to add more weight to his selection)?

 

[smash84]

Actually Lillee's away record is not that fantastic.

it is still better than imran's. and it is anyway closer to overall record (viz a viz imran's away record and his career stats).

that was just my assumption anyways. why do you - the biggest imran fan in CW - think imran doesn't get picked above marshall/hadlee/mcgrath/lillee/barnes despite his stunning career average (and with batting skills to add more weight to his selection)?

Yes and I didn't agree with your assumption. Imran doesn't get picked above these bowlers because they were slightly better bowlers. Imran did not even have a proper out swinger. Whatever little he did learn of the out-swinger (and the leg cutter) he learned from Lillee and credits Lillee for that. Except for reverse swing these guys had a better repertoire of deliveries in their bowling and used it to better effect.

Dude I might be the biggest Imran fan here. Doesn't mean I think he is a better fast bowler than Marshall or that Imran was the greatest fast bowler ever to grace the earth.

 

[bagapath]

Dude I might be the biggest Imran fan here. Doesn't mean I think he is a better fast bowler than Marshall or that Imran was the greatest fast bowler ever to grace the earth.

i never assumed you would say something like that. i genuinely wanted to know from an imran fan why other fast bowlers are preferred over him. although, honestly, it is possible to make a case for imran at no.8 for any all time XI. of all these bowlers mentioned, he is the only one with a sub 30 average in every country. you cant take it away from him.

i really believe test cricketers are rated on their overseas performances - especially in england, australia, west indies and south africa - when their place among ATGs is defined. that is why warne is preferred over murali. imran's slightly weaker away record must be working against him in these team selections. otherwise, why would seemingly normal people ignore a sub 23 right arm fast bowler with a 37 batting average and choose other right arm fast bowlers with same (hadlee) or inferior (lillee) bowling avg and significantly weaker batting ability (mcgrath)?

 

[smash84]

i never assumed you would say something like that. i genuinely wanted to know from an imran fan why other fast bowlers are preferred over him. although, honestly, it is possible to make a case for imran at no.8 for any all time XI. of all these bowlers mentioned, he is the only one with a sub 30 average in every country. you cant take it away from him.

Yes you can make a case for Imran at number 8 in any All Time XI when you think about his batting. Not based on bowling alone.

 

[Rush]

i never assumed you would say something like that. i genuinely wanted to know from an imran fan why other fast bowlers are preferred over him. although, honestly, it is possible to make a case for imran at no.8 for any all time XI. of all these bowlers mentioned, he is the only one with a sub 30 average in every country. you cant take it away from him.

i really believe test cricketers are rated on their overseas performances - especially in england, australia, west indies and south africa - when their place among ATGs is defined. that is why warne is preferred over murali. imran's slightly weaker away record must be working against him in these team selections. otherwise, why would seemingly normal people ignore a sub 23 right arm fast bowler with a 37 batting average and choose other right arm fast bowlers with same (hadlee) or inferior (lillee) bowling avg and significantly weaker batting ability (mcgrath)?

The most bowler friendly conditions?

 

[bagapath]

The most bowler friendly conditions?

no. quality opposition in their own territories.

please note that it is a general rule for test cricketers, not just bowlers.

 

[smash84]

i really believe test cricketers are rated on their overseas performances - especially in england, australia, west indies and south africa - when their place among ATGs is defined. that is why warne is preferred over murali. imran's slightly weaker away record must be working against him in these team selections. otherwise, why would seemingly normal people ignore a sub 23 right arm fast bowler with a 37 batting average and choose other right arm fast bowlers with same (hadlee) or inferior (lillee) bowling avg and significantly weaker batting ability (mcgrath)?

I really believe that Murali gets rated much lower because of his bowling action. Most people have found it difficult to accept his action despite the ICC's support in clearing him. In most away conditions Murali fares better than Warne (in almost all countries IIRC) so his case is different in that respect. Had Murali probably had a somewhat more conventional action I do believe that he would have been rated higher. Also the fact that a leg spinner is generally more exciting to watch for more people than an off spinner (and Warne had great variety as well).

As mentioned by some posters in other threads averages aren't everything. Fast bowling is a skill and in the sub 25 average region I do believe that skill is something that is rated very highly. Hence you find Dennis Lillee to be rated extremely highly. Also the reason why Akram gets rated very highly by his peers. Was surprised to find the likes of Ambrose and Donald rate Wasim as the best that they played with or against but Donald also mentioned the skill aspect. And as much as Imran was good at wicket taking his bowling skills were limited compared to Hadlee, Marshall, and Lillee. Which is also probably why McGrath does not get rated as highly as he deserves to be and is always edged out by Lillee despite Lillee having a lower average.

Also I might add that seemingly normal people do not get to select a number 8 sub 23 avg bowler who has an average of 37 with the bat because they are not given the choice to have him in at number 8 in these selections e.g. espncricinfo XI and this ICC eleven being typical examples

 

[weldone]

actually the huge difference between his home and away records (6 runs) is one of the reasons why marshall, hadlee, lillee, barnes and mcgrath get picked above him in most of the all-time XIs as fast bowlers. they had more all round success (in purely relative terms). it is difficult to shake off the criticism that imran benefited a bit from home advantage - though not as much as miandad or kumble who averaged with bat and ball, respectively 60/45 and 24/37 in home/away games. it is the same reason why ponting and lara lose out the middle order slot to tendulkar in these dream teams. their home record is significantly superior to their away records. we tend to recall overseas performances with more fondness.

Agreed.

I hesitate to bring up another point out here. All of Imran, Miandad and Kumble's home records are more or less helped by the rule of having 1 home umpire for long (among many other reasons including their greatness).

Imran Khan, for one, accepts this fact and makes fun of it. I heard him once, don't remember where, recalling the Pakistani umpires of the 70s and the 80s as 'patriots'.

 

[vcs]

I think the home umpire advantage was prevalent for all countries in the '80s.. the Holding incident where he kicked the stumps down comes to mind. IIRC he wrote in his autobiography that the umpiring was so blatantly biased in that series (with NZ batsmen refusing to walk even for the most obvious edges) that the WI bowlers gave up appealing after a while.

 

[smash84]

Agreed.

I hesitate to bring up another point out here. All of Imran, Miandad and Kumble's home records are more or less helped by the rule of having 1 home umpire for long (among many other reasons including their greatness).

Imran Khan, for one, accepts this fact and makes fun of it. I heard him once, don't remember where, recalling the Pakistani umpires of the 70s and the 80s as 'patriots'.

yes but then you might as well apply this rule to all sub-continental players pre-2000.........Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain........Gavaskar, Sachin too

I find this a great way to rubbish these players' records

In another place where he mentioned the SC umpires he also mentioned that in other areas it was called that umpires make mistakes and in the subcontinent umpires doing that was called "cheats"

 

[weldone]

yes but then you might as well apply this rule to all sub-continental players pre-2000.........Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain........Gavaskar, Sachin too

I find this a great way to rubbish these players' records

In another place where he mentioned the SC umpires he also mentioned that in other areas it was called that umpires make mistakes and in the subcontinent umpires doing that was called "cheats"

Well, though I took examples of only Imran, Miandad and Kumble, I didn't imply that was prevalent in teh subcontinent only, neither did I question these players' greatness...It helped them in home conditions, and acted against them in away conditions...So, overall, there shouldn't have been much of an effect (except that it affected the differences between their home/away records)...For example, Miandad's 60/45 record might have mellowed down to 57/48 (just taking arbitrary numbers here) or something like that...wouldn't have much impact on their overall numbers...

 

[smash84]

Well, though I took examples of only Imran, Miandad and Kumble, I didn't imply that was prevalent in teh subcontinent only, ..

so if it was prevalent elsewhere as well then it all cancels out. The peers of these guys get the same advantage and get their averages propped up at home then?

 

[Beleg]

murali is, like, way ahead of the rest of the pack. it's hard to think of a reasonable way you can argue otherwise unless you are calling into question the legality of his action.

the sheer prolificness of the fella is taken for granted way too often.

and bagapath, a lot of people prefer murali over warne - it's fine and dandy if you do not but there is no justification for bandying it about as a universal truth. the forum regulars on cricketweb are a far cry from being a statistically representative sample of the informed cricket watching population across the cricketing globe.

 

[smash84]

murali is, like, way ahead of the rest of the pack. it's hard to think of a reasonable way you can argue otherwise unless you are calling into question the legality of his action.

the sheer prolificness of the fella is taken for granted way too often.

and bagapath, a lot of people prefer murali over warne - it's fine and dandy if you do not but there is no justification for bandying it about as a universal truth. the forum regulars on cricketweb are a far cry from being a statistically representative sample of the informed cricket watching population across the cricketing globe.

awta..........

agree with all of the above actually not only the part in bold

 

[ankitj]

murali is, like, way ahead of the rest of the pack. it's hard to think of a reasonable way you can argue otherwise unless you are calling into question the legality of his action.

the sheer prolificness of the fella is taken for granted way too often.

and bagapath, a lot of people prefer murali over warne - it's fine and dandy if you do not but there is no justification for bandying it about as a universal truth. the forum regulars on cricketweb are a far cry from being a statistically representative sample of the informed cricket watching population across the cricketing globe.

+1 to that.

Murali over Warne for me every single time.

 

[bagapath]

bradman,benaud, cricinfo dream team's selectors, espn's dream xi's selectors, CMJ...... they all prefer warne to murali. unless you show me one team, i mean one team, put together by an ex player or a cricket historian with murali in place of warne I will treat it as universal truth.

 

[smash84]

bradman,benaud, cricinfo dream team's selectors, espn's dream xi's selectors, CMJ...... they all prefer warne to murali. unless you show me one team, i mean one team, put together by an ex player or a cricket historian with murali in place of warne I will treat it as universal truth.

yes but Murali not being better than Warne away from home is not (or could not be the reason for that). Almost everywhere in the world where Murali has bowled he has struck at a lower average (and probably SR) as well and the difference is pretty significant as well.

 

[ankitj]

bradman,benaud, cricinfo dream team's selectors, espn's dream xi's selectors, CMJ...... they all prefer warne to murali. unless you show me one team, i mean one team, put together by an ex player or a cricket historian with murali in place of warne I will treat it as universal truth.

Bradman did not select either Warne or Murali. And he opined that Murali was better than Warne. So did Sobers and Tendulkar. These are not nobodies!

Warne's preference over Murali is in many ways similar to Lillee's preference over Marshall and Hadlee. Warne arrived on the scene before Murali and was universally hailed as champion and the greatest spinner. It was hard for the romantics to revise that judgement within a decade when Murali achieved greatness. Same goes for Lillee vs some other bowlers. The recognition that Lillee gets as "the" greatest bowler ever has more to do with chronology than actual facts about performance. Likes of Marshall and Hadlee have a clear edge over him if you take a dispassionate look at their records and performances.