Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[bagapath]

He faced England both home and away just like Warne. Unless you are saying Warne only did better against England because it was called "The Ashes" when he played I don't see why that makes a difference.

it should not. but it does in the psyche of cricket fans world over. that is what i have been trying to convey for the past two days. some series and some performances are considered more prestigious because they have come about in england/australia/south africa/west indies (before 95) /india (after 2001) and not in new zealand or sri lanka.

why do people praise atherton's 185 not out against SA to the skies but not gambhir's match saving effort in new zealand last year or dean jones' 210 in chennai '86 or even sehwag's double hundred in SL in '08?

 

[BlazeDragon]

it should not. but it does in the psyche of cricket fans world over. that is what i have been trying to convey for the past two days. some series and some performances are considered more prestigious because they have come about in england/australia/south africa/west indies (before 95) /india (after 2001) and not in new zealand or sri lanka.

why do people praise atherton's 185 not out against SA to the skies but not gambhir's match saving effort in new zealand last year or dean jones' 210 in chennai '86 or even sehwag's double hundred in SL in '08?

Yes some series are more prestigious than other that's true. But that does not mean that player's performance would somehow be better because of it. In fact if anything it should be worse since Warne is under more pressure than Murali when he is playing England because of the importance of their series and how much it means to both countries.

 

[Ikki]

Like it or not, some series are more prestigous and/or important. They lend to more pressure and thus the performance in these series garner extra attention. It's like comparing a routine ODI match with a ODI final. Even if it is both against the same teams with the same players, few would say performing in one is like performing in the other.

 

[zaremba]

it should not. but it does in the psyche of cricket fans world over. that is what i have been trying to convey for the past two days. some series and some performances are considered more prestigious because they have come about in england/australia/south africa/west indies (before 95) /india (after 2001) and not in new zealand or sri lanka.

why do people praise atherton's 185 not out against SA to the skies but not gambhir's match saving effort in new zealand last year or dean jones' 210 in chennai '86 or even sehwag's double hundred in SL in '08?

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but Jones' 210 is not a good example to support your theory. It's universally recognised as a monstrous and seminal innings by everyone that's heard of it.

 

[centurymaker]

Like it or not, some series are more prestigous and/or important. They lend to more pressure and thus the performance in these series garner extra attention. It's like comparing a routine ODI match with a ODI final. Even if it is both against the same teams with the same players, few would say performing in one is like performing in the other.

yup absolutely.

for an aussie or english guy, doing well in the ashes > anything else.
doing well against the top teams > excelling against west indies, nz etc.

Basically doing well overseas > doing well at home
But doing well at home (or away) against top 3/4 teams > doing well in the backyards of the weaker teams

 

[centurymaker]

yup absolutely.

for an aussie or english guy, doing well in the ashes > anything else.
doing well against the top teams > excelling against west indies, nz etc.

Basically doing well overseas > doing well at home
But doing well at home (or away) against top 3/4 teams > doing well in the backyards of the weaker teams

this is without taking into account pitches (which obviously would change things around).

 

[FBU]

.
Just out of interest looking at fast bowlers and the percentage of top order (1-3) batsmen they got out.

Zaheer Khan 45.8%
Vaas 42.0
McGrath 40.0
Donald 39.1
Hoggard 39.1
Srinath 38.6
Gough 38.4
Ntini 38.2
Bond 37.9
Gillespie 37.5
Lee 36.5
Ambrose 36.3
Akhtar 36.0
Bishop 36.0
Pollock 35.6
Younis 35.4
Walsh 34.1
Akram 31.9
Steyn 31.1
Fraser 28.2

 

[vcs]

it should not. but it does in the psyche of cricket fans world over. that is what i have been trying to convey for the past two days. some series and some performances are considered more prestigious because they have come about in england/australia/south africa/west indies (before 95) /india (after 2001) and not in new zealand or sri lanka.

why do people praise atherton's 185 not out against SA to the skies but not gambhir's match saving effort in new zealand last year or dean jones' 210 in chennai '86 or even sehwag's double hundred in SL in '08?

Not saying your general point isn't true, but Atherton's knock was against Donald, while Gambhir's was against Martin, Ian O'Brien and co. (all due respect to them) on a flat pitch. Was still an outstanding innings because there was a full two days to bat out and he hung around for a majority of it. His 80-odd in Cape Town earlier this year against Steyn and Morkel, that ensured India's maiden series draw in SA will get more attention.

 

[ankitj]

Like it or not, some series are more prestigous and/or important. They lend to more pressure and thus the performance in these series garner extra attention. It's like comparing a routine ODI match with a ODI final. Even if it is both against the same teams with the same players, few would say performing in one is like performing in the other.

And I have always had trouble understanding why performances in high profile matches be given more importance, if that means greater pressure uniformly on all players on both sides. It will affect them all equally therefore it cancels out. Ashes or no Ashes, a match against England is a match against England. Same goes for just about any ODI vs a WC final. Take 2003 WC final. You could go gung ho admiring Ponting's 140 because it was WC final but you have to see how the pressure of occasion also weighed on Indian bowlers who were bowling at level much below what they did in rest of the tournament.

It will be legitimate to give higher weight to performances in high profile matches only if it is true that teams tend not to field their best XIs in other matches, something that has started happening in ODIs in last 2 years only (and sadly in tests too with Tendulkars and others sacrificing/risking the recent WI test tour)

As for Bagapath's point on why Murali doesn't make it to most experts' XI, I think there are two reasons. First, as I mentioned before, the chronology - Warne was hailed a super star before Murali's emergence. Second, most purists prefer a leg spinner over an off spinner. Don't think the experts sit down and break the stats by home and away as Bagapath suggests (and that break down also has it's own caveats and different ways of analyzing).

 

[abmk]

LOL @ Ikki saying Warne was better in SL than murali was

 

[abmk]

why is no one choosing murali over warne? i havent seen one dream with murali in it. why?

1) his action ?

2) warne being a better bat ?

 

[G.I.Joe]

.
Just out of interest looking at fast bowlers and the percentage of top order (1-3) batsmen they got out.

Zaheer Khan 45.8%
Vaas 42.0
McGrath 40.0
Donald 39.1
Hoggard 39.1
Srinath 38.6
Gough 38.4
Ntini 38.2
Bond 37.9
Gillespie 37.5
Lee 36.5
Ambrose 36.3
Akhtar 36.0
Bishop 36.0
Pollock 35.6
Younis 35.4
Walsh 34.1
Akram 31.9
Steyn 31.1
Fraser 28.2

Zaheer WAG.

 

[Blaze 18]

.
Just out of interest looking at fast bowlers and the percentage of top order (1-3) batsmen they got out.

Zaheer Khan 45.8%
Vaas 42.0
McGrath 40.0
Donald 39.1
Hoggard 39.1
Srinath 38.6
Gough 38.4
Ntini 38.2
Bond 37.9
Gillespie 37.5
Lee 36.5
Ambrose 36.3
Akhtar 36.0
Bishop 36.0
Pollock 35.6
Younis 35.4
Walsh 34.1
Akram 31.9
Steyn 31.1
Fraser 28.2

 

[smash84]

1) his action ?

2) warne being a better bat ?

Point number 1 is the most important reason I believe that Murali is not given the credit he deserves

 

[smash84]

.
Just out of interest looking at fast bowlers and the percentage of top order (1-3) batsmen they got out.

Zaheer Khan 45.8%
Vaas 42.0
McGrath 40.0
Donald 39.1
Hoggard 39.1
Srinath 38.6
Gough 38.4
Ntini 38.2
Bond 37.9
Gillespie 37.5
Lee 36.5
Ambrose 36.3
Akhtar 36.0
Bishop 36.0
Pollock 35.6
Younis 35.4
Walsh 34.1
Akram 31.9
Steyn 31.1
Fraser 28.2

I would have thought that Steyn would have been higher....and Zaheer at number 1....haha WAG

 

[weldone]

why is no one choosing murali over warne? i havent seen one dream with murali in it. why?

I think I've answered it already.

Some might have chosen Warne because of his better away record, some might have chosen him because of his inspirational-nature and better fielding, some might have chosen him because they prefer legspinners over offies, some might have chosen him because he's a much better batsman, some might have chosen him because they think Murali was a chucker.

In short, you can't generalise a particular reason and force that upon all AT XI's by all ex-cricketers.

 

[smash84]

In short, you can't generalise a particular reason and force that upon all AT XI's by all ex-cricketers.

This

 

[centurymaker]

I would have thought that Steyn would have been higher....and Zaheer at number 1....haha WAG

It's because zaheer takes out more openers than anyone else (particularly lefties)
Top order + middle order proportion of wickets tells you more as to the sort of wickets a bowler's picked though.
Steyn's express so you'd expect him to run through the tail, and therefore he's more likely to have a greater proportion of tailenders as his wickets.

edit zaheer wag though

 

[bagapath]

I think I've answered it already.

Some might have chosen Warne because of his better away record, some might have chosen him because of his inspirational-nature and better fielding, some might have chosen him because they prefer legspinners over offies, some might have chosen him because he's a much better batsman, some might have chosen him because they think Murali was a chucker.

In short, you can't generalise a particular reason and force that upon all AT XI's by all ex-cricketers.

except the chucking part everything else you have written about would mean that imran should get ahead of all other fast bowlers. that has not been the case.

all those cricketers who frequently make it to these teams are successful in england and australia to start with. and their performances against other big teams, windies of the 70s and 80s and, may be, india of the last few years make their cases strong. failures in new zealand or sri lanka are ignored and they are selected more often than not.

on the other hand, no one who has failed in england and australia make it to these teams. their successes in pakistan, new zealand and sri lanka are ignored and they are left out most of the time.

 

[ankitj]

It's because zaheer takes out more openers than anyone else (particularly lefties)
Top order + middle order proportion of wickets tells you more as to the sort of wickets a bowler's picked though.
Steyn's express so you'd expect him to run through the tail, and therefore he's more likely to have a greater proportion of tailenders as his wickets.

edit zaheer wag though

Agree. 1-3 would never include Tendulkar and Lara. Should look at 1-6.