Rank your Top 20 Bowlers of the modern era

[G.I.Joe]

1-6 would include McDonald, Yuvraj, Steve Smith. Should look at 1-5.

 

[smash84]

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.

I agree with the part that some matches are accorded more importance than others (not that they should be for e.g. the Ashes). Too bad for the players who don't play those matches then.

However you still have not taken into account the fact that in these All Time XIs there is only one spot for an all rounder and Imran is never taken into the ranks as a specialist bowler otherwise inevitably his batting would trump the others. The only dream team that did take 2 all rounders, which I can remember, was Richie Benaud's, and he did pick Imran. The cricinfo XI and ICC XI have Imran only in the all rounder's spot. Not in the specialist bowlers.

 

[smash84]

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

neither would 1-3 include Miandad, Border, Mussey, De Silva, etc etc most of the times

 

[bagapath]

However you still have not taken into account the fact that in these All Time XIs there is only one spot for an all rounder and Imran is never taken into the ranks as a specialist bowler otherwise inevitably his batting would trump the others. The only dream team that did take 2 all rounders, which I can remember, was Richie Benaud's, and he did pick Imran. The cricinfo XI and ICC XI have Imran only in the all rounder's spot. Not in the specialist bowlers.

that is not really true. the EPN legends XI was selected by a panel of judges, many of whom again sat on the Cricinfo dream team panel. That team did not have any restriction on the number of all-rounders or bowlers. the bowling attack they chose - marshall, lillee, akram, warne and sobers - was the same attack selected by the ICC cricinfo selection panel 8 years later. imran not making it to these teams is not only about such restrictions. I realize that the fans would choose him if they could. but the experts did not do so even when they could have. they have preferred the left handed variation akram brings in to supplement marshall and lillee who remain the first two choices to take the new ball. (I would happily choose imran, hadlee, marshall and warne as my main bowlers and benefit from their batting as well)

marshall and lillee's legendary tales are all based on their performances in england and australia. though lillee failed in pakistan and marshall bowled at his best during the 83 series in india they dont figure in these discussions. they dont talk about imran's exploits in the 82 home series versus india either before rejecting him.

how many people talk about dravid's 270 in rawalpindi? otoh, his 233 in melbourne is considered a very big deal, though.

 

[smash84]

]that is not really true. the EPN legends XI was selected by a panel of judges, many of whom again sat on the Cricinfo dream team panel. That team did not have any restriction on the number of all-rounders or bowlers[/B]. the bowling attack they chose - marshall, lillee, akram, warne and sobers - was the same attack selected by the ICC cricinfo selection panel 8 years later. imran not making it to these teams is not only about such restrictions. I realize that the fans would choose him if they could. but the experts did not do so even when they could have. they have preferred the left handed variation akram brings in to supplement marshall and lillee who remain the first two choices to take the new ball. (I would happily choose imran, hadlee, marshall and warne as my main bowlers and benefit from their batting as well)
.

Which legends XI is this???? The ESPN Cricinfo XI that was selected earlier did have only one all rounder to be selected. The options they gave was 1 all rounder, 2 all rounder, and 3 all rounder team but in the end went with only 1. Imran and Hadlee missed out because they were never included in the specialist bowling line up otherwise they would have trumped the specialist bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That makes no sense to me and is disingenuous in it's ignorance of pressure and match situations. It's like saying score 100 runs is always the same thing, when the match conditions could mean it is 100 to save an inning, match or even series. Who said it cancels out? With all due respect, this is some ****amamie theory.

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).

I like hearing the opinions of former pros for insight one may never have considered. I think they'd certainly look at home and away records - although I am not sure if that is the reason why they'd rate Warne ahead. Personally, I think many of the older pros who have picked these renown XIs/great players of all time lists generally just think Warne is better. I think a lot of it has to do with being "the man of the moment" - so often taking the crucial wickets to turn the tide back in Australia's favour. These kinds of things linger in the memory far longer.

 

[smash84]

I like hearing the opinions of former pros for insight one may never have considered. I think they'd certainly look at home and away records - although I am not sure if that is the reason why they'd rate Warne ahead. Personally, I think many of the older pros who have picked these renown XIs/great players of all time lists generally just think Warne is better. I think a lot of it has to do with being "the man of the moment" - so often taking the crucial wickets to turn the tide back in Australia's favour. These kinds of things linger in the memory far longer.

Ikki do you really honestly believe that Murali's action has absolutely nothing to do with him being ranked lower?

 

[ankitj]

That makes no sense to me and is disingenuous in it's ignorance of pressure and match situations. It's like saying score 100 runs is always the same thing, when the match conditions could mean it is 100 to save an inning, match or even series. Who said it cancels out? With all due respect, this is some ****amamie theory.

I know this sounds radical because high profile match performances receive lot of attention and admiration. But think about it, when pressure applies uniformly, everyone is at a similar disadvantage. And in course of the match someone is going to score lot of runs or someone is going to take wickets. It's not like because there is pressure, the base case is no one is expected to score anything substantial and no one is expected to take a lot of wickets.

Match saving hundred is a different case altogether. The pressure is not uniform on all players of both sides. In Mohali last year when India needed 80 odd runs with 2 wickets in hands, pressure was higher on Laxman than on Mitchell Johnson. So Laxman's knock deserves extra kudos.

 

[ankitj]

Here's another way to explain what I mean. If you are arguing that a bowler averaging 23 in Ashes is same as one averaging 20 in a non-Ashes series against same team, what you are implying is either

(a) the said bowler in Ashes performs at a lesser level while the batsman he faces perform at an unchanged level, or
(b) the said bowler performs at an unchanged level while the batsman he faces perform at a higher level, or
(c) the said bowler performs at a lesser level and the batsman he faces perform at a higher level

As you can see, in each case bowler averaging 23 (when someone comparable averages 20) because it's a high profile Ashes series says nothing in favour of the bowler.

That's dry, dispassionate logic for you. Sports following is of course more emotional than that, so I can understand this argument sounds odd.

 

[bagapath]

Which legends XI is this???? The ESPN Cricinfo XI that was selected earlier did have only one all rounder to be selected. The options they gave was 1 all rounder, 2 all rounder, and 3 all rounder team but in the end went with only 1. Imran and Hadlee missed out because they were never included in the specialist bowling line up otherwise they would have trumped the specialist bowlers.

ESPN, before they bought cricinfo, made a tv series called ESPN legends in which they ran a count down of 50 greatest cricketers of all time.. At the end of it, the panel, which included benaud, grieg and i.chappell IIRC, selected a XI.

Imran came in the top 10. but he wasnt in the team. gilly who didnt make it to the top 50, this was back in 2002, made it to the team as the WK. I am saying this to underline that there were no conditions or restrictions in selecting that XI. had there been any, they would have selected knott who was the only wk in the top 50 (am not counting walcott as a specialist keeper anyways). in fact, despite the fact that, both hadlee and imran (and miller and botham among pace bowlers) were ahead of him, macko made it to the team.

the team was

hobbs
gavaskar
bradman
tendulkar
v.richards
sobers
gilchrist (wk)
akram
marshall
warne
lillee

quite similar to the cricinfo xi, is it not? only, there was no "single-allrounder" explanation for not selecting imran.

. 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).

I am sure they do. They know exactly who is a home track hero and who performs well overseas.

how many all time XIs have you seen lara in? ponting? they both average 60 at home and 47/48 away. if you remove ponting's bad shows in india, his overseas average goes up above 50; but it is still 10 points below his home record. what has lara not done in test cricket to not deserve the "greatest batsman since bradman" tag? but he never gets called that!

how many teams have you seen murali in? he averages 19 or 20 at home and 28 away. he has 800 wickets. more than twice lillee's aggregate. but he is never ever considered above warne. he failed only in australia.

in none of the all time XIs will you find a player who has failed in england and australia and who has a bad away record. richards and sobers, who failed in new zealand will be in each and every one of them. lillee, who was a flop in pakistan and west indies makes it to most of the teams. but not murali or lara or ponting.

 

[smash84]

ESPN, before it bought cricinfo, made a tv series called ESPN legends in which they ran a count down of 50 greatest cricketers of all time.. At the end of it, the panel, which included benaud, grieg and i.chappell IIRC, selected a XI.

Imran came in the top 10. but he wasnt in the team. gilly who didnt make it to the top 50, this was back in 2002, made it to the team as the WK. I am saying this to underline that there were no conditions or restrictions in selecting that XI. had there been any, they would have selected knott who was the only wk in the top 50 (am not counting walcott as a specialist keeper anyways). in fact, despite the fact that, both hadlee and imran (and miller and botham among pace bowlers) were ahead of him, macko made it to the team.

the team was

hobbs
gavaskar
bradman
tendulkar
v.richards
sobers
gilchrist (wk)
akram
marshall
warne
lillee

quite similar to the cricinfo xi, is it not? only, there was no "single-allrounder" explanation for not selecting imran.

.

They have not officially announced it but they have pretty much done the same thing. They have picked only a single all rounder. Going by your explanation Wasim should not be in there after all his record in England and WI is not as good as Imran's and his record in SA is quite bad (Although he only played two test matches there).

 

[ankitj]

But Bagapath, Lillee has taken very few (30 or so) wickets outside England and Australia. Yet they pick him in all time XIs based on reputation. They also pick Akram on reputation when clearly, clearly Hadlee, McGrath and Ambrose have better all-round records than him. They would've picked Tendulkar even if his stats were Lara's and Lara's his, again purely on reputation. I really don't think these guys really think much about stats. Even if some of them do, I don't know what way you have of reading their minds?

 

[bagapath]

But Bagapath, Lillee has taken very few (30 or so) wickets outside England and Australia. Yet they pick him in all time XIs based on reputation. They also pick Akram on reputation when clearly, clearly Hadlee, McGrath and Ambrose have better all-round records than him. They would've picked Tendulkar even if his stats were Lara's and Lara's his, again purely on reputation. I really don't think these guys really think much about stats. Even if some of them do, I don't know what way you have of reading their minds?

i am not reading their minds dude. i am just reading their explanations. i listen to the arguments they put forward for choosing one over the other. they more frequently quote performances in england or australia when they justify their selections.

players build their reputation by performing well in those major countries. that is the point. reputation. players who perform well in these countries have a better reputation than those who perform well in the sub continent or in new zealand.

hadlee, mcgrath and ambrose are all better bowlers than akram. but they went for akram in both the teams (legends as well as cricinfo XI) for the left handed variety he brings to the table. again i am not guessing here. they said that in so many words.

did you see the second XI selected by the cricinfo panel? it has no hadlee or ambrose. but it has truman. truman did welll primarily in his home country, england. can you imagine some other player from another country with a stronger home record building such a reputation? miandad comes to my mind immediately as an example. had he been from england he would have been a stronger contender. despite the fact that he never ever averaged under 50 in his entire career (only the second player to do so after herbert sutcliffe) his reputation is not as big as it should be because he was more successful in pakistan than anywhere else.

 

[centurymaker]

i am not reading their minds dude. i am just reading their explanations. i listen to the arguments they put forward for choosing one over the other. they more frequently quote performances in england or australia when they justify their selections.

players build their reputation by performing well in those major countries. that is the point. reputation. players who perform well in these countries have a better reputation than those who perform well in the sub continent or in new zealand.

hadlee, mcgrath and ambrose are all better bowlers than akram. but they went for akram in both the teams (legends as well as cricinfo XI) for the left handed variety he brings to the table. again i am not guessing here. they said that in so many words.

did you see the second XI selected by the cricinfo panel? it has no hadlee or ambrose. but it has truman. truman did welll primarily in his home country, england. can you imagine some other player from another country with a stronger home record building such a reputation? miandad comes to my mind immediately as an example. had he been from england he would have been a stronger contender. despite the fact that he never ever averaged under 50 in his entire career (only the second player to do so after herbert sutcliffe) his reputation is not as big as it should be because he was more successful in pakistan than anywhere else.

my thoughts exactly.

Performing in england and australia is far more important than performing anywhere else because of the much larger cricket fan-base in those two countries.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Bagapath, I know you're explaining why certain players tend to get picked more often in these exerceises, but do you also accept the validity of these reasons?

 

[kyear2]

Instead of everyone just voting for world 11 teams, it would be better if there were an actual argument/ discussion per pick , where every one has hash out pros and cons of each selection. I suggest that these teams wold look a lot different.
Plus found it strange that the cricinfo total player votes plus each member of the panels votes were never disclosed.
Might be quite revealing.

 

[FBU]

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

% of wickets of batsmen (8-11)

Younis 35.4%
Akram 35.0
Steyn 33.2
Walsh 31.4
Fraser 29.9
Pollock 29.5
Akhtar 28.7
Bishop 28.6
Gough 28.4
Ambrose 27.7
Lee 26.8
Donald 26.1
McGrath 25.2
Hoggard 25.0
Srinath 24.2
Gillespie 23.9
Ntini 23.6
Vaas 22.8
Zaheer 20.3
Bond 17.2

 

[bagapath]

Bagapath, I know you're explaining why certain players tend to get picked more often in these exerceises, but do you also accept the validity of these reasons?

no, i dont. that is why i have noticed this and brought it up for discussion.

 

[Athlai]

% of wickets of batsmen (8-11)

Younis 35.4%
Akram 35.0
Steyn 33.2
Walsh 31.4
Fraser 29.9
Pollock 29.5
Akhtar 28.7
Bishop 28.6
Gough 28.4
Ambrose 27.7
Lee 26.8
Donald 26.1
McGrath 25.2
Hoggard 25.0
Srinath 24.2
Gillespie 23.9
Ntini 23.6
Vaas 22.8
Zaheer 20.3
Bond 17.2

God and considering Bonds average he really had everything to be the best bowler of this era.

 

[Jacknife]

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.

Yes he certainly was, my favorite bowler growing up, even though he was smashing England more often than not, he had everything and more, a fast bowler needs.