Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Migara]

Notable names missing from most lists

Hall, Walsh, Statham, Tayfield,Underwood,Laker, Benaud,Lindwall Davidson, Thompson,Larwood, Spofforth,Gibbs(Lance),


Just went and revisited my original list


S F Barnes
S Warne
C Walsh
M Marshall
R Lindwall
D Lillee
F Trueman
R Hadlee
W O'Reilly
R Benaud/L Gibbs (can't separate them)


Posted 2007

Notable name missing from that heap, Muralidaran

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

I can never convince myself that spinners are as valuable as pace men.

+1

(except kumble-india , murali-lanka)

 

[Tom Halsey]

I can never convince myself that spinners are as valuable as pace men.

Why does it matter what someone bowls? IMO, the most valuable bowlers are simply those that you can expect to take the most wickets for the least runs given the conditions you are playing in. You'd be pretty hard pressed to argue, for instance, that any fast bowler in history would have been as valuable as Murali was in the conditions that he regularly bowled in, specifically in Sri Lanka. The average spinner may be less effective than the average seamer in Test cricket (that's fairly undeniable IMO), but that doesn't mean that there will never be a spinner that is more effective overall, averaging all conditions, than all seamers.

Anyway, new list:

Ambrose
Marshall
Warne
McGrath
Imran
Hadlee
Muralitharan
O'Reilly
Davidson
Trueman

 

[morgieb]

Notable names missing from most lists

Hall, Walsh, Statham, Tayfield,Underwood,Laker, Benaud,Lindwall Davidson, Thompson,Larwood, Spofforth,Gibbs(Lance),

Hall - he was good, but not top 10 standard.
Walsh - I can think of at least 4 better bowlers from his time-frame from the West Indies.
Statham - see Hall
Tayfield - don't know much about him.
Underwood - see Statham
Laker - he'd go close.
Benaud - see Underwood
Lindwall - see Laker
Davidson - agree
Thompson - who? If you mean Thomson, then nah.
Larwood - only did it in 1 series.
Spofforth - from a too early period - he looks over-rated cos the batting standards back then were very poor.
Gibbs - see Benaud.

 

[JBMAC]

Hall - he was good, but not top 10 standard.
Walsh - I can think of at least 4 better bowlers from his time-frame from the West Indies.
Statham - see Hall
Tayfield - don't know much about him.
Underwood - see Statham
Laker - he'd go close.
Benaud - see Underwood
Lindwall - see Laker
Davidson - agree
Thompson - who? If you mean Thomson, then nah.
Larwood - only did it in 1 series.
Spofforth - from a too early period - he looks over-rated cos the batting standards back then were very poor.
Gibbs - see Benaud.

Usually I would class this type of post as a windup and treat ir accordingly BUT I have the feeling you are serious. So, just did some quick checking
Wes Hall 48 tests 192 @ econ rt of 2.92
Benaud 63 tests 248 @ econ rt of 2.11
Gibbs 79 tests 309 @econ rt of 1.99
Laker 46 tests 193 @ econ rt of 2.05
Walsh 132 tests 519 @ econ rt of 2.54
Underwood 86 tests 297@ econ rt of 2.11
Tayfield 37 tests 170@ econ rt of 1.95
Spofforth 18 tests 94@ econ rt of 2.48
Statham 70 tests 252@econ rt of 2.34
Jeff ThomPson 51 tests 200@ econ rt of 3.19
AND sunshine I faced both Hall and Thompson and you really do NOT know what you are talking about then. Do You?

 

[Howe_zat]

Larwood - only did it in 1 series.

Such a myth.

 

[Debris]

Why does it matter what someone bowls? IMO, the most valuable bowlers are simply those that you can expect to take the most wickets for the least runs given the conditions you are playing in. You'd be pretty hard pressed to argue, for instance, that any fast bowler in history would have been as valuable as Murali was in the conditions that he regularly bowled in, specifically in Sri Lanka. The average spinner may be less effective than the average seamer in Test cricket (that's fairly undeniable IMO), but that doesn't mean that there will never be a spinner that is more effective overall, averaging all conditions, than all seamers.

You have pretty much made the key argument for me. Spinners are too condition dependent for my liking so, unless the conditions are specified beforehand, I will pick bowlers who I am more confident will perform under all conditions. Murali, for example, had groundsmen pretty much trying to make conditions as ideal as possible for him for half his test matches and his performance fell off quite a bit under unfavourable conditions. Warne was a bit more versatile but really still suffered from the same problem. This is not to say that there will never be a spinner who fits this criteria but I don't think we have seen one yet.

 

[JBMAC]

Larwood 21 tests 78 wickets @ econ rt of 2.67
Only did it it 1 series eh?

 

[ankitj]

Larwood IMO is a highly romanticized, over-rated bowler. Just like Trumper among batsmen. If they had those records without playing Ashes, no one would rate them as highly as they are rated. Yeah, bring on the brickbats and name-calling.

 

[Burgey]

Larwood IMO is a highly romanticized, over-rated bowler. Just like Trumper among batsmen. If they had those records without playing Ashes, no one would rate them as highly as they are rated. Yeah, bring on the brickbats and name-calling.

I agree it's a good thing he didn't do it against the joke Indian teams of the early years.

 

[fredfertang]

Larwood IMO is a highly romanticized, over-rated bowler. Just like Trumper among batsmen. If they had those records without playing Ashes, no one would rate them as highly as they are rated. Yeah, bring on the brickbats and name-calling.

Is Richard Hadlee a highly romanticised, over-rated bowler? In ten full English seasons he topped the bowling averages twice

Is Malcolm Marshall a highly romanticised, over-rated bowler? In fifteen full English seasons he topped the bowling averages once

I'd say no, and I suspect you might too

Yet a man who achieved that five times in a dozen seasons (for 5 of which he carried the legacy of his injury in 32/33 and wasn't the same bowler) is?

Sorry mate but you're talking bollocks

 

[G.I.Joe]

JBMAC, any particular reason why you prefer to mention economy rates instead of averages?

 

[weldone]

Larwood IMO is a highly romanticized, over-rated bowler

Have you studied his FC career? His test record is highly affected by the Bradman-factor. Still, he has a decent test record. But in order to grasp the genius of Larwood you have to study his First-Class career (just like many other old-timers, because they didn't play 200 tests).

 

[JBMAC]

JBMAC, any particular reason why you prefer to mention economy rates instead of averages?

Easier to remember with this old brain AND easier ti type when u have RA

 

[weldone]

Is Richard Hadlee a highly romanticised, over-rated bowler? In ten full English seasons he topped the bowling averages twice

Is Malcolm Marshall a highly romanticised, over-rated bowler? In fifteen full English seasons he topped the bowling averages once

I'd say no, and I suspect you might too

Yet a man who achieved that five times in a dozen seasons (for 5 of which he carried the legacy of his injury in 32/33 and wasn't the same bowler) is?

Sorry mate but you're talking bollocks

Have you studied his FC career? His test record is highly affected by the Bradman-factor. Still, he has a decent test record. But in order to grasp the genius of Larwod you have to study his First-Class career (just like many other old-timers, because they didn't play 200 tests).

...beaten to it by fredfertang, who slowly but surely is becoming my favorite CW poster nowadays...

 

[weldone]

Some of the names that JBMAC has brought up might sound 'not that good' at first, but most of them are quite interesting case studies statistically.

Hall and Walsh, by far, have the best bowling records in the subcontinent among pace bowlers from outside. Yeah, granted that Hall got some relatively weak (but non-minnow, mind) batting lineup - but Walsh didn't. Walsh' records on flat subcontinent decks are extraordinary.

Similarly Benaud has an extra-ordinary record in the subcontinent for a leg-spinner from outside. He, alongwith Gibbs (another name JBMAC takes) are the most successful spin bowlers in the subcontinent from outside.

Then comes Harold Larwood, who arguably has had the best First-Class career for any pace bowler in the last 80 years or so. One wonders what he could have achieved in test level if some freak called Bradman was never born!

Alan Davidson's stats don't need a filter to assume greatness. They are fine in any which way you look at them.

Lindwall lost his best years to war. And in the next 8 years or so, had a freakish record at test level. He was clearly the first great bowler after the war.

The only bowler in his list who is not that great IMO is Jeff Thomson. But don't get me wrong, I think all India needs today to regain the no. 1 test ranking is a bowler like Jeff Thomson.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Then comes Harold Larwood, who arguably has had the best First-Class career for any pace bowler in the last 80 years or so. One wonders what he could have achieved in test level if some freak called Bradman was never born!

10 Tests not involving Bradman, 37 wickets @ 23.18, SR 58.
11 Tests against Bradman, 41 wickets @ 33, SR 68.8.
There's a definite difference there.


However, Bradman's average was 87 against England in matches involving Larwood, and 91 otherwise. Larwood not much of a factor for him, apparently.

 

[weldone]

10 Tests not involving Bradman, 37 wickets @ 23.18, SR 58.
11 Tests against Bradman, 41 wickets @ 33, SR 68.8.
There's a definite difference there.

However, Bradman's average was 87 against England in matches involving Larwood, and 91 otherwise. Larwood not much of a factor for him, apparently.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[ankitj]

Larwood's record before the bodyline series (where he benefited from the leg side field) - 45 wickets in 16 tests @ 34.84 (less than 3 wpm)

And because we are talking about TEST (in caps, as the OP put it ) bowlers, I don't know if first class record is relevant. Even otherwise, there are quite a few cricketers who have great FC records but don't get rated so highly. Can't think of a bowler as an example immediately, but consider Vijay Merchant among batsmen.

 

[The Sean]

Larwood IMO is a highly romanticized, over-rated bowler. Just like Trumper among batsmen. If they had those records without playing Ashes, no one would rate them as highly as they are rated. Yeah, bring on the brickbats and name-calling.

Not sure I understand what you think the Ashes has to do with it? Unless you mean that in the eras that both of these men played the Ashes was the ultimate test and by far the highest level of competition. In which case you'd be absolutely right.