• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Greatest Bowler

Greatest Bolwer of All

  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
AndyZaltzHair

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
Talking about peak performance, here's a list for 6 years minimum; Waqar was such a beast

01. 194 wkts at an avg of 20.02 with a S/R of 38.0 for Waqar (90-95)
02. 154 wkts at an avg of 14.85 with a S/R of 40.9 for Imran (81-86)
03. 238 wkts at an avg of 18.90 with a S/R of 43.1 for Marshall (84-89)
04. 233 wkts at an avg of 19.88 with a S/R of 43.1 for Donald (95-00)
05. 222 wkts at an avg of 18.76 with a S/R of 46.1 for Hadlee (83-88)
06. 195 wkts at an avg of 19.87 with a S/R of 46.4 for Wasim (90-95)
07. 286 wkts at an avg of 20.50 with a S/R of 48.1 for McGrath (95-20)
08. 151 wkts at an avg of 21.61 with a S/R of 45.9 for Holding (81-86)
09. 203 wkts at an avg of 22.17 with a S/R of 45.9 for Lillee (76-81)
10. 189 wkts at an avg of 20.24 with a S/R of 50.8 for Ambrose (93-98)
11. 129 wkts at an avg of 23.18 with a S/R of 52.2 for Walsh (85-90)
12. 249 wkts at an avg of 19.95 with a S/R of 52.9 for Pollock (96-01)
13. 170 wkts at an avg of 20.62 with a S/R of 53.3 for Garner (81-86)
14. 267 wkts at an avg of 24.99 with a S/R of 53.5 for Botham (78-83)
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Lillian Thomson said:
Important yes. But if someone (for example Botham) has 8 good years and 5 crap ones I consider that the 5 crap ones don't tarnish the 8 good ones (unless you're a statsmonger).
Click to expand...
what if someone has good 5 years and 8 crap ones. Does that change things a bit?
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
AndyZaltzHair said:
Talking about peak performance, here's a list for 6 years minimum; Waqar was such a beast

01. 194 wkts at an avg of 20.02 with a S/R of 38.0 for Waqar (90-95)
02. 154 wkts at an avg of 14.85 with a S/R of 40.9 for Imran (81-86)
03. 238 wkts at an avg of 18.90 with a S/R of 43.1 for Marshall (84-89)
04. 233 wkts at an avg of 19.88 with a S/R of 43.1 for Donald (95-00)
05. 222 wkts at an avg of 18.76 with a S/R of 46.1 for Hadlee (83-88)
06. 195 wkts at an avg of 19.87 with a S/R of 46.4 for Wasim (90-95)
07. 286 wkts at an avg of 20.50 with a S/R of 48.1 for McGrath (95-20)
08. 151 wkts at an avg of 21.61 with a S/R of 45.9 for Holding (81-86)
09. 203 wkts at an avg of 22.17 with a S/R of 45.9 for Lillee (76-81)
10. 189 wkts at an avg of 20.24 with a S/R of 50.8 for Ambrose (93-98)
11. 129 wkts at an avg of 23.18 with a S/R of 52.2 for Walsh (85-90)
12. 249 wkts at an avg of 19.95 with a S/R of 52.9 for Pollock (96-01)
13. 170 wkts at an avg of 20.62 with a S/R of 53.3 for Garner (81-86)
14. 267 wkts at an avg of 24.99 with a S/R of 53.5 for Botham (78-83)
Click to expand...
What is so special about Waqar's peak from the stats that you have posted? His average at his peak is higher than most others it seems.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Lillian Thomson said:
Important yes. But if someone (for example Botham) has 8 good years and 5 crap ones I consider that the 5 crap ones don't tarnish the 8 good ones (unless you're a statsmonger).
Click to expand...
Yeah I do completely agree with this.

Statistics are a very important tool in rating players you haven't seen much (or any) of, but people do get very lazy and just look at the final figures a lot. After his first eight years of Test cricket Botham averaged something like 38 with the bat and 23 with the ball. While I'd personally prefer the services of someone who played for 15-20 years with worse averages than that, I'm sure a lot of people would prefer a player who played for that length of time, performed much worse and then retired, just because the final figures looked better, and that really is statsmongering.

Playing like arse didn't undo what Botham had done early on; he certainly let others who kept playing well beyond that period make up a lot of ground but I'm sick of hearing people saying he tarnished what he'd already achieved.
 
Last edited:
H4G

H4G

Banned
fredfertang said:
All very true - I'm probably being slightly selfish, but it is sad that the likes of Bhupinder Singh can rattle on about Imran's stats when Botham's might, for want of a bit of dedication, have been so much better than they actually are
Click to expand...
I think we should rate players honestly & on the basis of what they achieved rather than these IFs, COULD'VE BEENSs etc.I can also bring loads of such could have been & would have been in favor of Imran too, will post one here as an example.

Imran had to play many matches as a specialist batsman due to injury at the peak of his bowling(and he has longest & most deadly peak of all post world war bowlers), if he had bowled in those matches he could have easily taken 450 wickets if not 500 with about 5.5 wickets per match.

So such things can be applied to lot of alltime greats & other players too,not Botham alone.
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
H4G said:
I think we should rate players honestly & on the basis of what they achieved rather than these IFs, COULD'VE BEENSs etc.I can also bring loads of such could have been & would have been in favor of Imran too, will post one here as an example.

Imran had to play many matches as a specialist batsman due to injury at the peak of his bowling(and he has longest & most deadly peak of all post world war bowlers), if he had bowled in those matches he could have easily taken 450 wickets if not 500 with about 5.5 wickets per match.

So such things can be applied to lot of alltime greats & other players too,not Botham alone.
Click to expand...
There is a world of a difference between trying to extrapolate a player's stats on the basis of what might have been had it not been for injury, which you are doing, and simply saying that someone failed to make the most of his talent through lack of comittment, which is what I am saying about Botham
 
Fusion

Fusion

Global Moderator
fredfertang said:
There is a world of a difference between trying to extrapolate a player's stats on the basis of what might have been had it not been for injury, which you are doing, and simply saying that someone failed to make the most of his talent through lack of comittment, which is what I am saying about Botham
Click to expand...
I’ll have to play the devil’s advocate on this point Fred. Ignoring the fact that the player couldn’t be arsed to play to his potential (which IMO should count as a big negative when evaluating him with other ATG peers), what makes you so confident he could’ve maintained greatness even had he tried? It’s not uncommon in sport for even great players to have a steep decline with age. How do we know it wasn’t the lack of commitment issue with Beefy but one of rapidly deteriorating skills due to age?
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fusion said:
I’ll have to play the devil’s advocate on this point Fred. Ignoring the fact that the player couldn’t be arsed to play to his potential (which IMO should count as a big negative when evaluating him with other ATG peers), what makes you so confident he could’ve maintained greatness even had he tried? It’s not uncommon in sport for even great players to have a steep decline with age. How do we know it wasn’t the lack of commitment issue with Beefy but one of rapidly deteriorating skills due to age?
Click to expand...
My old man always took the view that you had to look at Botham as a complete package, and that the bad times were the price you had to pay for the good ones, and that if Sir Beefy had practiced as assiduously as Geoff Boycott he'd have batted like Boycs and bowled like Mike Hendrick, and we'd never have seen Headingley '81 or any of the other great days. Now that was the sort of pragmatic thinking that characterised him, and he was probably right, but I'm a bit more of a romantic, and I've never been able to get the idea out of my head that with a modicum of effort he could have knuckled down in 1985 and gone on to become a very fine batsman indeed, but the one certainty is we'll never know
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Fusion said:
I’ll have to play the devil’s advocate on this point Fred. Ignoring the fact that the player couldn’t be arsed to play to his potential (which IMO should count as a big negative when evaluating him with other ATG peers), what makes you so confident he could’ve maintained greatness even had he tried? It’s not uncommon in sport for even great players to have a steep decline with age. How do we know it wasn’t the lack of commitment issue with Beefy but one of rapidly deteriorating skills due to age?
Click to expand...
His skills did deteriorate with age, that was the problem. The older you get the harder you have to work to maintain fitness levels and reflexes. Considering he did no honing of his skills when he younger, by the time he reached 30 he was doomed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top