Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[the big bambino]

The number of lower order batsman dismissed is totally irrelevant to the topic. It's how much opportunity they got. Murali was bloody good sending them to the dressing room. It's bleeding obvious that Marshall's or Warne's peers bowled more innings per match on average than Murali's peers. WI and Australia took 20 wickets (or wickets per match) more regularly than Sri Lanka. If Aussies took 17 on average and SL took 14 on average, it's obvious that Aussie bowlers had the chance to bowl at the tail more. Anyone can check stats, they would give a similaar result.

Cricket stats are pretty detailed but I can't get the wickets/match stat. Well not easily so I wont bother. The best stat I can get to form a comparison is the no. of tail end wickets a man got compared to another. You could claim that one detailing actual no. of balls a bowler sends down to 8 - 11 in the order would be better. But I would only be partially convinced, and anyway it too is a stat that even cricket doesn't record to my knowledge. Therefore the stat showing the no. of wickets a bowler takes against the tail is neither perfect or irrelevant. It is the best stat available and an indication they had the opportunity to bowl at the tail more often than not, irrespective how quickly they sent them to the hutch.

Pakistan up to mid 1980s?

Do you want me to make a comparison with Pakistan? If so which team and what start/end years?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

It was good the way it was.

Hadlee was probably the second most complete fast bowler ever, and at worst there is little between him and McGrath or him and Lillee.

 

[Cricket_Expert]

1.Imran
2.Hadlee
3.Muralitharan
4.Marshall
5.Wasim
6.Steyn
7.Ambrose
8.Lindwall
9.Trueman
10.Donald

 

[Flem274*]

Best 10 I have ever seen:

1. McGrath
2. Ambrose
3. Murali/Warne (gfy)
4. Warne/ Murali (gfy)
5. Steyn
6. Donald
7. Pollock
8. Akram
9. Walsh
10. Asif

Didn't see Waqar at his best. Kumble unlucky but had limitations outside the subcontinent until late in his career.

this gfy bloke is news to me. must have gone all right yeah?

Hadlee was probably the second most complete fast bowler ever, and at worst there is little between him and McGrath or him and Lillee.

mate seriously i wouldn't bother.

 

[Migara]

Cricket stats are pretty detailed but I can't get the wickets/match stat. Well not easily so I wont bother. The best stat I can get to form a comparison is the no. of tail end wickets a man got compared to another. You could claim that one detailing actual no. of balls a bowler sends down to 8 - 11 in the order would be better. But I would only be partially convinced, and anyway it too is a stat that even cricket doesn't record to my knowledge. Therefore the stat showing the no. of wickets a bowler takes against the tail is neither perfect or irrelevant. It is the best stat available and an indication they had the opportunity to bowl at the tail more often than not, irrespective how quickly they sent them to the hutch.

The working out is very simple.

During Murali's time - Murali played 133 tests and bowled in 230 innings. i.e. 1.73 innings per match SL picked up 1968 wickets in 132 matches that involved Murali during his career, 14.9 wickets per match.

During Marshall's time - Marshall played 81 tests and bowled in 151 of them. i. e. 1.86 innings per match. WI picked up 1348 wickets, in 81 tests involving Marshall, 16.7 wickets per match.

This shows Marshall had more opportunities to bowl to the tail on average because his bowling unit took more wickets on average.

One can go through match by match and see actually how many times the bowling units did bowl out teams fully and compare, and still would find out that WI took top order wickets so much that they approached the tail more often than SL.

Do you want me to make a comparison with Pakistan? If so which team and what start/end years?

Pakistan on late 70s and early 80s had very good players of spin, to the level they rivaled or bettered India.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well the thing is, Marshall also had to compete with 3-4 other world class bowlers for those tail end wickets and each one of them was capable of cleaning up the tail in no time. WI as a unit may have had more opportunities to bowl at the tail, not necessarily Marshall himself

 

[the big bambino]

That's the point. I'm going to buy some beers and then see how spinners did v Pakistan from around 1977 - 83. I think 6 years is a bit selective compared to the Indian/Oz comparison earlier but I'm curious to see how they went. I might see how India did over the same period.

EDIT: Migara - where did you find the stats for the no. of wickets their teams took in the span of Marshall's and Murali's careers?

 

[watson]

As strange as it sounds coming from me - stats are only half the story. The reason that the likes of Marshall, Lillee, and Barnes come out on top is that so many of their peers rave about them. Pick up a relevant cricket book and nearly all of Marshall's contemporaries say that he was the best bowler that they ever played against. The same goes for Lillee and Barnes. Nearly all the star batsman, bowlers, and keepers of their respective eras claim that they were unrivaled.

So you can strain as many gnats as you like with regards to tail-end batsman and what-not, the history books will still say the same thing.

 

[the big bambino]

Their records back up the raves.

Top 10 spinners and their averages v Pak from 77-83 ranged from 15 to 75. 8 of the 10 averaged over 30 with Bright a respectable 31.72. That 15 average belongs to Phil Edmonds btw and it is a stand out performance. The only other of the top 10 to average less than 30 was SL's De Silva with 29. Chandra was the best of India's famous 4 with an average of 48. Then Bedi at 75. The other 2 averaged over 100.

Whereas the averages range for the top 10 spinners v India in the same period was 15 to 57. The 15 average belongs to John Bracewell who managed that in one match at Auckland, so its a bit of an outrider. 7 of the top 10 averaged over 30. Wasim Raja (28) and Underwood 26) being the others who averaged under 30. Funnily enough I didn't see where Underwood played a single match v Pak in this time period but played many times against India.

I wont bother checking Oz as this time frame coincided with a period of some ****ness for us.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee was probably the second most complete fast bowler ever, and at worst there is little between him and McGrath or him and Lillee.

I have honestly never heard any historian, commentator or past player place Hadlee in the same conversation as Lillee or McGrath. For his great stats he just isn't/ wasn't seen in the same light as those mentioned especially Marshall, Lillee or Barnes.

mate seriously i wouldn't bother.

Just show me one single ATG team or objective article that proclaims Hadlee to be the best.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

When spinners are mentioned there are three which separate themselves from the pack; Warne, Muralitharan and O'Reilly. When fast bowlers are mentioned there are only four who contends for the title of the best ever; Marshall, McGrath, Barnes and Lillee. That leaves me with three available spots and it's a close call but I go with Ambrose and Trueman and the competition for the third spot is wide open and Steyn will probably be there before his career is finished, so may just put him there now ahead of Holding, Hadlee, Donald and Imran.

01. Malcolm Marshall
02. Glenn McGrath
03. Syd Barnes
04. Dennis Lillee
T5. Shane Warne
T5. Muttiah Muralitharan
07. Curtly Ambrose
08. William O'Reilly
09. Fred Trueman
10. Dale Steyn

With regards for who was the best. Only one bowler had every tool in the book (searing pace, swing, bounce, cutters, seam) and knew when and where to use them. He performed everywhere the world over and dominated and was equally brilliant both home and away. He averaged less than 25 in all countries vs all opponents and finished his career with an average under 21 and a s/r under 48 while picking up over 4.5 wpm while competing for wickets.
He also put his team on his back and despite retirements (Lloyd, Holding, Robers) and decline of key players (Viv and Greenidge) never lost a series and in his prime as an opening bowler lost all of three tests*.

*Can't pull up stat guru, so going from memory[/QUOTE]

Two thumbs up !!!

Wasim also had every tool in the book and according to some bowlers he was the most complete.

 

[ankitj]

I have honestly never heard any historian, commentator or past player place Hadlee in the same conversation as Lillee or McGrath. For his great stats he just isn't/ wasn't seen in the same light as those mentioned especially Marshall, Lillee or Barnes.



Just show me one single ATG team or objective article that proclaims Hadlee to be the best.

So then you are just parroting others' views rather than giving your own. Why don't you put that disclaimer every time you go on to make these definitive statements.

 

[Red]

I have honestly never heard any historian, commentator or past player place Hadlee in the same conversation as Lillee or McGrath. For his great stats he just isn't/ wasn't seen in the same light as those mentioned especially Marshall, Lillee or Barnes.



Just show me one single ATG team or objective article that proclaims Hadlee to be the best.

Huh?

You haven't heard people mention Hadlee as an ATG?

 

[kyear2]

Huh?

You haven't heard people mention Hadlee as an ATG?

ATG, of course and without doubt. The best? No.

He was mentioned in my earlier post as a candidate for the top 10, so of course I rate him highly.

 

[kyear2]

Wasim also had every tool in the book and according to some bowlers he was the most complete.

But he doesn't have the stats to back it up. Less than 4 WPW, a Strike Rate over 54, never once was he rated the No. 1 bowler in the world and his top order vs lower order wicket ratio is a tad lower than one would like it to be.
He had all the tools and a plethora of magic deliveries he just wasn't as efficient as say a McGrath at actually taking wickets.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

mate seriously i wouldn't bother.

Yeah coming to realise that

I have honestly never heard any historian, commentator or past player place Hadlee in the same conversation as Lillee or McGrath. For his great stats he just isn't/ wasn't seen in the same light as those mentioned especially Marshall, Lillee or Barnes.


Just show me one single ATG team or objective article that proclaims Hadlee to be the best.

Marshall is the best unquestionably. Hadlee had the misfortune of being behind Marshall for most of his career,while McGrath and lillee were the stand out bowlers of there eras.

Also, and im going to get flamed for saying this, hadlee wasn't Australian.

 

[kyear2]

So then you are just parroting others' views rather than giving your own. Why don't you put that disclaimer every time you go on to make these definitive statements.

I don't parrot others opinions, was just using anecdotal evidence and historical reference to support my own opinion.

Don't see why there is a problem with my opinion. It's mine. Not telling you to agree with me.

For me Hadlee is not a slam dunk for my top 10, not saying he isn't an ATG, just not generally in the conversation for who is the very best.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall is the best unquestionably. Hadlee had the misfortune of being behind Marshall for most of his career,while McGrath and lillee were the stand out bowlers of there eras.

But we somewhat agree though. Hadlee was undoubtedly great and top tier, but one cannot be the best ever if they were not the best of their era and hence Barnes, Marshall and McGrath just stand out for me along with the three spinners Warne, Murali and Tiger.

Also, and im going to get flamed for saying this, hadlee wasn't Australian.

That can also be true as there does seem to be just a tad of hyperbolic exuberance with regard to Lillee and Warne.

 

[ankitj]

And I have said this thing before - cricketers don't play to get selected in fictitious ATG XIs. They play to win games for their teams. I find it annoying that ATG XIs become a basis for rating cricketers.

 

[the big bambino]

Also, and im going to get flamed for saying this, hadlee wasn't Australian.

Maybe you will but I think its a reason for the rankings. I might get flamed for saying this but the fact Warne was rated in the top 5 cricketers of the last 100 yrs or whatever is a victory for his publicity machine. I don't think he was Australia's best leggy let alone top 5 cricketer ever. I also think Lillee gets the same benefit and, with apologies to his fans, wouldn't pick him in Australia's best ever XI.