Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Agent Nationaux]

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.

But that isn't the point. I agree that Wasim did not back his talent, but there is no denying that he was the most complete bowler ever. Even Donald recently said the same in his top 10.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

My XI : Wasim Akram | 'The most complete fast bowler I've seen' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Red]

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

I'm Australian. I rank Hadlee very highly.

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.

There are no good reasons not to think that Hadlee is in the absolute top tier of fast bowlers, and he EASILY belongs in the conversation about the best of all time.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Not sure about not being your best leg spinner, but agree with everything else in the post.

Comparing O'Reilly to Warne is like comparing Headley to Richards/Lara/Richards, really tricky.

 

[kyear2]

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

Agreed they don't, but people select players for those XI's who they believe are the very best.

 

[Red]

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

I don't think it has. It just adds an interesting dimension to conversations about past cricketers.

I've stated elsewhere on bowlers, you can mount a claim for any of Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall, Davo, Spofforth, Trueman, Larwood, Barnes, Donald, Steyn, Procter, Ambrose, Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Hadlee etc etc to considered the "greatest" quick ever. In actual fact, all of them are going to do a similar job if selected in a fictitious team as in reality, nothing much separates them in a test match scenario.

Basically, give me any of the three listed above and I'd be happy enough. Which is why discussing who is the greatest, or even ranking ten, is kinda arbitrary.

Arbitrary, but fun. And interesting (at times!)

 

[kyear2]

I'm Australian. I rank Hadlee very highly.



There are no good reasons not to think that Hadlee is in the absolute top tier of fast bowlers, and he EASILY belongs in the conversation about the best of all time.

He is top tier, so is Ambrose. But don't think he is in the conversation for the very best either.

Realistically for me it's between Marshall, McGrath and Barnes though some would add Lillee to that list as well though he wouldn't necessarily be my choice.

 

[Slifer]

I don't think it has. It just adds an interesting dimension to conversations about past cricketers.

I've stated elsewhere on bowlers, you can mount a claim for any of Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall, Davo, Spofforth, Trueman, Larwood, Barnes, Donald, Steyn, Procter, Ambrose, Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Hadlee etc etc to considered the "greatest" quick ever. In actual fact, all of them are going to do a similar job if selected in a fictitious team as in reality, nothing much separates them in a test match scenario.

Basically, give me any of the three listed above and I'd be happy enough. Which is why discussing who is the greatest, or even ranking ten, is kinda arbitrary.

Arbitrary, but fun. And interesting (at times!)

I generally agree with this statement, but then at the end of the day one or two of the absolute best fast men separate themselves from the rest based on what some call an X factor. For Mcgrath its his more or less all round success and his masterful bowling against an all time Indian lineup and his excellent performance vs two of the greatest of all time (SRT and BCL). Plus there is some notion (for better or worse), that he held his own when wickets were at their flattest. For Marshall (IMO the greatest), it was his all round greatness home and away vs all teams. No other bowler has his combination of averages, sr, wpm and all round greatness vs all teams (notwithstanding 3 tests in NZ). Plus he could literally bowl ne thing on ne wicket and he proved it. Lillee, i never really got the attraction tbh, especially since he played the majority of his career (not his fault but still) in 3 countries.

 

[Red]

All fair points, but I think you can make them for most of the guys….

I'd say in Hadlee's favour he took his performances up a notch when he faced the best.

Lillee also, was the man for the big occasion, rampant competitor.

Ambrose could well be the greatest, but I don't think he always cared that much. When he decided it was go time, it was on.

 

[Slifer]

]All fair points, but I think you can make them for most of the guys….[/B]

I'd say in Hadlee's favour he took his performances up a notch when he faced the best.

Lillee also, was the man for the big occasion, rampant competitor.

Ambrose could well be the greatest, but I don't think he always cared that much. When he decided it was go time, it was on.

With all due respect no u cannot. Holding for example, never played against the other strong team of his time Pakistan and struggled in the limited opportunity he had in NZ. Ambrose was great vs most teams but for some odd reason his record vs India sucks imo there were many series where he kept his average in check but wasn't striking as fast as i think he should have....awaiting your response...

 

[smash84]

With all due respect no u cannot. Holding for example, never played against the other strong team of his time Pakistan and struggled in the limited opportunity he had in NZ. Ambrose was great vs most teams but for some odd reason his record vs India sucks imo there were many series where he kept his average in check but wasn't striking as fast as i think he should have....awaiting your response...

Didn't Marshall struggle in NZ too?

Plus if we are talking of a complete fast bowler in terms of having every delivery in the armory then even Marshall can't compare with Wasim.

Marshall was great but he had a lot of excellent support. Hadlee's record is similar without having any support so I don't really see Marshall as head and shoulders above many of the other ATG fast bowlers.

 

[Red]

I never mentioned Holding.

Not sure what you mean by Ambrose "kept his average in check". Like minimising the runs you give away per wicket can be seen as a negative?

Pretty much all quicks see their average raised when playing in India, particularly ones who rely on bounce.

 

[benchmark00]

It's so weird when people try and detract from bowlers by saying 'he had heaps of quality support'.

Yes it might mean in a total theoretical world that batsmen couldn't just 'see them off' but it also means there are a lesser number of wickets available for them to take.

Put a really world class bowler in a team with no other world class bowlers and they'll take more wickets than if you put them in a team full of world class bowlers.

It's just a non issue and shouldn't be raised.

 

[smash84]

It's so weird when people try and detract from bowlers by saying 'he had heaps of quality support'.

Yes it might mean in a total theoretical world that batsmen couldn't just 'see them off' but it also means there are a lesser number of wickets available for them to take.

Put a really world class bowler in a team with no other world class bowlers and they'll take more wickets than if you put them in a team full of world class bowlers.

It's just a non issue and shouldn't be raised.

But that's the whole question. Will they take more wickets at a higher SR and average if they don't have quality support?

 

[watson]

With all due respect no u cannot. Holding for example, never played against the other strong team of his time Pakistan and struggled in the limited opportunity he had in NZ. Ambrose was great vs most teams but for some odd reason his record vs India sucks imo there were many series where he kept his average in check but wasn't striking as fast as i think he should have....awaiting your response...

There is no such thing as a Test match cricketer with a flawless record. If you look hard enough then you can pick holes in the career of any batsman or bowler that you care to mention. That's why the key factor in making a judgement is to examine what the peers have to say.

So if Malcolm Marshall says that the best two opening bowlers that he ever saw, or played against, were Michael Holding and Dennis Lillee then you have to abide by his opinion. After all, we as arm chair critics, and non-professionals can never have the same insights as competitors who fought on the 'field of battle'.

The same goes for Clive Lloyd and Jeff Dujon who nominated Malcolm Malcolm Marshall and Dennis Lillee to be the new ball partners in their ATG XIs. If anyone should know, then it is these gentleman who stood directly behind the wicket, or in front of it, as the case may be.

It's all very well for us to dissect a bowler's career into wafer thin slices, and drag up every last statistical detail, but that pales into insignificance when compared to actually facing the new ball in a real Test match against Holding, Marshall, or Lillee themselves.

In short, assessments of any bowler must be a synthesis of peer review and statistical analysis, with the latter reaffirming the former. What we generally do here on Cricketweb is get the process arse about face.


(I recommend that you get hold of 'In a League of their Own: 100 Cricket Legends Select their World XI'. Edited by Richard Sydenham and forworded by Garry Sobers and Dickie Bird)

 

[benchmark00]

But that's the whole question. Will they take more wickets at a higher SR and average if they don't have quality support?

But the fact is that their being less wickets 'available' thus bowlers not being able to dine out on batting line ups clearly would level out any question over whether their strike rate/average would increase. It's just a non issue at all.

 

[smash84]

But the fact is that their being less wickets 'available' thus bowlers not being able to dine out on batting line ups clearly would level out any question over whether their strike rate/average would increase. It's just a non issue at all.

I can understand lesser wicket"'available" having an impact on wpm but how does the "lesser availability" cancel the implications of having a quality attack for support on a bowler's average or SR?

 

[ankitj]

Smali, go make your next pick in the draft ****.

 

[smash84]

it is my turn already?

 

[benchmark00]

I can understand lesser wicket"'available" having an impact on wpm but how does the "lesser availability" cancel the implications of having a quality attack for support on a bowler's average or SR?

Because when a quality bowler faces a weak batting line up they can run through them, taking big bags which in the same way making a big hundred can boost your batting average, makes the SR and bowling average reduce. It's completely counterbalanced and there's not one good reason to ever bring it up other than explaining why x or y's team wasn't very good despite x or y being a great bowler.