Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[smash84]

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.

So you are telling me that Malcolm Marshall's average and SR would have been the same if he was playing for Zimbabwe?

 

[benchmark00]

So you are telling me that Malcolm Marshall's average and SR would have been the same if he was playing for Zimbabwe?

It may well have been better.

 

[smash84]

possible but doesn't sound very probable

 

[Slifer]

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.

MM didnt struggle in NZ. He played one 3 test series where he averaged 32. Really?? He was averaging 26 up until the last innings there nice try. I dont see how MM having support makes a diff either. Hadlee's record is somewhat similar to MM but not s complete ie sub 25 vs everyone home and away. And I agree MM is not head and shoulders above the other great fastmen no fast bowler is, but his case for the best ever is more compelling IMO

 

[Slifer]

possible but doesn't sound very probable

Neither would Imran or Hadlee's or ne of the other greats for that matter!!

 

[benchmark00]

possible but doesn't sound very probable

Exactly, meaning it would in all reality even out and there's no way of knowing so it shouldn't be brought up to detract/give extra credit when discussing these things.

 

[Slifer]

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.

In the case of Amby well he never played in India, which makes his record vs India even more peculiar .

 

[Slifer]

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)

No there isn't, but there r some cricketers who have near complete records imo. Example SRT average 40+ home and away vs everyone (I think G Chappell also achieved this). Bowling stakes u have Imran who averages sub 30 vs everyone home/away and MM sub 25 vs everyone. Not flawless but pretty closed to complete imo.

As far as what cricketers think of their peers, most West Indians of that era will rightfully rate Lillee highly after all he was one of the first great fast men to come along in a long long time not to mention his exploits in 75-76 series and WSC. None of them would have faced MM themselves. Its similar to how Warne and the likes of Ponting think very very highly of Curtly Ambrose even though most would rate Mcgrath higher. I distinctly remember Warne ranking Amby as the best fastman he ever faced and this was likely due to his exploits vs oz during his playing days.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

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.

We have been over this so many times...

The reason the wickets per match tend to be similar, is that a pack of great bowlers will take 20 wickets between them nearly every game.

Whereas if you take one ATG bowler and couple him with a few average ones, and look at how many times they only take say 15 wickets behind them, which is compounded even more when you add a mediocre batting line up to the mix.

 

[Prince EWS]

Exactly, meaning it would in all reality even out and there's no way of knowing so it shouldn't be brought up to detract/give extra credit when discussing these things.

Yeah, fully agree. There are lots of advantages and disadvantages of being a lone wolf/part of a pack in terms if what sort of bowling figures you end up with, but for every advantage there's a counter disadvantage. It all evens out IMO. I think if anything, being a great bowler with poor support will lead you to take slightly more wickets at a slightly greater average while being a great bowler with good support will lead to slightly the opposite, but it all largely evens out for mine. It's not really worth bringing up either way.

 

[watson]

Yeah, fully agree. There are lots of advantages and disadvantages of being a lone wolf/part of a pack in terms if what sort of bowling figures you end up with, but for every advantage there's a counter disadvantage. It all evens out IMO. I think if anything, being a great bowler with poor support will lead you to take slightly more wickets at a slightly greater average while being a great bowler with good support will lead to slightly the opposite, but it all largely evens out for mine. It's not really worth bringing up either way.

Seen as a numbers game that involves just Total Wickets and Averages I would have to agree also.

However, it is not difficult to understand that maintaining motivation and excellence in the presence of mediocrity and defeat must be no easy task. At times it must be downright frustrating and depressing. For me, it is the extra mental toughness of cricketers like George Headley, Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Allan Border, and Richard Hadlee that sets them apart.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Exactly, meaning it would in all reality even out and there's no way of knowing so it shouldn't be brought up to detract/give extra credit when discussing these things.

Absolutely. It all just balances out stats wise tbh. Basically, if you're a great bowler, you'll find a get wickets no matter what team you're put in

 

[Singh Is King]

Find it hard to comprehend people listing Barnes as number 1 when he played so few matches and no one really 100% knows what he actually bowled! I do rate him as a top 10 bowler, but will exclude him from my list for those reasons plus the fact there is no video footage etc as I watch a lot of video footage on ex players.

1.) Marshall
2.) Mcgrath
3) Warne
4) Akram
5) Ambrose
6) Hadlee
7) Murali
8) Steyn
9) Imran
10) Lillee

 

[Migara]

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?

Stats guru. Filter the results using "involving player" option

 

[the big bambino]

Cheers

 

[Francis]

My list will be quite different to everybody else's...

1. Shane Warne
I can't be bothered writing too much about Warne.

2. Dennis Lillee
If we took what the cricket experts said about Lillee seriously, then there'd be almost no contest that Dennis Lillee is the best fast bowler ever. That's what Benaud, Dickie Bird, Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham, Bob Willis, Alan Border, and many others have said about him. I wish I could drudge up my old posts about Lillee and repost some of the ways I defended Lillee. I can't understand why he isn't move loved at CW.

If I had to say one thing especially about Lillee, it's that people really underestimate how much Australia relied on him. Take Richard Hadlee. People talk about how he carried New Zealand - but Lillee bowled more overs and spells per match than Hadlee. He was asked to carry Australia more, I would argue, than Hadlee carried New Zealand. Look at how much Lillee bowled in the '81 Ashes, and the wickets he took.

Honestly, people who compare Lillee to McGrath need to consider two things:
1) Lillee bowled more overs per match. He was asked to shoulder more responsibility.
2) Lillee got more wickets per Test than McGrath. People will talk about how McGrath, who average 4.5 wickets per Test, isn't far behind a man who averaged 5.1 wickets per Test. But to me, getting more wickets per Test is more important than having a bowling average that's 2-3 runs better (McGrath averages just over 21, Lillee just under 24).

Some will point to his sub-par record on the sub-continent. I don't think he played enough there to judge. The fact that Lillee is most famous for bowling his best on the MCG, during a period when the MCG was known for not being a fast bowlers wicket, says enough for me. Most commentators note Lillee performed better at the unresponsive MCG than at the fast-paced WACA.

3. Malcolm Marshall
The first bowler on my list with a pretty much perfect record against everybody. Marshall can't really help the fact that being in a strong side helped him a lot.

4. Muttiah Muralitharan

The best long marathon-spell bowler of all time. His figures probably never will be beaten. I'd have him in my all-time side.

I have a few tiny criticisms of Murali. First, while he was one of the all-time greats, his figures do flatter him. For example, I saw many Tests where he took wickets after the Tests were lost. The recent SA v AUS Test is a good example. Steyn didn't have a great Test, but he chimed in at the right time and took about 4-70, despite taking those wickets after Australia had the ascendancy. Murali could be 0-100 one instant, Test over, and then take 5-130, which is incredible. His stats overstate the impact he had on Tests. That said, the mere fact he got the wickets says something about how great he is.

My other tiny criticism is that I don't think he was as great a big-match performer as most people on my top 10. Oh, and he performed bad against Australia. And yes, that old chestnut that he took nearly 200 wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh... well it flatters him, a bit...

5. S.F. Barnes
I used to be in that camp that said, "Barnes played in an era before cricketers were good, etc." I doubt Barnes would have the figures he had if he bowled in modern times. But at the same time, he's so incredible ahead of everybody else in his era, that nobody comes close to him. Maybe he wouldn't be great in modern times, but this is going on legacy, partly.

6. Sir Richard Hadlee
I hate New Zealanders, so I didn't want to put Hadlee on this Test. I put Hadlee above McGrath because he had to carry his side more than McGrath. His legacy is impressive - a win against the almighty West Indies, and a home and away series win against the Aussies. Many of these were Hadlee's best-ever performances, too. He's by far NZ's greatest cricketer. Pity I don't like him.

7. Glenn McGrath
- I really find McGrath to be the most overrated player on these boards. If there was one cricketer who's figures are better than his impact, it's him. I recall while his figures were magnificent in the mid to late 90s, men like Walsh, Ambrose, Donald, and even Pollock, were regularly regarded as better than him. McGrath's figures belie his impact. If you saw him then, nobody thought he was the world's best bowler until about 1999.

That's true for me. For me, McGrath was the world's best bowler in 1999 in the West Indies, and from 1999-2001 he eclipsed an out-of-form Warne. The period between Perth 2004 until he stepped on that cricket ball at Edgebaston was the best period of his career. If that's the McGrath you remember, and you think he was that good all his career, well I'd argue he wasn't that good until around 1999.

Also, it has to be said McGrath broke even with Lara and Tendulkar.

It's interesting that Benaud and Chappell think Ray Lindwall was better than McGrath...

7. Curtley Ambrose
Can't be stuffed writing about him.

8. Wasim Akram
For pure entertainment, I'd take Akram over someone like McGrath. I like what Tim de Lisle once said about him - with Pollock and McGrath you had line and length, but Akram could take a wicket without the keeper. His swing was incredible.

9. Bill O'Rielly
The man Bradman said was the best bowler ever. His figures, strike-rate, everything are immaculate. He compares favourably against any bowler, statistically, throughout history. I'd have him and Warne in my all-time Aussie side - yes two leg-spinners. People really need to look at his stats and see how impressive he is. More than five wickets per Test, at under 23...

10. Fred Trueman
Ah back when taking 300 wickets made you immortal... Hopefully people don't forget how incredible that was back in his day. Honestly, I'm thinking I should put Trueman higher than this. I think in a different age, with more competition to play, he could be in most people's top fives. Benaud rates him about the second best bowler he ever saw.

 

[the big bambino]

If you like Tiger's wpm stat and average then how much more impressive is Barnes' 7 wpm and 16 average.

 

[ankitj]

If you like Tiger's wpm stat and average then how much more impressive is Barnes' 7 wpm and 16 average.

And how impressive is Murali's 90 match streak of 7wpm when he took 631 wickets.

 

[the big bambino]

That is impressive. Good thing he didn't bowl to Australia as often as Barnes did.

 

[YorksLanka]

My list is based on those bowlers I have seen in my time watching cricket and enjoyed..
1.Lee, 2. Ambrose 3. Marshall 4. Waqar 5. Wasim 6. Holding 7. Lillee 8. Murali .9.Warne 10. Walsh

no particular order, jsut those that came to mind...