Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[smash84]

Smali, I normally try to stay out of these sort of arguments but even u can realize that 3 tests away to NZ are minuscule when judging MM's ability in NZ. MM was averaging 26 up until the very last test (in which he was injured and had to sit out the next overseas tour to India).

My point is still valid though. You can't take his career average and plaster it in every country. He played somewhat differently in each country and apparently NZ wasn't his best. I might add that my point was to argue that there is no reason to suggest that Marshall would have bowled better than Imran in NZ. Overall was Marshall a better bowler? IMO yes. Was the difference in their bowling quality as big as the gap between their batting quality, IMO No.

 

[Slifer]

My point is still valid though. You can't take his career average and plaster it in every country. He played somewhat differently in each country and apparently NZ wasn't his best. I might add that my point was to argue that there is no reason to suggest that Marshall would have bowled better than Imran in NZ. Overall was Marshall a better bowler? IMO yes. Was the difference in their bowling quality as big as the gap between their batting quality, IMO No.

I agree

 

[kyear2]

And Watson, myself and many others I am sure would respectfully disagree. As I said before, players are generally judged by their primary skill and if there is a tie you take into account their secondary skill. By that logic Kallis is a better cricketer than Hobbs, Richards and Tendulkar but most (except the all rounder obsessed) don't because as a batsman he is seen as being behind them so the bowling doesn't as much factor into the decision. If I am selecting a team I want the best bowler and regardless of if that person is seen as Marshall, Warne or Murali that person deserves to be rated highly. Your the absolute best and gives your team the best shot at winning.
Was Imran a match winner as a batsman or genuine world class, or could be make a strong team in his bowling prime as a batsman alone. As Monk earlier pointed out, no. Smali constantly points out that Sobers was a sub par test bowler, but he was the equal if not better a bowler than Imran was a batsman especially when they were both in their respective primes were Sobers on his day was a match winner with bat and ball for the West Indies. Other than Botham and Miller few others of any could lay claim to that.

So IMHO does Imran's Batting average, inflated after his peak as a bowler makes him a better cricketer than a bowler who proved himself world class and a match winner everywhere and arguably the greatest match winner to play the game. For mine no.

 

[Slifer]

That brings me to an interesting question Kyear, who do u think is the second best WI cricketer: Sir Viv or Sir Malcolm ??

 

[kyear2]

Think Malcolm was the best. Then Garry then Viv. As great as Garry as they never really had a consistent great inning team as outside of when Hall and Griffith were together. Bowlers win matches, it's all about winning and Marshall was our best match winner. Hence he was for me the best. Garry though was brilliant in two disciplines and good and versatile in the third. That means though that the top three are all very close.

 

[Slifer]

Think Malcolm was the best. Then Garry then Viv. As great as Garry as they never really had a consistent great inning team as outside of when Hall and Griffith were together. Bowlers win matches, it's all about winning and Marshall was our best match winner. Hence he was for me the best. Garry though was brilliant in two disciplines and good and versatile in the third. That means though that the top three are all very close.

Wait a minute, so u mean to tell me u thin Sir Malcolm is even greater than Sir Gary??

 

[kyear2]

More or less.

 

[Red]

Reasonable opinion imo. Interesing too.

 

[watson]

Think Malcolm was the best. Then Garry then Viv. As great as Garry as they never really had a consistent great inning team as outside of when Hall and Griffith were together. Bowlers win matches, it's all about winning and Marshall was our best match winner. Hence he was for me the best. Garry though was brilliant in two disciplines and good and versatile in the third. That means though that the top three are all very close.

Let's not be too hasty here. Sobers did average nearly 74 runs for the best part of a decade and consequently dominate the 1960s. Not too many cricketers have had such an enormous influence as Sobers for so long.

 

[Second Spitter]

In addition, Marshall was as good as he had to be. He generally didn't take his bating seriously unless the team was in trouble and in those conditions he generally delivered. Imran's batting also only drastically improved after his injury though he was admittedly always the better batsman. Who knows, If MM was on a weaker batting team and had to apply himself more with the bat he may have produced better numbers, but that is all conjecture and speculation. .

This encapsulates my stance on MM's batting. The same argument can be made for Holding albeit to a lesser extent. Every time Holding came out to bat, he had a "I don't give a f--k" attitude written all over his face. Except that legendary partnership with Viv in 1984 where WI were circa 9/160 and finished all out 272.

However, I'm not advocating Holding for this list.

 

[watson]

Since Michael Holding has been mentioned.....

It is a common preconception that Holding has always bowled faster than Andy Roberts. This seems to be untrue as Roberts was every bit as quick as Holding up until the late 70s. During the 1976 demolition of Tony Greig's team it was most likely the speed of Roberts that spearheaded the attack despite the iconic footage of Holding's assault on Brian Close.

Here are the relevant speed trials at different times during the 70s;

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html

IMO Andy Roberts remains the most under-rated of all the great West Indian quicks.

 

[Second Spitter]

Except Holding was Mr Glass.....when injuries forced him to bowl from the short-run (circa '83) he was much was less threatening -- still very effective, though.

Garner is the true underrated Windian quick -- almost identical record to Holding (arguably better) but never gets the credit he deserves or is talked in the same esteem. Oh yeah, he didn't intentional bowl at batsmen either.

 

[kyear2]

Let's not be too hasty here. Sobers did average nearly 74 runs for the best part of a decade and consequently dominate the 1960s. Not too many cricketers have had such an enormous influence as Sobers for so long.

That's why I said it was very close. When one looks at Sobers record it should be remembered that he came into the side as a spinner and a took a couple of years for him to become a batsman, far less the master he eventually became.

Bradman
Marshall/Sobers

for me that's crickets trinity, so not trying to disrespect the greatness that was Garry Sobers. Arguably top 3 batsman, arguably best ever fielder and top tier slip fielder and best and most versatile 5th bowler to play the game.

Regarding underrated, that has to be MM, even in his own time and on his own team Viv was given all the accolades but Marshall was the one who maintained the teams standing as the best even after Richards decline, Lloyd's retirement, Holding's injuries and retirement etc and with a peerless record everywhere. The man was a beast and our under rated gem.

 

[Slifer]

Not sure about Sir Malcolm being underrated but it's very true about a certain Mr Garner. I suspect that has a lot to do due to the fact that during his career Garner didn't take too many 5 fors and didn't take a single ten for. But at the same time he still averaged sub 21, struck at around 50 and averaged more or less 4.5 wpm. And I think his ODI record speaks for itself. But I think the issues with his 5 fors and ten fors are what generally hold him back...but he was one hell of a bowler and as good as/effective as any before or since.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Shane Watson and Kallis are better 5th bowlers than Sobers.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

And I don't think being the best 5th bolwer is something to shout about.

 

[Eds]

And I don't think being the best 5th bolwer is something to shout about.

What? Why not?

 

[Debris]

Except Holding was Mr Glass.....when injuries forced him to bowl from the short-run (circa '83) he was much was less threatening -- still very effective, though.

Garner is the true underrated Windian quick -- almost identical record to Holding (arguably better) but never gets the credit he deserves or is talked in the same esteem. Oh yeah, he didn't intentional bowl at batsmen either.

What are you talking about?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

What? Why not?

Name one amazing 5th bowler.

 

[Eds]

Name one amazing 5th bowler.

Garry Sobers..?

Vinoo Mankad, Monty Noble, Jacques Kallis, Tony Greig, Shane Watson, Wilfred Rhodes, Aubrey Faulkner, Trevor Goddard, Charles Macartney, George Giffen. Do I go on?