Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Slifer]

Agreed, but to put down Australian dominance to the bowling being crap is rubbish. I could just as easily reverse his argument on the West Indian quartet and say they only dominated because the batsmen were worse than they were in the 2000s and the bowlers had conditions stacked in their favour.

Both arguments would be drivel.

First of all I quoted the wrong post in my response. My response was meant for Paulted and his question as to y only 3 batsmen averaged 50+ in the 80's so please chill. 2nd no where in my post do I even mention Australian dominance so what exactly is ur problem??

 

[kyear2]

An unusual statistic- Of all the batsmen who played the bulk of their cricket in the 80's, only Border, Javed Miandad, and Richards emerged with a batting average of 50+. Were the other batsmen of the 80's of a low standard or was the bowling that good? There were NO triple centuries scored. During the 2000's there were 14 batsman with an average of 50+, and EIGHT triple centuries scored. Sure more tests were played but its something to discuss......

The bowlers were that good.

 

[the big bambino]

The only exceptional difference in bowling was the unprecedented quality and quantity of the WI bowlers. It is unique in cricket and otherwise the bowling of the 80s is much of a muchness with any other era.

 

[watson]

Agreed, but to put down Australian dominance to the bowling being crap is rubbish. I could just as easily reverse his argument on the West Indian quartet and say they only dominated because the batsmen were worse than they were in the 2000s and the bowlers had conditions stacked in their favour.

Both arguments would be drivel.

I don't think that it's entirely 'rubbish' as it's not difficult to assume small changes in batting skill, bowling skill, or pitch quality from one decade to the next. What I think happened in the 2000s (although I can't think of way to prove it), was that overall batting skill improved slightly relative to the preceding decades, and that overall bowling quality decreased slightly relative to the preceding decades. Pitch quality probably stayed the same. The net effect was that teams like Australia scored more runs relative to preceding decades.

If you think about it, the retirement or ageing of bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, and Waqar must have diminished the pool of bowling skill. And the maturation of class batsman (batting technique often improves with Test match experience) like Hayden, Langer, Ponting, and Gilchrist must have increased the batting strength of Australia. Add these two incremental changes together and it's not difficult to see how Australia dominated.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The only exceptional difference in bowling was the unprecedented quality and quantity of the WI bowlers. It is unique in cricket and otherwise the bowling of the 80s is much of a muchness with any other era.

Thank you. Finally someone gets it. The 80s are made out to be some era in which every bowling attack was full of deadly fast bowlers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apart from the West Indies, most lineups had one great bowler, that's it. Attacks as a whole were hardly unplayable

 

[Slifer]

AWTA. Imo the best decade for fast bowling (that I've observed) has been the 90s where most teams had at least 2 very good to great fast bowlers for most of he decade, some in the lineup at the same time:

RSA: De Villiers, Donald, Pollock
Oz: Fleming, Reifel, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Mcdermott
Pak: Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib
WI: Walsh Amby, Bishop
Eng: Gough, Fraser, Caddick
Zim: Streak
Ind: Prasad, Srinath
SL: Vaas
Nz: Cairns, Bond (i know very briefly).

Yes I know many of the above bowlers played/debuted towards the tail end of the decade still doesn't detract from my overall point.

 

[Migara]

First of all Shoaib is not quite the same as facing Marshall, Holding and Garner especially in '83 to '84. Secondly while I belive that Ponting would at least hold his own, don't see anyone beating the hell out of them.

Shoaib on his day is the most intimidating thing to walk on a cricket field. It doesn't matter how good you are, if Shoaib could produce a good one, it will have several names on it including yours.

But I agree, as a fast bowling unit Marshall, Holding and Garner were the best, but I am not sure how many matches above three played together. And all three have peaks which are distant from each other. What WI did well was, while they had two experienced, skilled bowlers who were sharp in pace they managed to produce a third raw, wild thing that bowled a season or two at express pace. When Roberts was doing well and the mentor, in came Holding and bowled quick for few seasons. Once Holding and Roberts settled in bowling within themselves, in came Marshall and Garner. When Marshall and Garner settled, then came Clark, Patterson, Croft and Bishop.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The argument that the differences in bowling averages would increase at an ATG level compared with international level doesn't consider that some bowlers improved on their game against tougher opponents.

 

[kyear2]

Is choosing a batsman top ten just as contentious or is it more conformed?

I would imagine something like

Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Headley, Pollock, Chappell and Hutton?

 

[watson]

Is choosing a batsman top ten just as contentious or is it more conformed?

I would imagine something like

Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Headley, Pollock, Chappell and Hutton?

Let's not turn a thread about fast bowling into a thread about batting.

Perhaps you could start a new thread kyear and prove the obvious - all polls on CW are contentious all of the time. And that's a good thing I reckon.

 

[smash84]

yeah awta. Make a new thread for the batsmen. There must be tons already but what the hell

 

[Slifer]

I suggest a top 10 batsmen minus u know who.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I suggest a top 10 batsmen minus u know who.

Agreed. Kohli just makes it unfair on everyone else

 

[watson]

Just having a look at Curtly Ambrose's numbers. The only dent in his CV were his returns against India and Pakistan in the West Indies (he never toured India);

Curtly V India in WI
Tests = 9
Wickets = 15
Average = 38.33
Strike Rate = 99.40

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

Curtly V Pakistan in WI
Tests = 8
Wickets = 27
Average = 29.33
Strike Rate = 72.85

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

Still won't be taking him of my Top 10 though as he was awesome against everyone else. And as I said before, you can pick holes in any bowler's career if you try hard enough.

 

[smash84]

exactly. Those stats make curtly look decidedly ordinary. Can you dig up similar stats for Imran when he played in India and Aus?

 

[watson]

exactly. Those stats make curtly look decidedly ordinary. Can you dig up similar stats for Imran when he played in India and Aus?

Imran in AUS
Tests = 13
Wickets = 45
Ave = 28.51
SR = 67.51

Imran in India
Tests = 10
Wickets = 27
Ave = 28.04
SR = 61.22

Those figures are very good although you probably wouldn't call them ATG standard as such.

BTW can hardly find a blemish in Hadlee's record. He was excellent in all countries he played in apart from 3 Tests in Pakistan where he averaged 44.70 a wicket.

However, Hadlee's 6 Tests in India show that he could bowl on the Subcontinent,

Hadlee in India
Wickets = 31
Ave = 22.23
SR = 44.10

Might have to review the number 8 batting spot in my ATG XI.

 

[smash84]

That 1987 series in India served up absolute roads IIRC. The first 4 tests were drawn and the last in bangalore was a rank turner. Would have seriously screwed up his stats in India I reckon.

Also that series in Aus in 1989 towards the end of his career didn't help him too much. Aus is one frontier that Pakistan never even came close to wining.

 

[watson]

That 1987 series in India served up absolute roads IIRC. The first 4 tests were drawn and the last in bangalore was a rank turner. Would have seriously screwed up his stats in India I reckon.

Also that series in Aus in 1989 towards the end of his career didn't help him too much. Aus is one frontier that Pakistan never even came close to wining.

Yes, sometimes there are good and sufficient reasons why real life sometimes messes with stats on a page.

 

[kyear2]

Imran in AUS
Tests = 13
Wickets = 45
Ave = 28.51
SR = 67.51

Imran in India
Tests = 10
Wickets = 27
Ave = 28.04
SR = 61.22

Those figures are very good although you probably wouldn't call them ATG standard as such.

BTW can hardly find a blemish in Hadlee's record. He was excellent in all countries he played in apart from 3 Tests in Pakistan where he averaged 44.70 a wicket.

However, Hadlee's 6 Tests in India show that he could bowl on the Subcontinent,

Hadlee in India
Wickets = 31
Ave = 22.23
SR = 44.10

Might have to review the number 8 batting spot in my ATG XI.

The no. 8 spot is a difficult one. I continue to use Imran for a couple reasons. First of all an ATG XI I personally believe that there should be a bowler from the Sub Continent and second, really believe that Imran was the clearly superior batsman and still struggling with what should be the desired balance of the position coupled with that I'm not even sure if I rate Hadlee that far ahead of the Marshall's and Warne's of the world with regards to batting. Both are worthy though.

 

[Eds]

And as I said before, you can pick holes in any bowler's career if you try hard enough.

How is his home record vs. PAK a hole in his record though? What are you suggesting of him? I'm not really sure I understand.

He's done well in WI, and he's also done well against Pakistan. The fact the two never coincided doesn't really say all that much to me?