Who is the best bowler ever to average over 30 in Test cricket?

[Dan]

tbh I think with Lee it comes down to the way in which he was used -- when you have McWarne cruising around you're not exactly hugely reliant upon your third seamer for wickets or keeping it tight. From that, Lee came into his own as a strike weapon, basically to break partnerships (or ****ing arms) with no care as to the cost. Sure, he struck at 36 against 'top' sides. Sure, the way he looked when bowling (that action + his pace) made him look better than he was. But when it came to needing a bowler to exploit a batsman's weakness against genuine pace or bouncers, he was a good option for Steve Waugh to have to turn to.

 

[kyear2]

Will probably go with Prassana

 

[NUFAN]

I agree there are better options for this poll than Lee, but the point was that Flintoff is NOT one of them but has the same number of votes.

I would put Prasanna, Jack Gregory, Qadir, Umar Gul, and Amar Singh ahead of him, and Broad, Anderson, Patterson, Foster and Harbhajan as his equals or thereabout.

How do you justify rating Umar Gul above James Anderson? I've never seen anyone do this before, not even Umar's wife Sea,

 

[harsh.ag]

How do you justify rating Umar Gul above James Anderson? I've never seen anyone do this before, not even Umar's wife Sea,

I don't. This was a mistake.

 

[adub]

Not as big a mistake as n00fers attempting humour

 

[smash84]

 

[Migara]

This guy has a shout. Better coaching, better discipline and better civil conditions in the country would have made him the first Sri Lankan bowler to take 200 wickets. Bowling in tandem with Murali, this guy made look Murali pedestrian with his pace, turn, bounce and bastard attitude.

 

[the big bambino]

Ok I'll ask: Who is he? That is a surly countenance though.

 

[Migara]

Jayananda Warnaweera, he's from Derek Underwood school of spin bowling, and first bowler I have seen to use the doosra (which he used on Viond Kambli and Mike Gatting). Gatting was made to look like a pile of **** by this man, and so was great batmen like Martin Crowe. Was bit slower than Underwood, but gave a mighty rip.

Don't blame for not knowing him. SL was not known for any class cricketers during late 80s and early 90s, and ones showed promise didn;t ghet matches due to civil war and this instance, having an abrasive personality.

 

[the big bambino]

Thanks. Now that you say I do remember you mentioning him before. Lanka only averaged about 4 tests a year in his playing prime so his opportunities were limited. Guys like Guru, Mahanama, De Silva and Ranatunga were better known maybe bcos they had more opportunities and they played overseas. Also the Ratnayakes. I see Warna only played twice outside SL and once outside the subcon. His odi career was even sparser but I see his ER is around 4 and I don't know if that was held against him too.

One thing though; if his personality kept him out of games he must have been a proper **** bcos he was a contemporary of Arjuna.

 

[GIMH]

Freddie clearly a better bowler than Lee ftr.

Lee was immense around 07-08 time though

 

[Dan]

Freddie clearly a better bowler than Lee ftr.

Lee was immense around 07-08 time though

Which, incidentally, was when he started leading the attack in the absence of McWarne.

While I don't want to get into a game of hypotheticals, I think it would -- at the very least -- have been interesting to see how Lee performed if he were the attack leader rather than a third seamer for most of his career.

 

[adub]

Which, incidentally, was when he started leading the attack in the absence of McWarne.

While I don't want to get into a game of hypotheticals, I think it would -- at the very least -- have been interesting to see how Lee performed if he were the attack leader rather than a third seamer for most of his career.

He was immense after Pidge and Warne retired because he had series against his bunnies Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand with a series against his bunnies when at home India. Killed it in all four of those series as he always did against them, but on the tour to India he was pretty ineffective (which tbf isn't uncommon for quicks in India, but 8 wickets in 4 tests @ 61.6 is pretty dry) and then he did sfa against SA until he broke down.

I don't think the step up to attack leader made all that much difference. He was just lucky it coincided with playing the sides he was always able to bully.

 

[harsh.ag]

He was immense after Pidge and Warne retired because he had series against his bunnies Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand with a series against his bunnies when at home India. Killed it in all four of those series as he always did against them, but on the tour to India he was pretty ineffective (which tbf isn't uncommon for quicks in India, but 8 wickets in 4 tests @ 61.6 is pretty dry) and then he did sfa against SA until he broke down.

I don't think the step up to attack leader made all that much difference. He was just lucky it coincided with playing the sides he was always able to bully.

I still don't get how bullying Sri Lanka and New Zealand is not a feat.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

In 2005, Flintoff seemed to be constantly threatening with the ball. Flintoff is one of the great wasted talents. Should have averaged 40+ with the bat and sub 25 with the ball given the talent he had. He is still in that rare club of genuine opening bowlers who could bat in the top 6, but if he'd capitalised on his batting and bowling talent a bit more his legacy would be so immense.

In the earlier days, he didn't seem to take his bowling seriously enough. Even later on he was quoted as saying "I'm a batsman who bowls". It was about 03/04 when the cricketing world started saying "hang-on, it's the other way around".

40+ with the bat would be over-optimistic. Flintoff had surprising timing, great power, and was orthodox-looking enough to figure at 6 when in form. But he was also fragile in the Michael Vaughan sense of any delivery delivered by any player on earth can get me out kind of batsman. In form, he'd average 40 over a spell and look very good but still occasionally a bit crazy, for the rest of the time he'd average and look like ...well ... a bowler who bats ...and average about 23. It's with a heavy heart that I say his overall batting average of 32-ish about reflects his talent with that particular block of wood.

His bowling on the other hand could have been better. And to answer this thread's question, he was definitely one of the more talented upwards-of-30 averaging bowlers. When he finally started taking bowling seriously at Test level, and remained injury-free, he averaged about 27-28 with the ball, which isn't bad in this era.

So in my opinion, if Flintoff had his head screwed on all his career, and had a bit more luck re: injuries. He'd have a Botham-like career average of Bat -33 and Ball - 28, but didn't quite get there.

Terrific player though, and the country is all the better for his influence

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Which, incidentally, was when he started leading the attack in the absence of McWarne.

While I don't want to get into a game of hypotheticals, I think it would -- at the very least -- have been interesting to see how Lee performed if he were the attack leader rather than a third seamer for most of his career.

I think that would explain him getting less wickets, but perhaps not the inflated average he had in the McWarne years.

Someone mentioned above Lee looking better than he was (extreme pace, upright action) and this I agree with. I also heard a few people say he bowled well in 05 when he in fact averaged 43 runs per wicket. As an England fan, I was praying for Lee to come on and bowl in the tense moments. He was a clear boundary an over bowler for us. The odd spectacular wicket and extreme bouncer at Matty Hoggard aside, we was a release valve for our batsmen.

Lee's career- 2 great spells among years of grating mediocrity. Flintoff was far better

 

[Migara]

I still don't get how bullying Sri Lanka and New Zealand is not a feat.

And Flintoff who said to be better than him failed to bully Sl and NZ?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

And Flintoff who said to be better than him failed to bully Sl and NZ?

No, he was too busy bullying Australia.

Have you heard of Australia?

(sorry, that was just a bit cheeky and inspired by Murali's less than succesfull time there

 

[Migara]

So a person who do well against australia should be doing better against weaker SL and NZ? BTW he bullied WI and Bangladesh. I'd take a bowler who can bully SL and MZ over a bowker who can bully the former two. FTR he averages roughly the same against AUS, SL and NZ.

 

[viriya]

More hypotheticals..
If a player does well vs the toughest opposition and does average vs everyone else.. And another player does average vs the toughest opposition, but does well vs all others (assume 7 other opponents), resulting in the latter having a better record, who is the better overall player?