Top ten greatest bowlers and batsmen of all time

[KINGOFKINGS]

Sometimes I feel Marshall is highly overrated when people say he is beyond doubt the greatest fast bowler of all time.

3 Reasons :

01> He picked his 1st 5W hauls in 1983 and picked his last 5W haul in 1989. So apart from those 7 years at a stretch he wasn't all that good and its not that his teammates cut into his tally. He wasn't all that good before 83 or after 89 to pick any 5fer .....
02> He was MEDIOCRE in ODIs .... He had the worst strike rate in ODIs than his peers Lillee/Imran/Kapil/Hadlee/Botham and even someone like Greg Chappel struck better than him. His bowling avg in ODIs is close to 27 which is just BS for a guy who is beyond doubt the greatest fast bowler ever.
03> Bowling with 2-3 all time greats in your team gives u great advantage since new batsmen are mostly unsettled and they can fall quicker thus giving you chance to improve ur strike rate. That having said I am aware that Marshall used to take the order wickets more than Garner still the cushion was clearly there which others did not have.

Before someone points out how ODIs have changed since 92 lets not forget how awesome Lillee was in the 70s despite ODIs being so new. Thats how an all time greatest strike bowler adapts to a new format. Marshall in that era and STEYN in THIS era failed to do that ..... They are not even in the top 5 bowlers in the shorter format in their eras which to me is not acceptable when we talk of someone being the Greatest of All Time.

Lillee > Marshall anyday .... McGrath > Marshall too overall.

 

[ankitj]

^ Interesting perspective there. .

 

[OverratedSanity]

He's not wrong, just that most of CW doesn't consider odis that important when assessing cricketers. The test performances always take precedence so the one who had a superior test career is going to be rated higher than someone who is seen as slightly worse in tests but ahead in ODIs.

That's not the case with the general public though.

 

[Gob]

i find it hilarious when new blokes come in and bring odi stats to put one bloke over the other. its so not on

 

[ankitj]

He's not wrong, just that most of CW doesn't consider odis that important when assessing cricketers. The test performances always take precedence so the one who had a superior test career is going to be rated higher than someone who is seen as slightly worse in tests but ahead in ODIs.

That's not the case with the general public though.

Before coming here, I used test and odi records together to rate a player. Here it's accepted that you can only talk about one format at a time.

 

[ankitj]

i find it hilarious when new blokes come in and bring odi stats to put one bloke over the other. its so not on

Hey 9 month old bloke!

 

[harsh.ag]

He's not wrong, just that most of CW doesn't consider odis that important when assessing cricketers. The test performances always take precedence so the one who had a superior test career is going to be rated higher than someone who is seen as slightly worse in tests but ahead in ODIs.

That's not the case with the general public though.

Before coming here, I used test and odi records together to rate a player. Here it's accepted that you can only talk about one format at a time.

Tbh a lot of ex-cricketers do it too. You hear so many anecdotes like "Oh he is one of my absolute favorite bowlers. I remember he had this insane spell in a one day match back in 1990. We just couldn't play him."

For example, you could see with Sachin and Ponting, their ODI legacies are a big part of their careers. The point is you would have had to be really special in the ODIs to have an effect on your overall legacy, like Wasim for fast bowlers.

 

[KINGOFKINGS]

i find it hilarious when new blokes come in and bring odi stats to put one bloke over the other. its so not on

I am not trying to compare McGrath's ODI stats to Marshall's.

I am comparing Marshall to his own peers and asking why isn't he in the top 3-4 in his own era in ODIs as well? Someone like Lillee [who is considered the golden standard of fast bowling by his peers and future generations] adapted so well to the new format and had his own impact back then. Why did Marshall fail to have any impact in ODIs? Its not that he played less ODIs, played like 130-140 matches. Thats the question ....Is it too much for the Greatest bowler of all time to adapt to the new format and at least be in the top 3 bowlers ?

When someone says Tendulkar is better than Lara then Tendulkar has the dominance in ODIs to back it. When someone says Lara is better than Tendulkar then the debate exists only because Brian was so amazing in the 90s in ODIs (Number 1 in ICC rankings from 1993 till 1999 I think). Had Brian been like crap in ODIs then there wouldn't be a Lara vs Tendulkarn debate because one also takes into account how the player adapted to different formats. Cricket is not just about Tests though Tests continue to be the primary rating parameter but not the only parameter. Same with Ponting he too is in fold because he isn't BS in ODIs. Someone like Dravid no one rates ahead of Lara/Tendulkar because its pretty clear on how he played in ODIs. Had Dravid been like Ponting in ODIs and you add that with Dravid the Test player and he too would be in the Lara-Tendulkar-Ponting mix .... See ODIs do matter a bit.

 

[Gob]

Hey 9 month old bloke!

I've been reading these pages for almost 5 years now. Just cbf to register.

 

[weldone]

Batsman
Bradman
Tendulkar
Hobbs
Sobers
Hutton
Lara
Hammond
Viv
Gavaskar
Sutcliffe

Bowler
Muralitharan
Ambrose
Barnes
Hadlee
McGrath
Marshall
Trueman
Warne
Imran
Steyn

 

[Coronis]

I am not trying to compare McGrath's ODI stats to Marshall's.

I am comparing Marshall to his own peers and asking why isn't he in the top 3-4 in his own era in ODIs as well? Someone like Lillee [who is considered the golden standard of fast bowling by his peers and future generations] adapted so well to the new format and had his own impact back then. Why did Marshall fail to have any impact in ODIs? Its not that he played less ODIs, played like 130-140 matches. Thats the question ....Is it too much for the Greatest bowler of all time to adapt to the new format and at least be in the top 3 bowlers ?

When someone says Tendulkar is better than Lara then Tendulkar has the dominance in ODIs to back it. When someone says Lara is better than Tendulkar then the debate exists only because Brian was so amazing in the 90s (Number 1 in ICC rankings from 1993 till 1999 I think). Had Brian been like crap in ODIs then there wouldn't be a Lara vs Tendulkarn debate because one also takes into account how the player adapted to different formats. Cricket is not just about Tests though Tests continue to be the primary rating parameter but not the only parameter. Same with Ponting he too is in fold because he isn't BS in ODIs. Someone like Dravid no one rates ahead of Lara/Tendulkar because its pretty clear on how he played in ODIs. Had Dravid been like Ponting in ODIs and you add that with Dravid the Test player and he too would be in the Lara-Tendulkar-Ponting mix .... See ODIs do matter a bit.

Generally on here we rate them on their performances in each format separately, e.g I personally wouldn't have Garner in an all time test XI, nor would I have Marshall in an all time ODI XI. The reason for this is that there are different skill sets required for each format, as is seen with such disparity between some players in different formats.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've seen people register before for the sole purpose of rubbishing Gary Sober's bowling, but I never thought I would see the day when someone did it just to rubbish Malcolm Marshall.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Batsmen

01> Sir Donald Bradman
02> Sir Garfield Sobers
03> Sir Viv Richards
04> Brian Lara
05> Sachin Tendulkar
06> Graeme Pollock
07> George Headley
08> Ricky Ponting
09> Greg Chappell
10> Adam Gilchrist ( 47 runs @ 82 Strike Rate I like better than say a 55 @ 45/50 Strike Rate - Moreover I've seen him throw his wicket away for quick runs when Aus were at 450/5 or 470/5 so many times .... Had run accumulating been his aim he could have done so on so many occasions but that wasn't the case ..... He was a special destroyer and I would be a sinner if he is not in my top 10)

Sehwag has a higher strike rate than Gilchrist. Sehwag has a higher average than Gilchrist. Sehwag scored far more runs per match, innings, and had far fewer not outs than Gilchrist. Moreover he has thrown his wicket away for quick runs when India were 0/0 (or better) so many times. Had run accumulating been his aim he could have done so on so many occasions but that wasn't the case ..... He was a special destroyer and you would be a sinner if he is not in your top 10 based on your own criteria.

 

[Red]

Bradman
Sobers
Viv
Hutton
Tendulkar
Hobbs
G.Chappell
Lara
Headley
Sangakkara

Lillee
McGrath
Ambrose
Hadlee
Wasim
Marshall
Larwood
Holding
Trueman
Garner

Warne
OReilly
Murali
Grimmett
Laker

 

[KINGOFKINGS]

Sehwag has a higher strike rate than Gilchrist. Sehwag has a higher average than Gilchrist. Sehwag scored far more runs per match, innings, and had far fewer not outs than Gilchrist. Moreover he has thrown his wicket away for quick runs when India were 0/0 (or better) so many times. Had run accumulating been his aim he could have done so on so many occasions but that wasn't the case ..... He was a special destroyer and you would be a sinner if he is not in your top 10 based on your own criteria.

Gilly over Sehwag for these reasons

01> Sehwag and Gilly have same strike rates and as far as the avg goes I've told you Gilly used to throw away his wicket so many times when Aus were at 470/5 or 550/5 and he walked in to bat and a Quick declaration was required. He never cared for stats or else he could have avged much much more had he been a run accumulator like Sachin (post 2002), Kallis and such dudes.
02> Top order batsmen normally have superior rate of hitting tons to lower order batsmen ..... Openers like Gavaskar, Hutton, Hayden all had better rates of hitting tons than say a Ponting/Dravid/Kallis who had better rate of hitting tons than say a Steve Waugh/Allan Border/Clarke/Laxman kinda folk who bat even lower .... and Gilly used to bat even lower than that YET his rate of hitting tons is similar to Sehwag, Dravid and such folk.
03> Gilly has an away from home avg of 51 or so .... Sehwag has an away from home avg of 44
04> Gilly has better performance than Sehwag in the 3rd and 4th innings moreover he has a better record countrywise too. He has not failed in any nation unlike Sehwag who has mediocre records in many place.
05> Gilly is a keeper who used to sit behind the stumps all day in the sun and everyone knows how hard a feat that is .... Probably the toughest feat in cricket .... Fast bowling is pretty tough as well but I think keeping i very hard task which is why you hardly find any keeper doing anything significant with the bat and YET Gilly was so so so strong. He has 400 dismissals in Tests..... Thats like Ambrose picking 400 wickets and then avging 47 with the bat @ 82 strike rate .... Mind boggling

Now keeping all the above points in mind I would say Gilchrist is lot superior to Sehwag or any batsman for that matter. If I have to pick an all time 11 and could pick 1 player of my choice and then rest 10 player would be like random lottery then that 1 pick of mine would be Gilchrist.

Priceless cricketer .... He was the difference between a Draw and a win on so many occasions and everyone one of his tons were scored in crucial situations !

 

[KINGOFKINGS]

I've seen people register before for the sole purpose of rubbishing Gary Sober's bowling, but I never thought I would see the day when someone did it just to rubbish Malcolm Marshall.

I am well aware that Sir Gary is the 4th highest wickettaker of the 1960s decade behind Mckenzie, Gibbs and Trueman. Gary's bowling avg of 32 isn't too bad considering Wes Hall had a bowling avg of 29 and Gibbs almost 28 in the 1960s decade. More highlights of Sobers' bowling was he dismissed Barrington and Boycott (3 times on duck) so many times. No one would criticize Gary for the heck of it if he knew these things.

However when I talk of greatest bowler (not test bowler / odi bowler .... but bowler on the whole ) then a slight peek at the ODIs is impossible to avoid because that format has been in place even before the debut of Marshall and thats something he wouldn't have ignored after all his country did win 2 world cups before he arrived on the scene and almost won a 3rd one ..... Wouldn't be wise to say the greatest bowler of all time ignored that format. He failed to adapt to it and that is a drawback on his G.O.A.T-hood. Look at Lillee ..... He was the first man to reach 100 wickets and had such a nice strike rate and bowling avg in the new format .... Thats how the greatest bowler of all time will react to a new challenge.... To me as a bowler ( not just test / odis .... on the whole as a bowler and role model ) Lillee > Marshall

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Gilly over Sehwag for these reasons

01> Sehwag and Gilly have same strike rates and as far as the avg goes I've told you Gilly used to throw away his wicket so many times when Aus were at 470/5 or 550/5 and he walked in to bat and a Quick declaration was required. He never cared for stats or else he could have avged much much more had he been a run accumulator like Sachin (post 2002), Kallis and such dudes.
02> Top order batsmen normally have superior rate of hitting tons to lower order batsmen ..... Openers like Gavaskar, Hutton, Hayden all had better rates of hitting tons than say a Ponting/Dravid/Kallis who had better rate of hitting tons than say a Steve Waugh/Allan Border/Clarke/Laxman kinda folk who bat even lower .... and Gilly used to bat even lower than that YET his rate of hitting tons is similar to Sehwag, Dravid and such folk.
03> Gilly has an away from home avg of 51 or so .... Sehwag has an away from home avg of 44
04> Gilly has better performance than Sehwag in the 3rd and 4th innings moreover he has a better record countrywise too. He has not failed in any nation unlike Sehwag who has mediocre records in many place.
05> Gilly is a keeper who used to sit behind the stumps all day in the sun and everyone knows how hard a feat that is .... Probably the toughest feat in cricket .... Fast bowling is pretty tough as well but I think keeping i very hard task which is why you hardly find any keeper doing anything significant with the bat and YET Gilly was so so so strong. He has 400 dismissals in Tests..... Thats like Ambrose picking 400 wickets and then avging 47 with the bat @ 82 strike rate .... Mind boggling

Now keeping all the above points in mind I would say Gilchrist is lot superior to Sehwag or any batsman for that matter. If I have to pick an all time 11 and could pick 1 player of my choice and then rest 10 player would be like random lottery then that 1 pick of mine would be Gilchrist.

Priceless cricketer .... He was the difference between a Draw and a win on so many occasions and everyone one of his tons were scored in crucial situations !

Sehwag averaged 82.6 runs per match. Nearly always facing fresh bowlers and a new ball. He threw his wicket away chasing fast runs at a SR higher than Gilly.

Gilchrist averaged 58 runs per match. Often coming in at 470/5 or 550/5 where the bowlers were tired, dispirited and the ball soft. Often threw his wicket away at a strike rate lower than Sehwag in chasing quick runs (but was often left not out).

Hmmm.

I rate openers and middle order cake and fighters higher than icing. Gilchrist seems more like icing. I know he played some great innings. 17 hundreds is 17 hundreds. Not a fight. Just an argument.

Wicket keeping is irrelevant when you are selecting the ten best batsmen.

If it were relevant we would see more AB De Villiers, Sangakarra, Flower to go with some Gilchrist.

 

[KINGOFKINGS]

Sehwag averaged 82.6 runs per match. Nearly always facing fresh bowlers and a new ball. He threw his wicket away chasing fast runs at a SR higher than Gilly.

Gilchrist averaged 58 runs per match. Often coming in at 470/5 or 550/5 where the bowlers were tired, dispirited and the ball soft. Often threw his wicket away at a strike rate lower than Sehwag in chasing quick runs.

Hmmm.

I rate openers and middle order cake and fighters higher than icing. Gilchrist seems more like icing. I know he played some great innings. Not a fight. Just an argument.

Wicket keeping is irrelevant when you are selecting the ten best batsmen.

If it were relevant we would see more AB De Villiers, Sangakarra, Flower to go with some Gilchrist.

I agree but then Sehwag's style I don't like a lot. I mean he used to throw away his wicket carelessly when the team needed him and never had I see Gilly throw away his wicket when the team was in trouble. He more often than not bailed them out from situations like 92/5, 102/5, 202/5 and Aus have been in such positions too despite being such a strong team. Sehwag was more of an Asian tracks player like those pitches which were way too flat and often when he made 100s 2-3 catches were dropped early on. Thats why I've never been a huge fan of Sehwag (at least not more than Gilly's batting). That said I agree he was a wonderful batsman and had his own impact as an opener..... If purely on batting then I would say the number 10 of mine more of a personal pick or else I could have placed Sanga there. He easily does deserve a mention there if we are to pick based on numbers since his numbers are way too big to be ignored.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Cake-icing analogy doesn't really apply to test cricket.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I agree but then Sehwag's style I don't like a lot. I mean he used to throw away his wicket carelessly when the team needed him and never had I see Gilly throw away his wicket when the team was in trouble. He more often than not bailed them out from situations like 92/5, 102/5, 202/5 and Aus have been in such positions too despite being such a strong team. Sehwag was more of an Asian tracks player like those pitches which were way too flat and often when he made 100s 2-3 catches were dropped early on. Thats why I've never been a huge fan of Sehwag (at least not more than Gilly's batting). That said I agree he was a wonderful batsman and had his own impact as an opener..... If purely on batting then I would say the number 10 of mine more of a personal pick or else I could have placed Sanga there. He easily does deserve a mention there if we are to pick based on numbers since his numbers are way too big to be ignored.

Gilchrist in a top ten batsmen solely list, wicket keeping excluded, of all time thread I honestly suspect you are trolling. He spent most of his career as icing which you freely admit. To include him, and exclude say Hayden or S Waugh, (let alone Sehwag for the reasons you gave initially), is disrespectful to say the least.

Flower, who spent his career in a crap team, deserves a spot before you go Gilchrist. Check Flower's career stats as a batsman. That's someone far more deserving than Gilly of a batsman solely recognition.