Top ten greatest bowlers and batsmen of all time

[the big bambino]

You can pick other guys ahead of him and you agree he's a great player. So I think we are quibbling at the margins. I haven't looked but I think ponting is abt 16 ahead of his generational ave and trumper 13. I give trumper extra points bcos I think it's harder to exceed an average in a lower scoring era and compensate for his ave being discounted bcos he played Eng disproportionately a lot. So imo they're even.

The discrepancy of his reputation to figures is starkest with Hill whom I suspect is underrated. However Hill held the same opinion of Trumper. I think the difference is Trumper was reputed to regularly play innings no one else could or could only in a rare instance. He was thought an inconsistent player but was consistent in that way. But that is my speculation, though it is implied in essays I've read abt him.

 

[watson]

Jack Fingleton recalls...

Hanson Carter, the great wicket-keeper, was my first club captain. "You must never," he once sternly told me, "compare Hobbs, Bradman, or anybody else with Trumper. If you want to classify the great batsman in the game, put Victor Trumper way up there - on his own - and then you can begin to talk about the rest."

From: Masters of Cricket. From Trumper to May

 

[Kirkut]

How good was Stan McCabe? He was probably the first ever batsman to play a big knock against hostile bowling.

 

[Wizard]

I saw this interesting stat recently. This is a good point since Indian batsmen handle spin the best. This is something that goes unnoticed when people rate these two. Muralitharan bowled a few great spells (including one even in his last Test) when IND had that awesome batting line up from 2007/08-2010/11. He had a memorable spell even in IND. He took 5 wickets in a spell of 7-8 overs. I think it was in Delhi 2005/06. There is a stark difference between these two against IND in the overall record in both formats.

 

[Wizard]

It's hard to look past Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath for the top spots. They performed well almost everywhere. Ambrose should be in the top 5-6 too. He was great to watch.

 

[Coronis]

You can pick other guys ahead of him and you agree he's a great player. So I think we are quibbling at the margins. I haven't looked but I think ponting is abt 16 ahead of his generational ave and trumper 13. I give trumper extra points bcos I think it's harder to exceed an average in a lower scoring era and compensate for his ave being discounted bcos he played Eng disproportionately a lot. So imo they're even.

The discrepancy of his reputation to figures is starkest with Hill whom I suspect is underrated. However Hill held the same opinion of Trumper. I think the difference is Trumper was reputed to regularly play innings no one else could or could only in a rare instance. He was thought an inconsistent player but was consistent in that way. But that is my speculation, though it is implied in essays I've read abt him.

Similar perhaps wrt Lara and his contemporaries.

 

[stephen]

Murali vs Warne has been done to death and Murali does have a better record vs India than Warne did. Warne's figures vs India were bad for a combination of reasons. Pretty much every time he faced them he was either too raw (his first series), carrying an injury (98-01 shoulder injury). The only series against India where Warne was close to his peak was in 04, where he missed the game on the rank turner (Clarke took 6-9) but still did well in the other matches.

In 92 he was clearly not really ready and took 1/228 in that series.

In 98 he was injured (went for surgery straight after the series). He took 10/540 in that series, which looks a lot worse than it actually was. The Kolkata test he took 0/147 in his only innings where Australia were pounded by an innings. In the other two tests he took important wickets.

In 99 he was rushed back from injury and took 8/335 including 0 wickets in Sydney! Remember that he was so out of form that year he had actually been dropped.

In 01 he was well on his way back to form and took 10/505, which is in my mind his most disappointing series performance in his career. He wasn't terrible, but he should have taken more wickets. If he had, we'd likely have won that series. He had one test where he took 5/107 and then two tests where he took 5/398.

In 04 he took 14/401, which is a very good return for any bowler. He'd likely have taken more in the test he was injured since that was Clarke's 6/9 test.

So yes, Warne had really bad returns against India. It's a shame he never faced them during his first peak (93-97 before his injury) when he was a far better bowler than between 98 and 01. And then when he did face them in his second peak (02-07) he had solid (but not spectacular) returns.

It's like Murali in Australia. His returns were spoiled by factors not really related to his bowling abilities.

 

[smash84]

Murali vs Warne has been done to death and Murali does have a better record vs India than Warne did. Warne's figures vs India were bad for a combination of reasons. Pretty much every time he faced them he was either too raw (his first series), carrying an injury (98-01 shoulder injury). The only series against India where Warne was close to his peak was in 04, where he missed the game on the rank turner (Clarke took 6-9) but still did well in the other matches.

In 92 he was clearly not really ready and took 1/228 in that series.

In 98 he was injured (went for surgery straight after the series). He took 10/540 in that series, which looks a lot worse than it actually was. The Kolkata test he took 0/147 in his only innings where Australia were pounded by an innings. In the other two tests he took important wickets.

In 99 he was rushed back from injury and took 8/335 including 0 wickets in Sydney! Remember that he was so out of form that year he had actually been dropped.

In 01 he was well on his way back to form and took 10/505, which is in my mind his most disappointing series performance in his career. He wasn't terrible, but he should have taken more wickets. If he had, we'd likely have won that series. He had one test where he took 5/107 and then two tests where he took 5/398.

In 04 he took 14/401, which is a very good return for any bowler. He'd likely have taken more in the test he was injured since that was Clarke's 6/9 test.

So yes, Warne had really bad returns against India. It's a shame he never faced them during his first peak (93-97 before his injury) when he was a far better bowler than between 98 and 01. And then when he did face them in his second peak (02-07) he had solid (but not spectacular) returns.

It's like Murali in Australia. His returns were spoiled by factors not really related to his bowling abilities.

Ummm no, India were just exceptional against spin in that period. Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Azharuddin were not just good players, they were exceptional players of spin. So Warne got kicked around by he came up against batsmen who weren't troubled by spinners generally.

 

[Slifer]

Ummm no, India were just exceptional against spin in that period. Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Azharuddin were not just good players, they were exceptional players of spin. So Warne got kicked around by he came up against batsmen who weren't troubled by spinners generally.

This. Warne could've been in tip top form, he still would've been torn to bits by india.

 

[ankitj]

Even after accounting for all the arguments about factors on in Warne's control, you have to just accept that Murali was harder for Indian batsmen. It shows in all cuts. Heck, look at ODI where (without checking) I believe Warne got chances to face India in all good and bad phases. There is simply no comparison between Murali and Warne's figures in the short format.

Overall too, no matter how you cut (games at home vs. away, games against minnows etc.) Murali does have a statistical ever so small edge over Warne which is why I have always stuck to Murali > Warne. And again it shows up in every type of indicator not just averages, WPM, 5fers. Take for example the peak ICC rating points. Warne came with more charisma and drama, and got to play more big games so will have more poetry written for him. Will be interesting to see how they will be judged 2 decades from now.

 

[oblongballs]

I'll add my 2 pence, or rather, 20 pence to this discussion. Maybe I will make an all time list at some point but for now, I will only list the players that played during my life time.

Batsmen
1. Viv Richards - the best I have seen live and it isn't even close.
2. Sachin Tendulkar - sublime, had all the skill bases covered
3. Ricky Ponting - arguably one of the most eye catching and bloody minded batsmen ever
4. Brian Lara - selfish and self indulgent but as we are rating players, i.e. individuals, there are few better
5. Javed Miandad - a fighter, strong, intelligent and someone every kid should watch
6. Kevin Pietersen - some may think I have him too high, but on his day, there has only been one batsman like him and I got him at the top spot
7. Allan Border - a gritty, tough man, the captain and player Australia needed, even if often, he was not the one they wanted
8. Zaheer Abbas - if one day, they have a cricketing dictionary and need to define batting elegance, they should just post a picture of this man
9. Greg Chappell - there was something about him, maybe it was the look, the balance, the calm, but the guy could score against a storm
10. Kumar Sangakkara - Dravid or Kallis could easily have occupied this spot but I went for the man who was the best to watch of the three

 

[oblongballs]

Bowlers
1. Wasim Akram - there is a reason this man tops so many "best of" lists and it's because, much like Viv, he was THE stand out of a stand out era
2. Muttiah Muralitharan - plain and simple, the best spinner ever...oh and there's the small matter of more wickets than anyone else, never to be surpassed
3. Malcolm Marshall - quick but not lightning like many others, with the control of a magician and a grin to light up any game
4. Glenn McGrath - the rolex of bowling, accurate and on time, the perfect medium pace bowler
5. Shane Warne - a master of his craft, who knew how to outwit, deceive and win
6. Michael Holding - beautiful, I will not sully that word with further explanation
7. Waqar Younis - the most riotous bowler of his generation, fast and with attitude, he was the poster boy of the sport long before modern machinations
8. Dennis Lillee - it was something watching this guy in his prime, fast and brutal in his youth and then a wily, careful, judicious bowler for the second half of his career
9. Imran Khan - an almost complete bowler, swing, reverse, bounce, pace, line, length, improvisation
10. Joel Garner - the perfect tall bowler, he knew how to use his height but there was more than bounce, there was seam and a clever yorker, which made him great across formats

 

[stephen]

Ummm no, India were just exceptional against spin in that period. Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Azharuddin were not just good players, they were exceptional players of spin. So Warne got kicked around by he came up against batsmen who weren't troubled by spinners generally.

This. Warne could've been in tip top form, he still would've been torn to bits by india.

They were good players of spin. But there were factors which meant that Warne didn't face India at his best until his last test series against them.

In his first series Warne was picked before he was ready. He averaged 228 vs India and then followed that up by averaging over 50 vs the West Indies in his next test series. He then started to perform after that until 1998 when his shoulder failed him.

People forget how bad Warne was between 1998 and 2001 while he was recovering from surgery. During that time he took 110 wickets in 31 tests at 35. In that time he took:

31 wickets in 6 tests @21 vs England (career ave 23) (his only better than career average return during this period)
28 wickets in 9 tests @50 vs India (career ave 47)
21 wickets in 6 tests @40 vs NZ (career ave 24)
12 wickets in 3 tests @31 vs Pak (career ave 25)
8 wickets in 3 tests @14 vs SL (career ave 20) (he bowled a grand total of 56 overs in the entire series)
2 wickets in 3 tests @134 vs WI (career ave 30)
6 wickets in 1 test @23 vs Zim (only test)

So we have two hypotheses.

1) That Warne was perfectly fine during this time and the Indians were genuinely just too good for him; or
2) That something was up during this period with Warne.

If we only look at the English and Sri Lankan results, we could easily believe #1. He was averaging around his career average vs England during this time. He did better than his career average against Sri Lanka. But looking closer at that we can see that Warne took the majority of his wickets in Sri Lanka on a turning track where he was out-bowled by Collin Miller. So it's really his results against England that were an outlier here.

To believe #1 we also have to discount the 6 tests vs New Zealand and 3 tests vs Pakistan and 3 tests vs the West Indies where he averaged between 6 and 104 more than his career average against those teams.

The Warne from 2004 was more indicative of the real Warne that other teams had to face during his early and late career peaks. Outside this 1998-2001 period Warne averaged under 24 with the ball, compared to 35 during this period. Taking out his 9 tests vs India during this time he still averaged 30, which was 5 runs higher than his career average. India played Warne well and were fantastic players of spin, but Warne was clearly not his best.

Yes, Murali had statistically better results against India than Warne, but it's clear that Warne only faced them once during his peak. In that time he took one five wicket haul on a road, averaged 30 and was out injured for the best track for spin in the series.

As for ODIs, Warne played two ODIs against India during 1994 and 16 against India between 1998 and 2001. So they offer no insight at all.

 

[a massive zebra]

Bowlers
1. Wasim Akram - there is a reason this man tops so many "best of" lists and it's because, much like Viv, he was THE stand out of a stand out era
2. Muttiah Muralitharan - plain and simple, the best spinner ever...oh and there's the small matter of more wickets than anyone else, never to be surpassed
3. Malcolm Marshall - quick but not lightning like many others, with the control of a magician and a grin to light up any game
4. Glenn McGrath - the rolex of bowling, accurate and on time, the perfect medium pace bowler
5. Shane Warne - a master of his craft, who knew how to outwit, deceive and win
6. Michael Holding - beautiful, I will not sully that word with further explanation
7. Waqar Younis - the most riotous bowler of his generation, fast and with attitude, he was the poster boy of the sport long before modern machinations
8. Dennis Lillee - it was something watching this guy in his prime, fast and brutal in his youth and then a wily, careful, judicious bowler for the second half of his career
9. Imran Khan - an almost complete bowler, swing, reverse, bounce, pace, line, length, improvisation
10. Joel Garner - the perfect tall bowler, he knew how to use his height but there was more than bounce, there was seam and a clever yorker, which made him great across formats

Wasim Akram is in many ways the Victor Trumper of bowling. Certainly, many of his peers rated Wasim as the best bowler they ever faced, but the stats just don't back it up.

Much has been made of Tendulkar never reaching 900 points on the ICC batting ratings, but Wasim never even exceeded 830 with the ball, which puts him outside the top 70 on the all time list. Unsurprisingly, he also never got close to world number 1 in the rankings list, and was more than 50 points below world number 1 for almost his entire career. Wasim also took less than 4 wickets per match, and, compared to other great fast bowlers, a high proportion of his wickets were tail enders.

Don't get me wrong - a test average of under 24 and the one time world record for ODI wickets shows he certainly was a fine bowler. But there were a number of bowlers in his own era who got better players out more often and more cheaply (Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath, Donald).

Some say he could bowl 6 different balls an over with perfect control and without a noticeable change in action or wrist position. But if another player with less variety can get better players out more frequently with a single lethal delivery (Waqar's in swinging yorker?), then the latter bowler is actually going to win you more matches.

Some of Wasim's contemporaries, such as McGrath, Ambrose and Waqar, were able to run through the top order of quality batting lineups on a fairly regular basis. Wasim did this a few times, such as against Australia at Melbourne in 1990 and Karachi in 1994. But he did so very rarely, and unlike the bowlers mentioned above, you really need to search far and wide to find such examples. Despite the imperious reputation he appears to hold amongst his peers, Wasim simply was not as consistently destructive.

He certainly had a massive box of tricks and was one of the most skilled exponents of swing bowling ever seen. But at the end of the day, a number of his contemporaries who could NOT do all that and did not possess that skill level were more effective bowlers.

 

[srbhkshk]

imo Wasim's case is a bit like Viv in tests, he was as good as most others but looked much better than them and is rated a bit higher because of that.

 

[Chrish]

Viv averaged 40+ everywhere baring NZ (where he played 4 innings) at the SR of 68 without wearing helmet. It's definitely not just about perceptions..

 

[harsh.ag]

Tendulkar was technically better than Viv. Barring the hook, I suppose.

Anyways, Hobbs, Sobers, Viv is a good top 3 regardless.

 

[srbhkshk]

Viv averaged 40+ everywhere baring NZ (where he played 4 innings) at the SR of 68 without wearing helmet. It's definitely not just about perceptions..

I am not saying he is not in the top echelons of batting, just that a batsman equally good as him in terms of run making might be rated lower for the looks factor.

 

[Chrish]

I am not saying he is not in the top echelons of batting, just that a batsman equally good as him in terms of run making might be rated lower for the looks factor.

I will agree with you there. But then again every ATG batsman is overrated in some regard due to perception bias IMO.

 

[a massive zebra]

imo Wasim's case is a bit like Viv in tests, he was as good as most others but looked much better than them and is rated a bit higher because of that.

Except that for some extended proportion of Viv's career, he clearly was the most effective batsman. Scored 4,743 runs @ 60 between January 1976 and July 1984. The next best average over that period was 55 by Miandad, Chappell and Greenidge. Gavaskar made more runs and more centuries but averaged 'only' 53.

As a matter of fact, there was no extended period of Wasim's career where he was statistically the most effective bowler.