flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Rejigging mine now, was in a rush when I did it. hope I can still edit it.
Yeah, we know your inclusion of Warne was as forced as TJB picking Murali.1. Murali
2. O'Riely
3. Jim Laker
4. Warne
5. Grimmett
6. Chandrashekar
7. Kumble
8. Saqlain
9. Underwood
10. Verity
11. Prasanna
12. Tayfield
13. Herath
14. Bedi
15. Gibbs
16. Shakib
17. Swann
18. Gupte
19. Kaneria
20. Ashwin
Identify outliers! decide wether to keep them or not.I find it odd that some people have put Murali really low on their list. Is it something to do with his action? If it is, why wouldn't you leave him off entirely on principle?
If you have no problem with his action, surely he is top 5?
There are no bowlers in the spreadsheet.NB: list does not reflect my actual opinion entirely; I give my algorithm a vote in these things. Fairly recently updated list here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rmR0F6hmKyJEiX9AdbRJyxqnl8WU_sZvK5SbDe109OA/edit#gid=0
Having said that, Kumble never got a royal thrashing from any one. Guy troubled Lara to great extent, and even Tendulklar was not the most fluent against him. Same with Saqlain (the Shewag thrashing of a half fit Saqlain don't count), never had a thrashing. But when they were not in zone everyone scored off them. When they were in zone, even the best found it very difficult.Don't think Tiger was especially condition reliant, I mean. Relative to other great spinners. The other spinners of his time feasted heavily on SA. O'Reilly has a great record against England, better than Grimmett. Guy troubled Hammond and even Bradman to a great extent. Pitches may have been more helpful generally but O'Reilly succeeded even when not, as my example pointed out. Both Warne and Murali got a royal thrashing by Lara and Sachin from time to time but Tiger had more success against the best bats.
Scroll right.There are no bowlers in the spreadsheet.
Cool. How did McGrath jump to #1. IIRC Murali and Ambrose were top 2 in earlier versions of your ranking.Scroll right.
He improved 'em of course.Cool. How did McGrath jump to #1. IIRC Murali and Ambrose were top 2 in earlier versions of your ranking.
A combination of it more accurately rating the strength of opposition batting lineups, and it now having some sort of offset for the estimated 'flatness' of pitches when batting or bowling at home (eg. it's decided McGrath bowled on comparatively flat pitches at home a fair bit, it seems).Cool. How did McGrath jump to #1. IIRC Murali and Ambrose were top 2 in earlier versions of your ranking.
No way Herath is that low. I'd argue Herath>Underwood based on strike rate and quality of pitches.Murali
Warne
O'Reilly
Grimmett
Tayfield
Benaud
Underwood
Laker
Gibbs
Kumble
Verity
Gupte
Chandrasekhar
Herath
Rhodes
Prassana
Lyon
Briggs
Trumble
Vettori
Outside the first four or five the order is kinda variable.
There were actually batsmen who could defend in Underwood's time. Strike rate = unreliable.No way Herath is that low. I'd argue Herath>Underwood based on strike rate and quality of pitches.
The batsmen any bowler faced were also product of the prevailing conditions so I don't think we can make such adjustments. And your argument is the reverse of what we usually say... conditions have been batting friendly in recent decade and a half.There were actually batsmen who could defend in Underwood's time. Strike rate = unreliable.
To me Herath got lucky in that when spots started opening up spin bowling became a lot easier than what it was from about 1980 up until 2010. Over the last 10 years DRS became a factor (so more LBW's were given and it became tougher to out and out play spin), defensive techniques have gone to the dogs and pitch standards have declined a bit too.No way Herath is that low. I'd argue Herath>Underwood based on strike rate and quality of pitches.