That's not how the team ratings work. The ratings extend from 1877 to the current day. They are not divided by eras. Only runs per wicket, balls per wicket, and runs per ball are separated by era.I understand that the ratings changed in 2000 so a country would have went from quality to non quality during his career.
Same as Gillespie, he's another one who is a fantastic support bowler to a Steyn/McGrath, but fails as a lead bowler himself.I don't think he is. He had a very good career and is rated by most as a very good bowler. You can nitpick on good/very good/excellent on either performance or perception, but I think he gets his due.
Can't speak much about the old lot as I didn't watch cricket in the 70s/80s so only going by perception, so I'd suggest that the generally accepted top 3 is (and in order):Lol.
I honestly don't know why i got the numbers mixed up. I think maybe because I saw Croft/Benjamin as the "4th bowler" of two generations of West Indian quicks. For a long time I always wondered why Croft was so highly rated. I thought it may have been a Botham thing where he was ridiculously awesome for a time and then fell away. I knew he didn't have many tests though.
Anyway, it was a genuine mistake and I'm going to have to dig up some footage now. I'd always rated him below the others, but I'm not sure I should:
Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding
Roberts
Bishop
Walsh
Hall
Croft
Now I don't know whether to bump him up on that list. An average of 23 is significantly better than 30.
He said current player.Shaun Pollock or Fanie DeVilliers, one of the south africans
Oh, then it might be Mitchell starcHe said current player.