DoG's Top 100 Test Bowlers Countdown Thread 100-1

[Migara]

Akhtar should lose as many points for durability as someone like Anderson gains. The most matches he played in a row was 7!

The comparison is with Thommo. Anderson's comparison would be with McGrath, and when comes to fitness, latter is ahead.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Other than wickets total fitness is the only thing Jimmy is ahead of McGrath on.

 

[Days of Grace]

Got a fair bit on in the next three days. I’ll try to do no.29 tonight. A fast bowler. Who will it be?

 

[Burgey]

Garner imo

 

[smash84]

Shaun Pollock

 

[morgieb]

Shoaib.

 

[Days of Grace]

One more hint: 20th century

 

[stephen]

Holding

 

[ankitj]

Davidson.

 

[Teuton]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-2018-update-post-697-698-kinda-745-a-47.html

Would be interesting to do a comparison of methods. We dont know if Cowie will end up on this list and he was #1 on this statistical assessment. But i can fully accept a small sample size makes it hard to predict. Johnny Briggs came in at #15 on the value (combining standardised averages and longevity) but only scraped into the top 100 in this count. He had a large sample size (33 testd in the 19th century) so i did find that quite surprising.

 

[harsh.ag]

Barnes

 

[ankitj]

Among few other things, I didn't understand how Goddard got rated above Trueman, Lillee and Holding in the bowling list. Worse, Lillee was ranked above Jadeja.

 

[Days of Grace]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-2018-update-post-697-698-kinda-745-a-47.html

Would be interesting to do a comparison of methods. We dont know if Cowie will end up on this list and he was #1 on this statistical assessment. But i can fully accept a small sample size makes it hard to predict. Johnny Briggs came in at #15 on the value (combining standardised averages and longevity) but only scraped into the top 100 in this count. He had a large sample size (33 testd in the 19th century) so i did find that quite surprising.

Briggs only played one match against quality opposition so he lost a lot of points in that segment.

 

[Teuton]

Yes of course, I should have been able to work that out myself.

 

[NUFAN]

I agree with Ankit, ill go Davidson.

I think his career points will be lower than almost everyone else on the list.

 

[Days of Grace]

Seven pages since no.30!

No.29

Michael Holding (West Indies) 787

Quality Points: 714
Career Points: 73

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IQ-UGwZdKM&t=7s

Career: 1975-1987
Wickets: 249
Gold Performances: 3
8/92 vs. England at The Oval 1976 (18.16)
6/57 vs. England at The Oval 1976 (16.03)
6/21 vs. Australia at Brisbane 1984 (17.16)
Silver Performances: 4
Bronze Performances: 9

Overall Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 23.44 (23.69) 50.91 (50.92) 4.54 (rank 32)
50 Innings Peak Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings (1976-1982): 19.77 46.43 5.52 (rank 28)
Non-Home Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 23.45 51.47 4.85 (rank 23)
Quality Opposition Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 23.91 53.79 4.27 (rank 47)

The rolls royce of fast bowlers, I wish Whispering Death could have ranked higher than no.29 but his relative lack of wickets count against him. He lost some of his peak years to world series cricket, where he took 35 wickets in 9 matches at 23.09. Other than that, he has a very consistent record across all the set criteria.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Think the great Windies bowlers will all be marked down as they all missed out on getting bagfulls as they had such a strong attack. Bit harsh on the individuals but how it is.

 

[Bolo]

Look how low holding scores on points per innings. That's a bit of a surprise.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I think Jadeja is a bit of a glitch because India have produced more bowler friendly tracks in the last five/six years. Maybe in the future there'll be a way to tell this little era apart from other ones where the pitches in India were flatter and tough even for spinners to succeed.
.

I think there's more to it than just 'bowler friendly pitches in India':

Maybe someone else can check, but this period of Indian dominance at home (as a quick guess) even supersedes the dominance of West Indies 70s/80s at home and Australia 90s/00s at home. India are utterly dominant at home.

A part of that is Ashwin/Jadeja. Another part is that the Indian fast bowlers are pretty bloody good these days which has never been the case, certainly not as a unit (Srinath and Zaheer had spells).

And finally, likewise, the Indian batting is more dominant (at home) than even the Sehwag/Dravid/Sachin/Ganguly/Dhoni lineup.

All the factors can't be isolated - they all play into each other which is why India is so dominant at home, and why you see Ashwin and Jadeja so high up the list.

 

[trundler]

Garner ahead of Holding. Interesting.