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

[ankitj]

Still doesn't adress the point that Warne as a bat in ODIs is basically useless. But whatever works for you.

 

[stephen]

Still doesn't adress the point that Warne as a bat in ODIs is basically useless. But whatever works for you.

He was significantly better than Murali.

 

[ankitj]

He was significantly better than Murali.

Just say you want to big up your Aussie heros and we can stop having this argument. Stop attempting to sound objective; you aren't fooling anyone.

 

[Days of Grace]

Let’s get this back on track:

Predict the order of the top 15.

 

[ankitj]

Let’s get this back on track:

Predict the order of the top 15.

I think there is a chance that Grimmett gets ranked higher than O'Reilly just like in Wisden ratings. So I'll say O'Reilly might be next.

 

[trundler]

Hadlee
Barnes
Murali
Steyn
McGrath
Marshall
Imran
Ambrose
Warne
O'Reilly
Waqar
Lillee
Grimmett
Trueman
Donald

 

[stephen]

Just say you want to big up your Aussie heros and we can stop having this argument. Stop attempting to sound objective; you aren't fooling anyone.

You're being aggressive and hostile and I don't know why.

You were the one who brought up ODIs. I made the point (in a different thread I might add) that when you pick McGrath and Garner you need the rest of your bowlers to be able to hold a bat. Picking Murali means your 9-10-11 average 9, 7 and 4. Picking Warne over Murali brings that up to 13-9-4 which is a bit more comfortable. You could argue Saqlain instead which makes it 11-9-4. I really think having a 9 who averages 9 is asking for trouble. Even Wasim, Warne, Garner and McGrath is a weak tall for ODIs. One could make a strong argument for Hadlee over McGrath for that reason.

But this discussion is about tests. I was making the point that playing Imran because he bats better as one of your four bowlers isn't really worth it when you already have Hadlee and Marshall in your tail.

It's pretty much universally accepted that McGrath is the second or third best quick of all time behind Marshall and possibly Hadlee. It makes much more sense to pick him. You could easily argue for Ambrose as well and I'd accept that.

Imran was an exceptional bowler, but he wasn't quite as good as a few others. It has nothing to do with a perceived bias, except perhaps to players who were statistically better and who performed in all conditions.

 

[NUFAN]

15 Donald
14 Barnes
13 Grimmett
12 Waqar
11 Trueman
10 Lillee
9 OReilly
8 Imran
7 Steyn
6 Warne
5 Ambrose
4 Hadlee
3 McGrath
2 Marshall
1 Muralitharan

 

[stephen]

McGrath
Murali
Hadlee
Barnes
O'Reilly
Grimmett
Marshall
Steyn
Ambrose
Warne
Waqar
Trueman
Imran
Lillee
Donald

 

[trundler]

Marshall will be behind McGrath based on adjusted averages and Hadlee will be ahead of both based on PPI and medal performances.

 

[jaideep]

Are you capping the career points?

 

[Burgey]

Let’s be honest here. T’was always gonna be the Kiwi

 

[jaideep]

1.Muralitharan
2.Hadlee
3.Mcgrath
4.Steyn
5.Warne
6.Marshall
7.Imran
8.Ambrose
9.Barnes
10.Lillee
11.Waqar
12.Trueman
13.Donald
14.Grimmett
15.O'Reilly

 

[Starfighter]

Murali
Others
Pre-WWII players

 

[Migara]

He was significantly better than Murali.

Only issue is Murali is little bit more than significantly better with the ball in ODIs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

1 Murali
2 Hadlee
3 Mcgrath
4 Marshall
5 Barnes
6 Imran
7 Warne
8 Trueman
9 O'Reilly
10 Steyn
11 Ambrose
12 Lillee
13 Grimmett
14 Donald
15 Waqar

 

[Burgey]

Only issue is Murali is little bit more than significantly better with the ball in ODIs.

Get fair dinkum mate. Australia wanted him to bowl from both ends.

 

[trundler]

Aaaand there's Warne v Murali. I feel as if this is all of CC minus tour threads condensed into one.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Only issue is Murali is little bit more than significantly better with the ball in ODIs.

Saqlain better than both

 

[Migara]

Saqlain better than both

Saqlain was better for 2 years. That's about it.