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

[TheJediBrah]

Pattinson has an awesome first class record, Ngam averaged 32 and never took a 5-for.

Putting Ngam and Pattinson in the same sentence should be ban-worthy

unless we're talking about Darren Pattinson. That's a fair comparison

 

[ankitj]

5 matches against India helped his Quality opponent points massively.

He was a menace against India in those 2 series in 96 and 97, wasn't he? Looked like taking a wicket every over. And outside of openers, India had pretty good batting: Tendulkar, Azhar, Dravid, Ganguly.

 

[Starfighter]

Putting Ngam and Pattinson in the same sentence should be ban-worthy

Perhaps I should replace the comma with a full stop...

 

[trundler]

Anyway, back on topic. Lillee would have an incredibly high PPI and a whole bunch of gold performances. Imran however would no doubt have the better peak. Maybe more career points and a better record against quality opposition (just guessing).

For reference this was the all time peak XI:
JB Hobbs (1910-1925)
SM Gavaskar (1977-1980)
DG Bradman (1930-1946)
IVA Richards (1976-1981)
RT Ponting (2004-2006)
AC Gilchrist (1999-2002)
Imran Khan (1980-1986)
RJ Hadlee (1984-1988)
MD Marshall (1984-1988)
Waqar Younis (1990-1994)
M Muralitharan (2003-2007)

 

[TheJediBrah]

Perhaps I should replace the comma with a full stop...

You know what I mean

 

[Starfighter]

Barnes next? His wicket haul is way smaller than all the others and I don't imagine the SA sides he was best against would be considered 'quality' opposition.

 

[trundler]

He would have to have insanely high quality points though. Think me might be next too, didn't have a peak better than Khan's either apparently.

 

[Bolo]

Ngam is rated below Macmillan and alongside Elworthy. They both averaged about double what he did. Macmillan was a batting allrounder (with a number of wickets), and Elworthy was a stopgap solution (same number of wickets), not a real test prospect. How is Ngam being romanticised compared to these two?

Pattinson is being compared to the very best ever that fit a particular definition. Procter had a waste of a test career. If you want to narrow the definition to exclude him, and only count Reid and Shultz, it is generous, if not hyperbolic to add Pattison to the conversation. Grouping Ngam with Elworthy is generous to Elworthy (I would say to the point of hyperbole).

Calling a bowler who has been reasonably ranked (even if he shouldn't have been considered in the first place owing to lack of games, like Elworthy) overated and going on to overrate another bowler in the next post is extremely hypocritical.

 

[trundler]

An average of 21 against Australia that'll be adjusted upwards. 80 odd career points I reckon. Hmm. Might be next.

 

[trundler]

Ngam is rated below Macmillan and alongside Elworthy. They both averaged about double what he did. Macmillan was a batting allrounder (with a number of wickets), and Elworthy was a stopgap solution (same number of wickets), not a real test prospect. How is Ngam being romanticised compared to these two?

Pattinson is being compared to the very best ever that fit a particular definition. Procter had a waste of a test career. If you want to narrow the definition to exclude him, and only count Reid and Shultz, it is generous, if not hyperbolic to add Pattison to the conversation. Grouping Ngam with Elworthy is generous to Elworthy (I would say to the point of hyperbole).

Calling a bowler who has been reasonably ranked (even if he shouldn't have been considered in the first place owing to lack of games, like Elworthy) overated and going on to overrate another bowler in the next post is extremely hypocritical.

Yeah but he only said Pattinson is in the running among current bowlers. I'll go ahead and throw Ryan Harris's name in there too. Schultz would still be ahead though.

 

[Starfighter]

Ngam is rated below Macmillan and alongside Elworthy. They both averaged about double what he did. Macmillan was a batting allrounder (with a number of wickets), and Elworthy was a stopgap solution (same number of wickets), not a real test prospect. How is Ngam being romanticised compared to these two?[bunk]

Read my original post on Ngam again.

 

[StephenZA]

Ngam had all the talent in the world, was one of the most natural bowlers I ever saw live (came from my local province)... combined with him being SA and 'black' a lot of hype came about. Unfortunately his body was never going to allow him to play a professional sport and thus it makes him impossible to rate as a sportsman. Ngam did not just have an injury, he ended up having a fundamental brittle bone problem. Could he have been great, yes, would he ever had a chance to be great, never. So I don't know why he is being compared to other bowlers, unless people want to compare who had the worst injuries/diseases?

 

[Bolo]

Yeah but he only said Pattinson is in the running among current bowlers. I'll go ahead and throw Ryan Harris's name in there too. Schultz would still be ahead though.

In the running currently, not in the running compared to current bowlers.

If it's injury specifically pulling down a career that would otherwise have hit the highest levels, Waqar is a clear winner for me. Shultz might be grouped with Bishop, but this is a big what if. He looked the business, but proving it is another matter. Harris is a good shout too, but I think his improvement with age curtailed his career more than injury.

 

[trundler]

How the **** did I overlook Bishop?!

 

[Bolo]

Coming into a lineup of Walsh, Ambrose and Marshall and being probably the standout bowler is no small accomplishment.

 

[trundler]

It isn't. Schultz, Bishop, Proctor would be a formidable attack. Can't think of a fitting spinner for some reason.

 

[Days of Grace]

No.9

Dennis Lillee (Australia) 875

Quality Points: 771
Career Points: 104

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CMpEHNQc1g

Career: 1971-1984
Wickets: 355
Gold Performances: 5
5/15 vs. England at Birmingham 1975 (15.78)
6/26 vs. England at Melbourne 1977 (15.72)
7/89 vs. England at The Oval 1981 (15.39)
5/18 vs. Pakistan at Perth 1981 (16.16)
7/83 vs. West Indies at Melbourne 1981 (16.54)
Silver Performances: 12
Bronze Performances: 9

Overall Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 23.51 (23.92) 49.97 (52.02) 5.75 (rank 15)
50 Innings Peak Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings (1977-1981): 20.65 44.41 7.00 (rank 16)
Non-Home Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 23.82 53.33 5.46 (rank 21)
Quality Opposition Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 22.52 48.87 5.90 (rank 13)

From one of the most devastating bowlers at no.10 to one of the most celebrated at no.9. In a sense, Dennis Lillee came onto the scene at exactly the right time. His long hair, mustache and in-your-face attitude were perfect for the coming of color TV and eventually world series cricket in the 1970s. Cricket had entered the modern, gladiatorial age and Lillee was at the forefront. This is what arguably puts him near the top of most fast bowler lists. But what really gets him in the top 10 in a statistical analysis is his sheer wicket-taking. His averages are not break-taking but his lowest PPI out of all the criteria is 5.46. Even though he has a poor record outside of Australasia and England, the sample size is nowhere near large enough to make a judgement. His overall record suggests that had he played more in the sub-continent or Caribbean, DK Lillee almost certainly would have found a way to take a bagful of wickets.

 

[smash84]

The rankings coming thick and fast now.

 

[trundler]

Lillee was perhaps the most spectacular of all. True entertainer.

 

[trundler]

So McGrath> Lillee> Davidson>Lindwall among the Australians.