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

[stephen]

Imran undoubtedly scoring so highly due to his ridiculous peak. If he had been born Indian would India now be filled with fast bowlers instead of spinners? He was an era- defining player.

 

[Days of Grace]

I agree with this.Strike rate for batsman is far less important compared to bowlers in tests.

What ratio would you having for batting average:strike-rate?

Keep in mind that it is 4:1 for bowlers.

 

[sunilz]

As if Pakistan has done miracles by producing so many fast bowlers. Just like India they have never won a test series in Aus and SA. Infact they last drew a test in Aus in 1991. They won their first ever test series in WI in 2017 . If India produces a spinner like Warne or Murali then we will be fine. Unfortunately most of our spinners suck in SENA countries.

 

[Days of Grace]

Players that appear in the top 200 for both batting and bowling

GS Sobers
JH Kallis
AW Greig
Mushtaq Mohammad
IT Botham
Shakib Al Hasan
N Kapil Dev
Imran Khan

 

[smash84]

Players to appear in the top 200 of both batting and bowling

GS Sobers
JH Kallis
AW Greig
Mushtaq Mohammad
IT Botham
Shakib Al Hasan
N Kapil Dev
Imran Khan

How many appear in top 100 of both?

 

[Burgey]

I don't know if any would at first blush. There can be no reasonable suggestion that Imran, Botham or Dev in the top 100 batsmen of all time with an average of <40, while blokes like Sobers and Kallis, though prolific wicket takers, don't cut it with the ball.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Sober has half a chance imo, the others not really.

 

[jimmy101]

Kallis is a good shout.

 

[sunilz]

41 RR Lindwall 748
42 JA Snow 744
43 PM Pollock 743
44 AME Roberts 740
45 IR Bishop 738
46 Yasir Shah 737
47 CEH Croft 732
48 D Gough 731
49 DL Underwood 729
50 WW Hall 728
51 SCJ Broad 728
52 BS Chandrasekhar 728
53 N Kapil Dev 726
54 CJ McDermott 726
55 AR Caddick 725
56 JR Thomson 724
57 ARC Fraser 722
58 Harbhajan Singh 722
59 H Trumble 720
60 M Morkel 719
61 MA Starc 717
62 GP Swann 717
63 NAT Adcock 716
64 LR Gibbs 715
65 Saeed Ajmal 715
66 R Benaud 715
67 CTB Turner 708
68 JH Wardle 701
69 TM Alderman 700
70 JB Statham 700
71 GD McKenzie 700
72 SR Clark 699
73 JN Gillespie 698
74 MW Tate 694
75 FH Tyson 694
76 KR Miller 694
77 B Lee 685
78 MG Hughes 684
79 SCG MacGill 683
80 GF Lawson 682
81 Saqlain Mushtaq 681
82 BS Bedi 681
83 CL Cairns 674
84 TA Boult 672
85 JR Hazlewood 672
86 HH Streak 671
87 MJ Hoggard 670
88 WA Johnston 670
89 Z Khan 668
90 H Verity 667
91 N Wagner 667
92 SE Bond 665
93 PM Siddle 664
94 WPUJC Vaas 663
95 BA Reid 656
96 GAR Lock 655
97 EAS Prasanna 655
98 Danish Kaneria 654
99 NM Lyon 650
100 BR Taylor 649

Who will be in the next bracket (31-40)?

I think answer is Botham considering neither Kallis nor Sobers feature in this list

 

[Borges]

As if Pakistan has done miracles by producing so many fast bowlers. Just like India they have never won a test series in Aus and SA.

This is something of an anomaly considering the excellence of Pakistan's pace attack.

 

[Days of Grace]

No player so far has made it into the top 100 of both batting and bowling lists.

Shakib at no.168 in batting and no.103 in bowling has a slim chance.

 

[jaideep]

What ratio would you having for batting average:strike-rate?

Keep in mind that it is 4:1 for bowlers.

I reckon 7:1 ratio for batsman.

 

[Starfighter]

10:1

 

[TheJediBrah]

No player so far has made it into the top 100 of both batting and bowling lists.

Shakib at no.168 in batting and no.103 in bowling has a slim chance.

I expect Shakib to get worse if anything, assuming he starts playing against stronger opposition more often

 

[Borges]

What ratio would you having for batting average:strike-rate?

Keep in mind that it is 4:1 for bowlers.

I think 4:1 is fine if the strike rate is adjusted for the eras. Give credit to batsmen who can win games, I say.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yes, strike-rates are adjusted for eras, so players from 1945-1974 get a large boost.

In the current 4:1 ratio,

Batsmen A: Ave 50.00 S/R 40.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

In a 9:1 ratio

Batsmen A: Ave 45.00 S/R 35.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

Which is more reasonable?

 

[sunilz]

Sehwag would have more points than Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis or Sangakkara. I agree with 4:1 ratio.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes, strike-rates are adjusted for eras, so players from 1945-1974 get a large boost.

In the current 4:1 ratio,

Batsmen A: Ave 50.00 S/R 40.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

In a 9:1 ratio

Batsmen A: Ave 45.00 S/R 35.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

Which is more reasonable?

Second one sounds much better imo.

Sehwag would get a monstrous amount of points in a 4:1 ratio and end up number 7 all time or something which admittedly I'd like to see.

 

[jaideep]

Yes, strike-rates are adjusted for eras, so players from 1945-1974 get a large boost.

In the current 4:1 ratio,

Batsmen A: Ave 50.00 S/R 40.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

In a 9:1 ratio

Batsmen A: Ave 45.00 S/R 35.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

Which is more reasonable?

The second scenario is more reasonable.

Consider a 7:1 ratio

Batsman A: Ave 50 S/R 45
Batsman B: Ave 45 S/R 80

Would have the same number of points.

 

[Borges]

In the current 4:1 ratio,

Batsmen A: Ave 50.00 S/R 40.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

In a 9:1 ratio

Batsmen A: Ave 45.00 S/R 35.00
Batsmen B: Ave 40.00 S/R 80.00

Would have basically the same points.

Which is more reasonable?

I think 9:1 is way too low.
For instance, Gilchrist's influence on the game as a pure batsman is much higher than what his batting average alone would suggest. If it is someone at the top of the order, like Sehwag or Warner, their impact is immense; demoralising the bowlers up front and paving the way for the accumulators to put up, or chase, a big score at leisure.