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

[ankitj]

Who's going to have the highest quality points?

Hadlee, maybe

Ambrose or Marshall or McGrath.

 

[Bolo]

If you've got Hadlee then you have someone to bowl half the overs anyway. You could pick Hadlee and Murali to bowl long spells with say, Waqar or Tyson (random) or Miller for shock spells.

Hadlee is an interesting point for most teams actually to cover for Sobers. Imrans filthy medium is probably better than Sobers anyway. I wonder how much hadlee should be bowling . He must get a bit better if his workload goes down

 

[smash84]

for highest quality points it would probably be McGrath or Ambrose

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

There is no reason to pick Mcgrath over Hadlee.
Not sure about Imran.

 

[trundler]

There is no reason to pick Mcgrath over Hadlee.
Not sure about Imran.

Congrats on getting the only wrong answer on this.

 

[Bolo]

There is no reason to pick Mcgrath over Hadlee.

Matchfixing

 

[trundler]

Unlike Hadlee McGrath never #crossedtheline

 

[Bolo]

Only one solution. Mcgrath should rip his efing throat out

 

[Bolo]

There is no reason to pick Mcgrath over Hadlee.
Not sure about Imran.

There is no reason to pick Mcgrath and hadlee. I'd say your choice is Imran or hadlee, but there is just no reason not to pick hadlee. So, do you want to
Imran?

 

[Bolo]

There is no reason to pick Mcgrath over Hadlee.
Not sure about Imran.

There is no reason to pick Mcgrath and hadlee. I'd say your choice is Imran or hadlee, but there is just no reason not to pick hadlee. So, do you want Imran?

 

[Coronis]

Really most of this discussion should be moved to like the ATG thread or something at this point. Detracting from a great thread imo. Back on topic, for some reason I feel Steyn might have the highest quality points. Not sure why,

 

[trundler]

I think that's certainly possible because Steyn would see a massive decrease in average. SR is graded separately which strengthens his case. Consequently he might have a high PPI too.

 

[stephen]

Don't forget that McGrath is going to get pretty much the same reduction in average that Steyn gets since he played half his career in the modern era (which i would argue probably should be broken into 2001-2012 and 2013+. Batting worldwide went downhill after 2012 as pitches became more bowler friendly and more quality bowlers emerged.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think that's certainly possible because Steyn would see a massive decrease in average. SR is graded separately which strengthens his case. Consequently he might have a high PPI too.

Playing half his games in South Africa might affect that though, given it's been one of the more bowler-friendly places in recent years

 

[trundler]

Playing half his games in South Africa might affect that though, given it's been one of the more bowler-friendly places in recent years

That's clearly not a deal-breaker since Rabada, Ashwin and Anderson made it this far.

 

[Starfighter]

Don't forget that McGrath is going to get pretty much the same reduction in average that Steyn gets since he played half his career in the modern era (which i would argue probably should be broken into 2001-2012 and 2013+. Batting worldwide went downhill after 2012 as pitches became more bowler friendly and more quality bowlers emerged.

And craptastic T20 influenced techniques came to the fore as the 00's generation of batsmen were mostly gone. The sixties should probably also be separate from the fifties and forties.

 

[Flem274*]

did i really read that the batting difference between imran and mcgrath wouldn't matter? i think mcgrath is the best bowler of all time but we've all seen for ourselves what OP tails do on a regular basis. you can throw a blanket over the top 10 or so bowlers of all time, so may as well separate them using batting and fielding.

i like seeing anderson and ashwin this high tbh. if these formulas and lists aren't going to challenge our ideas then they shouldn't exist.

 

[Borges]

did i really read that the batting difference between imran and mcgrath wouldn't matter?

Yes. The general idea is that the difference in batting ability is irrelevant for quick bowlers (ergo McGrath over Imran),
but crucially important for spinners (ergo Warne over Murali).

 

[Victor Ian]

Those calculations based on runs scored need to take into account declarations. Half the time, the teams is going to have declared before you get to Imran's innings. The times they haven't declared are the one's where bowlers are running through sides due to some help from the pitch. In those situations Imran's runs will also be significantly diminished, but not so, McGrath (as he doesn't have many to lose in the first place).

In this team, if you are going to pick a batsmanish bowler, then you need to pick one who is going to come in and strike at a run a ball rather than one who is going to average more. Therefore, When considering McGrath versus Imran, I'd pick Shahid Afridi.

 

[stephen]

did i really read that the batting difference between imran and mcgrath wouldn't matter? i think mcgrath is the best bowler of all time but we've all seen for ourselves what OP tails do on a regular basis. you can throw a blanket over the top 10 or so bowlers of all time, so may as well separate them using batting and fielding.

i like seeing anderson and ashwin this high tbh. if these formulas and lists aren't going to challenge our ideas then they shouldn't exist.

No, what you read is that the extra batting that Imran provides and McGrath's fractionally better bowling make the difference between the two worth about 17 runs per innings on average, if the match is timeless and everyone gets a bat. That 17 runs is out of a team with an average total of very close to 500.

What you also read is that it's important to have someone averaging more than 10 if they're batting at 9 in an ODI. Having a long, terrible tail in ODI cricket makes those batting 1-7 bat more cautiously and therefore score less runs. It's why #batdeep is a thing.