My Top 100 Test Bowlers of all-time

[Days of Grace]

It hurts him in the wickets/match criteria, although to what extent I'm not too sure.

If I took his matches away where he doesn't bowl at all, then his rating doesn't climb that much. Maybe above Grimmett and O'Reilly for 8th/9th place. Hardly in the top 3 that Bhupinder wishes for.

 

[Johnners]

Would be Interested to know where Brett Lee rates, and how far he is away from breaking into your top 100

 

[Days of Grace]

After the last test, Lee has an a rating of 493, which puts him in 87th place, just above Chris Cairns (492).

 

[Burgey]

I imagine that when you guys do your ratings that you factor in longevity, presumably in the form of tests played.
Is there an allowance in anyone's ratings for longevity in tems of years played? Eg. Bradman played 52 tests but over 20 years, compareed with guys who play 50 in 5 years now.

 

[Days of Grace]

No, I haven't done that. But I am more lenient towards players before the Great War who played only a few matches.

 

[Burgey]

Cheers. Would take some time to put these stats together - I think it's a good thing to get the discussion going. Good on you for doing it.

 

[Days of Grace]

No problem. But I don't want to change the formula again for some time. I feel this is as good as I can get it. Every time I change the formula I have to do every batsman/bowler's rating all over again. Takes a while I can assure you.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

It could also be argued that Imran's playing as a specialist bat should count against him rather than in his favour.

Imran played some of the games as a specialist batsman in the last days of his career when he was about 40 years of age & few in 1983/84 when he was injured & could not bowl.Realising that he was not as good as he used to be,Imran retired in 1988 but came out of it soon on the request of Zia-ul-Haq,who was president of Pakistan then.

Only George Lohmann & Sidney Barnes have been better at their peaks than Imran Khan(ICC rankings,not my self assumption).Hence,Imran is better than any modern day bowler.Roughly,this was his peak period.Even thisor this period can be considered as his peak.Its interesting that people praise Waqar for being so good in first 5 years of his career & completely ignore that Imran at his peak was better than him & for longer period of time too.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

How did you figure that? He bowled every test bar 7.

7 tests at end of his carrer + some in 83/84 + matches in which he bowled very little.

 

[Ikki]

7 tests at end of his carrer + some in 83/84 + matches in which he bowled very little.

No, at the end of his career he had only 4 tests where he didn't bowl. 2 of the others in 83/84. Throughout his career he bowls easily enough to be considered a bowling all-rounder.

 

[Ikki]

Imran played some of the games as a specialist batsman in the last days of his career when he was about 40 years of age & few in 1983/84 when he was injured & could not bowl.Realising that he was not as good as he used to be,Imran retired in 1988 but came out of it soon on the request of Zia-ul-Haq,who was president of Pakistan then.

Only George Lohmann & Sidney Barnes have been better at their peaks than Imran Khan(ICC rankings,not my self assumption).Hence,Imran is better than any modern day bowler.Roughly,this was his peak period.Even thisor this period can be considered as his peak.Its interesting that people praise Waqar for being so good in first 5 years of his career & completely ignore that Imran at his peak was better than him & for longer period of time too.

But it's your self-assumption that those ratings actually mean he is the best in the modern era. In his own era many would put him behind Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

No, at the end of his career he had only 4 tests where he didn't bowl. 2 of the others in 83/84. Throughout his career he bowls easily enough to be considered a bowling all-rounder.

I might be wrong then.BTE,did you take those matches into account in which he bowled very little?

 

[BhupinderSingh]

But it's your self-assumption that those ratings actually mean he is the best in the modern era. In his own era many would put him behind Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee.

I would put him above all those myself.In terms of peak,he's the best in modern era.When talking about overall career,its a debatable topic as there are 15 bowlers who can claim to be best ever & they are:

Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Malcom Marshall
Wasim Akram
Glenn McGrath
Curtley Ambrose
Allan Donald
Waqar Younis
Sidney Barnes
Joel Garner
Dennis Lillee
Muttiah Muralitharan
Shane Warne
Bill O'Reilly
Fred Trueman

 

[neville cardus]

Hence,Imran is better than any modern day bowler.

You would have done well there to parenthesise the words "if you deem the ICC rankings gospel".

Which I don't.

 

[neville cardus]

I would put him above all those myself.In terms of peak,he's the best in modern era.When talking about overall career,its a debatable topic as there are 15 bowlers who can claim to be best ever & they are:
Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Malcom Marshall
Wasim Akram
Glenn McGrath
Curtley Ambrose
Allan Donald
Waqar Younis
Sidney Barnes
Joel Garner
Dennis Lillee
Muttiah Muralitharan
Shane Warne
Bill O'Reilly
Fred Trueman

They played cricket before the turn of the century, too, you know.

 

[Perm]

They played cricket before the turn of the century, too, you know.

And who, I hesitate to ask, among those who played Test cricket before the turn of the century, could lay a reasonable claim to being as better than those bowlers?

 

[neville cardus]

And who, I hesitate to ask, among those who played Test cricket before the turn of the century, could lay a reasonable claim to being as better than those bowlers?

Fred Spofforth, George Lohmann, Charlie Turner, Bill Lockwood and Tom Richardson all spring instantly to mind.

 

[neville cardus]

And those are just the seamers. What of Ted Peate, Bobby Peel, Hugh Trumble and Johnny Briggs?

 

[Perm]

Fred Spofforth, George Lohmann, Charlie Turner, Bill Lockwood and Tom Richardson all spring instantly to mind.

Those guys all played less than 20 Tests. Admittedly in an era when Test cricket was sparse, but it's still not enough to judge them against bowlers who have played over 100.

 

[neville cardus]

Those guys all played less than 20 Tests. Admittedly in an era when Test cricket was sparse, but it's still not enough to judge them against bowlers who have played over 100.

Perhaps not by the blinkered and statistically-weighted (read "statistically-weighed-down") analyses which you choose to employ, but extensive studies of their methods, achievements and the opinions their contemporaries have done more than enough to satisfy me that they were as good as they come at Test level (allowing, of course, for the development of the game and human athleticism).

Still, if you must insist on staring blankly at numbers, it would be advisable that you get them right. Assuming that the statement above applied to my list of spinners, too, I feel obliged to let you know that Hugh Trumble played well over twenty Test Matches.