Ranking the Bowlers

[silentstriker]

I'm not really sure how anybody can say that a bowler who took 4204 @ 16.72, striking at 44.19, with an economy rate of 2.27 shouldn't be considered great.

Test Cricket please. Merchant also averaged 72 in FC, doesn't mean he was all time 2nd batsman.

 

[PhoenixFire]

When you've taken 4200 FC wickets at 16, do you really need to have that good a test record? Sureley that record speaks for itself.

 

[silentstriker]

When you've taken 4200 FC wickets at 16, do you really need to have that good a test record? Sureley that record speaks for itself.

Yea you do need a good test record. And the FC record does speak for itself, except when you compare it to people who have succeeded better at the highest level.

 

[adharcric]

When you've taken 4200 FC wickets at 16, do you really need to have that good a test record? Sureley that record speaks for itself.

Players with phenomenal first-class records are better off not having the opportunity to play test cricket than they are playing tests and faring poorly in them.
Again, are you saying that Vijay Merchant is among the top 5 batsmen of all-time? His domestic record certainly indicates it.

 

[chaminda_00]

Holding

 

[vic_orthdox]

Holding. Don't know if I've voted in this one already, though...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not really sure how anybody can say that a bowler who took 4204 @ 16.72, striking at 44.19, with an economy rate of 2.27 shouldn't be considered great.

Because he took two wickets a test at an average of 27 in an era where many bowlers averaged less than 20? Rhodes was a good test all-rounder, but as a batsman or a bowler he was merely average. As I said, he wouldn't be in the top 100, let alone the top 15.

The difference between Rhodes and Merchant or Proctor or whatever is that Rhodes did play heaps of test cricket, so it's perfectly reasonable to judge him on that record. He didn't even bowl for large parts of his test career because he was opening the batting. Don't you think if he was the third best spinner ever and in the top 15 bowlers ever they would have got him to bowl, regardless of where he was batting?

 

[aussie tragic]

Davidson (best Leftie ever)

 

[The Sean]

Yep, Davo for me too.

 

[adharcric]

Whispering Death at #14.

The List
1. Malcolm Marshall (WI)
2. Muttiah Muralitharan (SRI)
3. Glenn McGrath (AUS)
4. Curtly Ambrose (WI)
5. Richard Hadlee (NZ)
6. Shane Warne (AUS)
7. Fred Trueman (ENG)
8. Dennis Lillee (AUS)
9. Sydney Barnes (ENG)
10. Imran Khan (PAK)
11. Allan Donald (RSA)
12. Wasim Akram (PAK)
13. Bill O'Reilly (AUS)
14. Michael Holding (WI)

The vote for the #15 bowler of all-time begins now.

The Contenders

 

[Matt79]

Ray Lindwall

 

[The Sean]

Can't believe Akram missed the top 10 - wish I'd joined the forum and voted earlier! It's Davo or Spofforth for me in this one - don't want to waste my vote and reckon Davo has more of a chance.

So Alan Davidson for me.

 

[The Sean]

Ray Lindwall

Christ, had just naturally assumed Lindwall was already there! Will change my vote...

Ray Lindwall.

 

[aussie tragic]

Alan Davidson because:

Well this is a tough one as both Lindwall and Davidson should be in already IMO, however as Davo has 186 wkts @ 20.53, I'll place him slightly ahead of Lindwall who has 228 wkts @ 23.03 mainly because Davidson had more 5-fors and 10-fors than Lindwall even though he played 17 less tests.

 

[The Sean]

Alan Davidson because:

Well this is a tough one as both Lindwall and Davidson should be in already IMO, however as Davo has 186 wkts @ 20.53, I'll place him slightly ahead of Lindwall who has 228 wkts @ 23.03 mainly because Davidson had more 5-fors and 10-fors than Lindwall even though he played 17 less tests.

Fair enough call - I think Davo is criminally underrated and his figures put him alongside the very best. I base my opinion of Lindwall > Davidson (though not by much) on the fact that whenever you read or hear about the old cricketers and experts who saw Lindwall in action or played with/against him, they invariably speak of him as the best they saw. And most of those same guys saw or played with Davo too. As I've mentioned in another thread, the opinions of a players contemporaries mean a lot to me when judging him, so Lindwall just shades in my book. Davo next up hopefully!

 

[Beleg]

Put Garner in for pete's sake now.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Lindwall

(wondering whether there were some Swedes in that family?)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Davidson again. Surely the most underrated of all the great seamers. He and Statham seem to get absolutely no recognition, despite superb records. I suppose it's a mixture of being fast-medium bowlers rather than fast, and living in the shadow of other bowlers. Trueman in Statham's case, and Lindwall and Miller in Davidson's, though he did outlast them and become the strike bowler.

 

[nightprowler10]

Lindwall, Waqar is next for me.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Davidson