Ranking the Bowlers

[shankar]

Hadlee

 

[Beleg]

Alan Donald

 

[silentstriker]

Alan Donald

 

[Beleg]

^

why not?

22.25 average, 47 strike-rate. More then 300 wickets. He absolutely anhiliated every opposition apart from Australia and has a decent record against them too.

Edit: Donald is probably the most under-rated bowler of the 90's. Home strike-rate of 45 and average of 21.64. Away strike-rate of 49.3 and average of 22.95. (under 30 in Australia and under 20 in India)

 

[Slifer]

Hadlee

 

[shortpitched713]

Warne. Twice in a row, I'm starting to feel dirty.

 

[Perm]

Sir Richard Hadlee

 

[a massive zebra]

Hadlee

 

[chaminda_00]

Trueman

 

[Jono]

Bowling Warney

 

[adharcric]

Here's my prediction.

Next five on the list: Warne, Hadlee, Barnes, Akram, Lohmann/Trueman/Donald

Of course, there's a good chance of bias towards recent players so that might keep the old-timers out. For anyone considering voting for Barnes/Lohmann/Trueman/Rhodes/etc, please do so if that's your genuine opinion ... at least after Hadlee and Warne are gone. It seems like too many people are screwing their opinion and just submitting a "vote that makes a difference".

 

[chaminda_00]

Here's my prediction.

Next five on the list: Warne, Hadlee, Barnes, Akram, Lohmann/Trueman/Donald

Of course, there's a good chance of bias towards recent players so that might keep the old-timers out. For anyone considering voting for Barnes/Lohmann/Trueman/Rhodes/etc, please do so if that's your genuine opinion ... at least after Hadlee and Warne are gone. It seems like too many people are screwing their opinion and just submitting a "vote that makes a difference".

Since when is Fred Trueman an old time player, he played after WW2 remember.

 

[adharcric]

Since when is Fred Trueman an old time player, he played after WW2 remember.

He's still an old-timer because most of the guys on here haven't seen him in action.

 

[chaminda_00]

He's still an old-timer because most of the guys on here haven't seen him in action.

His not a 'modern' player, but that doesn't make him an old timer. To put him in the same catergory as Barnes/Lohmann/Rhodes is just stupid.I doubt many have seen Malcolm Marshall play a live game, but people voted him No 1, probably cus of his low average.

 

[aussie tragic]

Of course, there's a good chance of bias towards recent players so that might keep the old-timers out. For anyone considering voting for Barnes/Lohmann/Trueman/Rhodes/etc, please do so if that's your genuine opinion ... at least after Hadlee and Warne are gone. It seems like too many people are screwing their opinion and just submitting a "vote that makes a difference".

Well then how about telling people to stop voting players just because they've seen them play. How on earth can Murali and Warne be considered better than Trueman, his average is better, his strike rate is better and he of course bowled much faster

 

[Matt79]

Yep - modernism is playing way too big a part in this process for mine. Still, that's democracy.

 

[adharcric]

His not a 'modern' player, but that doesn't make him an old timer. To put him in the same catergory as Barnes/Lohmann/Rhodes is just stupid.I doubt many have seen Malcolm Marshall play a live game, but people voted him No 1, probably cus of his low average.

Actually, I'm sure there are a good number that have watched Marshall bowl or at least been alive when he played. Trueman is an old-timer, relatively speaking. No ****, he's not as ancient as Barnes, Lohmann or Rhodes, but he's still from early times for the majority of posters on here. Just like W.G. Grace and Bradman are both old-timers even though there was a gap of several decades between them. The further back you go in time, the less people trust statistics because there is uncertainty with regard to the pitches and quality.

 

[adharcric]

Yep - modernism is playing way too big a part in this process for mine. Still, that's democracy.

Well, the top 3 batsmen are all from the past. I think it's just the four modern heroes (Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and Warne) who are getting a lot of votes, understandably. People can't always just trust opinions or Cricinfo profiles I guess; they want visual evidence. I must admit that I'm surprised that Barnes has barely gotten any votes so far.

 

[aussie tragic]

Well, the top 3 batsmen are all from the past.

Well Bradman doesn't count and Sobers and Hobbs may have only been voted in as the only way to stop Lara and Tendulkar from becoming # 2 & # 3 (i.e. members made a vote "to make a difference" rather than who they actually thought was the best)

 

[adharcric]

Well Bradman doesn't count and Sobers and Hobbs may have only been voted in as the only way to stop Lara and Tendulkar from becoming # 2 & # 3 (i.e. members made a vote "to make a difference" rather than who they actually thought was the best)

I'm pretty sure just about everyone on here would put Bradman, Sobers and Hobbs in their top 3.
Making a vote "to make a difference" means realizing that two guys are likely to win a race and voting for one of them instead of a third person who you believe is the right choice.
That's fine, but I feel that we haven't seen enough votes for the likes of Hammond, Headley, Barnes and Lohmann.