Ranking the Bowlers

[oz_fan]

Pollock shouldn't be taking all the bashing. Definitely belongs in the list IMO.

Agreed. He has taken over 400 wickets at an average close to 23. He definately deserves to be on the list.

 

[Matt79]

Warne and McGrath are the wrong way around, and Laker should have made it instead of either Miller or Mahmood, but otherwise very good list...

 

[chaminda_00]

Really needed another spinner on the list Grimmett, Underwood and Laker are fair bit better then some of those quicks, but everyone seemed to love fast bowlers. No one there that shouldn't be anywhere near the list expect maybe Mahmood, but he only made it in at 25.

A lot better then the Batting list is looking like, expecially with no jokers like Trumper.

 

[The Sean]

Obviously we'll all have our personal favourites or no-marks - I'd have Warne and DK Lillee both marginally ahead of McGrath for instance, and Akram in my top 10. But overall a good list, most of the bowlers I'd expect to be there are.

Big thanks to adharcric for running this one.

 

[Johnners]

The only change i'd have is Warne at 2/3 and move those above him down 1.

 

[Choc]

Polly definately deserves his spot what about Daniel Vitorri?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Polly definately deserves his spot what about Daniel Vitorri?

Good joke.

 

[Jono]

I would have had Wes Hall in there late in the 25, and probably had O'Reilly a bit higher.

People saying Pollock doesn't belong there are wrong IMO. He's taken over 400 wickets as people have pointed out, but he's also played in the same era as Glenn McGrath.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Maybe have Waqar a bit higher than where he was, in his prime, he was one of the best ever.

 

[Jono]

True. So was Botham and he didn't make the list. I guess it depends how much of "how good were they in their prime" do you take into account, considering some players had short ones for various reasons.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah, but then you would get some players like Macgill, who on their day are great, and on others are pretty crap.

 

[silentstriker]

True. So was Botham and he didn't make the list. I guess it depends how much of "how good were they in their prime" do you take into account, considering some players had short ones for various reasons.

As much as I like Botham, in their prime, Botham purely as a bowler was no where near how good Waqar was. And I'm like the biggest Beefy fan.

 

[Jono]

As much as I like Botham, in their prime, Botham purely as a bowler was no where near how good Waqar was. And I'm like the biggest Beefy fan.

Obviously, hence why Waqar is in the list and Botham isn't. His prime was that good (and longer) that he's good enough to be in the top 25.

But if we just went on prime, or if prime was the most important factor, then I reckon Botham would probably have made the list.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, I am wrong. Waqar still has the advantage but its much closer than I thought:

IT Botham (until end of 1981):

44 matches, average of 21.74, S/R of 49

Waqar (until end of 1994):

33 matches, average of 19.15, S/R of 36.0

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously, hence why Waqar is in the list and Botham isn't. His prime was that good (and longer) that he's good enough to be in the top 25.

But if we just went on prime, or if prime was the most important factor, then I reckon Botham would probably have made the list.

Replied too fast. Botham comes close to Waqar in his prime, which is quite amazing really. I knew he averaged <25, but his figures are also outstanding.

 

[Jono]

Yeah but even if they weren't that great, his prime was still awesome.

I think you put too much into stats when judging players you haven't seen. You should also put some emphasis on what is written and mentioned by his teammates and opponents. If for eg. Botham averaged 23 in that period you wrote, instead of 21.74, it wouldn't have changed my opinion of him much if at all.

What's talked about him before he hit his rough patch is stuff of legends.

My overall point anyway is, it all depends what you judge a bowler on. Like I said, if you put heavy emphasis on their peak, then Botham was definitely in the best 25 bowlers of all time IMO. But if one looks at their whole career, or puts more emphasis on that then a player's peak, he probably doesn't make the list.

 

[adharcric]

My overall point anyway is, it all depends what you judge a bowler on. Like I said, if you put heavy emphasis on their peak, then Botham was definitely in the best 25 bowlers of all time IMO. But if one looks at their whole career, or puts more emphasis on that then a player's peak, he probably doesn't make the list.

In a way, it's similar to the Lara-Tendulkar debate. Tendulkar comes out ahead if consistency means more than peak brilliance, but Lara comes out ahead if the opposite holds.
For me, it's always consistency because consistency = reliability and your team can count on you. Others have their own respectable views though.