subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, they are close as bowlers, in fact Wasim hands down was more talented than Imran. Overall, Imran may have the advantage, but its not a huge difference.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME
- Thread starter Days of Grace
- Start date
CrazY GirL
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
wont list 10...i wud just say one bowler that is my fav one WASIM AKRAM
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Oh lord, don't you start again.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
You're right, forget I said that.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Okay, after a re-haul...which took an hour or two...had to look through a lot of scorecards:
I just did a comparison on Statguru, to check the other times that they weren't together.
Now it compares, interestingly, from the moment they both were in the team. Previously, they used to hold Warne's figures when McGrath hadn't even debuted against him. This, I believe, is more apt. (it's not that much different anyway).
Warne:
Tests: 18
Overs: 981.1
Runs: 2677
Wickets: 104
Average - 25.75; SR - 56.66. Compares very favourably with his career figures of 25.41/57.4; his average remains the same whilst his strike-rate improves.
McGrath:
Tests: 20
Overs: 731.5
Runs: 1701
Wickets: 72
Average - 23.63; SR - 61.15. Doesn't compare very well with his career figures of 21.64/51.9 at all. His average increases and, notably, his strike-rate rockets up. Of the two figures, the SR is the important factor when factoring in help from other bowlers. Pressure on the other-side doesn't necessarily mean less runs conceded (as McGrath's bowling is so tight he can hold up the runs) but it does translate into wickets, often.
Whilst doing this, I found many holes with this kind of comparison though, mainly:
- When Warne isn't available, it doesn't mean everything is constant and it reflects all about McGrath's form. Many times the others, like Dizzy or Macgill stepped up and made match-winning contributions that would eat into anyone's figures. But at the same time, that does mean the analyzed bowler has been as effective.
- Also, there are either whole series missed or some tests in a certain series. When looking at the 2nd type of absence, often the bowler analyzed has had a great series and the 1 absence of the other bowler in the series are his worst figures. That doesn't necessarily translate into, for example, Warne being poor because of that 1 test clearly showing the difference. Because in the other tests, even if the other partner was there, they bowled well regardless. A real example against the Saffies shows: Warne, he got 12/128 in one of the tests but it is discounted as this is not the test in the series where McGrath was absent. However, McGrath in that test itself got 2 wickets and was largely poor, so he couldn't have been much help. A real example for McGrath against the Windies shows he got 10/78 in a series where Warne was absent, but because he was present in that test these figures are discounted even though Warne picked up no wickets and was largely poor.
So when you look at it with a different perspective: just because a certain bowler is present in a match doesn't mean he helped at all. And in discounting a wonderful innings by the other bowler simply because of the presence of his partner, then you do him an injustice. I guess, just another one of those reasons why stats, even like these, aren't very exact. That being said, I'd agree with these figures overall.
I just did a comparison on Statguru, to check the other times that they weren't together.
Now it compares, interestingly, from the moment they both were in the team. Previously, they used to hold Warne's figures when McGrath hadn't even debuted against him. This, I believe, is more apt. (it's not that much different anyway).
Warne:
Tests: 18
Overs: 981.1
Runs: 2677
Wickets: 104
Average - 25.75; SR - 56.66. Compares very favourably with his career figures of 25.41/57.4; his average remains the same whilst his strike-rate improves.
McGrath:
Tests: 20
Overs: 731.5
Runs: 1701
Wickets: 72
Average - 23.63; SR - 61.15. Doesn't compare very well with his career figures of 21.64/51.9 at all. His average increases and, notably, his strike-rate rockets up. Of the two figures, the SR is the important factor when factoring in help from other bowlers. Pressure on the other-side doesn't necessarily mean less runs conceded (as McGrath's bowling is so tight he can hold up the runs) but it does translate into wickets, often.
Whilst doing this, I found many holes with this kind of comparison though, mainly:
- When Warne isn't available, it doesn't mean everything is constant and it reflects all about McGrath's form. Many times the others, like Dizzy or Macgill stepped up and made match-winning contributions that would eat into anyone's figures. But at the same time, that does mean the analyzed bowler has been as effective.
- Also, there are either whole series missed or some tests in a certain series. When looking at the 2nd type of absence, often the bowler analyzed has had a great series and the 1 absence of the other bowler in the series are his worst figures. That doesn't necessarily translate into, for example, Warne being poor because of that 1 test clearly showing the difference. Because in the other tests, even if the other partner was there, they bowled well regardless. A real example against the Saffies shows: Warne, he got 12/128 in one of the tests but it is discounted as this is not the test in the series where McGrath was absent. However, McGrath in that test itself got 2 wickets and was largely poor, so he couldn't have been much help. A real example for McGrath against the Windies shows he got 10/78 in a series where Warne was absent, but because he was present in that test these figures are discounted even though Warne picked up no wickets and was largely poor.
So when you look at it with a different perspective: just because a certain bowler is present in a match doesn't mean he helped at all. And in discounting a wonderful innings by the other bowler simply because of the presence of his partner, then you do him an injustice. I guess, just another one of those reasons why stats, even like these, aren't very exact. That being said, I'd agree with these figures overall.
Last edited:
BhupinderSingh
Banned
Personally,I too don't enjoy discussing things with people who first say "Every bowler averaging above 30 is an ordinary or rubbish bowler" but went back on it in their very next post when the find that Garry Sobers has a bowling average of around 35 & also those who take cheap shot at W.G.Grace for not having a good test record & being compared to other great batsmen.Richard,believe me I'm really happy to be on ignore list of a person who keeps attacking my credibility for rating Imran Khan as a better allrounder than Garry Sobers & a better bowler than Wasim Akram.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Your faith in my abilities is both flattering and disturbing.I hate searching cricinfo statsguru for averages.After all averages are the best criteria.
my list is a cut and paste of SS list .He is a stats guru himself so ,his list will be perfect.
McGrath
Marshall
Barnes
Ambrose
Hadlee
Imran
Lillee
Donald
Holding
Trueman
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
After the post I just spent so much time on, to see this is like a kick in the teeth.I hate searching cricinfo statsguru for averages
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Kaz,
we're literally trying to split the atom here.
Any guy in the top 20 is so good that it really doesnt matter in which order you place them - bottom line is that they'll get you out!
Personally, I prefer pacemen as they have no weaknesses - in essence, pace conquers all because there is nothing anybody can do about a well directed bouncer or yorker at 90 mph and their strike rate is testimony to this fact
If you prefer the inherent skill in bowling someone out at a much lesser pace then I cant blame you
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I'm just giving the stats-nuts what they want
.I am also a believer of the top group of bowlers being as great as each other and whether on average one is 1-2 runs more expensive or 3-4 balls slower than another to take a wicket means very little to me, actually. Those margins are really negligible and you only realise that looking at so many scorecards like I have
(joke). In a game, it just won't matter because of such a small margin. Most bowlers aren't even thinking about it; they are trying to deal with the situation at hand, even if they're forced to throw the ball up and induce a mistake by taking a risk.So, when I judge a bowler I am looking for those times that only the absolute best will prevail. When the pressure is back-breaking and a miracle is needed. Who has the talent and the guile to make that happen? To me, Warne is King in that aspect - centimetre perfect accuracy with the majesty in flight to fool any batsman, as well as making them fear getting out at any ball delivered. If a fast-bowler could provide what Warne did, then I wouldn't pick a slower bowler just for the sake of it.
There's something about Warne that just gets under every person's skin. When he bowls poorly so many people rejoice and start saying he's overrated. When he's bowling well it's because he had help from McGrath, yet nobody dares say McGrath fed off Warne. It's always Warne fed off McGrath. Who does Glen McGrath rate the best cricket player he's ever seen again? Shane Warne. And who did the Aussie cricket team vote as being tougher to face out of Warne and McGrath? Warne. And then people bring stats into it which is even more useless. After the hypocrisy of saying Warne's figures are helped by McGrath (which I think is untrue) and ignoring any possibility of McGrath's figures being helped by Warne, people then say McGrath has the better figures and hence is better.
Look, Shane Warne is an idiot, I think even his most blind fans would admit he can be a tosser. But he was a cricketer unlike any I've seen or will ever see again, and say what you want about Warne off the field, but nobody should try and devalue his achievments on the field. People will respond to this by saying, "Nobody's saying he's not great, just overrated." But the criteria people use for calling Warne overrated so often shows them as trying to take something away from him. I know nobody is saying McGrath wasn't aided by Warne, but why people determine that Warne fed off McGrath more than McGrath fed off Warne I'll never know. I'd say it was about even.
MORE IMPORTANTLY is how people overrate this whole, "he fed off McGrath" concept. The bottom line is when Warne bowled a bad delivery he got smashed and so did McGrath. You can't take wickets without bowling a good delivery. It doesn't matter how good the person up the other end is, if you're bowling crap you'll get slogged. To be fair, the only time one is greatly aided at the other end is when so much pressure is applied that the batsman has to play an irrational shot. Other than that any help is minimal. By his own admission, Warne says having McGrath helped add pressure on the opposition, but did it help Brett Lee much? What about Jason Gillespie? These people didn't get easy wickets. Yet Warne did somehow? The help Glen McGrath gave Shane Warne has become grossly overestimated... it's a product of idiots over analysing cricketers and relying on stats. Those bloody Warne vs. Murali debates which arise every so often to irritate the hell out of me have hurt Warne a tad (as they have Murali). We know Warne could have gotten more wickets without McGrath, but then people considered how well he would have done without McGrath, and so the pointless Warne analysing begins and a microscope was placed on the impact McGrath had on Warne. In reality it was a very marginal support and only one person ever got Warne's wickets and that was Shane Warne.
For me it's not even a contest between who's better out of Warne and McGrath. Warne succeeded in moments, throughout his career, when players like McGrath, Trueman, Marshall, Lillee, Akram, Murali, Imran etc would have failed. None of those players could have brought Australia back to life in that 1999 World Cup semi final. To this day his stats for that game, 4-27, hide the many impacts he made. None of those players could carry a country that was a floundering like Australia was during the Ashes. That series could have, and would have been, won 4-1 to England if not for Warne. The list is endless of times when Warne saved Australia. Warne had this amazing ability to do something nobody else could do when it counted. Generally I think he was among the best ever, but what made him stand out above the rest for me was that if he could do it when it counted, and that's everything in my book. People say he played in a great team, and he did, but that amount of loses Australia would have suffered without Warne is staggering.
As for any statistical analysis. It's idiotic to try and gauge McGrath's impact on Warne with stats. McGrath was a very mediocre bowler when he first arrived in the Aussie side. Warne's best ever year, statistically, was 1994, a year in which he was Australia's first, second and third option to get wickets. McDermott was often injured and out of form, McGrath wasn't anything special then, and Paul Riefel certainly wasn't world class - just an effective link in the team. Yet all those wonderful Warne performances count for nothing when idiots say he fed greatly off McGrath. If people wanted to look at a period where they fed off each other, I think the only good period was 2001-2002, especially in the 2001 Ashes. There's other times too, like in Sri Lanka 2004 and people were saying McGrath was washed up. McGrath wasn't being effective at all on Sri Lankan soil, and Warne took 26 of a potential 60 wickets to help Australia win the series 3-0. I can honestly say Sri Lanka would have won that series 2-0 if not for Warne. And yet that counts against Warne when people start saying he fed off McGrath.
I'd say McGrath wasn't an excellent bowler until 1995, and even then I recall vividly he wasn't placed in the same bracket as the likes of Akram, Ambrose and the sublime Alan Donald. It wasn't until 1998, in my opinion, that he started to come across as a great bowler. Of course he went from strength to strength and became one of the all-time greats. But people have a very selective memory. McGrath wasn't a great until around 1998.
It's almost on a subcontious level the way people take things away from Warne. I don't like Warne the person, but Warne the cricketer was beyond something special. I honestly believe there are times when people can't separate Warne the person from Warne the cricketer. I can and that why I admire Warne.
Look, Shane Warne is an idiot, I think even his most blind fans would admit he can be a tosser. But he was a cricketer unlike any I've seen or will ever see again, and say what you want about Warne off the field, but nobody should try and devalue his achievments on the field. People will respond to this by saying, "Nobody's saying he's not great, just overrated." But the criteria people use for calling Warne overrated so often shows them as trying to take something away from him. I know nobody is saying McGrath wasn't aided by Warne, but why people determine that Warne fed off McGrath more than McGrath fed off Warne I'll never know. I'd say it was about even.
MORE IMPORTANTLY is how people overrate this whole, "he fed off McGrath" concept. The bottom line is when Warne bowled a bad delivery he got smashed and so did McGrath. You can't take wickets without bowling a good delivery. It doesn't matter how good the person up the other end is, if you're bowling crap you'll get slogged. To be fair, the only time one is greatly aided at the other end is when so much pressure is applied that the batsman has to play an irrational shot. Other than that any help is minimal. By his own admission, Warne says having McGrath helped add pressure on the opposition, but did it help Brett Lee much? What about Jason Gillespie? These people didn't get easy wickets. Yet Warne did somehow? The help Glen McGrath gave Shane Warne has become grossly overestimated... it's a product of idiots over analysing cricketers and relying on stats. Those bloody Warne vs. Murali debates which arise every so often to irritate the hell out of me have hurt Warne a tad (as they have Murali). We know Warne could have gotten more wickets without McGrath, but then people considered how well he would have done without McGrath, and so the pointless Warne analysing begins and a microscope was placed on the impact McGrath had on Warne. In reality it was a very marginal support and only one person ever got Warne's wickets and that was Shane Warne.
For me it's not even a contest between who's better out of Warne and McGrath. Warne succeeded in moments, throughout his career, when players like McGrath, Trueman, Marshall, Lillee, Akram, Murali, Imran etc would have failed. None of those players could have brought Australia back to life in that 1999 World Cup semi final. To this day his stats for that game, 4-27, hide the many impacts he made. None of those players could carry a country that was a floundering like Australia was during the Ashes. That series could have, and would have been, won 4-1 to England if not for Warne. The list is endless of times when Warne saved Australia. Warne had this amazing ability to do something nobody else could do when it counted. Generally I think he was among the best ever, but what made him stand out above the rest for me was that if he could do it when it counted, and that's everything in my book. People say he played in a great team, and he did, but that amount of loses Australia would have suffered without Warne is staggering.
As for any statistical analysis. It's idiotic to try and gauge McGrath's impact on Warne with stats. McGrath was a very mediocre bowler when he first arrived in the Aussie side. Warne's best ever year, statistically, was 1994, a year in which he was Australia's first, second and third option to get wickets. McDermott was often injured and out of form, McGrath wasn't anything special then, and Paul Riefel certainly wasn't world class - just an effective link in the team. Yet all those wonderful Warne performances count for nothing when idiots say he fed greatly off McGrath. If people wanted to look at a period where they fed off each other, I think the only good period was 2001-2002, especially in the 2001 Ashes. There's other times too, like in Sri Lanka 2004 and people were saying McGrath was washed up. McGrath wasn't being effective at all on Sri Lankan soil, and Warne took 26 of a potential 60 wickets to help Australia win the series 3-0. I can honestly say Sri Lanka would have won that series 2-0 if not for Warne. And yet that counts against Warne when people start saying he fed off McGrath.
I'd say McGrath wasn't an excellent bowler until 1995, and even then I recall vividly he wasn't placed in the same bracket as the likes of Akram, Ambrose and the sublime Alan Donald. It wasn't until 1998, in my opinion, that he started to come across as a great bowler. Of course he went from strength to strength and became one of the all-time greats. But people have a very selective memory. McGrath wasn't a great until around 1998.
It's almost on a subcontious level the way people take things away from Warne. I don't like Warne the person, but Warne the cricketer was beyond something special. I honestly believe there are times when people can't separate Warne the person from Warne the cricketer. I can and that why I admire Warne.
Last edited:
I really appreaciate ur consistency with statistics unlike many others who use statistaics according to their ''convenience''.Your faith in my abilities is both flattering and disturbing.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Well, it's no surprise I agree with every word up there. I especially agree with the last sentence.
You could also, easily, add the 4/33 in the final. His 4/36 against the Windies in 96 was amazing too.
Last edited:
Tom Halsey
International Coach
Basically the Warne/McGrath debate IMO boils down to the fact that they peaked at different times. Pre Warne's injury I'd rather have him in the side and afterwards, McGrath. Over their whole careers, as social said, it's basically like trying to split the atom.
Anyway, my top 10, not in order:
Murali
Warne
McGrath
Ambrose
Imran
Hadlee
Lillee
Barnes
Marshall
O'Reilly
Anyway, my top 10, not in order:
Murali
Warne
McGrath
Ambrose
Imran
Hadlee
Lillee
Barnes
Marshall
O'Reilly
There's a heap of Warne match-winning performances that I could talk about that were great. I only mentioned the very best ones in my post but I could talk all day about the games he won for Australia.
My all-time favourite Warne performance is the world cup semi final because it encapsulates everything that's great about Warne. What's sad about that performance is that 4/27, as great as that is, isn't anywhere near as good as Warne bowled. I mean after 9 overs Warne had 3-13 as his figures. I remember his last over, I forget who was facing Warne, but he charged Warne (South Africa needed quick runs) and he couldn't control the spin and mis-hit the ball which went up in the air and Paul Riefel dropped it. Not only did he drop it, but because it was so badly botched South Africa got three runs. That put Shaun Pollock on strike and he swung wildly twice and it came off and he got two boundaries from it. Warne got one more wicket that over. But I always thought had Paul Riefel not dropped that catch, Warne could have gotten 4 or 5 for less than 15 runs. That's how good he was that day, for the first 9 overs, all South Africa could muster was little over one an over. Fantastic performance!
Interesting side-note about Riefel. Some people feel the only detractor about that game was that South Africa choked. But people forget Australia only needed one wicket when Lance Klusener smacked a ball down the ground which Riefel dropped. Not only did he drop it, but the ball rocketed off the hands and went for six when it originally would have gone for four. So had the Saffies won, people could have said Australia choked. Just my all-time favourite ODI because of the ups and downs, the performances and the drama.
Last edited:
shortpitched713
International Captain
Its only the past six or seven years that are of interest though when talking about batting getting easier. More than half of the bowlers mentioned had retired by the time that batting had gotten much easier, and some would say that is part of the reason.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Hmm, interesting..
1. Warne
2. McGrath
3. Marshall
4. Hadlee
5. Bedi
6. Donald
7. Wasim
8. Holding
9. Trueman
10. Barnes
1. Warne
2. McGrath
3. Marshall
4. Hadlee
5. Bedi
6. Donald
7. Wasim
8. Holding
9. Trueman
10. Barnes
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What happened to him that he was a great bowler in 1995 but suddenly became mediocre in 1995-96?
Sorry, but I watched him bowl here, and I saw him on TV/ in footage bowling elsewhere, and it's like he swapped passports with Glen Trimble when he arrived at Sydney Airport.
It may well be that the conditions didn't suit him here, and that's fine, but if he didn't perform as well here when others like Akram, Ambrose, Marshal et al did, then imo you have to mark them ahead of him (like the Lillee on the subcontinent argument).
Doesn't mean he couldn't bowl or that he wasn't a great bowler, I just wouldn't have him in my top 10 is all I'm saying.
I want to emphasise I'm not bagging the bloke, as I understand that he lives about 5 minutes from me now and if he reads this I don't need to make an enemy of a bloke who could still knock my block off if he came down to the nets!!
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree with the above, he brought the Aussies back from the dead in that game, totally changed the course of it when he bowled Gibbs and Kirsten and got a bit lucky with Hansie's wicket (ball was off his foot and taken at slip on the drive). The batsman you're talking about was Jacques Kallis and Warne got him a few balls later anyway.
I know you're not saying it but if anyone honestly said that Reiffel choked when he missed that, they're crazy. That ball was hit hard and flat and literally burst through his hands. It was spanked so hard, Paul Reiffel is lucky to still have hands!