Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[ankitj]

Lone wolves can't be taken off the attack when they are not at their best. They don't get breather as often as others can. They have to bowl with new ball and old, they have little choice.

 

[ankitj]

Here is a relevant post I made some time back.

 

[watson]

It's strange how teams can score 400+ in their first innings of a Test match but make a complete hash of chasing 250 runs in their second innings despite the pitch being reasonable and opposition bowlers sending down the same array of deliveries. The point being that psychological pressure means a lot in cricket.

That's why great bowlers appear slightly greater than they really are because they have another great bowler operating at the other end. Gregory had McDonald and Mailey, Lindwall had Miller and Johnson, Trueman had Statham, Lillee had Thomson, Roberts and Marshall had Holding, McGrath had Warne and Gillespie.

To me it is obvious that bowlers not only take wickets because of their own skill but are also indirectly aided by the skill of their bowling partner who adds extra psychological pressure on the batsman. Under such unrelenting bowling pressure for 15 consecutive overs or more it is not difficult to see how the batsman's technique will be hyper-extended and then break.

Given that Hadlee's main support bowlers were Chatfield and Cairns I find his achievement remarkable. Don't get me wrong, both Chatfield and Cairns were good competent bowlers, but I think it fair to say that they were not in the same class as the likes of Miller or Holding.

In short, if Hadlee had Michael Holding as a partner then I think it obvious to say that he would have taken fewer wickets because Holding would have claimed his fair share. However, the wickets that Hadlee did take would have been at a better Average and Strike Rate. Just how much better is a matter of speculation, but they would have been better.

 

[Flem274*]

I reckon what we see when you remove Southee or Anderson from their respective attacks and the effect it has on Boult and Broad says it all about the relative difficulty of being a lone wolf v a pack.

Not great bowlers no, but still demonstrates the point. Cricket isn't played in a vacuum and you want maximum pressure at both ends.

I guess in Murali's case you could also bring in the saboteur problem. It's not just that he didn't have awesome bowlers at the other end; he often enjoyed the company of the likes of Dilhara Fernando and other pressure release bowlers.

See also; Old Johnson and whichever poor sod had to bowl at the other end.

 

[BeeGee]

Perhaps the batsman in his team are more important to stand-out bowlers like Hadlee. After all, it's very difficult to take bags of wickets if the attack is consistently defending small totals, or losing by an innings. Fortunately for Hadlee he was supported by some talented batsman like the Crowe brothers, Wright, Coney, and not to mention Lees or Smith behind the stumps.

Jeff Crowe was crap, tbh. A better player to mention would be JF Reid. He was gun.

 

[watson]

Jeff Crowe was crap, tbh. A better player to mention would be JF Reid. He was gun.

I was thinking of the following innings made under pressure;

4th Test: West Indies v New Zealand at Kingston, May 4-8, 1985 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

But yeah, in the main Reid it is.

 

[kyear2]

Murali wasn't in any way hampered by not having great complementary bowlers. He enjoyed and benefited from bowling long marathon spells, especially in Sri Lanka on his tailor made pitches and then he basically had a free run through the tail. Had he bowled with a Marshall or McGrath the pitches may not have been so spin friendly and while for sure his WPM would have dropped there is nothing to suggest that his average or SR would have increased.

 

[Slifer]

WTF.....WPM is probably the only stat they have in their favor and you choose to mention that.

Average and SR will be higher for lone wolves because of a lack of support. And ATG bowlers are not supermen that they will bowl at their peak day in day out. With lone wolves they also have to contend with the fact that if the opposition decide to play them out cautiously and attack the rest they can't do much about it.

So how do u explain Muttiah having a better SR and average than Warne. Muttiah being the 'lone' wolf in this scenario. Please note this isn't an attack or anything just seeking your opinion.

 

[Flem274*]

Murali wasn't in any way hampered by not having great complementary bowlers.

Keep dreaming.

Had he bowled with a Marshall or a McGrath he would have taken less wickets overall but with a lower average and would have been more effective overseas away from his "dustbowls", which seem to miraculously turn into roads whenever we discuss Sangakkara.

 

[bagapath]

Want to choose bowlers who would win me test matches against all opponents on all sorts of surfaces. Since there is no bowling equivalent of Sachin who as a batsman averaged 40+ against all opponents and in all countries, I am going to pick bowlers who did well in as many different conditions as possible.


Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Barnes
Murali
Imran
Ambrose
Warne
Lillee
Garner

 

[OverratedSanity]

Want to choose bowlers who would win me test matches against all opponents on all sorts of surfaces. Since there is no bowling equivalent of Sachin who as a batsman averaged 40+ against all opponents and in all countries, I am going to pick bowlers who did well in as many different conditions as possible.

Imran was <30 against everyone everywhere

 

[morgieb]

I'll say (in no particular order):

Marshall
Hadlee
McGrath
Barnes
Warne
Imran
Muralitharan
Ambrose
Lillee
Trueman

 

[hendrix]

So how do u explain Muttiah having a better SR and average than Warne. Muttiah being the 'lone' wolf in this scenario. Please note this isn't an attack or anything just seeking your opinion.

Vaas was a superb bowler, IMO.

Certainly far superior to Chatfield and Lance Cairns.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

So how do u explain Muttiah having a better SR and average than Warne. Muttiah being the 'lone' wolf in this scenario. Please note this isn't an attack or anything just seeking your opinion.

Because Murali was a far better bowler than Warne

 

[watson]

Murali played 25 Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe where the batting is so ordinary that it doesn't really matter who your bowling partner is. Warne played 3 Tests.

Murali took 89 wickets versus Bangladesh at 13.37 and 87 wickets at 16.86 versus Zimbabwe. This would help Murali's figures look more flash when compared to Warne I reckon.

 

[ankitj]

Because Murali was a far better bowler than Warne

Yeah, this can very well be an explanation. This argument can't be settled by comparing specific bowlers. That assumes they are equal.

 

[the big bambino]

Actually pretty good point by Slifer and nice response from Watson. The adjusted Murali average sans Zimbucks and Bangers is still 24.87. He still averages 5.77wpm.

 

[Slifer]

Vaas was a superb bowler, IMO.

Certainly far superior to Chatfield and Lance Cairns.

I agree Vaas was a very good bowler but no where in the class of Glenn Mcgrath. Plus Shane Warne also bowled along side very good bowlers such as Jason Gillespie, Fleming, Macgill and Paul Reifel (all are as good as if not better than Vaas). Therefore relatively speaking, Murali was a 'lone' wolf compared to Warne but still had a better SR and Average (even if Ban/Zim are removed).

 

[Blocky]

I'm not arguing with the general premise that Hadlee was one of the greats, but I'm not sure about the advantages or otherwise of playing as a lone bowler vs as one part of a great attack. Hadlee had a lot of things in his favour - he got his choice of ends every time, and had a large say in when and how long he bowled during the innings. He had plenty of opportunity to bowl at the opposition tail. He probably got to choose the particular ball that felt best to him... Plus home wickets and arguably umpires tended to be fairly favourable to him. It's hard to know what his figures would have been as a part of a better attack, maybe fewer wickets, but at a better average?

He would have got the choice of ends regardless in any side. He being a pace bowler also meant he was limited in spell so unlike Murali, he couldn't just bowl and bowl and bowl and bowl. As for home wickets, that's every single bowler though, look at the pitches in South Africa at the moment, if that's not suited to their bowling attack I don't know what is. Because he couldn't just bowl over after over after over, any time form batsmen got stuck in, he'd invariably be the one to winkle them out - so very few times unless he ran through a team, would he get the chance to be bowling at new batsmen in each of his spells. As for umpires being favourable to him, might have something more to do with the fact that he didn't appeal for the ones he didn't think were out, his wicket to wicket line and length meant he was constantly an LBW threat.

In the case of Murali, he still had Vaas for the majority of his career who was more than capable as a seam bowler, and invariably most of his wickets came on dust bowls against opposition that weren't happy in the sub continent. The great players of spin found him pretty easy to boss around, such as Lara. Hadlee, no one really found his bowling easy, he was always a threat.

Hunting in packs gives bowlers immense advantage, pace bowlers especially. McGrath was always a much better bowler with Gillespie at the other end performing - the same can be said about Steyn and his combination with Morkel and Philander. Spin bowlers like Warne come along very rarely, where they're able to bowl either in a pack situation with someone like McGrath, or put in a virtuoso performance in a side that was losing most games (2005 Ashes) due to skill, style and mental strength.

Shane Bond would no doubt have performed much better if he joined this current NZ bowling attack than the one he was part of.

 

[hendrix]

well, the comparison between a spin bowling lone wolf and a pace bowling lone wolf might be different for a few other reasons (other than the fact that Murali might actually be a far superior bowler to Warne, which I don't agree with).