Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Agent Nationaux]

Why do I always think that the F in Sydney F Barnes is ****ing.

Sydney ****ing Barnes.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

My list is based on those bowlers I have seen in my time watching cricket and enjoyed..
1.Lee, 2. Ambrose 3. Marshall 4. Waqar 5. Wasim 6. Holding 7. Lillee 8. Murali .9.Warne 10. Walsh

no particular order, jsut those that came to mind...

 

[the big bambino]

Why do I always think that the F in Sydney F Barnes is ****ing.

Sydney ****ing Barnes.

I'm sure many an opponent, administrator and even team mates did. Story goes that on his 1st tour to Australia he had made an arsehole of himself even before the boat docked. On the way the ship got into a bad storm and one of the players told the captain MacLaren there is a chance the ship might go down. MacLaren was a difficult man himself but when he heard the news he untypically saw an upside and said if we go down at least that bugger Barnes goes down with us.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah Yorkylanky you might have to explain that one.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah Yorkylanky you might have to explain that one.

He said it was bowlers he enjoyed watching so it's a fair list

 

[the big bambino]

True enough.

 

[smash84]

Interesting analysis this one based on the number of man of series in the last 35 years or so.

Rob Steen: The worth of the Man-of-the-Series award in measuring greatness | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Anyway, let's not miss the wider picture painted by those charts: the most valuable cricketer over the past decade has been de Villiers - no one else has exceeded 11% in both lists - and the most valuable Test combatants over the past 35 years have been Imran and Marshall. Let captaincy be the tie-breaker and we have our No. 1. Talk about messing with the consensus.

Imran

 

[Slifer]

Interesting analysis this one based on the number of man of series in the last 35 years or so.

Rob Steen: The worth of the Man-of-the-Series award in measuring greatness | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo


Imran

....And Malcolm Marshall (same rate as Imran) LOL couldnt help it sorry

 

[smash84]

....And Malcolm Marshall (same rate as Imran) LOL couldnt help it sorry

lol....yes but throw in the batting and captaincy too and you have a tie breaker

 

[Slifer]

Well yeah obviously Imran is a greater cricketer.

 

[Eds]

lol....yes but throw in the batting and captaincy too and you have a tie breaker

His batting and captaincy presumably contributed to his man-of-the-series tally though.

If anything, in determining bowling, Imran's batting and captaincy should be used as a tiebreaker for Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

His batting and captaincy presumably contributed to his man-of-the-series tally though.

If anything, in determining bowling, Imran's batting and captaincy should be used as a tiebreaker for Marshall.

Yea, the batting would have already contributed to number of MOS awards, not sure how the captaincy would have really factored in.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yea, the batting would have already contributed to number of MOS awards, not sure how the captaincy would have really factored in.

Dhoni got MOM against Pakistan in the first ODI, when Pak last visited. This was despite Pak winning and Nasir Jamshed hitting a century, so maybe captaincy does play a hand.

 

[Slifer]

I just re-read that analysis on cricinfo, and I duly hope that the author is not implying that Mitch is a better left armer than Wasim. That IMO would be sacrilege ....

 

[smash84]

His batting and captaincy presumably contributed to his man-of-the-series tally though.

If anything, in determining bowling, Imran's batting and captaincy should be used as a tiebreaker for Marshall.

I doubt anybody over here suggested that Imran was a better bowler?

 

[G.I.Joe]

If they're equal from the MoM awards pov, doesn't it imply that Marshall was the better cricketer? He being one bowler competing with 3 other ATG bowlers versus Imran having little competition from within his team...

 

[Slifer]

In the analysis, that might be what's implied but in reality we all know that Imran is clearly a better cricketer than Sir Malcolm. But I do think it's amazing that in a team full of greats (at least 2-3 bowlers and Viv +), it's speaks volumes of his greatness that he won as many MOS awards as he did.

 

[smash84]

If they're equal from the MoM awards pov, doesn't it imply that Marshall was the better cricketer? He being one bowler competing with 3 other ATG bowlers versus Imran having little competition from within his team...

Since Marshall got to be MoS as a BOWLER competing for wickets with his own team mates and so he becomes a better CRICKETER? What kind of logic is this?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Since Marshall got to be MoS as a BOWLER competing for wickets with his own team mates and so he becomes a better CRICKETER? What kind of logic is this?

If he gets the exact same proportion of MoM awards despite having more competition, how does it not make him a better cricketer, unless you define a cricketer as someone who necessarily has to excel in all disciplines?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, in case it wasn't clear, it's the lone wolf vs pack of hunters argument all over again.

You may proceed to thank me, CW