Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Second Spitter]

What are you talking about?

Search for "Michael Holding" + "Brian Close" on youtube. HTH.

There's nothing malicious in the those deliveries.....none of them hit the batmen. That was a freaky pitch+Garner's nature angle of delivery.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I've just checked R. Hadlee's record. He struck at 5 wpm. Hadlee was a great bowler as we all know. Such bowlers are rare. More common are class bowlers at test level who would reasonably average 4 to 4.5 wickets a match. Do the math. A team of 4 would take around 2 - 4 fewer on average than the required 20. You need a 5th bowler to mop up the rest so your team is consistently capable of taking all 20 wickets. Quite often teams still fall short on a wpm basis even with a 5th bowler. I would argue you even need a 6th and that person should be a batsmen like Clarke who can take wickets in tests, before a side can feel confident they have the ammo to consistently bowl out teams.

I've done this maths before and initially I reached the same conclusion as you have. But a rethink forced me to recant. The wpm stats for bowlers are skewed towards the lower side by the fact that not all matches one plays end with all 40 wickets picked. The average number of dismissals per test historically has been around 30, i.e, 15 for each side. Therefore the sum of the wpm of a pack of 4 bowlers need not approach 20 unless the aim is to have a shot at winning every single match. 4 bowlers picking at 4 wpm would pick 16. Then there are run outs which account for 0.7 dismissals out of every 20. For a reasonably good fielding side, it would be safe to round that up to 1. That makes 17 dismissals a test which in higher than the average. For 4 bowlers picking at 4.5 wpm, you get 19 wickets a match, which is again significantly higher than 15, and would hence win you a lot more matches that you lose. Addition of a fifth bowler may or may not improve the teams performance, but there is absolutely no basis for making the theoretical case for their necessity.

 

[watson]

I've done this maths before and initially I reached the same conclusion as you have. But a rethink forced me to recant. The wpm stats for bowlers are skewed towards the lower side by the fact that not all matches one plays end with all 40 wickets picked. The average number of dismissals per test historically has been around 30, i.e, 15 for each side. Therefore the sum of the wpm of a pack of 4 bowlers need not approach 20 unless the aim is to have a shot at winning every single match. 4 bowlers picking at 4 wpm would pick 16. Then there are run outs which account for 0.7 dismissals out of every 20. For a reasonably good fielding side, it would be safe to round that up to 1. That makes 17 dismissals a test which in higher than the average. For 4 bowlers picking at 4.5 wpm, you get 19 wickets a match, which is again significantly higher than 15, and would hence win you a lot more matches that you lose. Addition of a fifth bowler may or may not improve the teams performance, but there is absolutely no basis for making the theoretical case for their necessity.

If the pitch is pretty docile, and it's a hot day of around 35 to 40 degrees C then I think a 5th bowler is necessary otherwise the frontline 4 bowlers lose their effectiveness due to the exhausting process of bowling 90 overs over 3 sessions.

I think that stats need to given a context, not just number crunched for the lake of number crunching.

 

[smash84]

I've done this maths before and initially I reached the same conclusion as you have. But a rethink forced me to recant. The wpm stats for bowlers are skewed towards the lower side by the fact that not all matches one plays end with all 40 wickets picked. The average number of dismissals per test historically has been around 30, i.e, 15 for each side. Therefore the sum of the wpm of a pack of 4 bowlers need not approach 20 unless the aim is to have a shot at winning every single match. 4 bowlers picking at 4 wpm would pick 16. Then there are run outs which account for 0.7 dismissals out of every 20. For a reasonably good fielding side, it would be safe to round that up to 1. That makes 17 dismissals a test which in higher than the average. For 4 bowlers picking at 4.5 wpm, you get 19 wickets a match, which is again significantly higher than 15, and would hence win you a lot more matches that you lose. Addition of a fifth bowler may or may not improve the teams performance, but there is absolutely no basis for making the theoretical case for their necessity.

Wow. It must have taken a fair bit of time to come up with this.

 

[smash84]

If the pitch is pretty docile, and it's a hot day of around 35 to 40 degrees C then I think a 5th bowler is necessary otherwise the frontline 4 bowlers lose their effectiveness due to the exhausting process of bowling 90 overs over 3 sessions.
.

I don't think that international cricket is played very often in these types of conditions. 40 degrees C is ridiculously hot. The only matches I can recall are Aus Vs Pak in Sharjah

 

[Red]

Would anyone choose Sobers if he couldn't bat?

I'm not questioning his greatness. All I was saying was that Kyear lists all the great things about Sobers and then finishes off with he's also the greatest 5th bowler. I mean would you say the same thing for the greatest no 9 batsmen ever? And Sobers isn't even the greatest 5th bowler anyway, so that's like saying, oh he's also the 3rd greatest 5th bowler. Does that seem impressive to you or anyone else?

No, no one would choose Sober in an ATG side as a bowler alone. But that's not the point.

Plenty of test sides through history would have picked Sobers on his bowling alone. Plenty. Either as a seamer or a spinner.

However, that's not the point. The point is that Sobers is selected as a batsman whether he can bowl or not. For mine he is the second picked batsman. His bowling then, as the fifth bowler, becomes a massive bonus. As a bowler he can easily hold an end in a fantasy ATG contest while the strike bowlers rest/wait for the new ball. And, he is quite likely to take a wicket.

I'd say Sobers is the equal of all "5th bowlers" in an ATG discussion (that is guys who can bat top 6). Kallis and Greig are the closest "like" players in recent history and neither of them would (usually) be chosen over Sobers as a batsman.

 

[Red]

If you want a better fifth bowler, you have to be prepared to bat someone like Botham or Miller in the top 6. Weakening the batting significantly (compared to Sobers)

 

[watson]

I don't think that international cricket is played very often in these types of conditions. 40 degrees C is ridiculously hot. The only matches I can recall are Aus Vs Pak in Sharjah

Sydney has temps in the mid 30s for more than 2 weeks of the summer on average. I can't imagine any of the other capitals being that much cooler.

Most weekends in the summer it's hot enough standing in the shade, let alone bowling long spells out in the sun. Even for professional athletes I reckon.

 

[ankitj]

Jacques Kallis comfortably better 5th bowler compared to Sobers IMO.

 

[smash84]

Sydney has temps in the mid 30s for more than 2 weeks of the summer on average. I can't imagine any of the other capitals being that much cooler.

Most weekends in the summer it's hot enough standing in the shade, let alone bowling long spells out in the sun. Even for professional athletes I reckon.

The SC summers get really hot. Lahore hits 45C+ for about 1 to 2 months. But intl cricket has always taken place in Pakistan from October to April. Not in the summer months. Same for India I would reckon.

English summers are pretty cool temp wise so it isn't a problem there and SA always have good temperature in their cricket season.

Even if Sydney is that hot for about 2 weeks it isn't that long a window and I am not sure how much international cricket is played in Sydney during those 2 weeks.

 

[Slifer]

If you want a better fifth bowler, you have to be prepared to bat someone like Botham or Miller in the top 6. Weakening the batting significantly (compared to Sobers)

Unless u have player like Bradman.....who of course is one of a kind

 

[G.I.Joe]

If the pitch is pretty docile, and it's a hot day of around 35 to 40 degrees C then I think a 5th bowler is necessary otherwise the frontline 4 bowlers lose their effectiveness due to the exhausting process of bowling 90 overs over 3 sessions.

I think that stats need to given a context, not just number crunched for the lake of number crunching.

Then pick 5 bowlers for hot conditions while accepting the risk that one might simultaneously have increased the chances of the opposition to pick up 20 wickets. It is not an unwise thing to do. One set of conditions does not invalidate the general premise of the argument. One could counter-propose a seaming wicket where the average team score is 200, where 5 bowlers have done a job that could have been accomplished by just 4, and you're also a batsman short. That's the thing with stats that employ averages - you make allowances for deviations to either side instead of assuming that they're being proposed as a rigid set of rules that will cover every conceivable situation. It's ludicrous that you'd suggest context. If someone states that Bradman averages 100 and so would be likely to bat well in a particular situation, you don't preach that stats need to be put into context and that it is also likely that he'd contribute nothing to that situation. It would be condescending to state the obvious.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Wow. It must have taken a fair bit of time to come up with this.

Not really. Like I said, I'd looked it up in the past because I was puzzled why the wpm stats for bowlers didn't add up. I realise it seems straightforward why so, but in my defence, I'm stupid. Today I Binged a few relevant keywords (suck it PEWS ) which took me here - Blogs: Analysing Test dismissals across the ages | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

"Others" seems pretty high at 1 every other match, BTW.

 

[the big bambino]

I've done this maths before and initially I reached the same conclusion as you have. But a rethink forced me to recant. The wpm stats for bowlers are skewed towards the lower side by the fact that not all matches one plays end with all 40 wickets picked. The average number of dismissals per test historically has been around 30, i.e, 15 for each side. Therefore the sum of the wpm of a pack of 4 bowlers need not approach 20 unless the aim is to have a shot at winning every single match. 4 bowlers picking at 4 wpm would pick 16. Then there are run outs which account for 0.7 dismissals out of every 20. For a reasonably good fielding side, it would be safe to round that up to 1. That makes 17 dismissals a test which in higher than the average. For 4 bowlers picking at 4.5 wpm, you get 19 wickets a match, which is again significantly higher than 15, and would hence win you a lot more matches that you lose. Addition of a fifth bowler may or may not improve the teams performance, but there is absolutely no basis for making the theoretical case for their necessity.

Thanks for that interesting fact - one that I have sometimes wondered about. First a clarification. I believe I'm being generous allowing 4.5 wpm as a defn of a good bowler. Such a bowler is arguably a great. Statham for eg averaged 3.6 wpm and is considered a great. Bowlers who average 4 wpm are pretty unusual. A team is fortunate to have 2 of them. The others average around 3 wpm. So you can see a 4 man attack with men who ave 4,4,3 and 3 wpm are 6 adrift of the required 20 and that's a lot to be consistently made up in run outs.

Now I get the point that the historical ave is 30 wpm in tests or 15 per side. That is an average that takes into account all circumstances (bowling against stronger opponents, on flatter tracks, in rain ruined games, where you only have one innings etc). These circumstances contribute to the difficulty of taking 20 wickets. A team's object is to win every match (or should be) It is obvious that if they can fill their team with enough bowlers whose cumulative wpm total approaches 20 that they are more likely to achieve their aim, defy the historical average of 15 wpm and surmount the difficulties that prevent a team taking all 20 wickets.

 

[kyear2]

Cricket is all about balance. Fortunately it's not all it's not always about the best 6 batsmen and the best 4 bowlers. The match in S.A today is showing that while it's not critical, it's important to have that dependable 5th bowler, in this instance for the occurrence of injury. J.P didn't set the world on fire but he took a critical wicket and just as importantly tied up one end with economical bowling which kept things tight and allowed the front line bowlers to be rested and rotated efficiently to keep them as fresh as possible. Importantly this selection didn't weaken the normal batting lineup and he also scored a Hundred in the 1st innings. Additionally Du Plessis took two stunning catches in this match that helped to heavily swing the match in his teams favor, two catches that many lesser/other slippers may not have managed to hold on to.

When selecting a test XI one of the batsmen should be able to at least help out as a 5th bowler to either take critical wickets and be a partnership breaker or at least keep things quiet and the run rate low when they are operating. At least two of the players as well should be very good to great slip fielders who can take those game changing grabs and turn half chances into wickets. That's why players like the aforementioned Hammond, Sobers, Greg Chappell, Warne, Simpson, Kallis, McCabe, Barlow, Mitchell etc were so valuable as they brought both supplementary skills without a compromise to their primary responsibilities while contributing to teams wins and successes. Then they are the countless others who would have contributed in any one additional discipline while being uncompromising specialist/greats including batsmen, bowlers and keepers.

 

[kyear2]

Back on topic, Steyn continues to build on his legacy and shows the value of that one special bowler in your attack and shows why and how the bowlers are more than often your match winners. Steyn by now time should be able to find a place in most top 10's, he is top class.

 

[Slifer]

I agree. And it makes a mockery of those who think that the likes of Mcgrath are head and shoulders above him. Steyn is class all the way!!!

 

[smash84]

I agree. And it makes a mockery of those who think that the likes of Mcgrath are head and shoulders above him. Steyn is class all the way!!!

Awta. Which is why I also say that There isn't really too much to choose between the top 10-15 fast bowlers of all time. A couple of runs here and there doesn't make you too shabby

 

[Slifer]

Awta. Which is why I also say that There isn't really too much to choose between the top 10-15 fast bowlers of all time. A couple of runs here and there doesn't make you too shabby

There really isn't. Which is y sometimes it comes down to nit picking and personal opinion. Top 20 fast men IMO (and in no particular order):

Marshall
Mcgrath
Imran
Waqar
Akram
Ambrose
Steyn
Donald
Trueman
Hadlee
Garner
Holding
Lindwall
Roberts
Walsh
Pollock
Fazal
Davidson
Statham
Miller/Bedser/Willis etc etc

 

[Red]

Jacques Kallis comfortably better 5th bowler compared to Sobers IMO.

Don't really see any reason why tbh.