Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Eds]

I don't think that analogy (club cricket) works tbh. Either of McGrath or Harris would likely rip through a club team nearly 100% of the time.

That's exactly my point. It works. They'd have extremely similar results despite Harris being quite obviously inferior.

Let's be honest, the gap between Harris and McGrath (or Hadlee or whoever) at test level isn't even that different. Harris troubles elite batsmen in test cricket, there's no reason to think he wouldn't trouble Jack Hobbs or Sunny Gavaskar.

.. and I just completely disagree with this bit. The difference is large and would only be exaggerated further as the two face more difficult batting lineups.

 

[Eds]

I guess my point is that a guy like Andy Bichel of Kaspa (who were fringe-ish test players) would still compete in an ATG fantasy game, and would highly likely take wickets. The gap at the elite level is only very marginal.

No. No they wouldn't.

 

[Red]

and I just completely disagree with this bit. The difference is large and would only be exaggerated further as the two face more difficult batting lineups.

Of course they'd be competitive. A guy like Harris is capable of troubling excellent test batsmen. There's no reason why he'd not be competitive in an ATG setting.

No. No they wouldn't.

Yes they would. Kaspa and Bichel are perfectly capable of getting Tendulalkar or Lara out. So they could easily step up another (fantasy) level where these guys would play.

Obviously, there is a difference between Kaspa and Lillee/McGrath. But my point is the difference is so marginal, and the difference between someone like McGrath and Hadlee is ever smaller.

 

[watson]

Hadlee - I'm not quite old enough to have watched him regularly and as such others' opinions make up a large part of my own. By those who've seen him and other bowling greats bowl, he's never mentioned in that top echelon that we're referring to. He's got a fantastic record but so have McGrath, Ambrose and Marshall, who are almost always mentioned in regards to that top tier.

Imran - The home/away thing is enough to take him out of the top bracket. 19 at home, 26 away. Not the mark of one of the top three greatest bowlers of all-time, for me.

Pakistan = Nirvana
West Indies = Sensational
England = Good
India = OK
Australia = Ho Hum
NZ = Not enough Tests
RSA = No Tests

Now wondering whether Imran can be a Top 3 bowler because he happened to have problems at the MCG and the WACA? Few bowlers end up with a large tally of wickets at Adelaide which tends to be a bowlers graveyard, so poor figures in South Australia are nothing out of the ordinary.

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

Perhaps we're being overly picky?

 

[Eds]

Of course they'd be competitive. A guy like Harris is capable of troubling excellent test batsmen. There's no reason why he'd not be competitive in an ATG setting.

Yes they would. Kaspa and Bichel are perfectly capable of getting Tendulalkar or Lara out. So they could easily step up another (fantasy) level where these guys would play.

Obviously, there is a difference between Kaspa and Lillee/McGrath. But my point is the difference is so marginal, and the difference between someone like McGrath and Hadlee is ever smaller.

That's not how it works though and you know that. Ray Price got Tendulkar out thrice in as many games. He's capable of getting him out, as he's therefore shown. Would you back him at the level up? No. I wouldn't even back him at Test level ffs. Kaspa and Bichel would be virtually irrelevant at ATG level. Can you just imagine them running up to Sobers and Viv, or Bradman and Hobbs, or Trumper and Barry Richards? Mayhem.

Pakistan = Nirvana
West Indies = Sensational
England = Good
India = OK
Australia = Ho Hum
NZ = Not enough Tests
RSA = No Tests

Now wondering whether Imran can be a Top 3 bowler because he happened to have problems at the MCG and the WACA? Few bowlers end up with a large tally of wickets at Adelaide which tends to be a bowlers graveyard, so poor figures in South Australia are nothing out of the ordinary.

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

Perhaps we're being overly picky?

Being overly picky? Correct me if I'm wrong but one needs to be rather picky to select three bowlers from the tens of thousands that have played FC cricket over the years.

I'm not by any means suggesting Imran is a bad bowler - but if you can find blemishes like that in Marshall, McGrath or Ambrose's respective records then I'll perhaps re-consider my opinion. But I can't find any.

Just for my own interest, a quick comparison suggests:

Ambrose: 24w @ 13 at WACA, 20w @ 14 at MCG.
McGrath: 52w @ 24 at WACA, 42w @ 23 at MCG.
Marshall: 9w @ 25 at WACA, 6w @ 34 at MCG.

 

[watson]

That's not how it works though and you know that. Ray Price got Tendulkar out thrice in as many games. He's capable of getting him out, as he's therefore shown. Would you back him at the level up? No. I wouldn't even back him at Test level ffs. Kaspa and Bichel would be virtually irrelevant at ATG level. Can you just imagine them running up to Sobers and Viv, or Bradman and Hobbs, or Trumper and Barry Richards? Mayhem.



Being overly picky? Correct me if I'm wrong but one needs to be rather picky to select three bowlers from the tens of thousands that have played FC cricket over the years.

I'm not by any means suggesting Imran is a bad bowler - but if you can find blemishes like that in Marshall, McGrath or Ambrose's respective records then I'll perhaps re-consider my opinion. But I can't find any.

Just for my own interest, a quick comparison suggests:

Ambrose: 24w @ 13 at WACA, 20w @ 14 at MCG.
McGrath: 52w @ 24 at WACA, 42w @ 23 at MCG.
Marshall: 9w @ 25 at WACA, 6w @ 34 at MCG.

McGrath V RSA
Home + Away: Average = 27.33 SR = 71.61 (C or C-)
Home: Average = 31.18 SR = 80.36 (FAIL)
Away: Average = 23.62 SR = 63.17 (B+)

Conclusion: Against the best opposition of his era McGrath was ordinary at best. Against the best opposition of his era, the West Indies, Imran was superb. Therefore, Imran is the better bowler in that important criteria (?)

 

[Slifer]

McGrath V RSA
Home + Away: Average = 27.33 SR = 71.61 (C or C-)
Home: Average = 31.18 SR = 80.36 (FAIL)
Away: Average = 23.62 SR = 63.17 (B+)

Conclusion: Against the best opposition of his era McGrath was ordinary at best. Against the best opposition of his era, the West Indies, Imran was superb. Therefore, Imran is the better bowler in that
important criteria (?)

I don't really have a dog in this fight but the best batting lineup of Mcgrath's time was not RSA it was India and Mcgrath was superb!!!

 

[Red]

That's not how it works though and you know that. Ray Price got Tendulkar out thrice in as many games. He's capable of getting him out, as he's therefore shown. Would you back him at the level up? No. I wouldn't even back him at Test level ffs. Kaspa and Bichel would be virtually irrelevant at ATG level. Can you just imagine them running up to Sobers and Viv, or Bradman and Hobbs, or Trumper and Barry Richards? Mayhem.

My point is that there is very little separating the top 15-20 quicks of all time. I stand by that. There is not that much separating someone like Kasprowicz from an ATG. There really isn't as much as some people think imo.

Ray Price is a bit absurd. But standard "good" test bowlers would be able to compete (and produce) at ATG level. And my main point is there is very little separating the top 20.

 

[watson]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but the best batting lineup of Mcgrath's time was not RSA it was India and Mcgrath was superb!!!

Obviously not as McGrath would have done better. Admittedly, the Indian line-up was very good at Home, but have always been ordinary Away with the exception of Tendulakr and maybe 1 or 2 others.

Incidently (according to Statsguru),

India 1993-2007
Won = 48
Lost = 36
Draw = 51
W/L = 1.33

RSA 1993-2007
Won = 69
Lost = 38
Draw = 42
W/L = 1.81

Therefore, RSA were stronger than India and the main opposition of McGrath's era.

 

[kyear2]

Pakistan = Nirvana
West Indies = Sensational
England = Good
India = OK
Australia = Ho Hum
NZ = Not enough Tests
RSA = No Tests

Now wondering whether Imran can be a Top 3 bowler because he happened to have problems at the MCG and the WACA? Few bowlers end up with a large tally of wickets at Adelaide which tends to be a bowlers graveyard, so poor figures in South Australia are nothing out of the ordinary.

HowSTAT! Player Analysis by Country

Perhaps we're being overly picky?

Malcolm Marshall in India
Avg: 24 S/R: 49
Imran Khan in India
Avg: 28 S/R: 61
Glenn McGrath in India
Avg: 21 S/R: 56


Marshall in Australia
Avg: 23 s/r: 54
Imran in Australia
Avg: 28 s/r: 67
Mcgrath in Australia
Avg: 22 s/r: 54

Marshall in England
avg: 18 s/r :45
Imran in England
avg: 24 s/r: 62
McGrath in England
avg: 19 s/r: 39

Marshall in Pakistan
avg: 21 s/r 47
Imran in Pakistan
avg: 19 s/r: 47
McGrath in Pakistan (5 matches)
avg: 31 s/r: 63

Marshall in W.I.
avg: 20 s/r 42
Imran in W.I.
avg: 25 s/r: 45
McGrath in W.I
avg: 20 s/r:47

Imran is no doubt a great bowler and borderline top 10 of all time, but to state that he is top three when he was truly only brilliant in one country and his numbers there are almost an anomaly in comparison to his performances in other locations is a bit of a stretch.

To say that he was similar to MM in overall average belies that in every country outside of Pakistan Marshall was clearly superior and even there MM was almost equally superb. Imran's relatively uneven away performances and contrasting home performances coupled with the notion of his "patriotic" home umpires coupled with the knowledge on how he extracted so much reverse swing, I am reticent to state that he can be seen as a true contender to the title of greatest fast bowler or in the same company of Marshall and McGrath (statistically) or Barnes, Akram, Marshall or Lillee (anecdotally). Maco performed brilliantly everywhere and had an unmatched combination of skill set (swing/seam/accuracy), express pace and cricket acumen with the stats to back him up.

So yes, it may be a bit picky with Imran (and others), but we are not trying to decide if they were great bowlers, but they are differences within the top 10 - 15 and it is clear and distinct in if they are offer the same qualities and production and provide the same opportunities to win every where and in all conditions.

 

[Slifer]

Obviously not as McGrath would have done better. Admittedly, the Indian line-up was very good at Home, but have always been ordinary Away with the exception of Tendulakr and maybe 1 or 2 others.

Incidently (according to Statsguru),

India 1993-2007
Won = 48
Lost = 36
Draw = 51
W/L = 1.33

RSA 1993-2007
Won = 69
Lost = 38
Draw = 42
W/L = 1.81

Therefore, RSA were stronger than India and the main opposition of McGrath's era.

RSA were the stronger team (batting + bowling +fielding) but the best batting lineup, which is more relevant when we're talking about bowling was India's.

 

[kyear2]

My point is that there is very little separating the top 15-20 quicks of all time. I stand by that. There is not that much separating someone like Kasprowicz from an ATG. There really isn't as much as some people think imo.

Ray Price is a bit absurd. But standard "good" test bowlers would be able to compete (and produce) at ATG level. And my main point is there is very little separating the top 20.

There was a massive difference just between Marshall and Walsh or Marshall and Roberts. Between Marshall and Ambrose it gets closer but Marshall hardly went into defensive mode the way Ambrose sometimes did when he just hung the ball outside off stump and dared the batsmen to come after him and his WPM and SR too was just too far below the standard that MM set and that's just a comparison between W.I players and Ambrose was a match winner par excellance and one of the very best and closest to Marshall. So to suggest that the top 20 is basically all even, doesn't hold merit for me and if Marshall wasn't seen by many as the best he wouldn't make virtually (exception of Benaud) every single ATG XI while having the stats and universal and team success to back up his claim.

 

[Red]

There was a massive difference just between Marshall and Walsh or Marshall and Roberts. Between Marshall and Ambrose it gets closer but Marshall hardly went into defensive mode the way Ambrose sometimes did when he just hung the ball outside off stump and dared the batsmen to come after him and his WPM and SR too was just too far below the standard that MM set and that's just a comparison between W.I players and Ambrose was a match winner par excellance and one of the very best and closest to Marshall. So to suggest that the top 20 is basically all even, doesn't hold merit for me and if Marshall wasn't seen by many as the best he wouldn't make virtually (exception of Benaud) every single ATG XI while having the stats and universal and team success to back up his claim.

I'll acknowledge there's a slight difference between McGrath and Marshall and the others based on their consistency, longevity and adaptability. However, I don't think this separates them significantly from the other top tier players to the point it'd make a significant difference to the team they represent.

 

[morgieb]

McGrath V RSA
Home + Away: Average = 27.33 SR = 71.61 (C or C-)
Home: Average = 31.18 SR = 80.36 (FAIL)
Away: Average = 23.62 SR = 63.17 (B+)

Conclusion: Against the best opposition of his era McGrath was ordinary at best. Against the best opposition of his era, the West Indies, Imran was superb. Therefore, Imran is the better bowler in that important criteria (?)

In McGrath's defence IMO he did play against South Africa a lot before he hit his peak/past his peak.

 

[watson]

In McGrath's defence IMO he did play against South Africa a lot before he hit his peak/past his peak.

Yes, that's probably true. But the point I made a few pages back was that you can punch holes in the career of any bowler if you try hard enough. Therefore, I don't think that's it's fair to be overly picky, and its certainly not productive. I would rather concentrate on the good stuff and see how that totals up.

That said, I'm not sure why I don't rate Glenn McGrath's bowling as high as other people. I think that its probable something irrational like his lack of charisma, and the fact that I just don't find him exciting to watch. Yes, he's efficient as all get-up, but that just makes him the Ivan Llendl of bowling. I want to watch someone more akin to John McEnroe or Stephen Edberg. Or to use a soccer analogy, George Best rather than Stuart Pearce. So that'll be Barnes, Trueman, Lillee, or Imran, and probably Marshall.

I don't think that we can discount charisma when it comes to ranking fast bowlers, as strange and irrelevant as that sounds. After all, cricket is entertainment is it not? And fast bowlers are the leading act.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes, that's probably true. But the point I made a few pages back was that you can punch holes in the career of any bowler if you try hard enough. Therefore, I don't think that's it's fair to be overly picky, and its certainly not productive. I would rather concentrate on the good stuff and see how that totals up.

That said, I'm not sure why I don't rate Glenn McGrath's bowling as high as other people. I think that its probable something irrational like his lack of charisma, and the fact that I just don't find him exciting to watch. Yes, he's efficient as all get-up, but that just makes him the Ivan Llendl of bowling. I want to watch someone more akin to John McEnroe or Stephen Edberg. Or to use a soccer analogy, George Best rather than Stuart Pearce. So that'll be Barnes, Trueman, Lillee, or Imran, and probably Marshall.

I don't think that we can discount charisma when it comes to ranking fast bowlers, as strange and irrelevant as that sounds. After all, cricket is entertainment is it not? And fast bowlers are the leading act.

Once I understood what made test cricket great, around 2001/02, I found McGrath to be utterly brilliant to watch. Just watch his spell at Lord's in 2005 and tell me that's not exciting. You'd be flat out lying.

 

[Eds]

I'll acknowledge there's a slight difference between McGrath and Marshall and the others based on their consistency, longevity and adaptability. However, I don't think this separates them significantly from the other top tier players to the point it'd make a significant difference to the team they represent.

At test level, I 100% agree with you. The difference between a 22 avg and a 24 avg, and a SR of 50 and a SR of 55 is minimal. However, I think it's safe to assume that the 24 avg would raise by more than the 22 avg bowler (assuming both bowlers absolutely deserved their average and SR) at the next stage up. Do you disagree? That was my point really. I don't think there's a massive gap, but I do think whatever gap there is would be exaggerated at this hypothetical level above.

Plus, that helps to justify my sitting on cricket forums for hours discussing the merits of the top 20 pace bowlers!

 

[smash84]

At test level, I 100% agree with you. The difference between a 22 avg and a 24 avg, and a SR of 50 and a SR of 55 is minimal. However, I think it's safe to assume that the 24 avg would raise by more than the 22 avg bowler (assuming both bowlers absolutely deserved their average and SR) at the next stage up. Do you disagree? That was my point really. I don't think there's a massive gap, but I do think whatever gap there is would be exaggerated at this hypothetical level above.

!

But shouldn't that then also happen in batting too? Which means that a 5 to 10 run batting run advantage of Marshall over McGrath makes him a much more valuable player?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Imran was never the natural player unlike a lot of the ATG's mentioned. He underwent numerous action changes and worked damn harder than anyone else to be the great he was. It's an insult to his hard work to attribute his wickets to patriotic umpiring in order to diminish his greatness. Every other nation took advantage of biased home umpiring and it was Imran who suggested neutral umpires in the first place.

 

[Eds]

But shouldn't that then also happen in batting too? Which means that a 5 to 10 run batting run advantage of Marshall over McGrath makes him a much more valuable player?

I agree with the sentiment because I think Marshall is a better batsman and bowler than McGrath, but I'm not talking about batting.

But no, that doesn't work. Someone like Marshall would see his batting average decrease more than McGrath would, at this level above, IMO.