Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[OverratedSanity]

Difficult to go with an order, but I'd probably go

Marshall
Warne
McGrath
Lillee
Ambrose
Hadlee
Imran
Murali
Trueman
Garner

Don't think Steyn should be put in such lists until he finishes his career, because depending on how it goes he could end up No. 10 or top 4

 

[OverratedSanity]

I have seen O Reilly rated highly as a leg spinner.....had never bothered to see check his record out.......until now

Bill O'Reilly | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Wow, it is an impressive record.

Lots rate him the greatest leggie ever, and while I personally will never agree with that, it's a fair opinion, and in no way is he out of place in a top 10

 

[smash84]

I think Steyn has done enough to make it to the top 10 list. I mean what hasn't he achieved that Garner did (except for having a 2 run higher average and a significantly lower SR)

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think Steyn has done enough to make it to the top 10 list. I mean what hasn't he achieved that Garner did (except for having a 2 run higher average and a significantly lower SR)

Help his team dominate cricket for a decade, I guess. He's 2-3 years away. And he obviously will do that.

 

[smash84]

Help his team dominate cricket for a decade, I guess. He's 2-3 years away. And he obviously will do that.

dude, are you telling me that WI wouldn't have dominated without Garner being present in the team?

And Steyn is probably doing for SA what Marshall was doing for WI.

 

[OverratedSanity]

dude, are you telling me that WI wouldn't have dominated without Garner being present in the team?

And Steyn is probably doing for SA what Marshall was doing for WI.

Nah, never said my if that. All I'm saying is I personally need atleast a decade before I put someone right up there... It's just natural. Kinda feels weird to say Steyn is one of the 5 greatest bowlers ever when I've only seen him for 6 odd years, even if it's probably true. Needs time to cement his legacy even more, which he will do.

 

[Slifer]

dude, are you telling me that WI wouldn't have dominated without Garner being present in the team?

And Steyn is probably doing for SA what Marshall was doing for WI.

Yes I agree with this assessment. I can see ne of Holding, Garner, Walsh and maybe MM being replaced by Steyn and IMO there wouldn't be any discernible decrease in strength or potency of the attack. That sob Dale Steyn is one hell of a fast bowler!!!

 

[Blocky]

You said bowlers, so I'm ruling Murali out, I'm also only selecting players I've seen rather than ancient records.

1. Marshall
2. Hadlee
3. Warne
4. Akram
5. Lillee
6. McGrath
7. Steyn
8. Ambrose
9. Younis
10. Donald

Unlucky: Imran, Holding, Garner,

As for Hadlee, how he's not rated ahead of most bowlers is beyond me by people. He bowled by himself during a period where there were some excellent teams and players, he had support in the form of Cairns, Snedden and Chatfield who were dependable without being spectacular. Hadlee had pace, movement in the air and off the seam and bowled immaculate line and length, he took wickets at a pace that no other pace bowler has been able to match on a match to match basis. I think had he played with the bowling attack Marshall played with, his average and strike rate would have been even lower as he wouldn't be depended on constantly to take the wickets of the best batsman,.

 

[Khaseer]

very difficult exercise as the difference between the majority of these bowlers is marginal. In no particular order

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Murali
Warne
Imran
Akram
Lillee
Ambrose
Steyn

That leaves out legends like Younis, Donald and Holding who probably have equal right as many others to be in that list.

 

[45DegreeOBS]

1) Beau Casson
2)Shane Warne
3) Muttiah Muralitharan
4) Graeme Swann
5) Saeed Ajmal
6) Steve Smith ( yes I'm serious )
7) Ravichandran Ashwin ( laughing at his delay balls )
8) Stuart Macgill
9) Paul Adams
10) Simon Katich

Not the best bowlers ever but my favorite bowlers to watch!

 

[smash84]

you hate pace bowling don't you?

 

[45DegreeOBS]

Not really I'm just an obsessed spin bowling fan!
Favorite Pace Bowlers
1) Vernon Philander
2) Glenn Mcgrath
3) Alan Donald
4) Joel Garner
5) Muhhamad Aamir
6) Dale Steyn
7) Brett Lee
8) Shaoib Ahktar
9) Makhaya Ntini
10) Andrew Flintoff

 

[Flametree]

You said bowlers, so I'm ruling Murali out, I'm also only selecting players I've seen rather than ancient records.

As for Hadlee, how he's not rated ahead of most bowlers is beyond me by people. He bowled by himself during a period where there were some excellent teams and players, he had support in the form of Cairns, Snedden and Chatfield who were dependable without being spectacular. Hadlee had pace, movement in the air and off the seam and bowled immaculate line and length, he took wickets at a pace that no other pace bowler has been able to match on a match to match basis. I think had he played with the bowling attack Marshall played with, his average and strike rate would have been even lower as he wouldn't be depended on constantly to take the wickets of the best batsman,.

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?

 

[Slifer]

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?

I agree with the above assessment!!

 

[kyear2]

I do as well, the benefits of being a lone wolf may very well out weigh the perceived drawbacks, at least statistically.

 

[watson]

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.

 

[smash84]

I find it silly that people are suggesting that being a lone wolf has more advantages compared to bowling in a pair or packs.

Bowling with good bowlers will ensure that your average stays pretty low. If a bowler is being expensive he will pretty much always be changed. With a lone wolf you don't have that luxury.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I find it silly that people are suggesting that being a lone wolf has more advantages compared to bowling in a pair or packs.

Bowling with good bowlers will ensure that your average stays pretty low. If a bowler is being expensive he will pretty much always be changed. With a lone wolf you don't have that luxury.

Thing is, we're talking about the greatest bowlers of all time here. They hardly have bad days. The majority of the time they're bowling close to their peak which is why they're great. It doesn't matter if they have support or not, these bowlers are going to do their job perfectly. So in that sense, I do agree that lone wolves definitely have a slight advantage when it comes to some stats imo. WPM, certainly.

 

[smash84]

Thing is, we're talking about the greatest bowlers of all time here. They hardly have bad days. The majority of the time they're bowling close to their peak which is why they're great. It doesn't matter if they have support or not, these bowlers are going to do their job perfectly. So in that sense, I do agree that lone wolves definitely have a slight advantage when it comes to some stats imo. WPM, certainly.

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.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

SR, yes, but I disagree about average. Don't necessarily see why it should be higher for a lone wolf. And I disagree about them not being supermen

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.

Well, by your own logic there, they should be able to maintain a better economy rate, then? So, while their SR might suffer according to you, the average overall shouldn't really suffer at all. WPM obviously an advantage.

Don't know why you're getting so bothered by this tbh... It's not as if I'm trying to belittle Hadlee and Murali's achievements, which is obviously the conclusion you jumped to. I just believe lone great bowlers in weak attacks getting extra credit is kind of unjustified because they do have a few advantages on their side to counter the difficulties of less support