Who is the world's best Test bowler ever?

[Adamc]

lol. It is amazing that we memorized ridiculously long names of a player of a sport popular in a handful of countries to show ourselves off as being knowledgable about the said game. We are crazy guys, aren't we?

What? You mean this type of thing isn't normal?!

 

[SJS]

What? You mean this type of thing isn't normal?!

Oh no. I still remember ...I think I do...Mottengalli Laxmirasu Jaisimha, Erapalli Anathrao Srinivas Prasanna,

 

[honestbharani]

add Vangipurappu Venkat Sai Laxman.

 

[Jamee999]

Ed Smith

 

[luckyeddie]

I memorised it too.. think I was 16, though, so you out-geek me here.

I once used it in full in a match report on CW - well, a breadcrumb report anyway, so I suppose a 3-year-old duck out-geeks everyone

 

[luckyeddie]

add Vangipurappu Venkat Sai Laxman.

VVS 'Bob' Cantcatchit

 

[Neil Pickup]

I just hope that no one ever memorised this guy's names...

 

[a massive zebra]

That's 'cause I'm having great difficulty motivating myself to scour the stats!

I'm pretty sure that Asoka's wicket taking rate is far more consistent than Warne - you could be sure that Asoka would get 0 or 1, but with Warne all those 5s and 6s cause a much greater variance. I could also analyse the RPOs in a similar manner, consistency wickets per match....

While one might argue with justification that a consistently reliable player such as Dravid or McGrath is preferable to a less consistent player of a similar standard with the ability to display glimpses of genius, such as Richards or Gilchrist; only a fool would truly believe that a consistently mediocre player such as De Silva was a more effective test match bowler than Warne simply because you could more accurately predict the amount of wickets he would get. That is like saying Chris Martin is a more effective batsman than Bradman because his scores exhibit much smaller variance.

 

[a massive zebra]

This guy just about takes the biscuit.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It's barely weaker as an argument than some in the original article!

 

[thierry henry]

I don't see why taking wickets away from home should be given more status than taking wickets at home. Being unable to do easier things and able to do harder things does not make you a better player. I also think being able to dismiss the tail is just as important as being able to dismiss the top order.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't see why taking wickets away from home should be given more status than taking wickets at home. Being unable to do easier things and able to do harder things does not make you a better player. I also think being able to dismiss the tail is just as important as being able to dismiss the top order.

Are you going to say why you believe these things? Because last I checked, it was far tougher to get top-order players out than tail-enders.

 

[SJS]

I don't see why taking wickets away from home should be given more status than taking wickets at home.
.

I totally agree with that.

If we were to stretch that argument to absurdity and discount all records in home gamesand thus only the visiting teams stats should count in the game. Assuming further that the home team falls in the category of tigers at home and useless in real terms as various teams from India, Sri Lanka and new Zealand have been termed down the years, we might as well discount the records of all teams who played these paper tigers since the opponents were no good player in real terms or,in effect, minnows.

If the sub continental tracks are batting heavens, as is often claimed to run down Indian(and Sri Lankan) batsmen. then we must conced that all those who have failed on them cant bat for nuts. I wont name the worthies.

If they are spinners dream wickets, as has also been shouted from roof tops with equal ferocity, then we must conced that the 'great' spinners who have been slaughtered on these wickets must ne having something else (magical, fishy, suspect, illegal what have you) to account for their success away from these made for them wickets. Again I wont name the legend

There is an alternative possibilty, if we put our biases and aside and shed our reluctance to concede a point, and that maybe, just maybe, that the sub continental batsmen have the technique, the game AND the inherent advantage of long experience of the conditions, to play well on these wickets which are neither good nor bad but just different from those, lets say, in England and Australia.

And, could it be, could it just be, that the Indian(and Sri Lankan and Pakistani) spinners are really good , much much better in the orthodox finger spin variety (we all know what that means please dont get into the semantics of "every spinner is a wrist spinner") in particular and most spin variety in general, that this superiority is best exploited at home where they are conditioned to play and use the correct line and length (which mind you varies not just from batsman to batsman but from playing surface to playing surface) and therefore show better results because they ACTUALLY bowl better under these conditions.

How come the world is screaming about sub continental pacers not being good enough to bowl on surface other than at home and fail to say the same of spinners coming from other countries ?

How come when we downplay the achievements of one of the greatest medium pace bowlers in the history of the game without pausing to consider that he bowled on these killing fields for fifty percent of his matches. Could it not be that he would have take many more wickets if he played only the one series every three years or so in India rather than half of them. Might he not have become the genuine fast bowler that he looked like he could be when just coming out of his teens than the medium pacer he had to settle down to be on these shirt front wickets where he bowled more overs than spinners do for other countries.

Come on guys, you cant have it both ways.

 

[thierry henry]

Are you going to say why you believe these things? Because last I checked, it was far tougher to get top-order players out than tail-enders.

Yes, it is. But doing the easy things is just as valuable as doing the hard things, if the player who can do the hard things is incapable of doing the easy things.

ok, here's an example: two players bowl a 10 over spell each. Player A bowls 5 overs at top-order players and goes for 30 runs without taking a wicket. He then bowls 5 overs at tailenders and takes 3 for 10. Player B bowls 8 overs at the top order players and takes 3 for 30. He then bowls 2 overs at the tailenders and takes 0 for 10.

In that case I would agree that player B's spell was better, even though they both took 3 for 40.

However, if player B had bowled 5 overs at top-order players and taken 3 for 10, and then bowled 5 overs at tail-enders and taken 0 for 30 (i.e. player A's figures in reverse) then imo the two spells are of equal value. Especially if figures like this were a long term trend. They are both doing a job that the other cannot, to an equal extent.

 

[social]

The world's best test bowler ever is either legendery Muttiah Muralitharan or Wasim Akram.The guys closest to these two will be Richard Hadlee,Shane Warne,Malcolm Marshall,Imran Khan,Waqar Younis,Glenn McGrath,Courtney Walsh & Sarfaraz Nawaz.

I can live with almost everyone on your list (so long as Waqar is judged solely on his "peak' years), but Safraz Nawaz?

Good bowler but not in the other guys class, Im afraid.

 

[Dasa]

I totally agree with that.

If we were to stretch that argument to absurdity and discount all records in home gamesand thus only the visiting teams stats should count in the game. Assuming further that the home team falls in the category of tigers at home and useless in real terms as various teams from India, Sri Lanka and new Zealand have been termed down the years, we might as well discount the records of all teams who played these paper tigers since the opponents were no good player in real terms or,in effect, minnows.

If the sub continental tracks are batting heavens, as is often claimed to run down Indian(and Sri Lankan) batsmen. then we must conced that all those who have failed on them cant bat for nuts. I wont name the worthies.

If they are spinners dream wickets, as has also been shouted from roof tops with equal ferocity, then we must conced that the 'great' spinners who have been slaughtered on these wickets must ne having something else (magical, fishy, suspect, illegal what have you) to account for their success away from these made for them wickets. Again I wont name the legend

There is an alternative possibilty, if we put our biases and aside and shed our reluctance to concede a point, and that maybe, just maybe, that the sub continental batsmen have the technique, the game AND the inherent advantage of long experience of the conditions, to play well on these wickets which are neither good nor bad but just different from those, lets say, in England and Australia.

And, could it be, could it just be, that the Indian(and Sri Lankan and Pakistani) spinners are really good , much much better in the orthodox finger spin variety (we all know what that means please dont get into the semantics of "every spinner is a wrist spinner") in particular and most spin variety in general, that this superiority is best exploited at home where they are conditioned to play and use the correct line and length (which mind you varies not just from batsman to batsman but from playing surface to playing surface) and therefore show better results because they ACTUALLY bowl better under these conditions.

How come the world is screaming about sub continental pacers not being good enough to bowl on surface other than at home and fail to say the same of spinners coming from other countries ?

How come when we downplay the achievements of one of the greatest medium pace bowlers in the history of the game without pausing to consider that he bowled on these killing fields for fifty percent of his matches. Could it not be that he would have take many more wickets if he played only the one series every three years or so in India rather than half of them. Might he not have become the genuine fast bowler that he looked like he could be when just coming out of his teens than the medium pacer he had to settle down to be on these shirt front wickets where he bowled more overs than spinners do for other countries.

Come on guys, you cant have it both ways.

Brilliantly said, SJS. I agree completely but you put it perfectly.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yes, it is. But doing the easy things is just as valuable as doing the hard things, if the player who can do the hard things is incapable of doing the easy things.

ok, here's an example: two players bowl a 10 over spell each. Player A bowls 5 overs at top-order players and goes for 30 runs without taking a wicket. He then bowls 5 overs at tailenders and takes 3 for 10. Player B bowls 8 overs at the top order players and takes 3 for 30. He then bowls 2 overs at the tailenders and takes 0 for 10.

In that case I would agree that player B's spell was better, even though they both took 3 for 40.

However, if player B had bowled 5 overs at top-order players and taken 3 for 10, and then bowled 5 overs at tail-enders and taken 0 for 30 (i.e. player A's figures in reverse) then imo the two spells are of equal value. Especially if figures like this were a long term trend. They are both doing a job that the other cannot, to an equal extent.

Why bring an example to prove your point which almost never occurs? Two big problems;

1) Seriously, how many Test bowlers do you know of who take top-order wickets but aren't capable of getting out tailenders? People always bring up a guy like Ambrose in this context but it only appeared that he was less effective at taking tail-end poles because of the disproportionate number of other wickets he took (he was a 'great' bowler after all). So people only remember the 5% of times he took some tap from numbers 9-11 and not the 95% of times he cleaned up the tail without a whimper.

2) Your example is predicated on the assumption that every batsman in any given 11 has equal chance and ability to score runs. I think you'll find a huge majority of runs scored, on average, are scored by the top 6. That's what they are there for after all. Ergo, by knocking over top-order batsmen, you're 'saving' more runs than if you knock over batsmen in the bottom 5.

Example; say, on average, the average team score is 300 in a Test innings. Say that on average, the top 6, in a score of 300, will score 230 of those, leaving 70 for the bottom five. Say then, you knock over an XI for 120, the top 6 scoring 70 and the bottom 5 scoring 50. By knocking over the top 6 cheaper than is, on average, ordinarily the case, you save many more runs than you did by knocking over the bottom 5 for 50.

Look at it this way; Brian Lara is a far better batsman than Shaun Pollock, averaging 55 whereas Pollock averages about 20-odd. Say you knocked both of them over in a World XI game for 20; which wicket was the more valuable to winning the game considering on average Lara scores 30 more runs per inning than Pollock?

SJS: Your post completely focusses on the decks alone and ignores crowd favouratism (i.e. it feels better when the crowd around you is cheering you and not booing ergo motivation becomes key) as well as different weather conditions (people who have lived all their lives in England are going to struggle to adapt physically to the heat/humidity of India or Sri Lanka). Two huge factors in why I would rate wickets at home slightly lower than those scored away. Wickets taken against greater odds i.e. away from home count for more in my book.

Also claim bias all you like but it's pretty clear that Indian decks are better for batting than the average Aussie deck. The people you aim your post at are people who blame ALL of their failures on the pitches which obviously isn't the case. To succeed in different conditions, you definitely need to put in the same effort as you would at home but when spinners and batsmen do better in India, seam/swing bowlers do better in England and bowlers of pace do better in Australia, it's a bit difficult to put it all down to coincidence and/or the ability of the bowler alone.

 

[honestbharani]

Why bring an example to prove your point which almost never occurs? Two big problems;

1) Seriously, how many Test bowlers do you know of who take top-order wickets but aren't capable of getting out tailenders? People always bring up a guy like Ambrose in this context but it only appeared that he was less effective at taking tail-end poles because of the disproportionate number of other wickets he took (he was a 'great' bowler after all). So people only remember the 5% of times he took some tap from numbers 9-11 and not the 95% of times he cleaned up the tail without a whimper.

2) Your example is predicated on the assumption that every batsman in any given 11 has equal chance and ability to score runs. I think you'll find a huge majority of runs scored, on average, are scored by the top 6. That's what they are there for after all. Ergo, by knocking over top-order batsmen, you're 'saving' more runs than if you knock over batsmen in the bottom 5.

Example; say, on average, the average team score is 300 in a Test innings. Say that on average, the top 6, in a score of 300, will score 230 of those, leaving 70 for the bottom five. Say then, you knock over an XI for 120, the top 6 scoring 70 and the bottom 5 scoring 50. By knocking over the top 6 cheaper than is, on average, ordinarily the case, you save many more runs than you did by knocking over the bottom 5 for 50.

Look at it this way; Brian Lara is a far better batsman than Shaun Pollock, averaging 55 whereas Pollock averages about 20-odd. Say you knocked both of them over in a World XI game for 20; which wicket was the more valuable to winning the game considering on average Lara scores 30 more runs per inning than Pollock?

SJS: Your post completely focusses on the decks alone and ignores crowd favouratism (i.e. it feels better when the crowd around you is cheering you and not booing ergo motivation becomes key) as well as different weather conditions (people who have lived all their lives in England are going to struggle to adapt physically to the heat/humidity of India or Sri Lanka). Two huge factors in why I would rate wickets at home slightly lower than those scored away. Wickets taken against greater odds i.e. away from home count for more in my book.

Also claim bias all you like but it's pretty clear that Indian decks are better for batting than the average Aussie deck. The people you aim your post at are people who blame ALL of their failures on the pitches which obviously isn't the case. To succeed in different conditions, you definitely need to put in the same effort as you would at home but when spinners and batsmen do better in India, seam/swing bowlers do better in England and bowlers of pace do better in Australia, it's a bit difficult to put it all down to coincidence and/or the ability of the bowler alone.

Perhaps the reason Indian wickets are CONSIDERED to be better for batting is because the assistance for the bowlers generally happens on the last two days, compared to the first two days in places like England and Australia. Therefore, the batsmen generally make hay in the first 3 days and lose out on the last two days, but in England or Australia, they may have lost too many wickets in the first two days to make any significant runs. But then again, we cannot stereotype wickets these days. I think wickets started behaving contrary to their normal characters in most countries since the mid 90s.

 

[r2i]

top 5 bowlers of all time in this order

murali
mcgrath
marshall
warne
ambrose

 

[Langeveldt]

Shaun Kevin Warne