Battle of the Test Bowling

[Hugh]

Suggestions as to which should be taken out then?

That'll be tough. Right now I'm really in a race against time to get in other worthy contenders into the ring. Perhaps Silentstriker is being too hasty in starting this off ? I suggest lets give it a day to just prepare a final list.

Another candidate: Kumble 7/48 on a first days pitch: http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T2_14-18OCT2004.html

 

[silentstriker]

That'll be tough. Right now I'm really in a race against time to get in other worthy contenders into the ring. Perhaps Silentstriker is being too hasty in starting this off ? I suggest lets give it a day to just prepare a final list.

Another candidate: Kumble 7/48 on a first days pitch: http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T2_14-18OCT2004.html

All right.

But, if you do give a suggestion, please also give one that should be knocked off.

The contest will begin tomorrow. We can make changes till then.

Hugh, who do you want to knock off for Kumble? I don't want to make those kinds of decisions, especially when they concern Indian players.....

I try to be objective, but for example I rate Laxman's innings higher than Goochs' but I seem to be in the minority. So, that means I have a nationalistic bias in that regards.

 

[Xuhaib]

Increase the list to 128.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Took out Hornibrook, added Srinath. I agree that its a shame that Marshall isn't on there...but I can't add him without taking another out which has equal or better stats.

How about http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1984/WI_IN_ENG/WI_ENG_T3_12-16JUL1984.html

Seven for 53, with a fractured thumb, to clinch the series. Take out Warne's 5/90 v Sri Lanka - I'm sure it was a fine effort but it was day four in Sri Lanka, and his wickets were Sangakkara, Dilshan, Tillakaratne, Vaas and Lokurarachchi. You could almost argue Zoysa's 4/54 is better in that match.

 

[silentstriker]

Increase the list to 128.

No, we'd have four and five wicket hauls that wouldn't get out of the first round. A list of 64 would mean that every innings at least has a shot of advancing far. There will always be innings that are on the 'fringe'. If you increase to 128, people will argue that some should go in there as well...its never ending. But if something is on the 'fringe', then its a good indication its not going to go far anyway so should be left off.

 

[Goughy]

J Tayfield 9 for 113 SA Eng Johannesburg 1956-577
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1950S/1956-57/ENG_IN_RSA/ENG_RSA_T4_15-20FEB1957.html
vs.
Iqbal Qasim 7-49 vs Aus 1980
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/AUS_IN_PAK/AUS_PAK_T1_27FEB-02MAR1980.html

Obviously I didnt see either so here goes.

Tayfield based on the following reasons.
- The 2 spin bowlers in the history of cricket with the lowest bowling averages are Laker and Wardle. In this Test Laker and Wardle only took 6 wickets compined over both innings whereas Tayfield took 9 in the innings listed. He dramatically outperformed the best.

- Qasim put up great figures (7-49) but they were nearly matched in the same match by Ray Bright (7-87). The track was definately condusive to left arm fingerspin bowling. In fact Bright took 10 of the 13 wickets Pakistan lost in the match.

 

[Hugh]

Hugh, who do you want to knock off for Kumble? I don't want to make those kinds of decisions, especially when they concern Indian players.....

I try to be objective, but for example I rate Laxman's innings higher than Goochs' but I seem to be in the minority. So, that means I have a nationalistic bias in that regards.

I've tried, but I do not have the heart to remove any of those already listed. But I strongly feel these spells deserve a spot. Perhaps we could have 128 candidates, and have 2 simultaneous battles per day for the first round instead ?

 

[silentstriker]

How about http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1984/WI_IN_ENG/WI_ENG_T3_12-16JUL1984.html

Seven for 53, with a fractured thumb, to clinch the series. Take out Warne's 5/90 v Sri Lanka - I'm sure it was a fine effort but it was day four in Sri Lanka, and his wickets were Sangakkara, Dilshan, Tillakaratne, Vaas and Lokurarachchi. You could almost argue Zoysa's 4/54 is better in that match.

Warne 5/90 is already out (subbed for Kapil). Nominate another please.

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously I didnt see either so here goes.

Tayfield based on the following reasons.
- The 2 spin bowlers in the history of cricket with the lowest bowling averages are Laker and Wardle. In this Test Laker and Wardle only took 6 wickets compined over both innings whereas Tayfield took 9 in the innings listed. He dramatically outperformed the best.

- Qasim put up great figures (7-49) but they were nearly matched in the same match by Ray Bright (7-87). The track was definately condusive to left arm fingerspin bowling. In fact Bright took 10 of the 13 wickets Pakistan lost in the match.

Stop it . One more day, per people's request.


BAD GHOUGHY.

 

[silentstriker]

I've tried, but I do not have the heart to remove any of those already listed. But I strongly feel these spells deserve a spot. Perhaps we could have 128 candidates, and have 2 simultaneous battles per day for the first round instead ?

I am completely against 128 candidates. TOo many marginal innings would get in. But if everyone else wants it, we can do it that way. But for me, it would suck to see 3/56 vs. 10/53 matchups....

 

[silentstriker]

1 HJ Tayfield 9 for 113 SA Eng Johannesburg 1956-577
2 A Kumble 10 for 74 Ind Pak Delhi 1998-99
3 JC Laker 10 for 53 Eng Aus Old Trafford 1956
4 JC White 8 for 126 Eng Aus Adelaide 1928-29
5 RJ Hadlee 9 for 52 NZ Aus Brisbane 1985-86
6 DE Malcolm 9 for 57 Eng SA The Oval 1994
7 RGD Willis 8 for 43 Eng Aus Headingley 1981
8 H Verity 8 for 43 Eng Aus Lord's 1934
9 WJ O'Reilly 7 for 54 Aus Eng Trent Bridge 1934
10 GD McKenzie 8 for 71 Aus WI Melbourne 1968-69
11 M Muralitharan 9 for 65 SL Eng The Oval 1998
12 AA Mailey 9 for 121 Aus Eng Melbourne 1920-21
13 LR Gibbs 8 for 38 WI Ind Bridgetown 1961-62
14 Harbhajan Singh 8 for 84 Ind Aus Chennai 2000-01
15 Sarfraz Nawaz 9 for 86 Pak Aus Melbourne 1978-79
16 RAL Massie 8 for 53 Aus Eng Lord's 1972
17 JA Snow 7 for 40 Eng Aus Sydney 1970-71
18 Imran Khan 8 for 60 Pak Ind Karachi 1982-83
19 PS de Villiers 6 for 43 SA Aus Sydney 1993-94
20 IW Johnson 7 for 44 Aus WI Georgetown 1954-55
21 L Klusener 8 for 64 SA Ind Kolkata 1996-97
22 NG Cowans 6 for 77 Eng Aus Melbourne 1982-83
23 Srinath's 6 for 21 Vs. SA
24 AA Mallett 8 for 59 Aus Pak Adelaide 1972-73
25 JC Laker 9 for 37 Eng Aus Old Trafford 1956
26 PCR Tufnell 7 for 47 Eng NZ Christchurch 1991-92
27 IT Botham 7 for 48 Eng Ind Bombay 1979-80
28 Abdul Qadir 9 for 56 Pak Eng Lahore 1987-88
29 AW Greig 8 for 86 Eng WI Port of Spain 1973-74
30 KR Miller 7 for 60 Aus Eng Brisbane 1946-47
31 Jeff Thomson, 5/62 vs West Indies, MCG 1975
32 Michael Holding, 8/92 vs England, The Oval 1976
33 Dennis Lillee, 6/26 vs England, MCG 1977
34 Dennis Lillee, 7/83 vs West Indies, MCG 1981
35 Shane Warne, 7/52 vs West Indies, MCG 1992
36 Curtley Ambrose, 7/25 vs Australia, WACA 1993
37 Shane Warne, 7/23 vs Pakistan, GABBA 1994
38 Shane Warne, 7/56 vs South Africa, SCG 1994
39 Jason Gillespie, 7/37, Headingley 1997
40 Allan Donald, 5/36 vs Australia, Supersport Park 1997
41 Srinath's 8/86 @ Kolkata
42 Kapil's 9/83 @ Ahmedabad
43 Glenn McGrath, 6/17 vs West Indies, GABBA 2000
44 Anil Kumble, 8/141 vs Australia, SCG 2004
45 Steve Harmison, 7/12 vs West Indies, Sabina Park 2004
46 Michael Clarke, 6/9 vs India, Mumbai 2004
47 Glenn McGrath, 8/24 vs Pakistan, WACA 2004
48 Kapil Dev 8/85
49 Glenn McGrath, 5/53 vs England, Lords 2005
50 Simon Jones, 6/53 vs Australia, Old Trafford 2005
51 Shane Warne, 6/86 vs South Africa, Kingsmead 2006
52 Border 7-46 vs WI, Sydney, January 1989
53 Hirwani 8-61 vs West Indies, Madras January 1988
54 Shoaib 5-21 vs Aus 2002
55 Wasim 6-62 vs Aus 1989
56 Waqar 5-22 vs NZl 1992
57 Imran 7-40 vs Eng 87
58 Flintoff 5-78 at The Oval 2005
59 M Muralitharan 9/51 Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe at Kandy, 2nd Test, 2001/02
60 Ambrose 8-45 v England Barbados April 1990
61 Botham 5-11 vs Australia Birmingham August 1981
62 Ambrose 6-24 v England Trinidad March 1994
63 Qadir 6-16 vs WI 1986
64 Iqbal Qasim 7-49 vs Aus 1980


Thats the list right now. I already see about 10 that have no chance of going past the first round. Increasing to 128 would be terrible, as a lot more of the unworthy innings would get in.

 

[Xuhaib]

No, we'd have four and five wicket hauls that wouldn't get out of the first round. A list of 64 would mean that every innings at least has a shot of advancing far. There will always be innings that are on the 'fringe'. If you increase to 128, people will argue that some should go in there as well...its never ending. But if something is on the 'fringe', then its a good indication its not going to go far anyway so should be left off.

Who says four and five wicket hauls woudn't stand a chance, depends on various factors why dont we give it a try.

 

[silentstriker]

Who says four and five wicket hauls woudn't stand a chance, depends on various factors why dont we give it a try.

Well, if other people agree...I don't mind. I just think it will be too cumbersome in addition to lessening the overall quality.

 

[Goughy]

This really should not be this complicated.
64 names is fine. Marginal ones will be missed off but hey thats life and most of them would be eliminated in the first round.

If 128 performances are put forward the first round would be a waste of time, the tourney would go on forever, people would lose interest etc.

If a genuine performance is left off eg you would have it in your top 10 then post it but we could all name 10s that have been left of the list and this thing would never start.

And again, if you suggest something, recommend which it should replace.

Sorry, if Im treading on your toes SS but as Ive already posted my first result Im eager for this thing to get started.


EDIT- Regarding performances. I think a minimum entry requirement should be 5 wkts. It narrows the field and takes a massive amount of subjectivity out of the equation. Also we judge many of the older games partially by figures and stats. Whos to say that we wouldn't ignore or overlook some of the best 3-4 wicket hauls from yesteryear.

 

[silentstriker]

This really should not be this complicated.
64 names is fine. Marginal ones will be missed off but hey thats life and most of them would be eliminated in the first round.

If 128 performances are put forward the first round would be a waste of time, the tourney would go on forever, people would lose interest etc.

If a genuine performance is left off eg you would have it in your top 10 then post it but we could all name 10s that have been left of the list and this thing would never start.

And again, if you suggest something, recommend which it should replace.

Sorry, if Im treading on your toes SS but as Ive already posted my first result Im eager for this thing to get started.

I completely agree with you. 64 is enough. One more day...name an innings and an innings that it should replace.

 

[silentstriker]

EDIT- Regarding performances. I think a minimum entry requirement should be 5 wkts. It narrows the field and takes a massive amount of subjectivity out of the equation. Also we judge many of the older games partially by figures and stats. Whos to say that we would ignore or overlook some of the best 3-4 wicket hauls from yesteryear.

No offense to Flintoff fans (yes, I am one), but 5-78 at The Oval 2005 should be about as 'low' as we should get. I know why that performance was extra special, so I don't have a problem with it on the list (in fact, it might win a couple rounds), but I don't think we should get any lower.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Warne 5/90 is already out (subbed for Kapil). Nominate another please.

Gillespie's 7/37 full of tailenders and a nigh****chman at Headingley.

To replace it, Marshall's 7/53 or 7/22 at Old Trafford

 

[Xuhaib]

See post # 44 of this thread i still think it is the best possible way.

 

[silentstriker]

Gillespie's 7/37 full of tailenders and a nigh****chman at Headingley.

To replace it, Marshall's 7/53 or 7/22 at Old Trafford

Fair enough. 7/22 added in place of Gillespie.

 

[Hugh]

I completely agree with you. 64 is enough. One more day...name an innings and an innings that it should replace.

In that case, the Kumble 7/48 could replace the Flintoff 5/78.