All time bowling ratings (Statistical ranking by SS/AS)

[silentstriker]

I havent checked but I dont think the results will be too far different from my attempt to isolate the great post war quickies (rather than actually rank them)

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17119

Also intersting to see that Aussie Tragic's 'ideal' bowling average is 16.5. Possibly achievable, when he arrives I hope he is English

Buddy, India needs people like him. We have never had a bowler that averages <27.5. Ever (150+ wickets). We need him more than England.

 

[silentstriker]

Guys, this is fascinating - thanks for putting this together. Barnes, even when you don't do the formulas and look at wickets/test and average, is clearly a freak - he played in an era when ball dominated bat, of course, but still outshone his contemporaries who bowled in the same conditions to an almost embarrassing degree. I'd be interested in the score Lohmann, Spofforth and Turner would get in this study - though they played in such bowler friendly conditions that the ratings (particularly for Lohmann) might be skewed to an unrealistic degree.

But moving to the modern era, not only do we have confirmation of the greatness of Marshall and McGrath, but perhaps it's time to give Allan Donald the credit he deserves? I've always rated Donald highly, and unquestionably rate him among my top 20 pace bowlers of all time, but based on these criteria perhaps he should be moving much closer to my top 10...

I may have to rethink some stuff.

Again - kudos on this analysis. Top effort.

Yea, Alan Donald now moves into my personal top five, before he was barely in top 10.

 

[The Sean]

Yea, Alan Donald now moves into my personal top five, before he was barely in top 10.

So...to put you on the spot, how does your list look now?

 

[The Sean]

Spoforth (101.42), Turner (106.35), Lohmann (140, wtf?) completely are off the charts.

I removed them because they played in an era so different, I don't think the statistics are really the same. I think a separate list of pre-1920 players might be whats needed.

I agree with the idea of a pre-WWI kind of list, to take into account the village greens that passed as cricket pitches in those days.

However, one thing I would say in defence of Barnes and Lohmann is that, even forgetting their ridiculous averages and strike rates, the ICC ratings - which take the batting strength/bowler friendly conditions into account - still have them as the two highest ranked bowlers of all time.

It would have been interesting to see the numbers that Spofforth and Turner could have put up had they had the chance to play against South Africa in those days, rather than having played all their Test cricket against England.

 

[Goughy]

I think this is a good effort to have a go at a difficult job.

I cant help but think that as average is a just strike rate and economy rate combined that those figures are being given double points.

 

[The Sean]

I think this is a good effort to have a go at a difficult job.

I cant help but think that as average is a just strike rate and economy rate combined that those figures are being given double points.

Well I guess you could argue that because the ICC rating takes into account all those stats anyway and factors them relatively, that a lot of the stats are getting double points. But I can't fault what the lads have done here, I think it's a great thread.

I'm inspired now though...I'd love to see a similar thread to rate the batsmen, with criteria of something like:

Batting average
Centuries/Innings ratio
50/100 converstion rate
ICC highest rating
Other??

Obviously no.1 is a foregone conclustion, but I'd be fascinated to see the next in line. In fact, without doing the research right now but looking at those 4 criteria, I'd be prepared to make a call - based purely on those criteria above, I reckon RT Ponting would go very close to making the top 3.

 

[superkingdave]

What does Statham score?

 

[silentstriker]

Well I guess you could argue that because the ICC rating takes into account all those stats anyway and factors them relatively, that a lot of the stats are getting double points. But I can't fault what the lads have done here, I think it's a great thread.

I'm inspired now though...I'd love to see a similar thread to rate the batsmen, with criteria of something like:

Batting average
Centuries/Innings ratio
50/100 converstion rate
ICC highest rating
Other??

Obviously no.1 is a foregone conclustion, but I'd be fascinated to see the next in line. In fact, without doing the research right now but looking at those 4 criteria, I'd be prepared to make a call - based purely on those criteria above, I reckon RT Ponting would go very close to making the top 3.

I love doing this. I'm willing to do it.

 

[silentstriker]

I think this is a good effort to have a go at a difficult job.

I cant help but think that as average is a just strike rate and economy rate combined that those figures are being given double points.

Yes, thats a good point, but there are other factors. For example, a low economy rate but a high average points to a different type of bowler than a high economy rate, high strike rate and a high average.

I think its interesting to separate them out and give them different weights.

 

[archie mac]

Maybe you could put the bowlers into 5 catergories, say:


1877-1920 era 1

1921-1945 era 2

1946-1970 era 3

1970-1990 era 4

1990-2006 era 5

Then take two bowlers from each era, to give us a top ten. Then to rank the top ten, compare how far the selected bowlers rank in front of their contemporaries. eg from era one; Lohmann 140 Barnes 138 next best Spofforth 135.

This would give Lohmann a rating in the top ten of +5, and Barnes +3, But this would be fair because they are compared to the bowlers of their own era.

Is everyone confused now

 

[silentstriker]

So...to put you on the spot, how does your list look now?

McGrath
Marshall
Trueman
Donald
Ambrose

 

[The Sean]

I love doing this. I'm willing to do it.

Mate, that's the single most redundant piece of information I've ever been given by anyone.

 

[The Sean]

Maybe you could put the bowlers into 5 catergories, say:


1877-1920 era 1

1921-1945 era 2

1946-1970 era 3

1970-1990 era 4

1990-2006 era 5

Then take two bowlers from each era, to give us a top ten. Then to rank the top ten, compare how far the selected bowlers rank in front of their contemporaries. eg from era one; Lohmann 140 Barnes 138 next best Spofforth 135.

This would give Lohmann a rating in the top ten of +5, and Barnes +3, But this would be fair because they are compared to the bowlers of their own era.

Is everyone confused now

That's a great idea. Have you read Geoff Armstrong and (? can't remember other author, it's in storage back in Aus!) book about top 10s of Australian cricket, and how they pick their top 10 Australian cricketers in a very similar way - by dividing the history of Australian cricket into 10 chronological "eras" and then picking the best from each era. Thus their top 10 are the 10 who most dominated their contemporaries.

It's an interesting read, they have a stack of other top 10s of both fact and opinion - the kind of stuff I can just read cover to cover in one sitting. And then read again.

 

[The Sean]

I love doing this. I'm willing to do it.

For the batting list - I'm thinking perhaps another criteria or two might be in order over and above the 4 I listed? Not sure what though - I was thinking converting centuries into 150s or 200s, or home/away stats, or even bonus weightings based on quantity of runs - though none of them really allow for a degree of consistency across eras.

I guess you could argue that pre WWI batting stats are skewed low in the same way that pre WWI bowling stats are skewed high, which would affect the ratings too.

But screw it - I still want to see a list.

 

[Goughy]

Anyone remember SS's early days? An amazing turnaround.

If the Indian pace attack improves at the same rate they will be world class by the WC

 

[silentstriker]

Well I guess you could argue that because the ICC rating takes into account all those stats anyway and factors them relatively, that a lot of the stats are getting double points. But I can't fault what the lads have done here, I think it's a great thread.

I'm inspired now though...I'd love to see a similar thread to rate the batsmen, with criteria of something like:

Batting average
Centuries/Innings ratio
50/100 converstion rate
ICC highest rating
Other??

Obviously no.1 is a foregone conclustion, but I'd be fascinated to see the next in line. In fact, without doing the research right now but looking at those 4 criteria, I'd be prepared to make a call - based purely on those criteria above, I reckon RT Ponting would go very close to making the top 3.

Yea, he might. How about this:

Home Average: 10%
Away Average: 15%
ICC Rating: 25%
100/innings ratio: 15%
Ave. in games won: 16%
Ave. 1st Innings: 2.5%
Ave. 2nd Innings: 4%
Ave. 3rd Innings: 5.5%
Ave. 4th Innings: 7%

I would like to include S/R but its is unavailable for a lot of players (they didn't use to track it). I think this list would be less 'accurate' than the bowling list (objectively speaking), but it might be worth while anyway. What do you think?

 

[The Sean]

Yea, he might. How about this:

Home Average: 10%
Away Average: 15%
ICC Rating: 25%
100/innings ratio: 15%
Ave. in games won: 16%
Ave. 1st Innings: 2.5%
Ave. 2nd Innings: 4%
Ave. 3rd Innings: 5.5%
Ave. 4th Innings: 7%

I would like to include S/R but its is unavailable for a lot of players (they didn't use to track it). I think this list would be less 'accurate' than the bowling list (objectively speaking), but it might be worth while anyway. What do you think?

Yeah, I think that looks great. You're right about this one being slightly less accurate than the bowlers one, because from a statistical point of view there are a higher number of relatively consistent criteria to compare with regard to bowling. But I still think this would give a great picture as to who, statistically if nothing else, ranks at the top end of the scale.

So you think the 50/100 conversion rate isn't needed, or would be covered by the 50/innings and 100/innings numbers?

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, I think that looks great. You're right about this one being slightly less accurate than the bowlers one, because from a statistical point of view there are a higher number of relatively consistent criteria to compare with regard to bowling. But I still think this would give a great picture as to who, statistically if nothing else, ranks at the top end of the scale.

So you think the 50/100 conversion rate isn't needed, or would be covered by the 50/innings and 100/innings numbers?

Just did 100/innings.

Home Average: 10%
Away Average: 15%
ICC Rating: 20%
100/innings ratio: 15%
Ave. in games won: 15%
Ave. 1st Innings: 3.5%
Ave. 2nd Innings: 4%
Ave. 3rd Innings: 4.5%
Ave. 4th Innings: 5%
HS: 8%

 

[silentstriker]

How about now?

 

[silentstriker]

Anyone remember SS's early days? An amazing turnaround.

If the Indian pace attack improves at the same rate they will be world class by the WC

Thanks....I guess.