Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[silentstriker]

Give us the final list already.

 

[Days of Grace]

Tonight, my friend. Tonight. I iz at work now, you dig?

 

[Days of Grace]

Hmm, interesting..

1. Warne
2. McGrath
3. Marshall
4. Hadlee
5. Bedi
6. Donald
7. Wasim
8. Holding
9. Trueman
10. Barnes

Nice to see an indian make the list, finally. I would have thought that Kumble would have made at least one list, but after all, he has only taken a mere 500 wickets.

 

[Francis]

Might as well do my list...

1. Shane Warne
I don't need to elaborate on this after all I've said.

2. Dennis Lillee
The man 90% of the people who saw him play say is the best ever. Rod Marsh said it best, "If you wanna rate Lillee, ask the players from that era who was the best." I enjoyed it when Glen McGrath retired and a reporter asked Alan Border if McGrath was Australia's best ever fast bowler, to which he diplomatically replied he's probably just give the nod to DK.

3. Malcolm Marshall
The battle between Marshall and Hadlee is your typical bowler vs. bowler argument where one has the oppotunity to get more wickets because of less competition, but has to handle more responsibility. But I went for Marshall because he displayed every aspect of the fast bowling art and there's just no way to argue against his marvellous strike rate.

4. Muttiah Muralitharan
Not long ago I ranked who I thought were the 10 best cricketers ever. I placed Murali in the top 10 as the third highest bowler in the list ahead of Marshall. However, if you read what I wrote, I said I was dead set on my top two and their order, dead set on my picks from 3-8, but not in their order, and my last two spots could have gone to 7 or 8 cricketers. Marshall missed out and Murali made it. In second thought, however, I think I'll just put Marshall ahead of Murali.

5. Sir Richard Hadlee
I don't think it's irrational to call Hadlee New Zealand's version of Murali. He shares many of Murali's traits when going about carrying a bowling attack. Their stats might look different, but that's due to certain factors. I think both bowlers are very close to one another in where they're at in history.

6. Wasim Akram
It's basically a crap shoot between Akram and McGrath for this spot. One day I could say McGrath, but today the pendulum falls towards Akram. Akram would be the last bowler in history I'd ever want to face. Could swing the ball either way and bowl a mean bouncer, and what's worse, not only was he fast, but batsmen who faced him have said he disguised his arm well... by that they mean, they didn't know the exact time he'd release the ball. It's one thing to face Brett Lee, but his action is so basic you know when he'd release the ball. With Akram you had to be extra careful.

7. Curtley Ambrose
I don't know quite how to feel about this. Normally I wouldn't rate him so high, but he did possess more threatening traits than just about any other bowler in history.

8. Glen McGrath
I think he's become overrated in recent years, mainly because he has a lot of attractive qualities that are obvious and brought him success. But I can recall a couple of times when McGrath was ineffective where other bowlers could have been. I think in one respect he's a bowler who's escaped a lot of criticism because if nothing else, he was economical. But if I needed a bowler to get wickets in a short period of time or else the world would explode, McGrath isn't the one I'd pick.

9. Bill O'Rielly
The third best spinner ever. Interesting how much he actually sounds like Anil Kumble when people describe the way he bowls. Anyway, the best O'Rielly testimony to his greatness was that game when all the Aussie bowlers were going for 6 an over, England humiliating them, and then O'ielly going for only 3 an over.

10. Fred Trueman
I gotta go...

 

[NUFAN]

1 Malcolm Marshall
2 Curtly Ambrose
3 Muttiah Muralitharan
4 Richard Hadlee
5 Shane Warne
6 George Lohmann
7 Michael Holding
8 Dennis Lillee
9 Glenn McGrath
10 Imran Khan

 

[shortpitched713]

Nice to see an indian make the list, finally. I would have thought that Kumble would have made at least one list, but after all, he has only taken a mere 500 wickets.

Almost made mine, tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

What happened to him that he was a great bowler in 1995 but suddenly became mediocre in 1995-96?
Sorry, but I watched him bowl here, and I saw him on TV/ in footage bowling elsewhere, and it's like he swapped passports with Glen Trimble when he arrived at Sydney Airport.
It may well be that the conditions didn't suit him here, and that's fine, but if he didn't perform as well here when others like Akram, Ambrose, Marshal et al did, then imo you have to mark them ahead of him (like the Lillee on the subcontinent argument).

Doesn't mean he couldn't bowl or that he wasn't a great bowler, I just wouldn't have him in my top 10 is all I'm saying.

I want to emphasise I'm not bagging the bloke, as I understand that he lives about 5 minutes from me now and if he reads this I don't need to make an enemy of a bloke who could still knock my block off if he came down to the nets!!

I believe Waqar had an operation on his back in 95' that drastically reduced his pace and potency.

 

[SJS]

Nice to see an indian make the list, finally. I would have thought that Kumble would have made at least one list, but after all, he has only taken a mere 500 wickets.

I came close to putting Prasanna in my list.

 

[The Sean]

For what it’s worth, here’s mine – I wouldn’t be the first to say that this constantly evolves and could be different if you asked me at another time.

1. Shane Warne
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Sydney Barnes
4. Dennis Lillee
5. Richard Hadlee
6. Glen McGrath
7. Muttiah Muralitharan
8. Imran Khan
9. Wasim Akram
10. Bill O’Reilly

How did Ambrose not make this list? I’ve no idea, and if I posted tomorrow he might just as likely be there.

Two things I noticed when coming up with this: one, my home country bias is stronger with bowlers. Four Aussies make my all time top ten bowlers, whereas only one Australian ranks in my top ten batsmen of all time. Secondly, and this has already been noted in several others posts, while my ranking of batsmen has a more than healthy helping of grand old timers, my bowler list is very strongly skewed to the modern era of the past 30 years (and even O’Reilly over Ambrose is a push). I don’t really have a satisfactory explanation for this, though perhaps I feel that the art of bowling is continuing to evolve and develop, whereas batsmanship has remained somewhat constant? I’m really not sure.

 

[Ikki]

Basically the Warne/McGrath debate IMO boils down to the fact that they peaked at different times. Pre Warne's injury I'd rather have him in the side and afterwards, McGrath. Over their whole careers, as social said, it's basically like trying to split the atom.

Anyway, my top 10, not in order:

Murali
Warne
McGrath
Ambrose
Imran
Hadlee
Lillee
Barnes
Marshall
O'Reilly

LOL, I'll save the thread started some time with this: It needs to be in order.

 

[Days of Grace]

Final Top 20


1 Marshall 255
2 Hadlee 180
3 Warne 161
4 McGrath 149
5 Barnes 145
6 Lillee 135
7 Muralitharan 134
8 Ambrose 130
9 Imran Khan 102
10 Wasim Akram 71
11 O'Reilly 39
12 Trueman 38
13 Donald 26
14 Lindwall 24
15 Holding 17
16 Waqar Younis 14
17 Walsh 13
18 Lohmann 12
19 Garner 9
20 Grimmett 9

Barnes dropped down to 5th. Warne wins out against McGrath. Lillee wins a close battle for 6th from Murali and Ambrose. Then a huge gap back to Imran, a huge gap back to Wasim, then a huge gap back to 11th.

I am actually surprised that only one person voted for Garner. I bet he gets more votes if I do a One-day list.

 

[river end]

Two things I noticed when coming up with this: one, my home country bias is stronger with bowlers. Four Aussies make my all time top ten bowlers, whereas only one Australian ranks in my top ten batsmen of all time. Secondly, and this has already been noted in several others posts, while my ranking of batsmen has a more than healthy helping of grand old timers, my bowler list is very strongly skewed to the modern era of the past 30 years (and even O’Reilly over Ambrose is a push). I don’t really have a satisfactory explanation for this, though perhaps I feel that the art of bowling is continuing to evolve and develop, whereas batsmanship has remained somewhat constant? I’m really not sure.

Home country bias
This is where it is difficult for most people to be objective. These are the players we see all the time, the ones we identify with, the ones who are playing for "us".
In Australia, How many times have we heard over the years in the media etc. of how great "our" Dennis Lillee or Shane Warne is? A LOT. And how much do we hear about the great exploits of other countries' players? Very little if any.

By contrast, players from other countries generally don't have the same impact on us because they aren't playing for our team and they aren't hurting us because "we" are only one of a number of teams they play against - we see them a lot less.
It's probably the same for most countries.

Bowler list skewed to the modern era
I would say bowlers for the most part have the greater immediate impact/impression on the cricket viewer than batsman. Just one ball/wicket or two quick wickets, often changes the course of an innings or sometimes the match whereas 1 great shot or 2 quick boundaries by a batsman is much less likely or never going to decide a match.
Bowlers have that immediate impact that will stick in the memory.

Hence, bowlers in the modern era (who we have witnessed) are favoured against the old-time bowlers more than modern batsmen are favoured against the old-time batsmen.

 

[The Sean]

Home country bias
This is where it is difficult for most people to be objective. These are the players we see all the time, the ones we identify with, the ones who are playing for "us".
In Australia, How many times have we heard over the years in the media etc. of how great "our" Dennis Lillee or Shane Warne is? A LOT. And how much do we hear about the great exploits of other countries' players? Very little if any.

By contrast, players from other countries generally don't have the same impact on us because they aren't playing for our team and they aren't hurting us because "we" are only one of a number of teams they play against - we see them a lot less.
It's probably the same for most countries.

Bowler list skewed to the modern era
I would say bowlers for the most part have the greater immediate impact/impression on the cricket viewer than batsman. Just one ball/wicket or two quick wickets, often changes the course of an innings or sometimes the match whereas 1 great shot or 2 quick boundaries by a batsman is much less likely or never going to decide a match.
Bowlers have that immediate impact that will stick in the memory.

Hence, bowlers in the modern era (who we have witnessed) are favoured against the old-time bowlers more than modern batsmen are favoured against the old-time batsmen.

Both solid points mate.

With regard to home country bias, I’m not so much questioning its existence but more the fact that I seem to rate Aussie bowlers relatively higher than Aussie batsmen. I like to think I’m (reasonably) objective, which is why only one Australian would make my all time top ten batsmen. However I’m not sure whether the fact that I have several Australians in the bowlers list is an example of bias or the fact that Australian bowlers have been relatively higher achieving through history and that they all proved themselves worth a place in the top 10. Probably a mix of both.

Excellent point about bowlers and the recency effect though – I hadn’t thought about it that way, but it does make a lot of sense.

And welcome to the forums.

 

[Richard]

Final Top 20


1 Marshall 255
2 Hadlee 180
3 Warne 161
4 McGrath 149
5 Barnes 145
6 Lillee 135
7 Muralitharan 134
8 Ambrose 130
9 Imran Khan 102
10 Wasim Akram 71
11 O'Reilly 39
12 Trueman 38
13 Donald 26
14 Lindwall 24
15 Holding 17
16 Waqar Younis 14
17 Walsh 13
18 Lohmann 12
19 Garner 9
20 Grimmett 9

Barnes dropped down to 5th. Warne wins out against McGrath. Lillee wins a close battle for 6th from Murali and Ambrose. Then a huge gap back to Imran, a huge gap back to Wasim, then a huge gap back to 11th.

I am actually surprised that only one person voted for Garner. I bet he gets more votes if I do a One-day list.

Convincing victory for Macko. But honestly, I sometimes think people who vote in these exercises should be barred until they can repeat the deeds of Sydney F Barnes to at least a relatively satisfactory degree.

Disgusted at some of the names above Donald, naturally, but I was obviously expecting that. Nice that if it couldn't be Barnes on top it was Marshall, though - by a convincing distance.

I hope that maybe the votes for Warne if we do this again in 5 years time might have died down TBH.

 

[shortpitched713]

Convincing victory for Macko. But honestly, I sometimes think people who vote in these exercises should be barred until they can repeat the deeds of Sydney F Barnes to at least a relatively satisfactory degree.

Disgusted at some of the names above Donald, naturally, but I was obviously expecting that. Nice that if it couldn't be Barnes on top it was Marshall, though - by a convincing distance.

I hope that maybe the votes for Warne if we do this again in 5 years time might have died down TBH.

Besides for the spinners, which ones exactly?

 

[Matteh]

Donald should be top imo.

 

[Richard]

Besides for the spinners, which ones exactly?

Trueman and Wasim Akram for starters. Hadlee and Imran I can stomach easily, Ambrose and McGrath I can begrudgingly accept. Lillee disappoints me, naturally.

Only bowlers I'd place unequivocally ahead of Donald would, as I said, be Marshall and the ubiquitous, almost unplaceable Barnes. But I simply cannot fathom how anyone would seriously put two, never mind three, spinners ahead of Donald. Can only hope, as I said, that the passage of time might lend truer perspective. Can't help but feel that pure weight of wickets has made too much of an impact.

Reckon those who truly admire Ray Lindwall might be pretty sour at some of the names above him too.

 

[The Sean]

I love RR Lindwall so much I had him as my av for a time, but whether or not I'd have him exactly 14th I honestly can't begrudge any of the men above him their place on the list. There's so little to choose between so many great bowlers that in any forced ranking exercise there are going to be blokes who appear to be listed lower than they deserve, unfortunately.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, absolutely.

'Tis why I'm no great fan of these exercises, TBH. And it makes it worse when there's such a massive cross-section of voters - those who know a history back to 1820 (both Seans and 1 or 2 others); those who know loads back to a certain date and a bit before that (myself, for instance - the date being 1930); and those who probably don't know the first thing beyond a few famous anecdotes about anything before a pretty recent date. Plus, obviously, those who only like to rate those they've seen, which is their choice and not one I'd begrudge anyone.

As I said - I find it difficult picking any exact ranking below a top-two of bowlers. And even I don't entirely know what it is that makes Marshall so special (though I do know, obviously, what it is that makes Barnes so).

Similarly with batsmen, outside the top-one, it's pretty damn difficult. And it's an exercise that will always annoy the heck out of me because of the number who'll put IVAR at #2.

 

[roseboy64]

Barnes only played 26 Tests TBF.