1. Assuming that all your stat's are correct kyear - that's an awesome post (although it does ignore 'peak' averages, and that sort of thing).

However, an attack of Marshall-Trueman-Donald-Barnes probably wouldn't please the purists because it includes a 'strange' finger spinner who bowled at about medium pace. I think that most people would prefer a more traditional spinner like Warne/Murali who flighted the ball a bit.

2. Not sure if economy rate is necessary in those stats, when there is average and SR already in there. ER = average/SR

3. Originally Posted by 8ankitj
Not sure if economy rate is necessary in those stats, when there is average and SR already in there. ER = average/SR
I've always wondered way some of my cricket books only quote the number of Tests, total Wickets, bowlers Average, and not much else.

Now I know it's because the SR and ER are mathmatically redundant, and near useless pieces of information. Although I still like having them there in front of me for 'comfort value'.

4. Originally Posted by kyear2
There is no perfect formula, but we can at least use basic statistical standards to create groups. If we were to select the players since 1900 that over their careers has managed to meet the minimum requirements to average at least under 26, allowed less than 3.5 runs per over, struck at under 58 balls per wicket and taken at least 4 wickets per match one would end up with only 18 players. Much less than I would have imagined and leaving some of the great fast bowlers in history out in the cold. The players who made this initial cut would be.

Syd Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Dale Steyn
Fred Trueman
Dennis Lillee
Curtly Ambrose
Muttiah Muralitharan
Joel Garner
Michael Holding
Allan Donald
Shane Warne
Imran Khan
Waqar Younis
Colin Croft
Peter Pollock
Andy Roberts

When the standard is raised to an average below 23, economy rate below 3, a strike rate below 52 and a minimum of 4.5 WPM we are left with

Syd Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Fred Trueman
Allan Donald

Slightly raise the average requirement to below 24 and that would add to the list;

Dennis Lillee
Colin Croft

So I would suggest that a statistical search for the greatest bowler should start with those 6/8 gentlemen. (yes Croft probably doesn't belong in that group and would probably be a situation similar to Graeme Pollock, strong team and short career in terms of years)

Just out of curiosity if we raise the requirements to an average < 23, and strike rate <50, that would leave us with

Sydney Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Fred Trueman
Allan Donald

Even to lower the average requirement to <22 that would still only eliminate Donald. Don't see too many ATG XI's with an attack of Marshall, Trueman, Donald and Barnes. Probably we should.
Just one problem with that post. You can't have the same parameters for quick and spinners. Spinners have a different role and generally have a far higher strike rate. Unfair on Warne and Murali.
Apart from that, it just backs up my point how shockingly overlooked Donald is in ATG teams. He should always be a part of the discussion

5. Originally Posted by watson
Assuming that all your stat's are correct kyear - that's an awesome post (although it does ignore 'peak' aages, and that sort of thing).

However, an attack of Marshall-Trueman-Donald-Barnes probably wouldn't please the purists because it includes a 'strange' finger spinner who bowled at about medium pace. I think that most people would prefer a more traditional spinner like Warne/Murali who flighted the ball a bit.
As I said not supposed to be perfect, just a different perspective.

Frank Tyson would have made the first cut, but only played in 17 Tests and my cut off was 20.

Originally Posted by 8ankitj
Not sure if economy rate is necessary in those stats, when there is average and SR already in there. ER = average/SR
Economy rate was only a filter to eliminate the bowlers who were out right too expensive. Basically was about Average, WPM and Strike Rate.

6. Originally Posted by OverratedSanity
Just one problem with that post. You can't have the same parameters for quick and spinners. Spinners have a different role and generally have a far higher strike rate. Unfair on Warne and Murali.
Apart from that, it just backs up my point how shockingly overlooked Donald is in ATG teams. He should always be a part of the discussion
Wasn't looking for the best attack really and there wasn't any preconceived notions going into it. Just looking at who was the most effective bowlers period.

7. Originally Posted by kyear2
There is no perfect formula, but we can at least use basic statistical standards to create groups. If we were to select the players since 1900 that over their careers has managed to meet the minimum requirements to average at least under 26, allowed less than 3.5 runs per over, struck at under 58 balls per wicket and taken at least 4 wickets per match one would end up with only 18 players. Much less than I would have imagined and leaving some of the great fast bowlers in history out in the cold. The players who made this initial cut would be.

Syd Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Dale Steyn
Fred Trueman
Dennis Lillee
Curtly Ambrose
Muttiah Muralitharan
Joel Garner
Michael Holding
Allan Donald
Shane Warne
Imran Khan
Waqar Younis
Colin Croft
Peter Pollock
Andy Roberts

When the standard is raised to an average below 23, economy rate below 3, a strike rate below 52 and a minimum of 4.5 WPM we are left with

Syd Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Fred Trueman
Allan Donald

Slightly raise the average requirement to below 24 and that would add to the list;

Dennis Lillee
Colin Croft

So I would suggest that a statistical search for the greatest bowler should start with those 6/8 gentlemen. (yes Croft probably doesn't belong in that group and would probably be a situation similar to Graeme Pollock, strong team and short career in terms of years)

Just out of curiosity if we raise the requirements to an average < 23, and strike rate <50, that would leave us with

Sydney Barnes
Malcolm Marshall
Fred Trueman
Allan Donald

Even to lower the average requirement to <22 that would still only eliminate Donald. Don't see too many ATG XI's with an attack of Marshall, Trueman, Donald and Barnes. Probably we should.
Imran played a significant number of matches purely as a batsman (either due to injury or because in the end he was just leading Pakistan). Otherwise his wpm should be 4.5 or wpm. Is there someway to exclude such matches on statsguru?

8. Originally Posted by watson
.....which now begs the question: Why not use the Waqar Standard instead, since he out-Barnes, Barnes?
because Barnes managed it over his whole career (which just happens to be 27 tests) while Younis only managed it over a segment of his career.

9. Originally Posted by smalishah84
Imran played a significant number of matches purely as a batsman (either due to injury or because in the end he was just leading Pakistan). Otherwise his wpm should be 4.5 or wpm. Is there someway to exclude such matches on statsguru?
But isn't that the part of his career that boosted his average and rating/ranking as a batsman and subsequently as the best bowling all rounder to play the game. We don't subtract his batting from that period when we rate him as a all rounder, hence that standard should apply to the bowling as well.

Hope that makes sense, sounded better in my head. Either way Imran still is among the bowling greats and one of the best ever and the WPM doesn't subtract from how people view him as a bowler.

What I am interested in though is why is Donald rated so lowly in comparison to his peers from that era. He was statistically the equal of any from his era (Ambrose/McGrath) and certainly better than Akram, yet is rarely mentioned in the argument of who is the best in the era which seems to be generally between Ambrose, McGrath, Akram and sometimes even Waqar.
A similar argument could be made for Trueman who statistically stands out from the pack of bowlers from his era and in almost ever category for his career seems to be trailing behind only Marshall and on par with McGrath, Donald and Hadlee as a total package. Admittedly he played the over whelming majority of his matches at home in the seam friendly conditions of England, never bowling in the sub continent and averaging 6 runs less away than at home, but it was an impressive career none the less and deserving to be mentioned among the very best.

Name * Average * S/R * Econ * WPM
Marshall * 20.94 * 46.7 * 2.68 * 4.64
McGrath * 21.64 * 51.9 * 2.49 * 4.54
Trueman * 21.57 * 49.4 * 2.61 * 4.58
A.Donald * 22.25 * 47.0 * 2.83 * 4.58
R.Hadlee * 22.29 * 50.8 * 2.63 * 5.01

D. Lillee * 23.92 * 52.0 * 2.75 * 5.07
C. Croft * 23.30 * 49.3 * 2.83 * 4.70
D.Steyn * 22.65 * 41.1 * 3.30 * 5.10
J.Garner * 20.97 * 50.8 * 2.47 * 4.46
M.Murali * 22.72 * 55.0 * 2.47 * 6.01
S.Warne * 25.41 * 57.4 * 2.65 * 4.88

Ambrose * 20.99 * 54.5 * 2.30 * 4.13
W.Younis * 23.56 * 43.4 * 3.25 * 4.28
I. Khan * 22.81 * 53.7 * 2.54 * 4.11
Holding * 23.68 * 50.9 * 2.79 * 4.15
P.Pollock * 24.18 * 56.2 * 2.58 * 4.14
Roberts * 25.61 * 55.1 * 2.76 * 4.29

W.Akram * 23.62 * 54.6 * 2.59 * 3.98
Davidson * 20.53 * 62.2 * 1.98 * 4.22
C.Walsh * 24.44 * 57.8 * 2.59 * 3.93
J. Snow * 26.66 * 59.5 * 2.68 * 4.12
B. Willis * 25.20 * 53.4 * 2.83 * 3.65
N.Adcock * 21.10 * 61.4 * 2.06 * 4.00
W. Hall * 26.38 * 54.2 * 2.91 * 4.00
S.Pollock * 23.11 * 57.8 * 2.39 * 3.89
Mahmood * 24.70 * 70.7 * 2.09 * 4.02

Tayfield * 25.91 * 79.8 * 1.94 * 4.59
O' Reilly * 22.59 * 69.6 * 1.94 * 4.70
Grimmett * 24.21 * 67.1 * 2.16 * 5.80
J. Laker * 21.24 * 62.3 * 2.04 * 4.19

S.Barnes * 16.43 * 41.6 * 2.36 * 7.00
F. Tyson * 18.56 * 45.4 * 2.45 * 4.47

Larwood * 28.35 * 63.7 * 2.67 * 3.61
Lindwall * 23.03 * 59.8 * 2.30 * 3.73
K. Miller * 22.97 * 61.5 * 2.24 * 3.09

The list showing the bowlers mentioned for comparison.

10. Originally Posted by kyear2
But isn't that the part of his career that boosted his average and rating/ranking as a batsman and subsequently as the best bowling all rounder to play the game. We don't subtract his batting from that period when we rate him as a all rounder, hence that standard should apply to the bowling as well.

Hope that makes sense, sounded better in my head. Either way Imran still is among the bowling greats and one of the best ever and the WPM doesn't subtract from how people view him as a bowler.

What I am interested in though is why is Donald rated so lowly in comparison to his peers from that era. He was statistically the equal of any from his era (Ambrose/McGrath) and certainly better than Akram, yet is rarely mentioned in the argument of who is the best in the era which seems to be generally between Ambrose, McGrath, Akram and sometimes even Waqar.
While it is true that Donald is generally underrated - possibly due to never quite consistently do well against Aus - I also think very few people realistically put Akram the company you did. There will always be a few fan boys and some comments made that are polite and complimentary but Akram wasnt in the same class as Ambrose and McGrath.

11. Originally Posted by schearzie
It's interesting, but I also notice that Barnes played just 10 of his 27 tests in England (home tracks). How many '27 test peaks' would have so few home tests. May havehappened, I haven't checked.
And some of them are against minnows of highest nature. That also should be a consideration.

12. Originally Posted by Migara
And some of them are against minnows of highest nature. That also should be a consideration.
20 Tests against Australia plus 7 Test matches against South Africa between 1912 and 1914. The top South African batsman of the time were probably Herbie Taylor, Arthur Nourse, and Aubrey Faulkner.

13. Originally Posted by Goughy
While it is true that Donald is generally underrated - possibly due to never quite consistently do well against Aus - I also think very few people realistically put Akram the company you did. There will always be a few fan boys and some comments made that are polite and complimentary but Akram wasnt in the same class as Ambrose and McGrath.
I think kyear2's analysis was pretty much on the mark. While Akram may not have been as good Ambrose and McGrath but Akram gets the nod above Amby and McG by a LOT of their peers. In fact for the batsmen that played all 3 of them Akram probably gets the most rave reviews

14. Originally Posted by watson
20 Tests against Australia plus 7 Test matches against South Africa between 1912 and 1914. The top South African batsman of the time were probably Herbie Taylor, Arthur Nourse, and Aubrey Faulkner.
One look at his stats would reveal that Miagra this time is correct in my opinion. He performed creditably but not overly spectacularly against Australia but really gorged on the South Africans, particularly on the South African matting pitches where the hosts were out matched. Everyone from that era performed much better vs South Africa than the other opposition and boosted their stats against them.

15. Originally Posted by smalishah84
I think kyear2's analysis was pretty much on the mark. While Akram may not have been as good Ambrose and McGrath but Akram gets the nod above Amby and McG by a LOT of their peers. In fact for the batsmen that played all 3 of them Akram probably gets the most rave reviews
True. Believe that was based on what Wasim could do rather than what he actually did. So talented with the ball, just didn't quite have the results to back it up.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last