• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW Ranks Top 25 Bowlers of All Time (Version 2010)

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Personally think that Lindwall was a fantastic bowler. Hopefully he'll grab a spot sooner or later.
Yes, he should be in the top 20 or so. I personally rate him higher than Miller as a bowler.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I think the reason is that with exception of Trueman, O'Reilly and Grimmet, most pre-1970 bowlers either played too few tests (Lohman, Spofforth, Tyson) or did not have spectacular bowling averages (Wes Hall, Alec Bedsar) or lacked enough 5WI/10WM (Miller, Lindwall).

In due course of time they will be voted for though.
Support your point for the likes of Hall and Bedser, to an extent. However, the likes of Lohmann played much much more tests than the average test player those days. And even if he hasn't played 100 tests like McGrath, that's not his fault; and you can take his FC records into perspective in such cases. And Lindwall and Miller certainly didn't have many 5fers or 10fer because they were playing in the same team with the likes of O'Reilly and Grimmett.

And, besides the names you mentioned there are the Davidsons and Lakers and Veritys and Adcocks and Peter Pollocks and Larwoods and Faulkners and Tayfields and Benauds and Guptes and some others. There are at least 10-15 bowlers pre-1970 who deserve at least very high consideration for being in all-time top 25.
 
Last edited:

Matt79

Global Moderator
Miller and Lindwall didnt play with O'Reilly and Grimmett. Barring one test by Tiger in 46, the spinners were pre-war, the quicks were post war.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Ya, you are right. Had the wrong perception that all of them were part of 'the invincibles' for 1-2 years.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Waqar
Trueman
Donald

Waqar looked like causing an upset at 6. Doesn't look anywhere close to being in the top 10 now. :(
 

ankitj

International Coach
About Lindwall, I have obviously not seen him bowl or have much idea about what he bowled. But have trouble understanding why he is rated so highly. Someone (Ian Chappell or Benaud not sure) rated him above McGrath. But then some of his contemporaries like Davidson, Miller, Trueman, Tyson etc had better average than him. And he also lacks a 10 wicket haul and considering he didn't play in as strong a bowling attack as Garner played in, can't figure reasons for rating him that high. Anyone?
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
About Lindwall, I have obviously not seen him bowl or have much idea about what he bowled. But have trouble understanding why he is rated so highly. Someone (Ian Chappell or Benaud not sure) rated him above McGrath. But then some of his contemporaries like Davidson, Miller, Trueman, Tyson etc had better average than him. And he also lacks a 10 wicket haul and considering he didn't play in as strong a bowling attack as Garner played in, can't figure reasons for rating him that high. Anyone?
For a start, let's state the fact that Lindwall lost 7 among his 10 best years to World War II. He started his test career at the fag end of his prime form. He was at his best during 1939-1948. He started playing test cricket in 1946. And after 1948, he carried on opening the bowling for Australia for another 12 years! That's the first point, now should we move to some other points about Lindwall?
 
Last edited:

Himannv

Cricketer Of The Year
Agree with weldone. He spearheaded the Aussi attack for more than a decade and was consistently good throughout. Very technically correct action as well. On the whole a top bowler and for me easily the third best Australian seamer after Lillee and McGrath.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
About Lindwall, I have obviously not seen him bowl or have much idea about what he bowled. But have trouble understanding why he is rated so highly. Someone (Ian Chappell or Benaud not sure) rated him above McGrath. But then some of his contemporaries like Davidson, Miller, Trueman, Tyson etc had better average than him. And he also lacks a 10 wicket haul and considering he didn't play in as strong a bowling attack as Garner played in, can't figure reasons for rating him that high. Anyone?
Was very "complete" in the same sense as the term is used for Marshall. Was genuine express, had a very nasty bouncer, a very good yorker, generated swing and had good variations of pace - all coupled with stamina and a lovely athletic action. Played in an era of bore-draws where the majority of matches ended in draws.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Fred Trueman (3 points)
George Lohmann (2 points)
Imran Khan (1 point)
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Rank 8 Results Declared and Rank 9 Voting Begins

Sorry for being late, guys...was pretty busy during the weekend (in a good way, that is).

Points:
Trueman (24)
etc etc etc...

Rank 1: Malcolm Marshall
Rank 2: Richard Hadlee
Rank 3: Muttiah Muralitharan
Rank 4: Sydney Barnes
Rank 5: Glenn McGrath
Rank 6: Curtly Ambrose
Rank 7: Shane Warne
Rank 8: Fred Trueman


I shall be maintaining two counts: one showing how many of the already ranked players played in which decade, and the other showing the fast bowling-spin bowling split.

Decade-wise split
1890 and before: 0
1891-1900: 0
1901-10: 1 (13%)
1911-20: 1 (13%)
1921-30: 0
1931-40: 0
1941-50: 0
1951-60: 1 (13%)
1961-70: 1 (13%)
1971-80: 2 (25%)
1981-90: 3 (38%)
1991-2000: 5 (63%)
2001-10: 3 (38%)

Fast-spin split
Fast Bowler: 6 (75%)
Spin Bowler: 2 (25%)

The voting process for rank 9 starts.
 

Top