Your top ten TEST bowlers of ALL-TIME

[Flem274*]

It's all hypothetical gas bagging but I'd still back the gap in batting between Marshall and McGrath to be about the same at a level above, cheeky nicks through slip notwithstanding.

 

[smash84]

I agree with the sentiment because I think Marshall is a better batsman and bowler than McGrath, but I'm not talking about batting.

But no, that doesn't work. Someone like Marshall would see his batting average decrease more than McGrath would, at this level above, IMO.

lol....what does this mean? Please do elaborate? I don't understand that a 1 or 2 run difference among bowlers would be magnified to a greater difference? While among batters the batting ability would diminish ?

 

[kyear2]

But shouldn't that then also happen in batting too? Which means that a 5 to 10 run batting run advantage of Marshall over McGrath makes him a much more valuable player?

OK, which combination really brings more to a team with a stacked batting lineup and Gilchrist batting at 7

Marshall
Warne
Lillee
Barnes

Imran
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

For me batting at No. 11, your batting shouldn't factor in, but that's just me. What is your position, especially with Marshall and Warne being nore than adequate batsmen.

 

[Eds]

lol....what does this mean? Please do elaborate? I don't understand that a 1 or 2 run difference among bowlers would be magnified to a greater difference? While among batters the batting ability would diminish ?

You've missed my point completely. Read my post again.

It's all hypothetical gas bagging but I'd still back the gap in batting between Marshall and McGrath to be about the same at a level above, cheeky nicks through slip notwithstanding.

I can't remember who it was but someone on here said the reason Mitchell Johnson bowling well and Australia winning have such a strong correlation is because he effectively nullifies the opposition tail, even when they're particularly handy. Makes sense to me. England and SA both have reasonable tails, but the likes of Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Robin Peterson, Vernon Philander have looked like rank tailenders. I think a similar effect would occur in this next level up and the gap between the worst batsmen would decrease but the gap between the best batsman would probably increase. Much like the gap between the worst bowlers would probably decrease but the gap between the best bowlers would increase. That's what I mean, smali.

 

[watson]

OK, which combination really brings more to a team with a stacked batting lineup and Gilchrist batting at 7

Marshall
Warne
Lillee
Barnes

Imran
Marshall
Warne
McGrath

For me batting at No. 11, your batting shouldn't factor in, but that's just me. What is your position, especially with Marshall and Warne being nore than adequate batsmen.

It's too close to call as far as bowling strength is concerned. However, I'm not sure what modern batman would make of Barnes as he would be completely novel to them, especially if he is operating on a 'sticky' wicket. So in some contexts the bowling of Barnes might be the difference between the two attacks.

As a spectator though, the first attack would be more fascinating to watch IMO. I would mortgage my house to see Lillee and Barnes operating together and busting their guts to bowl out the opposing ATG batsman on day 5 of Test match that is sitting on a knife edge.

 

[kyear2]

It's too close to call as far as bowling strength is concerned. However, I'm not sure what modern batman would make of Barnes as he would be completely novel to them, especially if he is operating on a 'sticky' wicket. So in some contexts the bowling of Barnes might be the difference between the two attacks.

As a spectator though, the first attack would be more fascinating to watch IMO. I would mortgage my house to see Lillee and Barnes operating together and busting their guts to bowl out the opposing ATG batsman on day 5 of Test match that is sitting on a knife edge.

Hard to beat the Marshall, Lillee, Barnes, Warne combo for skill, variety and determination. Also as you would have indicated hard to beat from a spectators perspective on a first morning to the last session on day five shod the contest last that long.

 

[paulted]

The Australians of 1995-2007 would never have stood a chance against the West Indies bowlers of the 80's. Most of their front foot play would have been eliminated. The likes of Hayden, Ponting, and Gilchrist were lucky to play in an era of largely weak pace bowling opponents. When they did come up against a bowler of extreme pace like Shoaib Akhtar (when he was fired up) they looked ordinary( Colombo 5th October 2002).Hayden even said afterwards that Shoaib was unplayable.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gilchrist and Ponting also hammered Shoaib on numerous occasions, you know. Weak ass argument

 

[Migara]

The Australians of 1995-2007 would never have stood a chance against the West Indies bowlers of the 80's. Most of their front foot play would have been eliminated. The likes of Hayden, Ponting, and Gilchrist were lucky to play in an era of largely weak pace bowling opponents. When they did come up against a bowler of extreme pace like Shoaib Akhtar (when he was fired up) they looked ordinary( Colombo 5th October 2002).Hayden even said afterwards that Shoaib was unplayable.

Shoaib's line of attack was completely different to that of WI quartret. For Shoaib it wa relentless full length bowling and occasional short one to b reak the monotony. For WI pacemen it was relentless short of a good length bowling with piched up sucker balls to get wickets.

Ponting, Gilly, Inzaman, Tendulkar, Aravinda and Richardson were probably good as anyone in the history of cricket when it come to hooking and pulling short quick stuff. I think the bowlers in 90s were similar to WI pacemen on average speeds if not tad quicker. But WI pacemen were unbelievably skillful. I would back my 10 cents for Aussie batting lineup to survive WI quartret more than 75% of times, and beat the hell out of them few times as well.

 

[kyear2]

First of all Shoaib is not quite the same as facing Marshall, Holding and Garner especially in '83 to '84. Secondly while I belive that Ponting would at least hold his own, don't see anyone beating the hell out of them.

 

[Jassy]

The Australians of 1995-2007 would never have stood a chance against the West Indies bowlers of the 80's.

How ridiculous! This is like saying Viv Richards and co would have never had a chance against Warne.

 

[Jassy]

Obviously not as McGrath would have done better. Admittedly, the Indian line-up was very good at Home, but have always been ordinary Away with the exception of Tendulakr and maybe 1 or 2 others.

Incidently (according to Statsguru),

India 1993-2007
Won = 48
Lost = 36
Draw = 51
W/L = 1.33

RSA 1993-2007
Won = 69
Lost = 38
Draw = 42
W/L = 1.81

Therefore, RSA were stronger than India and the main opposition of McGrath's era.

Haven't read the entire thread and this may have been already addressed but what does W/L ratio have to do with how good the batting was? SA won more tests because they had ATG bowlers in Donald and Pollock; India had a pathetic excuse for a bowling line-up that couldn't bowl teams out away from home with the possible exception of Srinath on occasion.

 

[watson]

Haven't read the entire thread and this may have been already addressed but what does W/L ratio have to do with how good the batting was? SA won more tests because they had ATG bowlers in Donald and Pollock; India had a pathetic excuse for a bowling line-up that couldn't bowl teams out away from home with the possible exception of Srinath on occasion.

The original point was that a bowler must be successful against the best team of the era in order to be considered an ATG. Therefore, I gave some data which proved that South Africa were probably the best team of McGrath's era. So you've kind of taken my quote out of context.

The counter point that the Indian team had the best batting line-up is a good one and deserves consideration. However, it doesn't make sense to me. If McGrath was a top class bowler, and he was least successful against South African batsman then logically the South African batsman must have also been top class. And against pace bowling better than their Indian counterparts despite a number of cameos by the likes of Sehwag, Tendulkar, and Laxman.

So lets face it, Indian batsman have never really liked pitches with bounce and seam. On the other hand, these sorts of pitches are nothing unusual for South Africans who are used to fronting up to good quicks on helpful surfaces. Therefore, South African batsman were McGrath's toughest assignment overall.

 

[paulted]

An unusual statistic- Of all the batsmen who played the bulk of their cricket in the 80's, only Border, Javed Miandad, and Richards emerged with a batting average of 50+. Were the other batsmen of the 80's of a low standard or was the bowling that good? There were NO triple centuries scored. During the 2000's there were 14 batsman with an average of 50+, and EIGHT triple centuries scored. Sure more tests were played but its something to discuss......

 

[Flem274*]

It's almost like the batsman can be too good for the bowler sometimes.

 

[Slifer]

It's almost like the batsman can be too good for the bowler sometimes.

Well IMO the batsmen of that era probably had it harder (especially those who faced the WI regularly). Boundaries were further out, no bouncer restrictions, no enforced over rates, bat tech was in its infancy etc etc .

 

[Slifer]

The original point was that a bowler must be successful against the best team of the era in order to be considered an ATG. Therefore, I gave some data which proved that South Africa were probably the best team of McGrath's era. So you've kind of taken my quote out of context.

The counter point that the Indian team had the best batting line-up is a good one and deserves consideration. However, it doesn't make sense to me. If McGrath was a top class bowler, and he was least successful against South African batsman then logically the South African batsman must have also been top class. And against pace bowling better than their Indian counterparts despite a number of cameos by the likes of Sehwag, Tendulkar, and Laxman.

So lets face it, Indian batsman have never really liked pitches with bounce and seam. On the other hand, these sorts of pitches are nothing unusual for South Africans who are used to fronting up to good quicks on helpful surfaces. Therefore, South African batsman were McGrath's toughest assignment overall.

Oh ok so what u mean is that RSA were not necessarily the best line up Mcgrath faced but were his toughest opponents?? If that's the point ur making then yeah that makes sense.

 

[Flem274*]

Well IMO the batsmen of that era probably had it harder (especially those who faced the WI regularly). Boundaries were further out, no bouncer restrictions, no enforced over rates, bat tech was in its infancy etc etc .

Agreed, but to put down Australian dominance to the bowling being crap is rubbish. I could just as easily reverse his argument on the West Indian quartet and say they only dominated because the batsmen were worse than they were in the 2000s and the bowlers had conditions stacked in their favour.

Both arguments would be drivel.

 

[Red]

The Australians of 1995-2007 would never have stood a chance against the West Indies bowlers of the 80's. Most of their front foot play would have been eliminated. The likes of Hayden, Ponting, and Gilchrist were lucky to play in an era of largely weak pace bowling opponents. When they did come up against a bowler of extreme pace like Shoaib Akhtar (when he was fired up) they looked ordinary( Colombo 5th October 2002).Hayden even said afterwards that Shoaib was unplayable.

Absurd. Ponting would've loved the short pitched stuff. Would've looooved it. Langer would've actually enjoyed getting smashed in the helmet and body every ball. Hayden might've struggled tbh, but I can't see any reason why he wouldn't have adjusted his game.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah that's the thing everyone ignores. You can't just drag someone out of an era and dump them in another and use that to judge. If Hayden played during the 70s and 80s he would be a completely different batsman to the one we know.