Best Bowler Ever.

[Dare]

those stats are for overseas bowlers in asia.

imran would top that table with 205 wickets at 20.28 would sit at the top of that table. Waqar would come just under walsh in 3rd, and akram would come in under steyn and hadlee in 6th.

A good point, didn't notice that.

 

[Toxic Muffin]

I'll go with the current player with the lowest bowling average.

Mark Boucher, steps forward

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

A good point, didn't notice that.

it is quite weird though how only pakistan produces bowlers of that quality.

the stats are good though, but I think I still just lean towards akram, just. I think if you discount imrans final years (where he was pushing 40) his stats hold up really well compared to marshall and the best west indians, most pakistani's that watched them a lot would probably agree with me that akram was a better bowler than imran.

but yeah, next month I might well be back in team marshall. His swing was ridiculous, when you watch videos it seems to wait until it's about 2 feet away from pitching, then it turns and seemingly speeds up (which surely contravenes the laws of physics) but I go with akram because he was so deadly with the old ball as well.

 

[Robelinda]

The Poms seemed to have little problem playing Akram, that 30 average is not great for a supposed best of all time candidate, especially with the poor batting lineups which the aussie bowlers just blasted out. Waqar fared a lot better from memory vs England and in England. People tend to watch some highlights on you tube of some magic ball but where was that ball while playing England???? Marshall and Hadlee and even McGrath were much much more consistent and deadly. Cant argue with guys having averages of 21 or 22 against guys with 25 or 26 or higher. If steyn keeps his down to 20 or 21 then i'll be quite happy to rate him up there with Marshall.

 

[Dare]

Funny thing about Marshall is that he struggled in New Zealand. In the 3 tests he played there he picked up 9 wickets at an average of 32 but his overall figures against New Zealand are brilliant 7 tests, 36 wickets at an average of 21. Marshalls strike rate is below 50 against every team and his highest average is 22.5 against Australia in 19 tests.
Wasim has too many "ordinary" numbers when compared to Marshal and Hadlee. Wasims numbers are somewhat comparable to those of Curtly Ambrose.

 

[aditya123]

Wasim`s bowling was magical, something beyond numbers which is why I`d rate him higher than McGrath. If I was a captain in a World Cup final with my opposition needing 30 runs to get with 7 wickets in hand, the first person who I`d want to have in my side would be Akram.

Maybe Indians and Pakistanis might all vote for Akram because we have seen a lot more of his bowling than the rest of the world but he had something to his bowling which was beyond statistics.

 

[sami ullah khan]

The Poms seemed to have little problem playing Akram, that 30 average is not great for a supposed best of all time candidate, especially with the poor batting lineups which the aussie bowlers just blasted out. Waqar fared a lot better from memory vs England and in England. People tend to watch some highlights on you tube of some magic ball but where was that ball while playing England???? Marshall and Hadlee and even McGrath were much much more consistent and deadly. Cant argue with guys having averages of 21 or 22 against guys with 25 or 26 or higher. If steyn keeps his down to 20 or 21 then i'll be quite happy to rate him up there with Marshall.

I think you are missing the point here Robelinda. Most people who have gone for Akram here, have suggested that he had tremendous potential to bowl unplayable deliveries. He was very enjoyable to watch. Its more about personal preference than Stats. People just loved to watch Wasim bowl.

 

[aditya123]

I think you are missing the point here Robelinda. Most people who have gone for Akram here, have suggested that he had tremendous potential to bowl unplayable deliveries. He was very enjoyable to watch. Its more about personal preference that Stats. People just loved to watch Wasim bowl.

Exactly. Maybe, its a bit like comparing Steve Waugh to Tendulkar. Both legends of the game and highly successful batsmen but people would pick Tendulkar, the batsman for some things which may not have anything to do with stats.

 

[Owzat]

Richard Hadlee for mine. The first man to 400 wickets. 9 10 wicket hauls, 36 5 wicket hauls. Didn't really have a partner in crime either, all the more difficult destroying teams by yourself.

Two sprang instantly to my mind, Hadlee and Marshall. Stats may suggest there are/were better, but these two were awesome. A lot of hype about more recent and current bowlers is wicket count, but frankly they play too many rubbish sides and too many matches so invariably players will score more runs and take more wickets

Marshall did benefit from playing in a great bowling side, but for me it's no surprise windies cricket went downhill after he retired in 1991.

Malcom Marshall

Tests : 81
Wickets : 376
Average : 20.95
SR : 46.77
ER : 2.69
5wi : 22
10wm : 4

Runs : 1810
Average : 18.85
HS : 92
50s : 10

He only ever played Pakistan (20.70), Australia (22.52), India (21.99), England (19.18) and New Zealand (21.53) Find me a modern day bowler who could come close to that consistency against all the best sides, some pretty strong batting sides there to boot and while you can argue he was part of a strong pace attack and gained a boost by that, he also had to compete for wickets within a strong pace attack. Hadlee on the flip side was the spearhead of a weaker attack and therefore, like Murali and others who were solo stars, he would do a lot of bowling and not have as much competition for wickets

Richard Hadlee

Tests : 86
Wickets : 431
Average : 22.30
SR : 50.85
ER : 2.63
5wi : 36
10wm : 9

Runs : 3124
Average : 27.17
HS : 151no
50s : 15
100s : 2

Hadlee's only achilles heel in terms of opposition was Pakistan, he averaged 28.39 in 12 Tests against them. Unlike Marshall, Hadlee played Sri Lanka in six Tests and took 37 wickets at 12.78 at a time when Sri Lanka were finding their way in Test cricket so easy pickings. Take them out of his stats and you have 394 wickets in 80 Tests @ 23.19 and can knock off two 5wis and one 10wm.


Any modern side would have either of those in a heartbeat, just a shame Marshall retired and so tragic he died so relatively young. He could easily have gone on to 100 caps, there was so much more to him than pace, and I reckon his batting average would have improved. Might also have maintained the interest in cricket in West Indies with such a legend.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I'm kinda surprised no one has brought Murali, Warne or Syndey Barnes into the discussion.

 

[Iridium]

Richard Hadlee for mine. The first man to 400 wickets. 9 10 wicket hauls, 36 5 wicket hauls. Didn't really have a partner in crime either, all the more difficult destroying teams by yourself.

Yea, that's exactly what I think. Yes there's probably better bowlers than Hadlee but taking the circumstances in which he played into consideration, it makes his stats and achievements even more amazing.

 

[Varun]

After I started following cricket, Shaun Pollock impressed me the most!
So, considering that I haven't seen any of cricket before 2000 almost, I would rate Pollock as the best. But I don't know really!

 

[Shoaib87]

It has to be Imran Khan for me.

1)He mastered himself in bowling swings & cutters of both sides,had a lethal bouncer & yorker & above all he took reverse swing to new heights.

2)Was almost unplayable at his peak & threatened the batsmen on flat wickets of Pakistan.

3)Has as a good a record as any other alltime great fast bowler.

4)Has better peak than any other modern day alltime great fast bowler(Only Barnes & Lohmann have a better peak than Imran).

5)Bowled with sheer pace almost till his retirement.And was a complete alltime great fast bowler.

Top 10 Ever IMO:

1. Imran Khan
2. Richard Hadlee
3. Malcolm Marshall
4. Wasim Akram
5. Curtly Ambrose
6. Glenn McGrath
7. Sydney Barnes
8. Muttiah Muralitharan
9. Allan Donald
10. Shane Warne

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Ambrose and McGrath over Murali and Donald over Warne?

I feel posters in this thread are underrating spinners...

 

[Robelinda]

As an aussie fan i dont know how anyone can pick Pollock, he was absolute fodder apart from one match at Adelaide, we played him so easily, and thrashed him too. Honest trundler, in home conditions like Durban he was good, but was not really a threat as a strike bowler. I'll be buggered how Ponting picked him in his all time XI, Ponting made two of his best tons vs Pollock.

Ambrose was pretty awesome, but faded rather quickly from around 1994, lost his pace and wasnt the threat he was in the late 80's/early 90's. The fear factor just went. On that famous 05 tour most of the Aussies were rather surprised at his lack of venom, and he was almost dropped until that ridiculous Trinidad greentop, but he showed in that 4th test that he was no threat anymore, our top 6 just milked him for 2 days.