The10 Greatest Bowlers of all time(Relive:Dennis Lillee's 8-29 against Rest of the World XI)

[King Pietersen]

Why limit it to pure bowlers? You don't have to be a pure bowler to be one of the best.

My Top 10:

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Sydney Barnes
3. Dennis Lillee
4. Shane Warne
5. Glenn McGrath
6. Imran Khan
7. Wasim Akram
8. Muttiah Muralitharan
9. Michael Holding
10. Sir Richard Hadlee

 

[Cricketman]

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Sydney Barnes
3. Shane Warne
4. Murali
5. Dennis Lilee
6. Michael Holding
7. Curtly Ambrose
8. Wasim Akram
9. Glenn McGrath
10. Anil Kumble

 

[robin2855]

Welcome Cricketman!

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Sydney Barnes
3. Shane Warne
4. Murali
5. Dennis Lilee
6. Michael Holding
7. Curtly Ambrose
8. Wasim Akram
9. Glenn McGrath
10. Anil Kumble

Except your sequence (Don'tworry too much - it is tough job for everyone to get the right one) and # 10 of your selection ,rest is near perfect and in terms of Accuracy I give you 100% as you did not include any All rounders in your selection which was a prerequiste as set in the criteria.

Since you did very well with your selection ( 1-9) I would like to make a suggestion with your #10 . Do a research on Fred Trueman.

I am not trying to influence you. But sometimes one may not be aware of a great a player especially if he is of a past era . But as we are assessing Bowling masters of both past and modern era it is only fair to do reaserch about Bowling greats of both the past and the modern and decide as appropriate.

Below are some insights on Fred Trueman:

Truemen is a Bowling Gem/Genius of England of the past era : Played between 1952 - 1965.

Trueman is considered as one the best fast bowlers in the history of Cricket.

Along with Sidney Barnes another genius of past are considered the best fast bowlers produced by England.

When test cricket were not too frequent as now he still managed to take 307 wickets at an astonishing average of 21.57 and has taken a wicket for every 49 balls- Unbelievable!

He is the first bowler ever to secure 300 wickets.

He has taken 5 wickets in an innings 17 times and 10 wickets 3 times -Amazing feat.

His best bowling figues: 8 for 31 in an innings, 12 for 119 in a match - Mind blowing!

Trueman scalped 2,302 first class wickets (including four hat tricks) at an astonishing average of 18.27.

let's see what you come up with your findings should you decide to do some research on Fred Trueman ( It is not mandatory though)

Cheers!

 

[leftarmlegspin]

1. Muttiah Muralitharan
2. Shane Warne
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Wasim Akram
5. Courtney Walsh
6. Kapil Dev (not sure if he counts)
7. Waqar Younis
8. Anil Kumble
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Curtley Ambrose

 

[robin2855]

Welcome leftarmlegspin!

1. Muttiah Muralitharan
2. Shane Warne
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Wasim Akram
5. Courtney Walsh
6. Kapil Dev (not sure if he counts)
7. Waqar Younis
8. Anil Kumble
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Curtley Ambrose

Very good Selection except Kapil Dev who is an Allrounder.

So replace Kapil Dev with a Specialist Bowler and you will be just fine.

Cheers!

 

[coolz_hari]

1. Muttiah Muralitharan
2. Shane Warne
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Wasim Akram
5. Courtney Walsh
6. Kapil Dev (not sure if he counts)
7. Waqar Younis
8. Anil Kumble
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Curtley Ambrose

good choice . though kapil dev is an all rounder still he got 434 wickets in tests . he is also a great bowler

 

[King Cricket]

What do you have to say about my selections, Robin?
I'm posting the list again:

My revised list of top 10 greatest bowlers of alltime

1. Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Malcolm Marshall
4. Dennis Lilie
5. Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee
6. Sydney Barnes
7. Courtney Walsh
8. Curtly Ambrose
9. Fred Trueman, Imran Khan
10. Fred Spofforth, Allan Donald

King Cricket added 5 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

Very good Selection except Kapil Dev who is an Allrounder.

Why should we exclude all-rounders?

 

[robin2855]

Welcome King Pietersen!

Why limit it to pure bowlers? You don't have to be a pure bowler to be one of the best.

My Top 10:

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Sydney Barnes
3. Dennis Lillee
4. Shane Warne
5. Glenn McGrath
6. Imran Khan
7. Wasim Akram
8. Muttiah Muralitharan
9. Michael Holding
10. Sir Richard Hadlee

A very weak selection in the context of choosing 3 all-rounders which is a NO NO . The remainder 7 are unbeatable.

You are missing the point.

By definition A Bowler and All-rounder is like Chalk and cheese.

Let's see what we have for Bowler and All-rounder definition from an authentic source - Wikipedia.

A bowler in the sport of cricket is usually a player whose speciality is bowling,

An all-rounder is a cricket player who regularly performs well at both batting and bowling.

It is crystal clear from the above they are not the same and we cannot have all-rounders coming in a selection where we are dealing specialist Bowlers and where it was clearly mentioned in the criteria we cannot have all-rounders.

Another vital Consideration I had is the fact that we only had 3 genuine All-rounders in the past era in the likes of Sir Gay Sobers, Keith Miller and My alltime Favorite(As a Commentator and Master Cricket Analyst) Richie Benaud
whereas in the modern era we have at least 10 .

So if we are to allow this flexibilty of having Allrounders being eligible for being considered in the 10 best bowler selection it would be wrong in the first place and unfair for the past Great Bowlers.

Right now you have blocked opportunies of 3 Great Bowlers of the past from being considered by having 3 All-rounders from the present era. Is that fair?

In the context of the above may I suggest that you have your All-Rounders replaced by a Specialist Bowler from either past or present as you deem most appropriate . With your inepth knowledge of Cricket History it should be a piece of cake.

You can do it!

Cheers!

 

[sami ullah khan]

^ Murali at 9!! Otherwise your list is alright.

I know Murali as highest number of wickets but I have rated bowlers on sheer enjoyment of watching them bowl. I loved to see Warne bowl. He was a magician. Murali has only three or four balls in his arsenal but Warne had five or six different deliveries. I just enjoyed him bowling more than Murali. Also I find fast bowling much more enthralling than spin bowling. Thats one of the reason murali is at 9 in my list.

 

[King Pietersen]

A very weak selection in the context of choosing 3 all-rounders which is a NO NO . The remainder 7 are unbeatable.

You are missing the point.

By definition A Bowler and All-rounder is like Chalk and cheese.

Let's see what we have for Bowler and All-rounder definition from an authentic source - Wikipedia.

A bowler in the sport of cricket is usually a player whose speciality is bowling,

An all-rounder is a cricket player who regularly performs well at both batting and bowling.

It is crystal clear from the above they are not the same and we cannot have all-rounders coming in a selection where we are dealing specialist Bowlers and where it was clearly mentioned in the criteria we cannot have all-rounders.

Another vital Consideration I had is the fact that we only had 3 genuine All-rounders in the past era in the likes of Sir Gay Sobers, Keith Miller and My alltime Favorite(As a Commentator and Master Cricket Analyst) Richie Benaud
whereas in the modern era we have at least 10 .

So if we are to allow this flexibilty of having Allrounders being eligible for being considered in the 10 best bowler selection it would be wrong in the first place and unfair for the past Great Bowlers.

Right now you have blocked opportunies of 3 Great Bowlers of the past from being considered by having 3 All-rounders from the present era. Is that fair?

In the context of the above may I suggest that you have your All-Rounders replaced by a Specialist Bowler from either past or present as you deem most appropriate . With your inepth knowledge of Cricket History it should be a piece of cake.

You can do it!

Cheers!

To be brutally honest with you, I don't really care whether someone's an all-rounder or not. Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee and Wasim Akram are, in my eyes, 3 of the 10 best bowlers of all-time, so they get into my top 10. Doesn't bother me if they bat abit as well, it's their bowling that I've focused on, and you cannot deny the fact that those 3 are top class bowlers, irespective of whether they batted abit as well.

 

[robin2855]

Welcome sami ullah khan!

I have not seen most of the old folks bowl so here is my list of the bowlers i have seen in action
1. Glen Mcgrath
2. Waseem Akram
3. Shane Warne
4. Deniss Lillee
5. Waqar Younis
6. Malcom Marshall
7. Courtney Walsh
8. Allan Donald
9. Muttiah MuraliDharan
10.Curtly Ambrose
As per Robins request I am replacing Imran Khan Who was At no. 7

Thanks Sami to acknowledge and apply the fact that we are only considering Specialist Bowlers.

Your Selection looks formidable.

I liked your choice of having Waqar and Allan Donald in the list.That is good and smart thinking.

Well done Buddy!

More coming.I assure you we will have opportunities to have All-rounders considered in the next two ones, one of which we will have this weekend and the other next weekend.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

robin2855 added 23 Minutes and 14 Seconds later...

What do you have to say about my selections, Robin?
I'm posting the list again:

My revised list of top 10 greatest bowlers of alltime

1. Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharan
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Malcolm Marshall
4. Dennis Lilie
5. Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee
6. Sydney Barnes
7. Courtney Walsh
8. Curtly Ambrose
9. Fred Trueman, Imran Khan
10. Fred Spofforth, Allan Donald

King Cricket added 5 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

I appreciate the fact that you have taken time to rethink, review and come up with a revised List that is simply Stunning. It can't get better.

My only objection to you is having Hadlee and Imran out there as even showing them tied at that position is a violation of Criteria Set .In this case non inclusion of All-rounders.

I also acknowledge the fact that your selection reflects that you have doneyour homework and research well.

Selection of Spofforth and Donald reflects smart and insightful thinking.

All other Readers with no All-rounders have also a near perfect lists.

I will not comment on others with All- rounders still glued to thier list because that is a violation of Criteria.

Why should we exclude all-rounders?

I have already answered that very explicitly. However you are a Quiz Master multipe times (LOL!).

As a token of appreciation I will reproduce that once more.

Here you go :

Let's see what we have for Bowler and All-rounder definition from an authentic source - Wikipedia.

A bowler in the sport of cricket is usually a player whose speciality is bowling,

An all-rounder is a cricket player who regularly performs well at both batting and bowling.

It is crystal clear from the above they are not the same and we cannot have all-rounders coming in a selection where we are dealing specialist Bowlers and where it was clearly mentioned in the criteria we cannot have all-rounders.

Another vital Consideration I had is the fact that we only had 3 genuine All-rounders in the past era in the likes of Sir Gay Sobers, Keith Miller and My alltime Favorite(As a Commentator and Master Cricket Analyst) Richie Benaud whereas in the modern era we have at least 10 .

So if we are to allow this flexibilty of having Allrounders being eligible for being considered in the 10 best bowler selection it would be wrong in the first place and unfair for the past Great Bowlers.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

 

[afridi118]

wasim akram isint he an all rounder just a thought as its said specialist bowlers only.

 

[sami ullah khan]

^Akram was not an allrounder. He was a genuine bowler who could bat a little bit. I know he has got highest score of 257 but that was against zimbabway on dead wicket at sheikhupura stadium. Even Jason Gillespie has a double hundred. That does not make him an allrounder. Wasim was just a useful lower order hitter and we cant call him a genuine all rounder

 

[King Cricket]

Woha! Sorry Robin, missed that first post somehow. But I still have a question,

An all-rounder is a cricket player who regularly performs well at both batting and bowling.

What if they regularly perform with both bat and ball? We are concentrating on bowling here. You have said it yourself, an allrounder performs regularly with the ball. So can't he be an amazing bowler? Leave aside batting, we are not interested with this. But guys like Imran, Hadlee etc - they are better than most of the modern day bowlers, so why shouldn't I include them in my list? I mean, let us take the "bowling" part of an all-rounder here and judge that particular allrounder only by his "bowling". Because we are talking about "bowlers" here. An allrounder can bat, but he can "bowl" as well. Just take this "bowler" out and rate it. Not the batsman. Hope I'm clear. Otherwise, not including any "allrounder" just beacuse he's an "allrounder" doesn't sound logical. Then our list will remain incomplete. (Any top 10 list without Imran is bound to remain incomplete, he was a terrific bowler, not talking about his "batting", take the "bowler" Imran out of the allrounder and rate it, you'll understand why we are including him in our lists- this is what I'm trying to say)

 

[robin2855]

Woha! Sorry Robin, missed that first post somehow. But I still have a question,



What if they regularly perform with both bat and ball? We are concentrating on bowling here. You have said it yourself, an allrounder performs regularly with the ball. So can't he be an amazing bowler? Leave aside batting, we are not interested with this. But guys like Imran, Hadlee etc - they are better than most of the modern day bowlers, so why shouldn't I include them in my list? I mean, let us take the "bowling" part of an all-rounder here and judge that particular allrounder only by his "bowling". Because we are talking about "bowlers" here. An allrounder can bat, but he can "bowl" as well. Just take this "bowler" out and rate it. Not the batsman. Hope I'm clear. Otherwise, not including any "allrounder" just beacuse he's an "allrounder" doesn't sound logical. Then our list will remain incomplete. (Any top 10 list without Imran is bound to remain incomplete, he was a terrific bowler, not talking about his "batting", take the "bowler" Imran out of the allrounder and rate it, you'll understand why we are including him in our lists- this is what I'm trying to say)

I am not disputing the fact that Hadlee and Imran were great bowlers. They were and BTW Iman is #1 on my Favorite list. But that does not give me the rationale of including him in a Specialist Bowler comparison.

Another example of All-Rounder classification:

How is a team typically composed of?

Batsmen (Ppening + Middele Order)

Wicket keeper

Bowlers(Pace+ Spinners)

Allrounders- Absolutely Different category.

If An Allrounder as in the case of Sobers,Imran, Kapil, Hadlee used as a Strike bowler performs as well it is a Bonus. He is supposed to do well anyway by definition and off course he has to peform as a batsman as well) Hope this is clear.

Other consideration - you have missed this point of my poster an important one

Another vital Consideration I had is the fact that we only had 3 genuine All-rounders in the past era in the likes of Sir Gay Sobers, Keith Miller and My alltime Favorite(As a Commentator and Master Cricket Analyst) Richie Benaud
whereas in the modern era we have at least 10)

So if we are to allow this flexibilty of having Allrounders being eligible for being considered in the 10 best bowler selection it would be wrong in the first place and unfair for the past Great Bowlers.

By picking All - rounder as a specialist bowler from the modern era tantamounts to blocking opportunies of Great Bowlers of the past from being considered . Is that fair?

Hope this helps.

Cheers!