Greatest Bowler Ever-an analysis

[rkt.india]

I came across this analysis on padosi site and I found it interesting so posting it here. Please bear with me.

Okay, due to popular demand, and the fact I am not scared of Pakistani bowlers possibly not appearing on the lists, I have finally decided to do part 2. The bowlers edition. I have also improved on the last version. This time, it is done by innings. The biggest gap between bowlers will be just 1 innings now, since I have taken account of completed matches. So instead of the batting version where some players were 10-20 innings ahead, the worst possible now is just 1! I have also decided to add the points system that W63L35 recommended. This basically means 10 points for topping a table, 9 for second, all the way for 1 point for the bottom. Finally, the title is named to show the greatest bowler ever, in this context. Ultimate? Because it involved so much work, and is a much better analysis of greatest ever then people judging on end of career averages only. Now the reason I was initially hesitant to do the bowlers version was spin bowlers and fast bowlers. The good spin bowlers almost always take more wickets per match, and the fast bowlers always have lower economy rates. That problem is actually present here. What important is to see which bowlers dominate both lists! That shows us the real class. However, remember these are just statistics to compare the best at certain stages of careers. Please don't flame me if Akram doesn't dominate the lists *hint*. This thread tells people something they would never know. For example how good Botham or Kapil Dev really were. Final records may be terrible, but remember, Kapil ruined a lot of stats because he wanted a record. Reminds you of someone? Oh, and 1 final thing. From 20 innings onwards the tables are 100% correct. I can't say that about the first table. The top names are correct, but there may be an odd name missing, because its very easy to miss out someone who was only good for 10 innings. Actually, for all I know, the first is correct as well, but can't guarantee it. 10 Innings: Interesting is that Philander didn't make it on the wickets list, but was the fastest in a century to 50? Kaneria on the list shows possibly why Saqlain was discarded so fast. He started of as a runaway train, and this bought him a ticket to play for years to come! 20 Innings: These early lists are dominated by bowlers who played before WWII, but Botham does make an entry. And on both lists. I think over the next few tables we are going to find out exactly what the British have been saying for so long. 30 Innings: It is quite incredible to think that people got 100 wickets in 30 innings. That is 15 matches! I have hardly ever heard Turner's name mentioned, even when we talk about the great players of old such as Barnes. He has dominated the first 3 tables, and has a phenomenal record in average and wickets. Waqar also makes his debut on the lists, and I have a feeling he is going to stay here for a while. 40 Innings: Waqar on both lists. Botham on both lists, an at a higher postion. Very surprised to see our very own Fazal Mahmood here. Got to say, in all my time here on these forums, possibly one of our more underrated legends. Steyn also makes an entry. We have all known for a long while he is a legend in the making. 50 Innings: Waqar 2nd on both lists, and showing exactly how good he once was. Also, I am starting to think commentating on each table may not have been a good idea. 60 Innings: I believe this was a point I made a while back. If we can give Bradman the status of greatest batsman, then why is Waqar not even on a list of greatest bowlers, when in that same time period, he was arguably the best in the world? Now I am not saying he is, but it just seems like people assume Bradman would have averaged 100 for a 100 test matches. Maybe he would have had a similar fall? 70 Innings: Murali tops the wickets table, and I have a *hunch* he is going to stay there for the rest of this thread. Waqar once again very impressive, but again one would have to look at Botham. I have heard a million times by people on these forums that Waqar was possibly the greatest in his first 50 test matches. Why has no one mentioned something similar about Botham? Top class! Steyn still up there with the legends, and what is more impressive about him is I think he is the only one in his time period to really hold a position on these tables consistently. Maybe we should appreciate him more? Something tells me he could really end up as one of the top top top bowlers in history, given the time period he achieved it in. 90 Innings: The names have become more recognisable, with each passing table. It was the same with the batting thread. Sure, people play a lot more matches now, but this is only at 90 innings. The old names disappeared at around 50 innings. Why are the old players better in the first half of their careers? Imran over taking Botham, and he stays like that for the rest of his career. So while many would accept Imran is the best all-rounder, would it be fair to say Botham has a higher peak? 100 Innings: Was Pollock always this good? I remember growing up watching him, but never really knew his average was at 20 for such a long period of time. Another player who possibly played too long? I think the bowling average list is a very close representation of who we all think our most of the greatest fast bowlers ever. Maybe this thread is actually useful? 110 Innings: I am one of those people that preferred Warne over Murali. The same reason why I think Wasim is one of the greatest ever, but both of these legends dont have the brilliant numbers of their rivals. For example, not at one point of their respective careers, did Shane Warne have a better average, or more wickets then Murali. Yet the majority of the cricketing world prefers Warne. Just goes to show numbers aren't everything! 120 Innings: You can see once again Waqar keeps falling down the lists, and Imran keeps going up. Imran was the better bowler over his career, and we all accepted it, but Wasim was never near those 2 in terms of statistics. I think an interesting question would be, did Warne and Wasim suffer slightly in terms of stats because they were so good? By that I mean, did batsman try so hard not to get out to them, that they just played their overs out? Could possibly explain why everyone calls those 2 so great, but the numbers don't fully reflect it. I see another thread coming up. 130 Innings: Has anyone ever done an exam, and realised they are writing, just for the sake of writing? Rather then actually answering the question? I feel that way now. The names are almost identical right now, and continue to do so. No point of me repeating the same stuff for the sake of it! 140 Innings: 150 Innings: 160 Innings: Maybe I was wrong about the greatness of Kapil Dev? He only makes an appearance when there are only 10 people left to put on the table. 170 Innings: Last table, as I didn't want do anymore which didn't have 10 people in them. It should also eliminate some of the longevity crap people talked about in the batsmen thread, where we had Sachin topping tables, with the likes of Boucher challenging him. Topped tables The tables I had in the last batting thread. Interestingly, only Waqar, Barnes and Turner topped both tables. And Waqar the only fast bowler, and only player in the last 80 years. Overrated? Okay, now for the results: These are the top 10. I think some people will be annoyed with Pollock being better then Marshall. I don't think thats the case. Remember how I said it is the people who were great on both tables, the true representation of class? Marshall was always a top 3 in both tables all the time. Pollock received almost all his points on average. Which is commendable, but enough to be called one of the greatest fast bowlers ever? Don't really think anyone can argue with the rest of the list. Murali topping it, on wickets alone. But he is the only spinner on the list, and has every other record in the book. Why not this one?

[Sidhoni]

Pollock better than Marshal, Botham, McGrath, Ambrose ,Donald, Hadlee, Khan! :blink: List :fail:

[bulbul]

i remember seing this table some where..some one puts lot of effort

[saneindian]

A motivated analysis by some Waqar fan to show him being bigger than he was. If you do a similar analysis for ODIs, Agarkar would be in the all time top 5.

[Crookbond]

A motivated analysis by some Waqar fan to show his being bigger than he was. If you do a similar analysis for ODIs, Agarkar would be in the all time top 5.

That would be fantastic.

[Pak_Fan_4_Eva]

@OP Mentioning the actual poster's name would be good of you.

[bulbul]

@OP Mentioning the actual poster's name would be good of you.

what difference that will make here :P any way he mentioned he took from a padosi forum and we all know from where :winky:

[Pak_Fan_4_Eva]

what difference that will make here :P any way he mentioned he took from a padosi forum and we all know from where :winky:

Mentioning the source is just a morally correct thing to do. For example saying I took this news from a British news website isn't enough.

[Sir john]

For me all time great harmison enough said

[jairamesh]

So a chucker and a cheater tops the list, sorry state of cricket.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Well the OP is well known to try and do something to show his favourite Waqar Younis as the best.Which Waqar was not.When ever he faced the Indians and Aussies wet his pants.Remember that he did analysis of bowlers with regards to their SR 5 and 10 wickets hauls,total wickets etc and again on basis of SR and Peformance in Asia tried to potray Waqar as the best.An Indian asked him to do a similar analysis for batsmen in in regards to no. of runs 50s 100s Performance in away conditions.Refused,saying "we know who will top that".The psters and that site is pathetic.No wonder they were with Majeed.

[Clarke]

Waqar was more than twice the bowler that McGrath managed to be :hysterical: BTW kya bhikhari points system hai ? You get 1-10 points for 10 innings performance and then for 20 innings performance which includes the former and this is carried on & on ? Imagine you pursue degree in madrasa & your second yr results are the combination of first & second yr, third yr combination of all three and in the end you accumulate/average all of the above to make you master maulviji ? Ye kahan se Math/Stats sikhe ? Did i misinterpret this ?

[Number]

Well the OP is well known to try and do something to show his favourite Waqar Younis as the best.Which Waqar was not.When ever he faced the Indians and Aussies wet his pants.Remember that he did analysis of bowlers with regards to their SR 5 and 10 wickets hauls' date='total wickets etc and again on basis of SR and Peformance in Asia tried to potray Waqar as the best.[b']An Indian asked him to do a similar analysis for batsmen in in regards to no. of runs 50s 100s Performance in away conditions.Refused,saying "we know who will top that".The psters and that site is pathetic.No wonder they were with Majeed.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[hhhhdmt]

Well the OP is well known to try and do something to show his favourite Waqar Younis as the best.Which Waqar was not.When ever he faced the Indians and Aussies wet his pants.Remember that he did analysis of bowlers with regards to their SR 5 and 10 wickets hauls' date='total wickets etc and again on basis of SR and Peformance in Asia tried to potray Waqar as the best.An Indian asked him to do a similar analysis for batsmen in in regards to no. of runs 50s 100s Performance in away conditions.Refused,saying "we know who will top that".The psters and that site is pathetic.No wonder they were with Majeed.[/quote'] waqar did not "wet his pants" against india. he played a grand total of 4 tests vs india, and did well in the first two. The other two tests came in 1999 when he was struggling with his form (shoaib was preferred ahead of him), so his overall stats vs india in tests are misleading.

[Sehwag1830]

waqar did not "wet his pants" against india. he played a grand total of 4 tests vs india' date=' and did well in the first two. The other two tests came in 1999 when he was struggling with his form (shoaib was preferred ahead of him), so his overall stats vs india in tests are misleading.[/quote'] WC 1996 QF.Enough said

[hhhhdmt]

WC 1996 QF.Enough said

so we are suposed to judge waqar's entire carrear vs india on the basis of ONE match? wonderful logic. waqar's overall one day average vs india was 24.5 which proves that he did not wet his pants vs them, he had one horrendous game. hey, if we are basing things on one game, than waqar owns tendulkar, nuff said. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7guZ8ckS6A]waqar younis magic ball to sachin tendulkar - YouTube[/ame]

[Sehwag1830]

so we are suposed to judge waqar's entire carrear vs india on the basis of ONE match? wonderful logic. waqar's overall one day average vs india was 24.5 which proves that he did not wet his pants vs them, he had one horrendous game. hey, if we are basing things on one game, than waqar owns tendulkar, nuff said.

Tendulkar has 3 MOM against Pakistan in WC in 5 matches. Enough said.

[hhhhdmt]

Tendulkar has 3 MOM against Pakistan in WC in 5 matches. Enough said.

i never said sachin vs pakistan, i said waqar vs sachin. Basing a players entire carrear vs another player or another team on one match is utterly stupid.

[Jimmy Cliff]

Piss poor "analysis" that has Botham among the top 5 bowlers of all time. :cantstop: Still think Ankit's value of wicket comparison is the best I have seen online.

[deathmonger]

i never said sachin vs pakistan' date=' i said waqar vs sachin. Basing a players entire carrear vs another player or another team on one match is utterly stupid.[/quote'] sachin has a good avg against pakistan in both odis and tests. waqar crapped his pants in tests as did shoaib akhtar. both of them decent odi averages as they managed to play india during the 90s when we had rubbish players in the team. shoaib's odi avg against india after 2003 wc is in the 40s whre he regularly got caned by srt,viru,dhoni,yuvi etc etc