606v2 Greatest Test Seamers Rankings

Afternoon fellas

Your votes on who you believe to be the ten greatest Test seamers of all time have been taken into account, and as a result the following official 606v2 cricket rankings have been compiled.

Thanks for voting, the 10 greatest Test all-rounders vote will be the next one up in the series.

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Michael Holding
4. Wasim Akram
5. Curtly Ambrose
6. Fred Trueman
7. Joel Garner
8. Richard Hadlee
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Ray Lindwall

-----

Courtney Walsh was voted into 11th place, for the record.

Marshall at one was no surprise.

Good work fists.

Can't argue with that. The top 4 are the same as mine, though in a different order, and I had nine of the top 10 (with Donald in place of Lillee). This is since the war right? Otherwise Barnes would have to be in there...

Since the war, that's correct.

Not too many arguments from me. All the musts are in there.

Cant argue mate.These would be my top 10(not counting Steyn as he is not even halfway through his career although he has already acheived a lot).

My order would be slightly different with Mcgrath slightly lower down at 5.But cant argue much.

Top work mate. :clap

shanky mcgrath has to be up the top, he has the most test wickets out of all seam bowlers in test history.

cricketfan90 wrote:shanky mcgrath has to be up the top, he has the most test wickets out of all seam bowlers in test history.

I am not criticising him.Its just my opinion.I would have him at 5 and that is hardly a disgrace.
Any problems with my opinion?
Did I say Mcgrath shouldnt be at 2?I just said I wouldnt have him at 2.Ian Chappell also agrees.
I would have Marshall,Holding,Wasim and Amby And maybe Trueman ahead of him.

from those I have seen :

Akram was a magician with the ball...could make the ball proverbially "talk"...had it on a string.....and swing it both ways ( in the same delivery).....parabolic yorkers.....ripping cutter......no one comes close to what Akram could achieve with the ball.

and then comes Hadlee, version-2......i.e 1985 onwards...he ruled with his mastery over swing...someone pulls out his stats he must be in the range of 6wkts+ per test at average probably less than 20.....he was in a zone of his own in those 4 to 5 years.

though the 10 guys in the list is quite fair

a_D

Hadlee down at eight? Thought it must have been April Fools day when I saw that.

Just catching up with these lists.
No massive argument though Fred Trueman must be that high due to his years of self promotion in the Commentary Box. The older he got the better he was. Not a top tenner to me, not even the best of his day, Statham would be ahead of him for one.
Lillee a bit low?
And no Andy Roberts??

Kwini - an absolute delight reading your outstandingly clear and informed comments about cricket of yesteryear.

I had already come to the conclusion that I had badly under rated Andy Roberts when I voted on this thread and left him out of my top ten. Not long after that, I read an old interview in which he describes planning a batsman's downfall four or five overs before the ball that finally gets him. So meticulous, so calculating, so ruthless.

Probably with good reason, Sunny Gavaskar described Roberts as the best bowler he ever faced.

Roberts was a great bowler but not a top tenner IMO.
He wouldn't even get into a West Indies all time XI also, IMO. Marshall, Garner, Holding and Ambrose would sneak ahead, IMO of course

Stella - extremely interesting that you say that.

Last year a panel of ten West Indian cricket writers, broadcasters, officials etc headed by their former captain Jimmy Adams selected an all time Invincibles West Indies XI. The bowlers they chose were Sobers (obviously as an all rounder), Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Gibbs.

Gibbs' selection was controversial amongst posters but not the panel. Nine of the ten man panel chose him in their own individual all time team. I'll post more about this on the 606 v2 Cricket Hall of Fame sticky if Fists ever finishes his case for Gibbs.

However, only fair to say that many members of the West Indian cricketing public thought his place should have gone to Garner or Roberts. Given the general mass support on 606 v2 for Garner (including from me), I thought it interesting that some of those objecting to Gibbs' place thought it should have gone to Roberts rather than Garner.

Certainly not suggesting that he should be in the Top Ten, but honourable mention should go to Wes Hall, arguably the first of the really fiery, fearsome West Indies fast bowlers. Paved the way for those who followed.

Wes Hall - spot on, Kwini.

guildfordbat wrote:Stella - extremely interesting that you say that.

Last year a panel of ten West Indian cricket writers, broadcasters, officials etc headed by their former captain Jimmy Adams selected an all time Invincibles West Indies XI. The bowlers they chose were Sobers (obviously as an all rounder), Marshall, Holding, Ambrose and Gibbs.

Gibbs' selection was controversial amongst posters but not the panel. Nine of the ten man panel chose him in their own individual all time team. I'll post more about this on the 606 v2 Cricket Hall of Fame sticky if Fists ever finishes his case for Gibbs.

However, only fair to say that many members of the West Indian cricketing public thought his place should have gone to Garner or Roberts. Given the general mass support on 606 v2 for Garner (including from me), I thought it interesting that some of those objecting to Gibbs' place thought it should have gone to Roberts rather than Garner.

well there's no doubt in my mind that Gibbs is the best spinner WI ever produced, so he would walk into an all-time XI, but no Garner? I'd have him ahead of Ambrose personally. Roberts was not far from my top ten IIRC, but there's so much choice when considering all-time fast bowlers it's tough to make a decision. Trueman was the first bowler to reach 300 wickets, and had an outstanding test record. I for one don't think he's out of place on that list.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

well there's no doubt in my mind that Gibbs is the best spinner WI ever produced, so he would walk into an all-time XI, but no Garner? I'd have him ahead of Ambrose personally. Roberts was not far from my top ten IIRC, but there's so much choice when considering all-time fast bowlers it's tough to make a decision. Trueman was the first bowler to reach 300 wickets, and had an outstanding test record. I for one don't think he's out of place on that list.

MadfC - as ever, you pack a lot of fine points into that one paragraph.

I think Jimmy Adams and the rest of that West Indian panel were trying to select a team for all opposition and wickets so 'balance' probably came quite a bit into their final XI although I've not seen anything (and I have looked) stating a spinner had to be picked. A massive plus point for Gibbs that he was chosen.

Ambrose was a very fine bowler indeed but, to me also, he would lose out to Garner.

I don't know if you saw my earlier post (further above from yesterday) but I thought Gavaskar's view that Roberts was the best bowler he ever faced was interesting and not to be sneezed at. Increasingly, I am coming to the view that Roberts - certainly at his peak - is under rated. I do though also agree with you that there is ''so much choice''!
.
I also agree that Trueman's taking of 300 test wickets was a colossal achievement. It should be noted that it was not a race to get to 300 as it was considered by all, apart from Trueman, to be an ''impossible'' milestone. I'll comment more about that tomorrow evening when I write a bit extra in support of Gibbs.

I think Dickie Bird says in his video when he is rating the best players he's ever seen (as an umpire) that of all the West Indian fast bowlers, in his opinion the best was "the deadly accurate Andy Roberts". Just goes to show, given Bird umpired Marshall, Garner et al.

Probably Roberts suffers from the fact that West Indies produced so many great quicks it's sometimes hard to keep up, and the lack of real stand-out performance to remember him by. For some reason he comes across as less "flamboyant" than his contempories which probably has something to do with it.

Interestingly Bird had Barry Richards (along with his namesake) as amongst the best batsmen he'd ever umpired.

On the list: no real complaints. I rate Ambrose very very highly. I'd have thought Hadlee would be a bit higher though... I honestly can't remember who I put in there (and if you asked me to give you a list today from scratch it would probably be different).

Always felt Trueman went awol in the biggest matches / series of the day.

Fine fast bowler, no doubt. But he missed some of the biggest matches vs Australia (only two Tests during the iconic '54/'54 and 1956 series for instance, and 79 wickets at 25.3 in 19 Tests) during his career and his stat's are bolstered by success against, for instance, relatively very weak India Teams (9 Tests, 53 wickets @ 14.8).

Just a sense that we remember players of the past by virtue of their public profile as much as their achievements.

Would say I completely agree with Mike Selig's Dickie Bird remembrances of Richards and Roberts but you'd discount that opinion as watched Hampshire frequently during their reign!

kwinigolfer wrote:
Just a sense that we remember players of the past by virtue of their public profile as much as their achievements.

Kwini - very much agree with that general comment.

I've bored many to tears recently banging on about Larry Gomes who could be relied upon to hold the West Indies batting together on the few occasions that their super stars failed during the 1980s. He had very little public profile at the time and none subsequently, meaning he is now largely forgotten. Shameful considering he was such a key player for a team that all right thinking cricket followers readily acknowledge to be the greatest of all time. [Apologies, Kwini - some of that is aimed at someone else! ]

Anyway, Kwini, at risk of blatantly leading the jury, could I please ask you to have at the last page (currently 11) of ''Sticky: The 606 v2 Cricket Hall of Fame'' which can be found under the banner heading in the Cricket site of ''Announcement & Sticky''. You'll see we're currently considering admittance (or not) to our Hall of Fame of Garner, Gibbs, Gooch, Gower and Graveney. Comments in respect of all are very welcome although especially Gibbs. Garner seems to be a ''clear yes'' whilst the three English batsmen appear to all be getting a ''sympathetic no''. Gibbs is far more marginal and, as the Corporal suggested last night, his fate may rest in your hands.

Pressure? Well, we know what Nugget Miller said about that!

'Afternoon guildford,
Interesting to read your notes about Larry Gomes, watched him a few times at Lords in his Middx days. He was quite the grafter in those days, not particularly fluent in a pretty attractive batting line-up, but was very difficult to get out. Decent fielder. Missed most of his Test career so can't add support to your advocacy of his work in the 80's.

Will have a butcher's at the HOF thread! Big Graveney fan, surprised that Barrington seems to get more love on here than Graveney.

kwinigolfer wrote:'

Will have a butcher's at the HOF thread! Big Graveney fan, surprised that Barrington seems to get more love on here than Graveney.

Kwini - sorry, should have tipped you off - what with you being a new boy here!

You need to be careful not to be critical of Barrington on here in the evenings and weekends. Otherwise, the Corporal will have you peeling spuds for a month! You can often get away with it at this sort of time of the day though.