Seam bowling, strike rates, averages etc.

What makes a great bowler, or an all time great bowler? Is it longevity, where a bowler managed to play 150 test matches and regardless of his effectiveness managed to rack up 400 + wickets, is it a bowler who only played in 15 or 20 matches that managed one of the best strike rates in the history of cricket?

Or is it a proven record over 50 or more tests in which the anomalies of fast starts (such as Vernon Philander) can be negated and a better data sample to be collected?

All these issues are debatable to the point of boredom and could run in circles for weeks. At the end of the day, I suggest for the purpose of this article we will discuss all seam bowlers who have notched up 200 wickets.

This allows all the anomalies to be negated such as fast starts and playing in only certain conditions.
One impact that is very difficult to negate are the conditions bowlers bowled under fifty or a hundred years ago. Uncovered pitches, batting equipment (Which was inferior to modern day equipment) etc.

We are going to look at what in my opinion are the most important facets of bowling.

1. Strike rate – The ultimate measure of a strike bowler
2. Average – This factor combines strike rate with economy rate, cost to team per wicket.
3. 10 match wicket hauls – Provides us with the effectiveness of utterly dominating a test.
4. 5 fers – Provides us with the effectiveness of dominating an innings.
5. 4 fers – Provides us with meaningful bowling spells, they may not have won the match, but went a long way to effect a result.
6. 3 wicket and more innings – usefull for consistency in performances over a career.

There are 47 Fast, Fast Medium, Medium pace bowlers who has taken 200 or more wickets.

Top 20 Strike rates.

DW Steyn (SA) 42.10
Waqar Younis (Pak) 43.40
MD Marshall (WI) 46.70
AA Donald (SA) 47.00
FS Trueman (Eng) 49.40
RJ Hadlee (NZ) 50.80
J Garner (WI) 50.80
M Holding (WI) 50.90
D Gough (Eng) 51.60
GD McGrath (Aus) 51.90
DK Lillee (Aus) 52.00
JR Thompson 52.60
B Lee (Aus) 53.30
M Ntini (SA) 53.40
RGD Willis (Eng) 53.40
CL Cairns (NZ) 53.60
Imran Khan (Pak) 53.70
CEL Ambrose (WI) 54.50
Wasim Akram (Pak) 54.60

Top 20 Averages.

MD Marshall (WI) 20.94
J Garner (WI) 20.97
CEL Ambrose (WI) 20.99
FS Trueman (Eng) 21.57
GD McGrath (Aus) 21.64
AA Donald (SA) 22.25
RJ Hadlee (NZ) 22.29
Imran Khan (Pak) 22.81
RR Lindwall (Aus) 23.03
SM Pollock (SA) 23.11
Waqar Younis (Pak) 23.56
Wasim Akram (Pak) 23.62
DW Steyn (SA) 23.68
M Holding (WI) 23.68
DK Lillee (Aus) 23.92
CA Walsh (WI) 24.44
JB Statham (Eng) 24.84
AV Bedser (Eng) 24.89
RGD Willis (Eng) 25.20
AME Roberts (WI) 25.61

Top twenty innings (matches) per 10 wicket haul. (Utter dominance in a test)

RJ Hadlee (NZ) 16.67
AV Bedser (Eng) 18.40
DK Lillee (Aus) 18.86
Imran Khan (Pak) 23.67
DW Steyn (SA) 28.50
Waqar Younis (Pak) 30.80
Wasim Akram (Pak) 36.20
GD McKenzie (Aus) 37.67
MD Marshall (WI) 37.75
IT Botham (Eng) 42.00
FS Trueman (Eng) 42.33
AA Donald (SA) 43.00
AME Roberts (WI) 45.00
M Ntini (SA) 47.50
MG Johnson (Aus) 47.50
M Holding (WI) 56.50
CEL Ambrose (WI) 59.67
CJ McDermott (Aus) 61.50
CA Walsh (WI) 80.67
GD McGrath (Aus) 81.00

Top 20 innings per 5 wicket haul. (Utter dominance in an innings)

RJ Hadlee (NZ) 4.17
DK Lillee (Aus) 5.74
AV Bedser (Eng) 6.13
Imran Khan (Pak) 6.17
IT Botham (Eng) 6.22
DW Steyn (SA) 6.33
AA Donald (SA) 6.45
MD Marshall (WI) 6.86
Waqar Younis (Pak) 7.00
GD McKenzie (Aus) 7.06
Wasim Akram (Pak) 7.24
FS Trueman (Eng) 7.47
CL Cairns (NZ) 8.00
AR Caddick (Eng) 8.08
CEL Ambrose (WI) 8.14
AME Roberts (WI) 8.18
GD McGrath (Aus) 8.38
M Holding (WI) 8.69
CJ McDermott (Aus)8.86
RR Lindwall (Aus) 9.42

Top 20 innings per 4 wicket haul. ( Contributing heavily towards an innings)

Waqar Younis (Pak) 5.50
JR Thompson 5.63
DK Lillee (Aus) 5.74
RJ Hadlee (NZ) 6.00
DW Steyn (SA) 6.00
J Garner (WI) 6.17
HH Streak (Zim) 6.38
FS Trueman (Eng) 6.68
D Gough (Eng) 6.79
MG Hughes (Aus) 6.93
CJ McDermott (Aus) 7.29
CA Walsh (WI) 7.56
JA Snow (Eng) 7.75
MD Marshall (WI) 7.89
Imran Khan (Pak) 8.35
AV Bedser (Eng) 8.36
CEL Ambrose (WI) 8.52
GD McGrath (Aus) 8.68
SM Pollock (SA) 8.78
B Lee (Aus) 8.82

Top 20 innings per 3+ wickets haul. (Consistency in performance)

RJ Hadlee (NZ) 1.85
DW Steyn (SA) 1.97
D Gough (Eng) 2.07
DK Lillee (Aus) 2.10
AA Donald (SA) 2.11
MG Hughes (Aus) 2.16
AR Caddick (Eng) 2.19
AV Bedser (Eng) 2.19
Imran Khan (Pak) 2.25
CJ McDermott (Aus) 2.25
Waqar Younis (Pak) 2.26
AME Roberts (WI) 2.31
GD McGrath (Aus) 2.34
MD Marshall (WI) 2.36
JR Thompson 2.37
Wasim Akram (Pak) 2.41
IT Botham (Eng) 2.43
FS Trueman (Eng) 2.44
J Garner (WI) 2.52
Mg Johnson (Aus) 2.57

I hope this will assist in the debate of who you guys rate as the top 20 in each aspect of seam bowling.

I trend that I have picked up through compiling these stats are that economy rates have consistently increased since 1959. How much of this can be ascribed to pitches, equipment and the like will obviously be up for debate.

Average economy rate of the top 20 wicket takers between 1877 and 1914 (First world War) was 2.49 runs per over.

Average economy rate of the top 20 wicket takers between 1914 and 1939 (Second world War) was 2.67 runs per over.

Average economy rate of the top 20 wicket takers between 1939 and 1959 was 2.24 runs per over.

Average economy rate of the top 20 wicket takers between 1959 and 1979 was 2.63 runs per over.

Average economy rate of the top 20 wicket takers between 1979 and 1999 was 2.73 runs per over.

Average economy rate of the top 20 wicket takers between 1979 and present day was 3.13 runs per over.

Can we please keep this civil and not get personal whislt debating the pro's and cons of each bowler.

Enjoy.

Interesting read, guess it kills off all the bickering on the Ode To Dale Steyn Thread.

Then again, probably not.

Very interesting.

Strike Rate. This is important, but not necessarily decisive in my view. For instance, up until this season my leggies in club cricket took wickets at a SR good by any standards, but at an economy rate which was quite frankly unacceptable. Bowling over the tail in particular can lead to inflated SRs. Styen's is impressive, with Marshall backing up his credentials. Interestingly (perhaps with less attritional cricket these days) a lot of recent bowlers are higher up the table than you might imagine. Trueman is the standout.

Average. A useful guide, but plenty of caveats. Spinners usually have higher averages, and those bowling lots of overs and who bowl when the batsmen are on top will also have higher averages. In a reverse of the SR trend we see recent bowlers slightly lower than you might expect. Yet Marshall and Trueman stand out.

10w hauls. Not that relevant, because we see these taken most often by those who didn't have much support (for any of the WI quickts to take one, it would have relied on their teammates to have below par games). This is clearly reflected in Hadlee coming out on top.

5w hauls. Less drawbacks than 10w hauls. I guess the difference between impact bowlers and line bowlers is really demonstrated here. Walsh, McGrath show far less well than Botham, Lillee, Steyn. Marshall would probably be higher did he not have such good teammates.

3w hauls. Not a measure used that often. Interesting results like Gough and Hughes being so high - perhaps reflects bowlers that were good, but didn't quite have the endurance to take wickets throughout an innings. Overall I can't read much into this though

[Before this goes up on v2 Journal I should point out that Grimmett was a leg-spinner, and thus shouldn't be included]

You need to factor in covered / uncovered pitches in to your stats

They are a factor, but probably not a huge one. Almost all of those listed are from the covered era apart from Trueman and maybe the very early days of the WI greats/ Lillee/ Willis.

I'm not keen on 5 and 10 wicket hauls.

Garner got very few thanks to having Marshall, Holding, Roberts and Croft taking wickets, whereas Murali got plenty due to having Vaas and not much else.

All interesting , but I tend to look at strike rate and average ahead of the tens and fives , which as Shelsey points out are partly at the mercy of the rest of the bowling attack. And most of the players we all rate are well up in both, as you'd expect. Doesn't tell all though , unless we consider opponents , pitches , conditions etc ...which of course just isn't possible to do statistically.
So we are left with stats as a guide.
And we will all make our subjective judgements

Just one illustration I doubt many will disagree with : Holding is only eighth for strike rate, and thirteenth for average. (assuming figures quoted are correct , which I suspect they are , even though Clarrie Grimmett and Lance Gibbs appear to have somehow sneaked in with the fast bowlers )
Hands up anyone who doesn't rate him a little higher ...thought not.

Nice table for examination and consideration though , thanks Biltong.

Perhaps Holding played on to long or started to early. This can have an effect on stats.

I agree, a good barometer but that's it.

alfie wrote:All interesting , but I tend to look at strike rate and average ahead of the tens and fives , which as Shelsey points out are partly at the mercy of the rest of the bowling attack. And most of the players we all rate are well up in both, as you'd expect. Doesn't tell all though , unless we consider opponents , pitches , conditions etc ...which of course just isn't possible to do statistically.
So we are left with stats as a guide.
And we will all make our subjective judgements

Just one illustration I doubt many will disagree with : Holding is only eighth for strike rate, and thirteenth for average. (assuming figures quoted are correct , which I suspect they are , even though Clarrie Grimmett and Lance Gibbs appear to have somehow sneaked in with the fast bowlers )
Hands up anyone who doesn't rate him a little higher ...thought not.

Nice table for examination and consideration though , thanks Biltong.

Sorry mate, I tried to check that no no seam bowler slips in, but must have missed those two.

I'll see if I can correct them.

Chris Carins has a better s/rate than Akram?

I fixed Grimmett and Gibbs.

seanmichaels wrote:You need to factor in covered / uncovered pitches in to your stats

Difficult to do mate.

Hence I showed the economy rates of the different era's.

interesting tables: I'm not surprised that strike rates have improved over the years, as scoring rates have increased SRs have decreased. Not sure how I feel about Barnes not being in the discussion (I know he "only" took 189 wickets, but...).

Once again though, the numbers can only tell part of the story. The main reason for this is conditions: SA, England and NZ are usually the best place for swing and seam bowlers, with pre-00s WI and Australia good places for pace bowlers with bounce. For instance, Wasim Akram is only 20th on the SR table, and 12th on the averages, but I'm sure would make everyone's top 10, and most top 5s. Number of wickets should probably also be taken into consideration.

Stella wrote:Chris Carins has a better s/rate than Akram?

Yep.

Strike rates

Mad for Chelsea wrote:interesting tables: I'm not surprised that strike rates have improved over the years, as scoring rates have increased SRs have decreased. Not sure how I feel about Barnes not being in the discussion (I know he "only" took 189 wickets, but...).

Once again though, the numbers can only tell part of the story. The main reason for this is conditions: SA, England and NZ are usually the best place for swing and seam bowlers, with pre-00s WI and Australia good places for pace bowlers with bounce. For instance, Wasim Akram is only 20th on the SR table, and 12th on the averages, but I'm sure would make everyone's top 10, and most top 5s. Number of wickets should probably also be taken into consideration.

The problem with number of wickets is if a bowler has bowled for yonks, he will have 500 wickets, then other bowlers played for a short period only, this way where 200 wickets is the qualifying criteria it shows a player who has performed well over a good number of years.

There are anomolies such as Barnes.

But this is only supposed to be the best of those who took 200 plus wickets.

Shelsey93 wrote:Very interesting.


[Before this goes up on v2 Journal I should point out that Grimmett was a leg-spinner, and thus shouldn't be included]

Shelsey I didn't really do this for the journal, just for us. Also I removed Gibbs and Grimmett.

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:Chris Carins has a better s/rate than Akram?

Yep.

Strike rates

Nice list. My school cricket coach used to be a pro. Said Frank Tyson was the quickest of the quick.

To use a quote from the great Sir Ian Botham "don't care much about giving runs away, to me it is all about getting people out" !

Darren Gough is one of the best fast bowlers ever


No shock that as economy rates have worsened strike rates have improved

gboycottnut wrote:To use a quote from the great Sir Ian Botham "don't care much about giving runs away, to me it is all about getting people out" !

Which meant for the last few years of his career pretty much dollying it up and waiting for someone to mistime and get caught in the deep. In fact Bothams bowling career is a bit like Andersons in reverse, brilliance to dross, neither of them helped by injury to be fair.

I believe that being a great bowler and being an all-time great bowler are 2 separate things. A great bowler is someone I believe has achieved great bowling performances/feats over a shorter period of time (say max of 5 years but no more than that), whereas a truely all-time great bowler has to have sustained these great bowling performances/feats for at least a decade to be consider in this category, which means the likes of McGrath, Warne, Ambrose, Walsh.

Here is an interesting question for you all. The South African all-rounder Mike Proctor averaged around 15 odd with the ball in test cricket but he only played in 7 tests. Does this final average he ended up with due to SA's isolation years whilst in his bowling prime mean that he should still be considered as a great bowler?

Is Walsh an all time great though?

gboycottnut wrote:Here is an interesting question for you all. The South African all-rounder Mike Proctor averaged around 17 odd with the ball in test cricket but he only played in 7 tests. Does this final average he ended up with due to SA's isolation years whilst in his bowling prime mean that he should still be considered as a great bowler?

No, not imo. To few tests tbh.

Unfortunately for Mike Proctor we will never know whether he would have been a great. Take Philander as an example, he got 50 wickets in seven tests, we don't consider him great as he has to prove his credentials over a longer period.

Hence the same applies to Mike Proctor.

Stella wrote:Is Walsh an all time great though?

Not top ten in my view.

McGrath when ylu compare his stats seems to have become an all time great by sheer number of wickets.

Yest when you look at the above stats he is in the top ten only with Average (5th) and strike rate (10th) when you look at innings of substance he falls outside of the top ten.

In my view he might just make the top ten on combined stats, but overall perception places him much higher. How much influence does his tally of wickets have?

Stella wrote:Is Walsh an all time great though?

Well yes as he got over 450+ wickets over a very long career spanning what 2 decades. What is perhaps most interesting about Walsh is that he got better as a bowler as he got older and gained more wickets from sharing the new ball with Curtley Ambrose, unlike when he was the 3rd or 4th bowler in a 4 man pace attack from 1984 to 1991 when guys like Bumper Patterson and Ian Bishop shared the new ball with Ambrose.

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:Is Walsh an all time great though?

Not top ten in my view.

McGrath when ylu compare his stats seems to have become an all time great by sheer number of wickets.

Yest when you look at the above stats he is in the top ten only with Average (5th) and strike rate (10th) when you look at innings of substance he falls outside of the top ten.

In my view he might just make the top ten on combined stats, but overall perception places him much higher. How much influence does his tally of wickets have?

top 10 in averages and SRs is the most important thing IMO. McGrath is severely disadvantaged in the "innings of substance" stats due to the sheer level of the bowling attack he played with. The same can be said about the WI greats. McGrath had more than his fair share of "innings of substance" (the fact is he still places top 20 in all of those), but the fact he played in tandem with Warne and other more than decent back-up (first McDermott, then Gillespie/Lee, etc. all very good bowlers) means he won't place as high as say Hadlee.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone placing him outside the top 10 of all time TBH (unlike Walsh, who very few would place in their top 10 despite him getting nearly as many wickets). IIRC when we did a poll on this a while back he was comfortably in the top 5.

https://www.606v2.com/t15983-606v2-greatest-test-seamers-rankings

Note, it only includes retired players before anyone says Jimmy Anderson should be in it...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:Is Walsh an all time great though?

Not top ten in my view.

McGrath when ylu compare his stats seems to have become an all time great by sheer number of wickets.

Yest when you look at the above stats he is in the top ten only with Average (5th) and strike rate (10th) when you look at innings of substance he falls outside of the top ten.

In my view he might just make the top ten on combined stats, but overall perception places him much higher. How much influence does his tally of wickets have?

top 10 in averages and SRs is the most important thing IMO. McGrath is severely disadvantaged in the "innings of substance" stats due to the sheer level of the bowling attack he played with. The same can be said about the WI greats. McGrath had more than his fair share of "innings of substance" (the fact is he still places top 20 in all of those), but the fact he played in tandem with Warne and other more than decent back-up (first McDermott, then Gillespie/Lee, etc. all very good bowlers) means he won't place as high as say Hadlee.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone placing him outside the top 10 of all time TBH (unlike Walsh, who very few would place in their top 10 despite him getting nearly as many wickets). IIRC when we did a poll on this a while back he was comfortably in the top 5.

Also the majority of McGrath's best performances and wickets came against a weak England team in the 1990's, with Mike Atherton in particular making up a high number of McGrath's dismissals of any one England player.

Mcgrath only played two series against us in the 90's didn't he?

Stella wrote:Mcgrath only played two series against us in the 90's didn't he?

3 Ashes series. The first was in 1994/5 when he was still a bit raw as a pace bowler at test level, then in 1997 in England where he was the senior fast bowler and finally in 1998/99.

I really think strike rate is the Alpha and Omega of fast bowling as they are, you know, strike bowlers. An interesting stat would be a bowlers S/r with respect to his era. for my money Marshall, Wasim, Holding and Waqar are the greatest ever. As for the Goldies, I NEVER rank them, not because I believe modern is better, but because, past around 1970 cricket really changed- India began to lose after more than Three days, no South Africa, batsman safety became an issue, rise of the West Indies. Etc

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:Mcgrath only played two series against us in the 90's didn't he?

3 Ashes series. The first was in 1994/5 when he was still a bit raw as a pace bowler at test level, then in 1997 in England where he was the senior fast bowler and finally in 1998/99.

Forgot that he played in the 94/95 series.

kingraf wrote:I really think strike rate is the Alpha and Omega of fast bowling as they are, you know, strike bowlers. An interesting stat would be a bowlers S/r with respect to his era. for my money Marshall, Wasim, Holding and Waqar are the greatest ever. As for the Goldies, I NEVER rank them, not because I believe modern is better, but because, past around 1970 cricket really changed- India began to lose after more than Three days, no South Africa, batsman safety became an issue, rise of the West Indies. Etc

You must be talking utter tripe if you believe Holding is one of the greatest ever bowlers. For me Hadlee, McGrath are definitely 2 of the greatest pace bowlers ever as not only did they get bagfuls of wickets but they got them with a very healthy overall bowling average.

[quote="gboycottnut"][quote="Mad for Chelsea"]

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:Is Walsh an all time great though?

Not top ten in my view.


Also the majority of McGrath's best performances and wickets came against a weak England team in the 1990's, with Mike Atherton in particular making up a high number of McGrath's dismissals of any one England player.

Tripe. His stats are pretty consistent no matter what the opposition.

Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
v Bangladesh 2003-2003 2 4 55.1 17 124 5 3/20 4/45 24.80 2.24 66.2 0 0
v England 1994-2007 30 60 1213.2 331 3286 157 8/38 9/82 20.92 2.70 46.3 10 0
v ICC World XI 2005-2005 1 2 18.0 7 42 3 2/34 3/42 14.00 2.33 36.0 0 0
v India 1996-2004 11 22 426.2 157 951 51 5/48 10/103 18.64 2.23 50.1 2 1
v New Zealand 1993-2005 14 27 571.1 172 1444 57 6/115 7/89 25.33 2.52 60.1 2 0
v Pakistan 1994-2005 17 33 639.1 173 1736 80 8/24 9/68 21.70 2.71 47.9 3 0
v South Africa 1994-2006 17 32 680.2 223 1558 57 6/86 8/49 27.33 2.29 71.6 2 0
v Sri Lanka 1995-2004 8 15 304.4 84 823 37 5/37 7/61 22.24 2.70 49.4 2 0
v West Indies 1995-2005 23 46 912.3 287 2132 110 6/17 10/27 19.38 2.33 49.7 8 2
v Zimbabwe 1999-1999 1 2 54.0 19 90 6 3/44 6/90 15.00 1.66 54.0 0 0

One of few quickies to relish Indian conditions.

Boycs thats a bit like saying Anderson is overated because his figures are skewed by bowling at Tendulkar so much

[quote="seanmichaels"][quote="gboycottnut"]

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:Is Walsh an all time great though?

Not top ten in my view.


Also the majority of McGrath's best performances and wickets came against a weak England team in the 1990's, with Mike Atherton in particular making up a high number of McGrath's dismissals of any one England player.

Tripe. His stats are pretty consistent no matter what the opposition.

Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
v Bangladesh 2003-2003 2 4 55.1 17 124 5 3/20 4/45 24.80 2.24 66.2 0 0
v England 1994-2007 30 60 1213.2 331 3286 157 8/38 9/82 20.92 2.70 46.3 10 0
v ICC World XI 2005-2005 1 2 18.0 7 42 3 2/34 3/42 14.00 2.33 36.0 0 0
v India 1996-2004 11 22 426.2 157 951 51 5/48 10/103 18.64 2.23 50.1 2 1
v New Zealand 1993-2005 14 27 571.1 172 1444 57 6/115 7/89 25.33 2.52 60.1 2 0
v Pakistan 1994-2005 17 33 639.1 173 1736 80 8/24 9/68 21.70 2.71 47.9 3 0
v South Africa 1994-2006 17 32 680.2 223 1558 57 6/86 8/49 27.33 2.29 71.6 2 0
v Sri Lanka 1995-2004 8 15 304.4 84 823 37 5/37 7/61 22.24 2.70 49.4 2 0
v West Indies 1995-2005 23 46 912.3 287 2132 110 6/17 10/27 19.38 2.33 49.7 8 2
v Zimbabwe 1999-1999 1 2 54.0 19 90 6 3/44 6/90 15.00 1.66 54.0 0 0

But overall McGrath's best bowling performances tended to come V England, although as you say he was pretty much consistent against all opposition teams around the world.

Probably because it was the series he was most up for in all truth. That and he was unplayable down the slope at Lords.

gboycottnut wrote:

But overall McGrath's best bowling performances tended to come V England

The stats don't back that up. He had better records against India (strong batting line-up towards the end of his career at least) and the West Indies (Lara was a favourite of his also).

He may have had more fifers (not sure) but he did play against us more than twice as much as against any other team.

Mike Selig wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

But overall McGrath's best bowling performances tended to come V England

The stats don't back that up. He had better records against India (strong batting line-up towards the end of his career at least) and the West Indies (Lara was a favourite of his also).

But his best bowling analysis in an innings came V England at Lords in 1997, and again in 2005 when again he tormented England's then much vaunted batting unit.

Didn't he take 8-24 against Pakistan?

Stella wrote:Didn't he take 8-24 against Pakistan?

all the stats are up a few posts

seanmichaels wrote:

Stella wrote:Didn't he take 8-24 against Pakistan?

all the stats are up a few posts

Not sure.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

Stella wrote:Didn't he take 8-24 against Pakistan?

all the stats are up a few posts

Not sure.

He did. Cricinfo and sean confirm.

His stats vs South Africa were by average, by his standards, ave 27 SR 71 on the most bowler-friendly pitches in the globe... Just shows how much damage that fat blonde guy from the other end did to us!

? Yes he did take 8-24 against the cheats.

His next best was 8-38 against England

seanmichaels wrote:? Yes he did take 8-24 against the cheats.

His next best was 8-38 against England

Well, a poster of your quality could have done better with that first bit.
Anyways a fabulous work from biltong to combine all these stats to open up a fantastic debate.
Most of the names are among the top 30 fast bowlers in the history of the game, the likes of Barnes misses out due to the 200 wicket criteria, but he was a superb bowler, right among the very best of them.
Strike Rates are telling for me, shows the impact of a strike bowler.
fifers and 10 wicket hauls matter, but I'd place strike rate andaverage above those.