Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

So the Beeb devised a formula to rank bowlers:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/32105879

It ranks the top 10 England wicket takers and assigns a numerical value to the average of the batsmen who they have dismissed.

Obviously the flaw is the higher runs per match scored and higher and ever-rising averages of batsmen in the modern era.

This is reflected by the top 5 all being relatively current (Broad at 3 I think!).

Who is your best ever bowler and how would they fare in this analysis?

Fred Trueman.

Probably Larwood and Verity from the old days.

Jim Laker (though a good case for Swann).

Maybe Botham as all rounder.

That's my attack.

I'd pick out Swann as the best from my lifetime. Simon Jones a big what if.

Barnes obviously stands out in his time, but stats of Victorian age players don't really make any sense by modern standards.

I'd rate a lot of bowlers I've seen for England as about the same. Willis, Underwood and Swann a bit ahead. Botham and Freddie stand out as all rounders. But there's about ten pace bowler who are really pointless to categorise, as they were about the same in ability.

Anderson
Broad
Caddick
Cork
Fraser
Gough
Harmison
Hendrick
Hoggard
Tremlett

The Jones and Headley who were unlucky.

Going back to the end of WWI, these are the bowling SRs on England bowlers with at least seventy wickets.

Hoggy is right up there.

Given the changes in the game, SR feels a better guide for pace bowlers (it doesn't make the spinners look good, but this list does highlight how good Swann was).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

Very flawed, though Hoggy was very good, and underrated.

Gough
Caddick
Harmison
Flintoff
Jimmy
Broad
Fraser
Hoggard

were/are about as good as each other. Only saw Bothsm post 1984, so missed his best years.

There is some merit to the BBCs analysis, but whenever you start monkeying around with stats you get some odd results. I don't think anyone with any knowledge of the game, or who has watched it for more than a decade would argue that Broad is amongst England's greatest bowlers.

John Snow for me, there haven't been many English bowlers who could put the fear of God into a batsman like Snow could.

Tremlett

Hoggard very good bowler, and under-rated..however Vaughan openly admitted that Hoggy would only tend to be used with the new ball, the donkey work was left to the other quicks, so he didn't tend to bowl much with the old ball..

cricketfan90 wrote:Hoggard very good bowler, and under-rated..however Vaughan openly admitted that Hoggy would only tend to be used with the new ball, the donkey work was left to the other quicks, so he didn't tend to bowl much with the old ball..

Pretty much true. Though he bowled decent reverse swing. If there was nothing happening, Freddie and Harmi would bowl.

You always thought on pitches that had bounce in them or lots of movement, he didnt do well. Hoggard had one real weapon, and that was late swing. He greatest moments (India away, South Africa away) came with either lots of seam movement off the deck, or the ball swinging very late when over pitched. In England, he often over pitched or did too much with the new ball at time. And on bouncy wickets in oz, the batsman needed to show little concern. Hoggard was probably born a decade too early, on pitches at the moment he would do better I think.

Personally, I would say Tremlett out of England's recent players was the person who really got me going. He knew how to use his height to pitch the ball in the right places at decent pace, and his best he was unplayable like few players ever are. Without injuries he would have made it to the very top, imo.

Si Jones was also shaping up to be an incredible player. I remember in 2004 at Lords when New Zealand were touring, on a fairly typically benign Lords post 2000 pitch, Jones kept running in for the second innings (he only picked up one wicket) and kept on beating the bat over and over again with quick reverse swing. Richie Benaud was commentating and I remember him saying that Jones was going to be a world beater.

Other than that, Flintoff's figures never really do him justice. Bowled lots of overs in tough situations, had he played in a more protected position he might have more favourable stats. Often thrown the ball to do the hard yards, and from a team perspective, was definately the most important bowler England have had..... could say the same about Swann after him.

Not really have a world class bowler in my lifetime of remembering cricketers.

Swann? Maybe no all time greats, but Swann at least was a world class bowler.

Tremlett, as you say, briefly, in the away Ashes, and particularly in that home match won after tea against SL at Cardiff, when he and Swann were borderline unplayable.

Maybe you can say that a world class player could get in a world XI of their time.Freddie, Swann, Tremlett and Anderson probably would have done that at some time in their careers.

Utter rubbish from Auntie here. This analysis just means that the modern players faced batsmen with higher averages, not that they are better bowlers.

FWIW from those I've seen, my attack would be Botham, Swann, Gough, Willis and Underwood.

If you're playing two spinners, four of those are hard to argue against. There are a few players about equal with Gough though, I think. Though Goughie is a great pick. I'd have to have Flintoff in there. Fraser if playing four seamers. In my time.