Greatest Bowler Ever? - Ultimate Analysis!!

[Blitz]

Okay, due to popular demand, and the fact I’m not scared of Pakistani bowlers possibly not appearing on the lists, I have finally decided to do part 2. The bowlers edition.

I’ve also improved on the last version. This time, it’s done by innings. The biggest gap between bowlers will be just 1 innings now, since I’ve 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’ve 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’s 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 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’re going to find out exactly what the British have been saying for so long.


30 Innings:



It’s quite incredible to think that people got 100 wickets in 30 innings. That’s 15 matches!

I’ve hardly ever heard Turner’s name mentioned, even when we talk about the great players of old such as Barnes. He’s 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’s 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’ve all known for a long while he’s a legend in the making.


50 Innings:



Waqar 2nd on both lists, and showing exactly how good he once was.
Also, I’m 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’m 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’s 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’ve 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!


80 Innings:



Steyn still up there with the legends, and what’s more impressive about him is I think he’s 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?

[Blitz]

110 Innings:




I’m 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 don’t 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 arn’t everything!


120 Innings:



It’s a Pakistan forum, and thats why I’m possibly more interested in this. As we go through ‘time’, 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.



Toppped 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’s 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?

[pakistanalltheway]

some great analysis.

[Robert]

Fascinating analysis.

I'm amazed that Botham stayed ahead of Marshall's wickets tally for so long, showing how brilliant he was in his first fifty or so tests.

Look at how Lillee, Imran and Hadlee suddenly come shooting up too!

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Robert Fascinating analysis. I'm amazed that Botham stayed ahead of Marshall's wickets tally for so long, showing how brilliant he was in his first fifty or so tests. Look at how Lillee, Imran and Hadlee suddenly come shooting up too!

Yea, Botham's stats really suprised me. And he was dominant on both tables, unlike a lot of other players.

Added to this match-winning ability with the bat, I'm starting to think he may be a little underrated on Pakpassion!

[WakaWaka]

Brilliant, on so many levels.

Shows you things that we don't really see normally in stats.


POTW contender.

[kasoo10]

Very good analysis and a good way to settle the debate statistically. People will still continue to have favourits and perferences.

As you mentioned most lethal bowler is usually played with caution and may not endup getting more wickets. In order to bring this into equation may I ask, if you can, also include scoring rate against the bower in the table?

Also, we have judges in every match, and they give away man of the match awards. Can we also include man of the match awards won by a bowler at each of the stages. Man of the match award can have 1 point for each bowler.

[speed]

not only does waqar show that he is the best fast bowler he also has 1 of the best s/r i think steyn has better.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by kasoo10 As you mentioned most lethal bowler is usually played with caution and may not endup getting more wickets. In order to bring this into equation may I ask, if you can, also include scoring rate against the bower in the table?

While economy is a good way to look at it, there arn't accurate figures for economy for all the bowlers.

Originally Posted by kasoo10 Also, we have judges in every match, and they give away man of the match awards. Can we also include man of the match awards won by a bowler at each of the stages. Man of the match award can have 1 point for each bowler.

Its a good idea that I considered, but realised there is a big problem with Man of Matches.

Its not a statistic per say. Its someone's opinion......which makes it irrelavent to this thread.

For example, home players are always favoured. Even when a team loses, admins where possible give a home player a MoM to give something to the crowd to cheer about.

[VTEC]

Excellent analysis top notch

Well only query is Shaun Pollock i mean he has a Strike Rate of 60 in Tests and Strike Rate should play a Key in the Analysis and Final Rankings no?

Simply put would u choose Pollock over Marshal or even Imran?

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by VTEC Excellent analysis top notch Well only query is Shaun Pollock i mean he has a Strike Rate of 60 in Tests and Strike Rate should play a Key in the Analysis and Final Rankings no? Simply put would u choose Pollock over Marshal or even Imran?

Yea, I did mention that in last paragraph.

Being great in both tables is vital!

Pollock got 88% of his points from just his average.

[adi_6294]

and waqar played most of his matches in asia...so thats give the height of his greatness...taking wickets in unfriendly wickets for bowling....
waqar...u beauty..!!!!

[kasoo10]

I disagree on MoM point mentioned above. It is accurate 95% of the times, including draw test matches. It is very rare that people will disagree with MoM decission. Also MoM is always from the winning side, does not matter if it is visitors or home team. Only occassion where MoM is given to a loosing side is when somone does exceptionally well but still ends up loosing the game.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by kasoo10 I disagree on MoM point mentioned above. It is accurate 95% of the times, including draw test matches. It is very rare that people will disagree with MoM decission. Also MoM is always from the winning side, does not matter if it is visitors or home team. Only occassion where MoM is given to a loosing side is when somone does exceptionally well but still ends up loosing the game.

Man of Matches were really rare before the 1990s. No idea why, but people just didn't hand them out.

Really, really can't use it as a statistic. Trust me.

[BD-fan]

POTW. Very well done. It is a 3NT bid and make with 25 total points both hands.

[MR__KHAN__JI]

Waqar and Malcolm Marshall....

Special....

[WakaWaka]

Originally Posted by BD-fan POTW. Very well done. It is a 3NT bid and make with 25 total points both hands.

lol?

[Ironcat]

Again, my problem with this analysis is that it rewards those who dd well earlier in their careers vs those who bloomed later and became more potent.

Otherwise, good hard work!

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Ironcat Again, my problem with this analysis is that it rewards those who dd well earlier in their careers vs those who bloomed later and became more potent. Otherwise, good hard work!

Thats where the points system comes in.


So its the duration of your greatness rather then when you did it.

[Ironcat]

Secondly, the point system seems to be a bit too extreme. In an era if one bowler topped three lists, he would already have a 30 point lead against someone who hasn't entered the top 10 yet.

That is, link your points to averages as an example. A #1's 20 average vs #10's 22 average shouldn't result in a loss of 9 points.

[cricketworm]

I am not fan of analysis that just evaluate the players based on number of wickets/runs and averages, and listing them 1-10 ranks.

No revelation of condition, situation, countries ... nothing.

e.g. Warne and Wasim might not be higher than most of the bowlers listed, but they get in all time XI, every single time, while others may not make a list despite being in top 10 here.

Otherwise, it's very good work piling up the information.

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by Blitz Thats where the points system comes in. So its the duration of your greatness rather then when you did it.

Yes, but the difference in points is still extreme to reverse the effect. As an example, if one bowler topped one list and never appeared again, but another bowler appeared on 10 lists but at the bottom - under this system, they would both be equal.

[cricketworm]

btw. Shaun VERY UNDERRATED Pollock.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Ironcat Secondly, the point system seems to be a bit too extreme. In an era if one bowler topped three lists, he would already have a 30 point lead against someone who hasn't entered the top 10 yet. That is, link your points to averages as an example. A #1's 20 average vs #10's 22 average shouldn't result in a loss of 9 points.

Are you complaining for the sake of complaining?

Firstly, theres 2 lists, not 3.


Secondly, giving points to averages makes no sense, because it doesn't work for wickets.

What then. 1 extra point for each wicket? You know what that will give you. Amount of wickets taken!


A loss of 9 points for an average of 2 makes no sense.

Look at it this way. There are 9 people better then you, so you are placed 10th. Nothing more, nothing less!

[shan]

Waqar was deadly early on in his carrer. Pakistan need another all time great bowler with test average of 25 or less. Maybe Amir will be that great if he comes back.

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by Blitz Are you complaining for the sake of complaining? Firstly, theres 2 lists, not 3. Secondly, giving points to averages makes no sense, because it doesn't work for wickets. What then. 1 extra point for each wicket? You know what that will give you. Amount of wickets taken! A loss of 9 points for an average of 2 makes no sense. Look at it this way. There are 9 people better then you, so you are placed 10th. Nothing more, nothing less!

Sake of complaining? The difference between a 20 average and a 22 average is 10%. Based on your list, that difference is 90%! Does that make sense?

[Bewal Express]

Having lived through the period Waqar is highly overrated. He was a good bowler but after the initial burst in 1990, he got a serious injury and was never the same bowler. After that he had some decent stats but against the top teams he was harmless for the most part.

[cricketworm]

Another example, I don't want to be harsh on Waqar because I think he is one of the all time Pak. greats, but his numbers are exaggerated from taking lots of wickets against NZ and SL. Both team are not top level test teams, esp SL was really weak test team, they were literally born during that period. But his numbers against Aus. and esp. in Aus. are very okish. And very bad against India.

Compare that to Wasim Akram his stats are pretty much stable against all countries except SA, where he played only 2 tests.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Ironcat Sake of complaining? The difference between a 20 average and a 22 average is 10%. Based on your list, that difference is 90%! Does that make sense?

Its very hard to explain to someone who doesn't want to understand, but just wants to complain.


If I give points according to average, we just have another way to state averages! Look:


Player A: 19 avg
Player B: 20 avg
Player C: 21 avg
Player D: 22 avg.


Points.

10
9
8
7


See? Its a different scale, but your not adding anything to the average stat!

Writing numbers from english to arabic doesn't change its meaning. They are the same!


This is a different analysis that awards your position. Not your average.

Its the reason why it works! If you want to do your way....you just have to go to cricinfo, records, bowling averages. Plain and boring.

[khalil1986]

Stunning work Blitz, POTW.

[Bewal Express]

The best test pace bowlers i have seen in my time:
Marshall
Mcgrath
Imran
Donald
Ambrose
Hadlee
Wasim
Pollack
Mcdermott
Waqar

[talha3]

Excellent analysis again.

But I agree with Ironcat. IMO it's more an analysis of who started their international career's the best. This would be fine if every bowler began their careers at the same age, with the same FC exposure. But that's not the case:

- Credit has to be given to those who, even after playing 100 innings, people couldn't work out how to play (prime example - Wasim)
- Some bowlers worked out their game (matured) later on than others, perhaps because they started playing at an earlier age.

IMO a greatest bowler ever analysis would not consider a player's first 100 innings, but a player's best consecutive 100 innings (i.e peak) and then comparing who had the best peak.

Anyway I'm not slating your analysis at all. Great work and insightful points made.

[Blitz]

Talha, do you want me to discount anyone who takes a wicket in their first 50 innings?!


Its a simple analysis, who was awesome, for the greatest amount of TIME.

The analysis above, in statistics is a time series.


Who was the greatest for the greatest amount of TIME.

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by Blitz Its very hard to explain to someone who doesn't want to understand, but just wants to complain. If I give points according to average, we just have another way to state averages! Look: Player A: 19 avg Player B: 20 avg Player C: 21 avg Player D: 22 avg. Points. 10 9 8 7 See? Its a different scale, but your not adding anything to the average stat! Writing numbers from english to arabic doesn't change its meaning. They are the same! This is a different analysis that awards your position. Not your average. Its the reason why it works! If you want to do your way....you just have to go to cricinfo, records, bowling averages. Plain and boring.

Umm, no. There's a very simple way to convert those to points.

19 average = 100/19 points
20 average = 100/20 points
21 average = 100/21 points
22 average = 100/22 points

If you ever went to college, your GPA was calculated the same way. Nobody just took your ranking in classes and added them up.

[WakaWaka]

When someone posts a table from cricinfo, theres forum wise acclaim offered.

When someone like Blitz works to provide a unique analysis, something that is rare on the forum, suddenly everyone is an expert. One has to wonder, why do these people never post these threads? Blitz does it all the time.

[Blitz]

Ironcat.

There are 10 points up for grab. Same as wickets. Your scale gives points which don't equate wickets topping. So you will get different points for topping one table, and different for other.

Its a very simple analysis, but you are offering something that is irrelevant to the thread.

We'll agree to disagree. I'll end it at that. No more need for your immense wisdom, for it is too much for me.

[talha3]

Originally Posted by Blitz Talha, do you want me to discount anyone who takes a wicket in their first 50 innings?! Its a simple analysis, who was awesome, for the greatest amount of TIME. The analysis above, in statistics is a time series. Who was the greatest for the greatest amount of TIME.

I take your point. But aren't you discounting bowlers who were great after their first 100 innings? All the wickets they took after 100 innings?

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by talha3 I take your point. But aren't you discounting bowlers who were great after their first 100 innings? All the wickets they took after 100 innings?

If I didn't already rack up so many warning points, I would start swearing.


THERES A 2ND POST WHICH COVERS INNINGS AFTER 100!!!


I feel like crying.

[WakaWaka]

Originally Posted by talha3 I take your point. But aren't you discounting bowlers who were great after their first 100 innings? All the wickets they took after 100 innings?

Did you just do that on purpose to troll?

[duostyle]

Interesting POV as always, Blitz.

Originally Posted by cricketworm No revelation of condition, situation, countries ... nothing.

Yep, cricket isn't just about pure numbers.

But statistically, no arguments against Murali being the best bowler here (even makes a helluva case accounting other factors).

[talha3]

Originally Posted by Blitz If I didn't already rack up so many warning points, I would start swearing. THERES A 2ND POST WHICH COVERS INNINGS AFTER 100!!! I feel like crying.

Apologies. It's me being stupid.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by talha3 Apologies. It's me being stupid.

Its okay.

No worries

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by Blitz Ironcat. There are 10 points up for grab. Same as wickets. Your scale gives points which don't equate wickets topping. So you will get different points for topping one table, and different for other. Its a very simple analysis, but you are offering something that is irrelevant to the thread. We'll agree to disagree. I'll end it at that. No more need for your immense wisdom, for it is too much for me.

Again, a simple answer being made complicated.

You just have to separate the wickets and the average rankings and combine them using any weight of your choice in the end. You already did it in each table when you combined the two columns 50/50.

[Alexander]

Great post. Thank you for the effort Blitz.

[test_fan]

Great effort, thanks and great that you considered number of innings instead of number of matches, wish you had done that for the batting list too.

[Kwremb]

I think you could take SR in to the equation and award point for it as well?

[Romali_rotti]

Mcgrath for me, as much I hated him when he played, in my OP he is the best..............

[madaboutcricket]

For me Ambrose and McGrath are two best fast bowlers in the last two decade. Ambrose is the best I have ever seen. He is even better than Marshall or any of the other WestIndian fast bowlers.

[lilFlip]

Thanks for this great thread. I read somewhere that Imran once said that "Waqar can be greatest of all times, even better than Marshall"

[paulkatich]

Originally Posted by shan Waqar was deadly early on in his carrer. Pakistan need another all time great bowler with test average of 25 or less. Maybe Amir will be that great if he comes back.

Get over it dude. You still support a cheater who claimed he is innocent first and later too young to know good and bad.

[paulkatich]

Originally Posted by Romali_rotti Mcgrath for me, as much I hated him when he played, in my OP he is the best..............

Yes and Shane warne too.

[Anfield]

Originally Posted by Kwremb I think you could take SR in to the equation and award point for it as well?

exactly! SR is a very important aspect as well. Can't leave it out. I think there should be a column for SR as well. It would add another dimension to these brilliant analysis. Award points for SR as well.

[iHammad]

So Waqar Younis was the best fast bowler ever!

[MR__KHAN__JI]

Originally Posted by kabir000 Having lived through the period Waqar is highly overrated. He was a good bowler but after the initial burst in 1990, he got a serious injury and was never the same bowler. After that he had some decent stats but against the top teams he was harmless for the most part.

I think that during that initial burst as you put it... He was untouchable.

There was no one better part from Malcolm Marshall.

[MR__KHAN__JI]

Originally Posted by Anfield exactly! SR is a very important aspect as well. Can't leave it out. I think there should be a column for SR as well. It would add another dimension to these brilliant analysis. Award points for SR as well.

Strike rate is the most important stat for a bowler....

[Liverpool_Faizan]

Wasim Akram is still the best. Dont care what stats say. He had everything plus he was one of the daddies of reverse swing.

[justarslan]

Originally Posted by Liverpool_Faizan Wasim Akram is still the best. Dont care what stats say. He had everything plus he was one of the daddies of reverse swing.

It was invented by Sarfraz Nawaz and perfected by Imran, who handed it down to Wasim and Waqar.

[justarslan]

THE GREATEST

Ignore the haters mainly Indians who are clueless about bowling anyway.

[DeadlyVenom]

Top analysis once again mate. People making these "suggestions" for improvement should maybe try such an in depth analysis themselves?

[stormy]

Great to see Waqar on Second place...

[Blitz]

I know a lot of people are mentioning Strike Rate.

And I fully agree.

But the work required for it was immense. More so then average and wickets.


Think I might add it as DLC later

[Shayan]

Excellent analysis, very interesting to read.

Perhaps Pollock's success could be partially explained by the amount of bowling he did on South African pitches? He was the sort of bowler that would be deadly if there was any sort of lateral movement.

[Energy]

Great read, like the batting counterpart!

Waqar remains as our best bowler ever and one of the greatest fast bowlers cricket has seen.

[khurramjamil]

Wow... great analysis my dear! .. wonderful read.. and love your comments in between.. Keep up the good work mate!

[wrongun]

But Murali had no competition for wickets and took 170+ wickets against Zimb/Bangladesh. It skews the results even among those who played in his era (literally 10 x more than Warne faced the same opponents for example).

[zulfiqar]

Interesting analysis and does show progress of all the top players!

I also agree with another opinion earlier stated here that it would be even better and fairer to compare an X amount of innings where the player played at his peak, i.e. waqar's best X # of consecutive innings. Cuz this way, bowlers who started off badly are forever penalized as they have to make up for lost ground. i.e, if you count these same stats starting from the last 10 innings played all the way up to their first game, the rankings will change drastically and there should be no reason for a bowler to be awarded for starting off prolifically any more than someone who is just as prolific or even more prolific in a later part of his career.

just an easy example, bowler A takes 5 wickets every innings for 10 innings (50 wkts)
bowler B takes 3 wickets ea. his first 5 innings, and then 7 wickets ea. in next 5 (50 wkts)

with your scale, bowler A will probably score huge for a very long time while bowler B wont even appear in the list until the end 10%

[zulfiqar]

nevertheless cool analysis, and the one thing this analysis shows more than anything is how good Botham was for the first half of his career before he swindled wayyy down!

[stormy]

by reading your analysis, now i have some respect for Ian Botham

[shades]

Interesting but flawed analysis. Averages and medians are accepted methods due to really solid quantitative reasons.
Anyways for expirement sake, you can try using the best 10 innings for each bowler followed by next best etc. This way late bloomers will not be penalised.
By the by, I too would rate Akram over Waqar any day.

[Gotham Cronie]

Great Analysis!

Strong feedback on PakPassion's Facebook Page

https://www.facebook.com/#!/PakpassionOfficialPage

[BD-fan]

Amaizing part is Murali 150 - Warne 28. Not a single time Warne made it in the Average list. Not once.

Is there any comparison even? Either these stats are just stats or those who even consider Warne to compete with Murali - they are as dumb.

[MR__KHAN__JI]

Where is the strike rate analysis? It's the most important stat.

[DC]

Very interestring analysis. Good job Blitz.

[wrongun]

Originally Posted by BD-fan Amaizing part is Murali 150 - Warne 28. Not a single time Warne made it in the Average list. Not once. Is there any comparison even? Either these stats are just stats or those who even consider Warne to compete with Murali - they are as dumb.

Do your research, stop being ignorant.

If you take out Muralis 170+ wickets against bangladesh & Zimbabwe (whom Warne hardly played, so take his vs them out too haha) their records are almost identical.

[cricketworm]

Originally Posted by duostyle Yep, cricket isn't just about pure numbers. But statistically, no arguments against Murali being the best bowler here (even makes a helluva case accounting other factors).

Numbers helps capturing large part of Cricket history.

Let's just say Mulali is gifted Machine-Terminator and Warne is magician-the Wizard.

[Arcturus]

great analysis with some very painstaking research.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Gotham Cronie Great Analysis! Strong feedback on PakPassion's Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/#!/PakpassionOfficialPage

Woah, nice to get on facebook


Although, I think I would have preferred one of my other analysis to get up on facebook.

For example Kapil v Razzaq. The hate on facebook could have propelled me to Liew levels!

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Liverpool_Faizan Wasim Akram is still the best. Dont care what stats say.

Rabid fanboiism will always trump logic and reason.

[violet_may]

Originally Posted by Blitz Woah, nice to get on facebook Although, I think I would have preferred one of my other analysis to get up on facebook. For example Kapil v Razzaq. The hate on facebook could have propelled me to Liew levels!

Ah yes, I remember that thread. I very much enjoyed it, being a razzler fan and all

Not a bad idea to put it up on FB.

[BD-fan]

Originally Posted by WakaWaka Originally Posted by BD-fan It is a 3NT bid and make with 25 total points both hands. lol?

Only very few would know the codes.