Wrt the recency bias about Bumrah, my instinct would be to compare Bumrah to Waqar, who has very similar numbers in the first half of his career but my very uneducated guess (I was too young to actually see Waqar bowl other than YouTube highlights) is that Bumrah is just a more well-rounded bowler? We also have the good fortune of having Bumrah in this era of sports science, where his injuries and workload are being managed much better than someone like Waqar, whose career was probably never the same after he came back from his injuries.
This seems a fair comparison. I think if Bumrah continues on this trajectory he definitely *could* be the best ever, but it’s just too soon to make that call over other bowlers with 2x to 3x more wickets than him currently.
You should read the book “The Art of Batting” which has a list of the 50 greatest Test batters, which I pretty much agree with. Thinking of doing one for ODI batters though!
Not in the top 30 mate. You’re about as crook as that Pommie barstard Berry. Why don’t you have a go in the nets and see if I can change your mind. Even at 74, I reckon I’ll have you jumping around like a kangaroo on hot coals. Cricinfo says I’m ‘possibly the fastest bowler ever’.
I don’t think batsmen are technically that good these days. Cameron Green and Sam Konstas wouldn’t have played much test cricket in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Malcolm Marshall is easily the best I’ve ever seen. Probably have Garner and Ambrose in the top 5 too.
Great post. My prediction is that Bumrah could well end up overbowled like Waqar and struggle to reinvent himself later in his career: unlike, say, DKL or Sir RJH. Or McGrath for that matter.
Yup, it is that longevity and ability to reinvent oneself that I value in ranking the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Sir Paddles higher. It's just a case of TBC with Bumrah at the moment.
However, I wouldn't argue especially hard if you flipped those two. I found it very difficult to know where to put Holding - he could have gone as high as maybe 12 or 13, I reckon.
In fairness it’s not easy to rank a good bowler who had little support versus a superb one who did. I am a bit of a sucker for aesthetics though which gives me a bias towards “whispering death”.
I’m an Aussie and I find the Johnson one a bit weird. If it was ‘who was the bowler you’d least like to face at peak force for a session’ he’d be top 3 with Ambrose and Bumrah, but he was never consistent enough. You cant have a player playing at 1, you just can’t. Hazlewood has never been the lead bowler in his career, so I’d have Starc above him. I’d have Ambrose number 1, that dude was just so damn frightening to watch as an Oz fan. McGrath second.
Fair point though, and I found Holding (and Roberts even moreso) a really difficult one to judge. I think you could put him as high as maybe 12 or 13 and I wouldn't argue too hard with you. That 10-25 range is really tricky to differentiate, it's a case of splitting hairs.
My view is that these lists are often too weighted to modern cricketers who have taken lots of wickets. If Trueman, say, was around now, he’d have taken bucket loads more wickets that, say Broad.
This is why it pains me when pundits blithely state the Anderson is the best English bowler of all time, when he clearly isn’t based on average and strike rate.
Interesting post — I’d perhaps call Berry’s original a conversation starter, rather than clickbait, but maybe I’m giving too much credit to The Telegraph…it used to be a high quality newspaper.
“The primary qualifying criteria is to be a seam bowler who has taken at least 150 Test wickets.”
Personally, I’d set the qualification as impact as an outright fast bowler — someone who has consistently dismissed Test batters with pace alone.
So as great a bowler as McGrath clearly was, was he a great _fast_ bowler? Similarly for Vaas and Barnes, SF (was he ever called “Syd”?) — great _bowlers_, but not truly _fast_.
Personally, I would probably rank Malcolm Marshall top of the list, with his combination of pace, movement & control.
Hahaha in fairness, I did mean this to be tongue-in-cheek - clickbait is perhaps a *touch* harsh, and it did succeed in its purpose as a conversation-starter. Scyld and I ultimately agree on 22/30 of the bowlers (even if not the order), and even the 8 I don't agree with aren't exactly outrageous selections. Hopefully it all came across in the intended playful spirit.
I do take your point on the "fast" vs "seam/swerve" distinction, and it's a fair one. If I was going to get into this *properly*, I'd probably want to split it into three different lists: fast bowlers, seam/swing bowlers, and spinners.
Wrt the recency bias about Bumrah, my instinct would be to compare Bumrah to Waqar, who has very similar numbers in the first half of his career but my very uneducated guess (I was too young to actually see Waqar bowl other than YouTube highlights) is that Bumrah is just a more well-rounded bowler? We also have the good fortune of having Bumrah in this era of sports science, where his injuries and workload are being managed much better than someone like Waqar, whose career was probably never the same after he came back from his injuries.
This seems a fair comparison. I think if Bumrah continues on this trajectory he definitely *could* be the best ever, but it’s just too soon to make that call over other bowlers with 2x to 3x more wickets than him currently.
Hey , replying a little late but can you please make a similar list for the Top 30 all time greatest Test/ODI batsmen ?
You should read the book “The Art of Batting” which has a list of the 50 greatest Test batters, which I pretty much agree with. Thinking of doing one for ODI batters though!
Oh thanks for the recommendation , will surely look it up.
And as you're thinking about making one about ODI batsmen can you make one for top ODI bowlers too ?
BTW your test list is quite balanced and well rounded 👌 (although would have loved to see bumrah in atleast top 5, but that's just my bias 😅)
Not in the top 30 mate. You’re about as crook as that Pommie barstard Berry. Why don’t you have a go in the nets and see if I can change your mind. Even at 74, I reckon I’ll have you jumping around like a kangaroo on hot coals. Cricinfo says I’m ‘possibly the fastest bowler ever’.
Jeffrey Robert Thomson
Well he at least deserved an honorable mention, that’s my bad!
If you ain’t got Two-Up on your list you’re no better than a batsman.
I don’t think batsmen are technically that good these days. Cameron Green and Sam Konstas wouldn’t have played much test cricket in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Malcolm Marshall is easily the best I’ve ever seen. Probably have Garner and Ambrose in the top 5 too.
Great post. My prediction is that Bumrah could well end up overbowled like Waqar and struggle to reinvent himself later in his career: unlike, say, DKL or Sir RJH. Or McGrath for that matter.
Yup, it is that longevity and ability to reinvent oneself that I value in ranking the likes of McGrath, Marshall, Sir Paddles higher. It's just a case of TBC with Bumrah at the moment.
Great article!
Well analyzed, argued, and put together the list.
Thank you, I appreciate it!
I think Scyld Berry needs to take a nap!
PS: Hadlee at 4?! Unsubscribed ;)
Because he's not at one, presumably? Totally fair ;)
Kapil Dev>Holding. Seriously? Also worth stripping out the fast-medium bowlers and focus exclusively on the truly fast men.
184 extra Test wickets (434 vs 249) is a lot!
However, I wouldn't argue especially hard if you flipped those two. I found it very difficult to know where to put Holding - he could have gone as high as maybe 12 or 13, I reckon.
In fairness it’s not easy to rank a good bowler who had little support versus a superb one who did. I am a bit of a sucker for aesthetics though which gives me a bias towards “whispering death”.
He's certainly number one on the list of nicknames, I'll give you that!
I’m an Aussie and I find the Johnson one a bit weird. If it was ‘who was the bowler you’d least like to face at peak force for a session’ he’d be top 3 with Ambrose and Bumrah, but he was never consistent enough. You cant have a player playing at 1, you just can’t. Hazlewood has never been the lead bowler in his career, so I’d have Starc above him. I’d have Ambrose number 1, that dude was just so damn frightening to watch as an Oz fan. McGrath second.
Michael Holding way down at 20-something. What have you been smoking?
Quite a lot, in fairness.
Fair point though, and I found Holding (and Roberts even moreso) a really difficult one to judge. I think you could put him as high as maybe 12 or 13 and I wouldn't argue too hard with you. That 10-25 range is really tricky to differentiate, it's a case of splitting hairs.
My view is that these lists are often too weighted to modern cricketers who have taken lots of wickets. If Trueman, say, was around now, he’d have taken bucket loads more wickets that, say Broad.
This is why it pains me when pundits blithely state the Anderson is the best English bowler of all time, when he clearly isn’t based on average and strike rate.
We’re in agreement on this, it’s a similar recency bias to what Bumrah is getting right now.
Interesting post — I’d perhaps call Berry’s original a conversation starter, rather than clickbait, but maybe I’m giving too much credit to The Telegraph…it used to be a high quality newspaper.
“The primary qualifying criteria is to be a seam bowler who has taken at least 150 Test wickets.”
Personally, I’d set the qualification as impact as an outright fast bowler — someone who has consistently dismissed Test batters with pace alone.
So as great a bowler as McGrath clearly was, was he a great _fast_ bowler? Similarly for Vaas and Barnes, SF (was he ever called “Syd”?) — great _bowlers_, but not truly _fast_.
Personally, I would probably rank Malcolm Marshall top of the list, with his combination of pace, movement & control.
Hahaha in fairness, I did mean this to be tongue-in-cheek - clickbait is perhaps a *touch* harsh, and it did succeed in its purpose as a conversation-starter. Scyld and I ultimately agree on 22/30 of the bowlers (even if not the order), and even the 8 I don't agree with aren't exactly outrageous selections. Hopefully it all came across in the intended playful spirit.
I do take your point on the "fast" vs "seam/swerve" distinction, and it's a fair one. If I was going to get into this *properly*, I'd probably want to split it into three different lists: fast bowlers, seam/swing bowlers, and spinners.