Yet to absorb this analysis - but first comments - no Warne or Mcgrath - wow :)
[[
Aditya
It is not that McGrath and Warne are not there. McGrath is in fact in the 7th position. Warne lower down. They are not in the top-5, that is all.
Ananth:
]]

Shouldn't run outs also be excluded? The wicket didn't got to any bowler, no different then retired hurt or innings declared.

The list of ratio of bowling averages is very useful. Look at top 5 for each country and you can figure out the best period for that country.(except for warne/mcgrath)

Also one look at the ratio of spinners/pacers and you get pretty good picture of each coutry's strength

3 bowlers below ratio of 1.Just good bowlers with decent bowlers as teammates.Wonder if 1 should be the cut off for the list

Nzl Chatfield E.J 0.96
Slk Vaas WPUJC 0.87
Nzl Vettori D.L 0.87

[[
Goel,
I did not specifically exclude run-outs since I wanted to work on 20 wickets (or thereabouts) per match as the key factor. Also it does not really matter. The bowlers' share would be slightly higher.
Ananth:
]]

Nice compilation here Ananth. Well Done.

I commend you on another good article, Ananth. Looking at tables 1&3 together Barnes Hadlee and Imran indeed deserve their places. Then there are bowlers such as Lohmann, Marshall, Donald, and Ambrose who have a very low avg in wins but so do their bowling mates, hence their lower ratios.
I feel there needs to be a measure combining the bowlers own avg in wins (not ratio) AND %wickets.

Another important measure that could be inserted is the ratio of the bowlers career (or career to date) avg to his avg in wins. This will show how much he raises his game in victories.

A good bowling team usually restricts the opposition in the first bowling innings thereby bowling to a smaller total in the 2nd inning too. So the avg. tends to be lower esp in the 2nd innings.

Any thoughts?

you have done a great job, i expect some thing more than this and some exiting stuff from you to keep up the pace. i firstly thank you all working for the cause.
i have a question to ask you, who are the cricketers contributed most for their teams to win most matches? and players with better vinning records?
why the world always forget the efforts of the sheet anchors?
do you feel that the greates players always collect records at the expence of their team? why the performence of the minnows was, is and would not be recognized in the media?
whom you rate the best cricketer in the world? a batsman, a bowler, an allrounder or a wicket keaper? asses and analyze the fact or fiction regarding this one with your finest men/women in the business? keep this in terms of over all performence in tests odis and tnts as well.
my last but not least request is for the version of cricket for the disabled visually challenged?

What you did not factor in was the fact that the great West Indian team in the 80's had so many wicket taking bowlers that most times a particular only got one spell. Therefore, the wickets was always shared rather than one bowler getting the lion share. Another factor you should factor in is that Richard Hadlee was NZ only strike bowler who carried his team on his back literally- and yet while his tally of wicket was high, his team winning ratio was small. So then I ask the question: Was Hadlee not a match winner? And how about Roberts,Holding, Garner, Walsh, and Bishop, were they not match winners too? The Big question for you is to ask yourself which these bowlers would you as a captain like to have in your team. Think about that, and maybe you will realize that statistics like what you have presented don't always tell the whole story.
[[
Angus
These facts are presented without conclusions or selections or profound pronouncements. These are simple tables which are presented for readers to draw their own conclusions and gain better insight. Like the fact that McGrath and Warne did not stand that high as individual bowlers but were great as a pair.
So draw your own conclusions. The factoring in and other nuances have been done in about 50 previous analyses. Every analysis need not contain all the fine tuning.
Ananth:
]]

Surprising results. I would never have expected Warne and Glenn McGrath to be absent from the Australian list of match winning bowlers. Maybe its the combination that worked.

Hi Anath,

Great job and good thought process. Your introduction to the article has popped up a few possible future analyses...Which team took the least wickets to win a test(minimum should be 10 assuming no retired hurts)2. Overall which team (may be decade wise) have taken the least & most wickets and runs for their victories....consider these analysis so that we can see the relative strength of bowling and batting of each team in each decade....
[[
Sesha
Your mail has given me an idea that I should, once in a while, do an article presenting a collection of snippets like the ones you have mentioned, which are not big enough to fill an entire article but deserve a paragraph or two.
Thanks
Ananth:
]]

Interesting analysis. As with the similar batting analysis this also indicates the mediocrity of the rest of the bowlers in the team…considering that the likes of Murali, Hadlee, Kumble have high percentages. Also, considering that all the top Indian bowlers are spinners, just goes to show how pathetic a bowling unit India was till a few years back.Steyn is a bit of a surprise, but these are relatively early days for him…and he will require to play at least twice the number of matches more in both formats ( maintaining his standards) before we can fairly compare him to the legends. Lillee, my all time favourite bowler, is the biggest and most pleasant surprise!! Much like Tendulkar, the way he came back from injury (doctors told Lillee he may never walk again, never mind bowl)-strengthening his body, restructuring and remodeling his entire bowling action and technique and STILL being able to perform at the highest level…Talent, brute force of will, bloody minded toughness…the Ultimate fast bowler. Love it when some entirely unexpected stats and analysis reinforce some old notions!

@aditya jha…again goes to show the depth of the Aus team!! Blasphemy though it may seem, I would wager that even without McGrath the Aus team would have done as well. They have always produced quality quicks. Warney would have been much more difficult to replace.
[[
Abhi
As I had explained to Angus, in many of the analysis I let the readers draw their own conclusions. They are, of course, free to share their views with other readers. McGrath/Warne and the great West Indian fast bowlers would not figure at the top in such an analysis since they necessarily had to share the spoils. In no way does this lower their greatness an iota. In their own diffrerent ways, Warne, Murali and Kumble share the pedestal.
An aside. Can you send in a comment with a mailid through which I can reach you. Your current id seems to be a dummy one and bounces mails. The mailid will remain confidential with me.
Ananth:
]]

In order for a bowler to do well in this measure he needs to meet at least three of the following criteria:

1 The bowler was very good
2 He had the ability to bowl long spells
3 He was utilized to his optimal capacity
4 The conditions generally suited his style of bowling
5 The other bowlers in his team were fairly weak
6 The opposition batsmen were generally below average
7 The statistical depth is insufficient

Barnes ticks boxes 2 to 7; Murali boxes 1 to 6; and Hadlee boxes 1, 3 and 5. That is why they are at the top of the list.

Roberts, Holding, Marshall and Garner only meet the first criteria and are therefore not high on the list.
[[
Deon
I am not saying that I agree with all your conclusions. However the idea , subjective though it is, is very nice.
Kumble is probably 1 to 4. Warne, 1 to 3 and so on.
In defence of Barnes, let me suggest that either any 3 or 2-7 should do.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth - congratulations on a top class article. One suggestion: in the long run (cut-off of, say, 40 wins), normal distribution may be expected to figure in somehow. Your columns give the mean values ... could you pls consider adding a column on variance? Thanks.

Ananth-
Very stimulating analysis. It started me thinking in different ways. Not surprisingly perhaps, in the top five by %-age of wickets, Hadlee, Barnes and Muralitharan are way ahead of the second bowler for their respective countries. I also notice that among the top five WI bowlers by % of wickets, the spread is the least ~3.5%. Interesting also to find Ramadhin in the top five ! Moreover, other than Ramadhin the careers of the other WI bowlers overlapped quite a bit when WI were the dominant force. Also, the %-spread among the top five Pakistan bowlers is 5% (least after WI). Interestingly, both Ramadhin and Kaneria are spinners while rest of top five in respective teams are fast bowlers. For both WI and Pak these fast bowlers had overlapping careers with their other team-mates in the top five %-age of wickets list. Intriguing stuff !

Ananth: thanks for taking the suggestion. But obvious that it wouldn't make any difference when all denominators are same.
No further comments on this article as the idea is same.
Waiting for the batting analysis ....

Hello sir, refreshing article as always.
Is it possible for you to do an analysis on captains. To analyse which captains brought out the best in their players for instance dravid averaged about 71 under ganguly which is 19 more than his career mean and kumble averaged 24 with the ball under azhar which is 5 less than his career mean. Any chance of an analysis under these aspects. Am sorry if it sounds tedious. thanks
[[
Ashwath
Captains' analysis has been done already. Pl look at earlier articles.
Ananth:
]]

good to see grimmett there in the top of aussie lists.a forgotten genius.
warne&mcgrath not in the top 5 maybe because they were the go to men when times where tough & wickets hard to come by.
[[
Ted
They are not in the top 5 because of the reasons you mention. They are not there because they shared the wickets. Still McGrath is in 6th position.
Ananth:
]]

This analysis is a prominent measure of how pathetic the other bowlers in the team were. It is also the reason why Warne and McGrath are somewhat lower in the table, because they had each other for support, besides thier teammates like Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie were good bowlers in thier own right.

I do not know much about Syd Barnes but his stats are really too good.
As far as Hadlee and Murali are concerned, they hardly got any support from the rest of the team. This was the main reason of their percentages going up. When Sir Hadlee retired from Test Cricket with 431 wickets in his kitty, Lance Cairns was New Zealand's next highest wicket taker with 130 wickets.
Glenn McGrath and Warne do not find a place in tehe list due to exactly opposite reasons. Whole of the team was such a great unit that all the bowlers were amongst wickets, a few at least. Due to similar reasons the percentage of Garner, Holding and Wasim Akram are not so high.