Muttiah Muralitharan leads the bowlers' list for the period 1970 to 2009 © AFP

I have learnt a lot through the Test Batsmen analysis. First and foremost is that doing a single comparison table over 134 years is not the correct method. Test cricket has changed probably 1080 degrees over the years and there cannot be a single yardstick for all the players. Hence I have separated the analysis into multiple periods.

Period Separation:

These periods have been identified with lot of thought and deliberation with inputs from a few interested readers. Many related factors have gone into this process. Separate tables will be prepared for different periods. In addition, I will show, in the follow-up article, two tables separating the bowlers by type of bowling. This will be only for information.

- The bowling era: 1877-1914 (134 Tests and 370 players)
- The batting era: 1920-1969 (535 Tests and 980 players)
- The balanced era: 1970-2009 (1251 Tests and 1220 players).

The first era is so different from the rest of the years that it is essential to separate it into a single one despite the paucity of Tests. Uncovered pitches, 3-day Test matches, 110+ overs bowled in a day, compulsory follow-ons, low average scores et al are some of the features.

The second era was where batting was king. However, the in-between wars period was lit up by the wonderful batting of Bradman, Hammond. Headley, McCabe et al and was the golden era of batting. Still the results were plentiful. What followed the WW-2 was unfortunate. These years were batting dominated. However the batting was defensive and the matches were driven by the desire not to lose, rather than to win. The new teams, India and Pakistan, the weaker New Zealand and the defensive strong teams contributed a lot to this situation. These 50 years form a separate era. There are lot of similarities within the two sub-periods in terms of numbers.

The third era is the most balanced era of all. This era saw great bowlers such as Lillee, Holding, Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Kapil Dev, Muralitharan, Warne, Kumble et al. It also saw the presence of great batsmen such as Richards, Greg Chappell, Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Miandad, Dravid, Gooch, Jayawardene et al. Thus there were great contests. As such this was a great balanced era and even though the number of Tests is quite high, this is a logical grouping.

As done for the Batting analysis, the analysis is done in two parts. The first is based on Match Performances and the second part is based on the Career achievements. Many people are under the misapprehension that Match Performance is based on team achievements. This is completely wrong. The Match Performance refers to the concerned bowlers' performances during the specific match and what happened in the match. The only team achievement considered is the result which, at the end of the day, is the most important aspect of any match.

A. Match Performances (Maximum 40 points)

The following factors are used to analyze the match performances of bowlers. The total points secured is divided by the number of innspells (my own term indicating a qualifying bowling stint, taking care to exclude bowling efforts such as 5-0-17-0 et al).

Base points
- Wickets captured
- Balls bowled - to recognize long spells
- Batsmen dismissed - based on his score at time of dismissal
Multiplicative factors
- Overall quality of batting team (primarily top-7 batsmen)
- Bowling accuracy (relative to the innings scoring rate)
- Match-related pitch characteristics
- An adjustment for pace bowlers bowling in the Asian subcontinent and spinners bowling outside
- Match situation
- Home/Away (incorporating relative team strengths)
- Result (incorporating relative team strengths)
- Series situation

B. Career Achievements (Maximum 40 points)

This is an equally important aspect of any such analysis. It also encompasses aspects of bowling which do not require consideration of the match conditions or situation. The only longevity measure is the "Career wickets captured" measure, carrying 5 points (6.2%). This will incorporate the following factors.

- Career wickets captured (5 points)
- Career wickets per innspell (5 points)
- Bowling Strike rate-BpW (10 points)
- Bowling accuracy-RpO (5 points)
- Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (5 points)
- Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (5 points)
- Performance ratio - % of wickets captured to % of balls bowled (5 points).

C. Match Performances(Maximum 40 points)

1.1. Wickets captured: Straightforward linear weight for wickets captured.
1.2. Balls bowled: This is to recognize the fact that a bowler might have bowled an innspell of 43-12-69-2 and provided great support to the main strike bowler(s). Around 25-over spell is considered as approximately equivalent to a wicket.
1.3. Batsmen dismissed: This is to take care of situations such as the Cardiff/Lord's Tests. The idea is to reward Anderson who dismissed Ponting at 0 as against Panesar who dismissed him at 150. Anderson gets almost complete credit while Panesar none. The importance of dismissing a top batsman at a low score cannot be over-emphasized. However it must be noted that in the Career Batsman quality measure, both Anderson and Panesar would get credit for 56.18.
2.1. Overall quality of batting team: This is based on the Career-todate batting averages of the first 7 batsmen and minimal weight to the late order batsmen.
2.2. Bowling accuracy: This is in relation to the bowling team's overall innings performance. three recent examples shown.
- Saf: 651 in 154.3 (Siddle 35-15-67-1)
- Nzl: 619 in 154 (Harbhajan 41-7-120-2)
- Ind: 379 in 92 (Franklin 14-4-38-1)
In each of these cases the bowler concerned has done very well as compared to his team mates and will be credited with the appropriate multiplicative factor, Siddle and Harbhajan more than Franklin because of the higher proportion of overs delivered.
2.3. Match-related pitch characteristics: Based on Arjun's suggestion of the 10 best scores. I have done an analysis of many matches of different periods and this measure has come out very well. The highest value is 1319 in the (in)famous Slk-Ind test in which 6 centuries, including Jayasuriya's 340, were scored. The lowest was in an Ashes test during 1888 with a figure of 181, the four innings scores being 116, 53, 60 and 62 (???). The higher this value is, the more difficult the bowlers' task is and vice versa.
2.4. Location based adjustment: All pace bowlers bowling in the sub-continent get a lift up and all spinners bowling outside get a lift up. There is no negative valuation. These are based on actual summary calculations.
2.5. Match situation: The innings type. In the second innings, what score was being defended, in the third innings, what is the deficit/advantage and what was the attempted target score and in the fourth innings, what was the score being defended and what was the margin of win, if there was one.
2.6. Home/Away: No blind computation. This takes into account the relative strengths of the two teams. Weaker teams, whether playing home or away will get additional weight and vice versa.
2.7. Result: Here also the relative strengths are taken into account.
2.8. Series situation: Is it a dead rubber, is the series still in the balance, what is the series score at mid points et al.

D. Career Achievements (Maximum 40 points)

1. Career wickets captured (5 points): Only longevity based measure. 5 points for 1000 wickets.
2. Career wickets per innspell (5 points): Performance based measure.
3. Bowling Strike rate-BpW (10 points): This generally favours the fast bowlers. And that is the way it should be.
4. Bowling accuracy-RpO (5 points): This generally favours the spinners.
5. Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (5 points): Averaged over all the wickets captured.
6. Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (5 points): The Top/Middle order gets clubbed together and gets much higher weight than the low order and then the average determined.
7. Performance ratio - % of wickets captured to % of balls bowled (5 points). This is to reward the bowlers who have delivered maximum while bowling less. Generally favours the fast bowlers although readers would be surprised to see Stuart Macgill in the top-10.

Let us now look at the tables. The same criteria is used for all periods so the tables are comparable, while exercising a degree of caution. The bowler should have reached the mark of 100 career wickets. The tables are current upto and inclusive of match no. 1924 (Second Sri Lnka - Pakistan Test completed recently).

Before readers rush off with comments let me outline below in a simple manner all factors which have been taken care of. Please do not make redundant comments on these factors.

1. Bowler perf points in stronger bowling teams have been increased.
2. Bowler perf points in weaker bowling teams have been decreased.
3. Bowler perf points against stronger batting lineups have been increased.
4. Bowler perf points weaker batting lineups have been decreased.
5. Pace bowler perf points in subcontinent matches have been increased.
6. Spin bowler perf points in outside-sc matches have been increased.
7. Batsman quality is career-to-date and adjusted based on period.
8. Longevity gets a weight of 6.25% and performance measures 93.75%.
9. Effort put in by bowlers, even supportive, has been recognized.

1. Current era (1970-2000): Table of top bowlers

SNo. Cty Bowler          BT Ratio Total Match  Wkt  Bow  Bow  Wkt  Wkt Perf
                                   Pts  Perf   Pts StRt  Acc  Bat  Qty  Idx
                         Max Wt-> 80.0  40.0  10.0 10.0  5.0  5.0  5.0  5.0

  1. Slk Muralitharan M  ROB 1.28 51.30 23.85 6.49 6.74 3.89 4.02 3.81 2.51
  2. Aus Lillee D.K      RF  1.20 48.05 21.48 3.87 7.62 3.20 4.92 3.98 2.98
  3. Aus Warne S.K       RLB 1.20 48.00 22.52 5.57 6.47 3.64 3.69 3.61 2.52
  4. Nzl Hadlee R.J      RFM 1.20 47.97 21.16 4.37 7.69 3.38 4.73 3.88 2.76
  5. Pak Imran Khan      RF  1.20 47.90 21.41 3.87 7.37 3.46 5.15 3.92 2.72
  6. Saf Steyn D.W       RF  1.14 45.55 20.34 2.94 8.01 2.72 4.31 3.68 3.55
  7. Win Marshall M.D    RF  1.14 45.44 18.89 3.77 7.94 3.38 4.59 4.01 2.85
  8. Aus McGrath G.D     RFM 1.12 44.86 18.77 4.57 7.03 3.81 3.84 4.05 2.79
  9. Ind Kumble A        RLB 1.11 44.58 20.13 5.08 5.62 3.58 4.13 3.78 2.26
 10. Pak Waqar Younis    RFM 1.10 44.18 18.67 3.74 7.89 2.91 4.07 3.90 3.00

 11. Saf Donald A.A      RF  1.10 44.13 18.52 3.61 7.49 3.35 4.01 4.02 3.12
 12. Win Ambrose C.E.L   RF  1.09 43.55 18.76 3.81 6.90 3.83 4.01 3.96 2.27
 13. Win Holding M.A     RF  1.08 43.40 17.80 2.94 7.70 3.22 5.06 3.96 2.71
 14. Pak Wasim Akram     LFM 1.08 43.22 18.90 3.84 6.90 3.57 3.91 3.69 2.41
 15. Pak Shoaib Akhtar   RF  1.08 43.21 19.12 2.60 7.53 2.93 4.19 3.93 2.91
 16. Aus Lawson G.F      RF  1.08 43.20 19.26 2.70 6.40 3.12 5.18 4.17 2.37
 17. Aus Reid B.A        LFM 1.08 43.03 18.55 2.68 6.92 3.42 4.35 4.10 3.00
 18. Win Croft C.E.H     RF  1.07 42.97 18.20 2.43 7.86 3.15 4.61 4.10 2.61
 19. Aus Thomson J.R     RF  1.07 42.82 17.32 2.72 7.57 2.79 5.43 4.19 2.78
 20. Ind Harbhajan Singh ROB 1.06 42.51 20.26 3.46 5.63 3.59 3.81 3.61 2.14

This is a galaxy of the best bowlers who have graced the grounds over the past 40 years. Not one of them does not deserve his place in this exclusive list. One might like minor moves amongst the top-10, but no one can say with any degree of conviction that there is even one undeserving candidate, including Dale Steyn.

Muralitharan is deservedly on top, that too by a margin of around 6%. The fact that he has played for Sri Lanka has only aided him slightly. His top-drawer performances, day in and day out, have given him the highest Match Performance points. His collection of wickets, wickets per innspell, good accuracy, quality of batsmen dismissed are all in the top 10%. Only in the last two measures does he lag behind others since he has taken a lion's share of his team's bowling efforts and has captured significant number of late order batsmen.

Lillee, who is in second place just ahead of Warne, was the first of the modern great fast bowlers. He formed a great team with Thomson and would have comfortably crossed 450 wickets barring the mid-career switch to Packer and injuries, because of which he missed 30 Tests. A sub-24 average and a 52+ strike rate tell the story.

Warne, in third position, is much more than the "ball of the century" and similar mind-blowing efforts. He had great variations and, barring against and in India, he was devastating everywhere. On dead pitches he had the ability to think out set batsmen. He gains slightly because he was in a strong bowling attack.

What does one say of Richard Hadlee, who is in fourth place. He might have played for a weak team but this works against him in the Match Performance analysis. However he has maintained 5 wickets per Test throughout his career. He was the single bowling star for his team for many years and deserves his second spot.

What Imran Khan would have done if he had bowled in those 8 batting-only Tests is anybody's guess. His 40-wickets performance against India in the 1982-83 series is one of the best series efforts ever and without any doubt the best performance by a pace bowler in the Asian sub-continent. A great captain and one of the greatest pace bowlers ever, as shown by this placement.

Before readers start sending torrents of mails asking why xyz is not ahead of pqr or something similar, please look at what separates the second to fifth placed bowlers, just 0.15 point. Kindly see them together as a band of equals.

Steyn comes in next. Do I see eyebrows raised at Steyn. If so, do not forget that his strike rate is 39.2, bettered only by the pre-WW1 figure of 34.1 by Lohmann (should be ignored for all purposes). He has captured 170 wickets in 33 Tests at an outstanding average of 23+. His Performance ratio (% of balls to % of wickets) is the highest for any bowler, standing at 1.78. His placement is also a vindication of the algorithms used in that a bowler with 170 wickets could be placed above bowlers who have captured in excess of 550 wickets.

Marshall, McGrath, Kumble and Waqar Younis complete this table of great bowlers. Each of these is a giant and could easily have graced the top-5. Alan Donald, the greatest South African pace bowler ever, just misses out.

Australia has three bowlers and Pakistan, as a tribute to their fast bowling skills, two bowlers. There are 3 spinners in this elite group, probably par for the period. Let me also add that only one more spinner, Harbhajan, that too just about, makes it to the top-20, making this a pace bowlers' era. Anyhow, other than, to a lesser extent, Saqlain Mushtaq and Abdul Qadir, there have not been very good spinners during these times.

As I am readying this for despatch, I get to view all-time best Australian XI. The three Australian bowlers in the Top-10 from this table and the no.2 from the Middle-era table have all found their place.

To view the complete list, please click here.

2.Current era (1970-2000): Table with support data

SNo. Cty Bowler          B/T Inn Rating Wkts Bow   Bow   Wkt  Wkt  B/W
                             Spls  Pts       StRt  RpO  Avge Qual Ratio

  1. Slk Muralitharan M  ROB  219 51.30 770  54.6 2.44 20.09 0.76 1.26
  2. Aus Lillee D.K      RF   127 48.05 355  52.0 2.76 24.58 0.80 1.49
  3. Aus Warne S.K       RLB  262 48.00 708  57.5 2.65 18.47 0.72 1.26
  4. Nzl Hadlee R.J      RFM  146 47.97 431  50.9 2.63 23.63 0.78 1.38
  5. Pak Imran Khan      RF   132 47.90 362  53.8 2.55 25.75 0.78 1.36
  6. Saf Steyn D.W       RF    61 45.55 170  39.3 3.62 21.55 0.74 1.78
  7. Win Marshall M.D    RF   149 45.44 376  46.8 2.69 22.97 0.80 1.42
  8. Aus McGrath G.D     RFM  241 44.86 563  52.0 2.50 19.22 0.81 1.40
  9. Ind Kumble A        RLB  234 44.58 619  66.0 2.70 20.66 0.76 1.13
 10. Pak Waqar Younis    RFM  149 44.18 373  43.5 3.25 20.33 0.78 1.50

 11. Saf Donald A.A      RF   126 44.13 330  47.0 2.84 20.06 0.80 1.56
 12. Win Ambrose C.E.L   RF   170 43.55 405  54.6 2.31 20.04 0.79 1.14
 13. Win Holding M.A     RF   110 43.40 249  50.9 2.79 25.28 0.79 1.36
 14. Pak Wasim Akram     LFM  175 43.22 414  54.7 2.59 19.56 0.74 1.21
 15. Pak Shoaib Akhtar   RF    78 43.21 178  45.7 3.37 20.94 0.79 1.46
 16. Aus Lawson G.F      RF    75 43.20 180  61.8 2.97 25.90 0.83 1.19
 17. Aus Reid B.A        LFM   40 43.03 113  55.3 2.68 21.75 0.82 1.50
 18. Win Croft C.E.H     RF    52 42.97 125  49.3 2.84 23.06 0.82 1.31
 19. Aus Thomson J.R     RF    87 42.82 200  52.7 3.19 27.17 0.84 1.39
 20. Ind Harbhajan Singh ROB  137 42.51 330  65.1 2.81 19.07 0.72 1.07

To view the complete list, please click here.

3. Middle era (1920-1969): Table of top bowlers

SNo. Cty Bowler          BT Ratio Total Match  Wkt  Bow  Bow  Wkt  Wkt Perf
                                   Pts  Perf   Pts StRt  Acc  Bat  Qty  Idx
                         Max Wt-> 80.0  40.0  10.0 10.0  5.0  5.0  5.0  5.0

  1. Aus Grimmett C.V    RLB 1.25 49.87 25.94 3.53 6.19 3.71 4.22 3.70 2.58
  2. Aus O'Reilly W.J    RLB 1.23 49.24 25.98 2.97 5.99 3.89 4.62 3.72 2.06
  3. Saf Tayfield H.J    ROB 1.13 45.20 23.10 2.94 5.12 3.46 4.93 3.76 1.87
  4. Eng Trueman F.S     RF  1.11 44.29 18.72 3.42 8.53 2.94 3.56 3.82 3.30
  5. Pak Fazal Mahmood   RFM 1.10 44.08 21.16 2.78 6.15 3.37 4.32 4.11 2.20
  6. Eng Laker J.C       ROB 1.09 43.46 19.32 2.75 7.00 3.36 4.33 3.99 2.70
  7. Aus McKenzie G.D    RF  1.07 42.84 19.91 2.97 6.07 3.19 4.39 4.07 2.24
  8. Eng Bedser A.V      RFM 1.07 42.68 19.51 3.13 6.45 3.22 3.85 3.94 2.60
  9. Ind Chandrasekhar B RLB 1.06 42.23 18.86 3.12 6.57 3.09 4.50 3.90 2.20
 10. Win Hall W.W        RF  1.04 41.51 17.42 2.60 8.04 2.74 3.44 4.16 3.11

 11. Aus Davidson A.K    LFM 1.04 41.43 17.88 2.67 7.06 3.49 3.98 3.91 2.44
 12. Eng Tate M.W        RFM 1.03 41.19 19.80 2.51 4.80 3.93 4.09 3.89 2.18
 13. Eng Snow J.A        RFM 1.03 41.17 17.71 2.69 7.24 3.10 3.69 3.96 2.78
 14. Ind Bedi B.S        LSP 1.02 40.79 18.88 3.10 4.88 3.66 4.50 4.00 1.77
 15. Saf Pollock P.M     RF  1.02 40.75 16.81 2.32 7.80 3.09 3.68 3.97 3.09
 16. Eng Underwood D.L   LSP 1.02 40.74 17.52 3.02 5.58 3.74 4.62 4.12 2.15
 17. Ind Gupte S.P       RLB 1.01 40.57 19.36 2.74 5.58 3.14 3.59 3.84 2.32
 18. Win Gibbs L.R       ROB 1.01 40.54 20.00 3.19 4.21 3.67 4.01 3.65 1.79
 19. Aus Lindwall R.R    RF  1.00 40.17 15.75 2.67 7.35 3.15 4.67 3.90 2.69
 20. Aus Johnston W.A    LSP 1.00 40.06 17.54 2.40 6.22 3.33 4.10 4.09 2.38

Tayfield, the South African off spinner is in third position, in a list where spin is king. His 9 for 113 off 37 consecutive overs against England remains the best bowling performance ever in this analysis.

Trueman, the fiery fast bowler and the first to reach 300 test wickets is in fourth position. He is also the best fast bowler in this middle era.

The fifth position is held by that master of seam, Fazal Mahmood, who troubled the batsmen on the matting wickets of Pakistan but outside also and allowed Pakistan to have a reasonable start to their test initiation. Unfortunately there was a lot of defensive thinking which meant that Fazal also had to act as the stock bowler.

The top-10 is completed by Laker, McKenzie, Alec Bedser, Chandrasekhar and Hall, an outstanding quintet. There are 5 spinners in this top-10 group indicating that this was an era which had a very strong spin presence.

To view the complete list, please click here.

4. Middle era (1920-1969): Table of support data

SNo. Cty Bowler          B/T Inn Rating Wkts Bow   Bow   Wkt  Wkt  B/W
                             Spls  Pts       StRt  RpO  Avge Qual Ratio

  1. Aus Grimmett C.V    RLB   66 49.87 216  67.2 2.16 21.10 0.74 1.29
  2. Aus O'Reilly W.J    RLB   48 49.24 144  69.6 1.95 23.08 0.74 1.03
  3. Saf Tayfield H.J    ROB   61 45.20 170  79.8 1.95 24.67 0.75 0.94
  4. Eng Trueman F.S     RF   122 44.29 307  49.4 2.62 17.80 0.76 1.65
  5. Pak Fazal Mahmood   RFM   50 44.08 139  70.7 2.10 21.58 0.82 1.10
  6. Eng Laker J.C       ROB   81 43.46 193  62.3 2.05 21.67 0.80 1.35
  7. Aus McKenzie G.D    RF   106 42.84 246  71.9 2.49 21.94 0.81 1.12
  8. Eng Bedser A.V      RFM   91 42.68 236  67.4 2.21 19.24 0.79 1.30
  9. Ind Chandrasekhar B RLB   95 42.23 242  66.0 2.71 22.48 0.78 1.10
 10. Win Hall W.W        RF    88 41.51 192  54.3 2.92 17.20 0.83 1.55

 11. Aus Davidson A.K    LFM   80 41.43 186  62.3 1.98 19.92 0.78 1.22
 12. Eng Tate M.W        RFM   67 41.19 155  80.8 1.94 20.45 0.78 1.09
 13. Eng Snow J.A        RFM   90 41.17 202  59.5 2.69 18.44 0.79 1.39
 14. Ind Bedi B.S        LSP  113 40.79 266  80.3 2.14 22.50 0.80 0.89
 15. Saf Pollock P.M     RF    50 40.75 116  56.2 2.58 18.39 0.79 1.55
 16. Eng Underwood D.L   LSP  145 40.74 297  73.6 2.11 23.10 0.82 1.07
 17. Ind Gupte S.P       RLB   56 40.57 149  75.7 2.34 17.94 0.77 1.16
 18. Win Gibbs L.R       ROB  141 40.54 309  87.8 1.99 20.07 0.73 0.89
 19. Aus Lindwall R.R    RF   112 40.17 228  59.9 2.31 23.36 0.78 1.34
 20. Aus Johnston W.A    LSP   75 40.06 160  69.0 2.08 20.49 0.82 1.19

To view the complete list, please click here.

5. Pre-WW1 era (1877-1914): Table of top bowlers

SNo. Cty Bowler          BT Ratio Total Match  Wkt  Bow  Bow  Wkt  Wkt Perf
                                   Pts  Perf   Pts StRt  Acc  Bat  Qty  Idx
                         Max Wt-> 80.0  40.0  10.0 10.0  5.0  5.0  5.0  5.0

SNo. Cty Bowler          BT Ratio Total Match  Wkt  Bow  Bow  Wkt  Wkt Perf
                                   Pts  Perf   Pts StRt  Acc  Bat  Qty  Idx
                         Max Wt-> 80.0  40.0  10.0 10.0  5.0  5.0  5.0  5.0

  1. Eng Barnes S.F      RFM 1.27 50.71 26.15 3.90 6.72 3.53 3.37 3.97 3.08
  2. Aus Turner C.T.B    RFM 1.06 42.41 19.35 3.12 5.92 3.95 3.97 4.15 1.96
  3. Eng Richardson T    RF  1.05 41.87 19.84 3.44 5.92 2.95 3.26 3.93 2.52
  4. Aus Spofforth F.R   RFM 1.02 40.96 17.58 2.90 6.48 3.42 4.10 3.92 2.55
  5. Aus Saunders J.V    LSP 1.01 40.52 18.80 2.59 6.40 2.89 3.40 3.86 2.58
  6. Eng Blythe C        LSP 1.01 40.50 18.10 2.58 6.40 3.44 3.30 4.29 2.39
  7. Aus Trumble H       ROB 1.00 40.06 17.75 2.56 5.44 3.62 4.79 3.91 2.00
  8. Eng Peel R          LSP 1.00 39.85 18.77 2.70 5.92 3.91 2.46 3.90 2.20
  9. Eng Lohmann G.A     RFM 0.98 39.27 15.71 3.03 7.28 3.99 2.32 3.76 3.18
 10. Aus Cotter A        RFM 0.98 39.25 17.74 2.41 5.84 2.62 4.30 4.12 2.23

 11. Aus Giffen G        ROB 0.94 37.43 17.18 2.50 5.04 3.28 3.53 3.91 1.98
 12. Aus Palmer G.E      ROB 0.93 37.28 16.03 2.41 5.44 3.66 3.75 3.80 2.19
 13. Eng Briggs J        LSP 0.91 36.43 14.69 2.56 6.40 3.54 2.68 3.76 2.79
 14. Aus Jones E         RF  0.90 36.10 14.69 1.98 5.36 2.94 4.76 4.06 2.30
 15. Aus Whitty W.J      LFM 0.90 36.10 14.46 2.28 5.92 3.44 3.68 3.96 2.36
 16. Saf Vogler A.E.E    RLB 0.89 35.43 14.20 2.10 6.56 2.76 3.28 4.18 2.36
 17. Nzl Cameron F.J     RFM 0.88 35.04 13.45 1.63 5.76 4.33 4.24 3.79 1.84
 18. Saf Faulkner G.A    RLB 0.87 34.79 14.37 2.03 6.44 2.82 3.47 3.67 1.98
 19. Aus Noble M.A       ROB 0.87 34.67 13.51 2.05 5.28 3.37 4.85 3.70 1.92
 20. Eng Ferris J.J      LM  0.83 33.14  9.94 3.16 7.04 3.87 3.22 3.95 1.95
 21. Eng Rhodes W        LSP 0.81 32.24 12.47 1.90 5.44 3.40 3.54 3.49 2.00
 22. Saf Sinclair J.H    RLB 0.72 28.83 10.73 1.63 5.44 2.59 2.88 3.99 1.56
 23. Aus Armstrong W.W   RLB 0.69 27.57 10.47 1.37 2.73 3.70 4.00 3.97 1.34
 24. Eng Woolley F.E     LSP 0.69 27.52  8.79 1.28 4.49 3.30 4.10 3.83 1.75

Exactly 10 bowlers fulfill the criteria (Since changed cut-off to 60 wkts). The list is, as expected, headed by Sid Barnes, by the reckoning of many, the best fast-medium bowler ever. He is ahead of the next bowler by over 20%. Then come those deadly exponents of pace and spin who revelled on those uncovered deadly pitches.

Surprising thing is that Lohmann, despite his devastating strike rate and average, comes as low as fifth. His match performances have been below-par. The opposition has also been quite average. This list is dominated by spinners, 7 in all, but led by two great fast medium bowlers. Quite surprising that there is no leg spinner. Grimmett and O'Reilly started the tradition of great leg spinners, after the war.

6. Pre-WW1 era (1877-1914): Table with support data

SNo. Cty Bowler          B/T Inn Rating Wkts Bow   Bow   Wkt  Wkt  B/W
                             Spls  Pts       StRt  RpO  Avge Qual Ratio

SNo. Cty Bowler          B/T Inn Rating Wkts Bow   Bow   Wkt  Wkt  B/W
                             Spls  Pts       StRt  RpO  Avge Qual Ratio

  1. Eng Barnes S.F      RFM   48 50.71 189  41.7 2.37 16.83 0.79 1.54
  2. Aus Turner C.T.B    RFM   29 42.41 101  51.3 1.93 19.85 0.83 0.98
  3. Eng Richardson T    RF    22 41.87  88  51.1 2.96 16.31 0.79 1.26
  4. Aus Spofforth F.R   RFM   29 40.96  94  44.5 2.48 20.51 0.78 1.28
  5. Aus Saunders J.V    LSP   27 40.52  79  45.1 3.02 17.01 0.77 1.29
  6. Eng Blythe C        LSP   36 40.50 100  45.5 2.46 16.51 0.86 1.20
  7. Aus Trumble H       ROB   57 40.06 141  57.4 2.28 23.93 0.78 1.00
  8. Eng Peel R          LSP   35 39.85 102  51.1 1.97 12.30 0.78 1.10
  9. Eng Lohmann G.A     RFM   34 39.27 112  34.1 1.89 11.60 0.75 1.59
 10. Aus Cotter A        RFM   34 39.25  89  52.1 3.30 21.49 0.82 1.12

 11. Aus Giffen G        ROB   39 37.43 103  62.0 2.62 17.67 0.78 0.99
 12. Aus Palmer G.E      ROB   29 37.28  78  57.9 2.23 18.75 0.76 1.09
 13. Eng Briggs J        LSP   45 36.43 118  45.2 2.36 13.42 0.75 1.40
 14. Aus Jones E         RF    29 36.10  64  58.6 2.97 23.81 0.81 1.15
 15. Aus Whitty W.J      LFM   25 36.10  65  51.6 2.45 18.41 0.79 1.18
 16. Saf Vogler A.E.E    RLB   27 35.43  64  43.2 3.16 16.40 0.84 1.18
 17. Nzl Cameron F.J     RFM   36 35.04  63  77.7 2.39 21.21 0.76 0.92
 18. Saf Faulkner G.A    RLB   38 34.79  82  51.5 3.09 17.36 0.73 0.99
 19. Aus Noble M.A       ROB   63 34.67 121  59.2 2.54 24.24 0.74 0.96
 20. Eng Ferris J.J      LM    16 33.14  61  37.7 2.02 16.10 0.79 0.97
 21. Eng Rhodes W        LSP   75 32.24 127  64.8 2.50 17.68 0.70 1.00
 22. Saf Sinclair J.H    RLB   36 28.83  63  57.1 3.33 14.42 0.80 0.78
 23. Aus Armstrong W.W   RLB   70 27.57  87  92.2 2.19 20.00 0.79 0.67
 24. Eng Woolley F.E     LSP   72 27.52  83  78.3 2.60 20.50 0.77 0.87

I do not expect the readers to agree with all the placings. They have every right to disagree in a nice, positive, contributory manner. I have no problems if you express your disagreement supported by subjective, objective or figures-based arguments. Kindly stay away from rude, offensive or abusive comments. Also resist making mundane bare comments such as "abc is better than xyz.". Also all comments on batsmen have to be relevant to the topic under discussion. Otherwise, they are unlikely to see the light of the day.

One final note. Muralitharan's action has been analyzed and deemed to be perfectly acceptable by ICC. That is enough for me. That may not be enough for some readers, I have no problem with that. However please do not raise that issue in response to this article. One such comment I will ignore. If readers persist with such comments, I will have no other option but to ignore all their comments, however valid those might be. This is not the forum for such comments.

A reminder that the bowler-type tables will be brought out in the follow-up article.

Comments (100)

December 19, 2008

Posted by Mike Holmans at in Tests - bowling

The most efficient strike bowlers in Tests

	Malcolm Marshall emerges as the best of them all © Getty Images

My usual lair is Different Strokes, but that’s a place for (semi-)topical opinion rather than discussion of statistics methodology, and Rajesh has been kind enough to allow me to interlope and put this little study before you.

Although I didn’t start out that way, what I’ve ended up with, I think, is a pretty good cross-era ranking of the most efficient strike bowlers Test cricket has known. I don’t claim that it’s definitive: what I do claim is that the method I’ve used is quite interesting, and I’d like to see what other stats mavens make of it.

The first decision I made was to eliminate all minnow matches. Leaving out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is pretty commonplace but if we’re being realistic, only England and Australia did not have a bedding-in period as minnows before they became a team to be at least reckoned with. It seems essential to eliminate minnow matches because otherwise some bowlers are at a distinct disadvantage: a bowler whose career was from 1970-1980 never got a chance to bowl at a minnow team, whereas Fred Trueman had endless fun with weak Asian teams in the 1950s. Since I use Ric Finlay’s Tastats, this sort of exclusion is very easily accomplished.

There being no formal event which declares a team to have “arrived” in Test cricket, I had to make some arbitrary judgements about when to regard a team as having graduated. I took South Africa’s entry to senior ranks as having occurred when they unveiled their quartet of googly bowlers and comprehensively thrashed the fairly weak England team which toured in 1905-6, after which they were generally difficult to beat. Though West Indies won a series against England in 1934-35, the touring side was again half-strength; I decided that they did not really graduate until 1945. India’s graduation I took to be 1961, Pakistan’s 1965, New Zealand’s 1969 and Sri Lanka’s 1990. One might be able to argue that Zimbabwe were of a reasonable standard from about 1998-2003, but it seemed simpler to leave them and Bangladesh out of all consideration. Since I also have a prejudice against non-Test matches being included, the ICC Superflop game is also left out.

Subtracting those games has a widely-varying effect on a bowler’s career total of wickets. Muralitharan drops from 751 wickets to 588 and Trueman from 307 to 192, whereas Jeff Thomson and Michael Holding’s figures remain untouched.

Next, I decided to find a way to give greater credit for taking top-order wickets, because they are the ones you really want your strike bowlers to be cleaning up.

I was initially tempted to weight them on the basis of the runs scored at each position, but then realised that the top order contribution is exaggerated by declarations and innings cut short by the match being over. I then moved on to using the batting averages at each position.

Adding up the averages for each position gives a total of 307.27. The share for each wicket is given by positional average/total average, so the #3 average of 39.662 is 0.129 of the total. Those shares sum to 1, so if we multiply them by 11, they will sum to 11. This gives us the following weightings:

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1.34	1.27	1.42	1.48	1.34	1.15	0.98	0.75	0.56	0.41	0.331

If the dismissal of a batsman is worth the above number of wickets, then a bowler taking one of each will have a total of 11 wickets, whereas someone with a top-order bias will have more and someone who wipes up tail-enders exclusively will have a lot less. Owing to a limitation in TAStats, whose breakdown of bowler’s victims by position does not differentiate between openers, in practice I used 1.30 for both 1 and 2.

To take three examples, Shane Warne’s total gets adjusted from 685 to 685.2, Glenn McGrath’s from 549 to 605.6, and Stuart MacGill’s from 164 to 159.0. Given that in practice a lot more top-order batsmen than tail-enders get dismissed, most bowlers actually show a profit, so MacGill’s reduction is evidence that he really was a tail-end cleaner.

If we apply this wicket adjustment to the figures for non-excluded matches and remove everyone who played less than 20 relevant games or took under 100 relevant wickets, this is the resultant top ten by average:

Player	M	Balls	Runs	Wkts	Adj W	AdjAve	AdjSR
SF Barnes	27	7873	3106	189	203.6	15.26	38.67
R Peel	20	5216	1715	101	108.7	15.78	48.00
MD Marshall	81	17,584	7876	376	410.3	19.20	42.86
CEL Ambrose	96	21,641	8401	397	433.1	19.40	49.97
GD McGrath	120	28,485	11,930	549	605.6	19.70	47.04
AK Davidson	34	8997	3033	142	153.9	19.71	58.48
JC Laker	36	10,312	3611	162	178.3	20.25	57.84
AA Donald	69	14,906	7113	316	350.7	20.28	42.50
H Trumble	32	8099	3072	141	150.8	20.37	53.71
J Garner	58	13,175	5433	259	265.9	20.44	49.56

The right-hand column shows that there is a wide disparity between bowlers’ strike rates. A strike bowler’s efficiency does not depend solely on runs conceded; his strike rate is also an important factor because of the runs scored at the other end and the overall time taken. If Dale Steyn bowls six overs and takes a wicket but concedes 30 runs while Makhaya Ntini concedes 18 in his six without taking a wicket, the opposition are 48/1 at the end of these spells. If Shaun Pollock bowls 11 overs and concedes 20 runs while taking a wicket, 33 runs get conceded at the other end and the opposition reach 53/1 although the game is ten overs older.

I have for some time been toying with a measure I call the Power Index, which combines the average and strike rate by multiplying them together and taking the square root. Sqrt((runs/wickets)*(balls/wickets)) has a denominator of wickets, so the numerator can be seen as representing the resources used up in taking a wicket.

If we apply that algorithm, we get a new top ten, as follows:

Player	M	Balls	Runs	Wkts	Adj W	AdjAve	Adj SR	Adj PI
SF Barnes	27	7873	3106	189	203.6	15.26	38.67	24.29
R Peel	20	5216	1715	101	108.7	15.78	48.00	27.52
MD Marshall	81	17,584	7876	376	410.3	19.20	42.86	28.68
AA Donald	69	14,906	7113	316	350.7	20.28	42.50	29.36
CEH Croft	27	6165	2913	125	141.7	20.55	43.50	29.90
DW Steyn	23	4414	2706	114	114.7	23.60	38.49	30.14
GD McGrath	120	28,485	11,930	549	605.6	19.70	47.04	30.44
CEL Ambrose	96	21,641	8401	397	433.1	19.40	49.97	31.13
J Garner	58	13,175	5433	259	265.9	20.44	49.56	31.82
Waqar Younis	73	13,517	7374	293	312.3	23.61	43.28	31.97

Ambrose and McGrath drop down, Colin Croft rises, and Dale Steyn and Waqar Younis come in instead of Davidson and Trumble.

However, this is deeply unsatisfactory because we know that Barnes and Peel played in a time when scores were lower and wickets fell much more often. Today’s fashion is to bat aggressively from the word go, whereas in the middle of the last century caution was the Test batsman’s watchword. We need a way of equalising for the changes in general pitch conditions and style of play.

This is a well-known problem, and what follows does not claim to be universally applicable.

But the essential aspects of what we are examining here are the balls bowled, runs conceded and wickets taken. If we can find a way of keeing one or more invariant, then we have a fixed point while scaling the others to fit.

I decided to use the first match innings of Tests as the way to fix par. The first innings of the match is the least likely to be cut short by weather, and the least likely to be affected by tactical considerations. A third innings can be anything from a stonewall grind trying to save a match to a hell-for-leather bash while trying to set a target, but a first innings is always going to be played at whatever pace the side think appropriate given the conditions and they will nearly always get as many runs as the conditions allow. The dimensions of the first match innings may change, but its tactical purpose does not.

Across our population of matches, the mean first match innings notches up 327 runs off 678 balls.

What I did was to find out the dimensions of the average first match innings in a particular bowler’s period. I decided not to restrict the sample to matches that the bowler played in, because then his performances are effectively the norm and we don’t see how he stood out (or not) from his contemporaries. I think we are more interested in how their performances stack up relative to everything that happened in their period, so I used all the non-excluded matches played in the cricket years (running May-April) which his career spanned. Somone who debuted on 11th November 1982 and finished on 25th August 1994 would thus have his period defined as 1982 –1995 (Ric Finlay will recognise his “years from and to” filter option).

I then scaled their figures for balls bowled and runs conceded accordingly. So a bowler whose period averaged 340 runs off 650 balls is adjusted to concede his actual runs * 327/340 off his actual balls * 678/650 . We now have adjusted figures for each of balls, runs and wickets and can run through our standard calculations for average, strike rate and PI to come up with our final result, the top ten of which looks like this:

Player	B/I1	NewB	R/I1	NewR	NewW	NewSR	NewAve	NewPI
MD Marshall	659	18,091.0	321	8023.2	410.3	44.10	19.56	29.37
SF Barnes	552	9670.1	266	3818.3	203.6	47.50	18.75	29.85
DW Steyn	630	4750.3	358	2471.7	114.7	41.42	21.55	29.88
AA Donald	644	15,693.0	319	7291.4	350.7	44.74	20.79	30.50
GD McGrath	645	29,942.4	335	11,645.1	605.6	49.44	19.23	30.83
KR Miller	800	8199.6	329	3597.0	175.3	46.77	20.52	30.98
RR Lindwall	798	9219.3	325	4337.5	200.3	46.03	21.66	31.57
EH Croft	641	6520.9	308	3092.7	141.7	46.01	21.82	31.69
FS Trueman	764	9085.6	325	4665.5	203.5	44.64	22.92	31.99
JC Laker	790	8850.0	321	3678.5	178.3	49.64	20.63	32.00

B/I1 and R/I1 are the average first match innings balls and runs for that bowler’s period.

As a dedicated supporter of SF Barnes as the king of bowlers, I am mortified to discover that Malcolm Marshall pips him to the top spot – but if Barnes had to be toppled, I’m glad it was Macko.

On a very contemporary note, Dale Steyn has made an incredible start to his career, since he comes in at number three (with a bullet) on this all-time list. Waqar Younis’s figures at the same stage of his career were even more spectacular, with a PI of 27.29, so we can probably assume that Steyn will also descend the list as his career unfolds.

Of the top ten, only McGrath and Laker were ever really used in a containing role on dead pitches, and they did not do that much. In the full table, those who spend time keeping the runs down without taking wickets lose out, with the result that Shane Warne comes a lowly 55th. But then, this is not a merit ranking but an assessment of how nearly they approached the ideal of incessant lethality.

It’s not an unbelievable top ten. If the model is wrong, it still manages to produce a sensible result.

But it can certainly be challenged on a number of points.

Are the cut-off dates for minnowhood reasonable?

Are the relative batting averages of the positions in the batting order a sound way to weight the value of wickets?

Is the Power Index a sensible way of combining parsimony and frequency to measure attacking prowess?

Is the first match innings a useful point of reference?

Even if comparing first match innings is reasonable, should one average the dimensions thereof for all matches or just the ones the bowler played in?

Whatever those averages are, is it sufficent to scale them in a linear fashion or should some more complex function be used?

So let the debate on those and no doubt other questions commence.

The full table is available here.

Comments (36)