Jim Laker: a record of 19 for 90 that is almost impossible to better © PA Photos

This is the follow-up to the previous articles. Another 13 tables have found their place. This is probably a more interesting set of tables since some of the analysis is by innings and relate to result. The comments are given at the end of each tables.

12. Great defensive winning bowling performances in fourth innings

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R WonBy

0073 1902 Aus Eng-120/10 A Trumble H        S 4 25.0- 9- 53- 6 W   3
0943 1982 Eng Aus-288/10 A Cowans N.G         4 26.0- 6- 77- 6 W   3
1243 1994 Saf Aus-111/10 A de Villiers P.S    4 23.3- 8- 43- 6 W   5
0019 1885 Aus Eng-207/10 H Spofforth F.R      4 32.1-22- 90- 6 W   6
0009 1882 Aus Eng- 77/10 A Spofforth F.R      4 18.4-15- 44- 7 W   7
0042 1894 Eng Aus-166/10 A Peel R           S 4 30.0- 9- 67- 6 W  10
0179 1929 Eng Aus-336/10 A White J.C        S 4 64.5-21-126- 8 W  12
1436 1998 Eng Aus-162/10 A Headley D.W        4 17.0- 5- 60- 6 W  12
1442 1999 Pak Ind-258/10 A Saqlain Mushtaq  S 4 32.2- 8- 93- 5 W  12
0025 1887 Eng Aus- 97/10 A Barnes W           4 30.4-29- 28- 6 W  13
1720 2004 Ind Aus- 93/10 H Harbhajan Singh  S 4 10.5- 2- 29- 5 W  13
0437 1957 Saf Eng-214/10 H Tayfield H.J     S 4 49.2-11-113- 9 W  17
0905 1981 Eng Aus-111/10 H Willis R.G.D       4 15.1- 3- 43- 8 W  18
1377 1997 Eng Aus-104/10 H Caddick A.R        4 12.0- 2- 42- 5 W  19
0106 1910 Saf Eng-224/10 H Vogler A.E.E     S 4 22.0- 2- 94- 7 W  19
1422 1998 Eng Saf-195/10 H Gough D            4 23.0- 6- 42- 6 W  23
0390 1954 Pak Eng-143/10 A Fazal Mahmood      4 30.0-11- 46- 6 W  24

This is ordered by the margin of wins. All wins by fewer than 25 runs are considered. Norman Cowans's and Fanie de Villiers's performances are of recent vintage. Fred Spofforth has been responsible for two sub-10 run wins. Bob Willis's mind-blower effort of eight for 43 followed Ian Botham's from-the-edge innings of 149. Saqlain Mushtaq's was after the nearly-innings of Sachin Tendulkar.

Let me devote some space to one specific performance. That is Hugh Tayfield's nine for 113. This was analyzed and concluded as the best ever Test bowling performance in the famous Wisden-100 lists which I had prepared for Wisden. If I do the lists today, I have no doubt that this would be on top. England, trailing by 89 runs in first innings, dismissed South Africa for 142 and England had to score 232 for a win on a turf wicket. Tayfield bowled unchanged for 35 8-ball overs on the last day and never flagged even when England were 147 for 2. He captured the next 8 wickets for nothing and England fell short by 17 runs. This performance had everything. Low total to defend, close margin of win, top order wickets, against a good batting side and the result.

13. Great defensive bowling performances in the fourth innings in close draws

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Needed

1379 1997 Zim Nzl-275/ 8 H Huckle A.G       S 4 32.0- 2-146- 5 =  10
1087 1987 Nzl Aus-230/ 9 A Hadlee R.J         4 31.0- 9- 67- 5 =  16
1052 1986 Aus Ind-347/10 A Matthews G.R.J   S 4 39.5- 7-146- 5 =   0 Tie
1052 1986 Aus Ind-347/10 A Bright R.J       S 4 25.0- 3- 94- 5 =   0 Tie
0984 1984 Eng Pak-217/ 6 A Cowans N.G         4 14.0- 2- 42- 5 =  25
0498 1960 Win Aus-232/10 A Hall W.W           4 23.5- 3- 63- 5 =   0 Tie
0311 1949 Win Ind-355/ 8 A Jones P.E          4 41.0- 8- 85- 5 =   5

This was the surprise I had mentioned in the Part 1 article. To pick draws in a bowling-centric article is not easy. However these efforts were primarily responsible for the results. This collection also includes the three performances in the two ties. Wesley Hall bowled his heart out and ensured that the Brisbane match was tied. Remember that Australia were 226 for 6, needing only seven more runs. Hall took the key wicket of Richie Benaud and there were three run-outs. Hall also captured four top order wickets. Matthews and Bright shared all the Indian wickets. India were only a single hit away in 1949 but Jones held them at bay.

14. Bowling spells which dismissed teams for low scores in the first innings of match - Away

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

1370 1997 Aus Eng- 77/10 A McGrath G.D        1 20.3- 8- 38- 8 =
1212 1993 Win Aus-119/10 A Ambrose C.E.L      1 18.0- 9- 25- 7 W
0049 1896 Eng Saf-115/10 A Lohmann G.A        1 20.0- 9- 42- 7 W
1153 1990 Nzl Pak-102/10 A Pringle C          1 16.0- 4- 52- 7 
0347 1952 Win Aus-116/10 A Gomez G.E          1 24.0- 3- 55- 7 
0681 1971 Eng Nzl- 65/10 A Underwood D.L    S 1 15.4- 7- 12- 6 W
0094 1907 Saf Eng- 76/10 A Faulkner G.A     S 1 11.0- 4- 17- 6 
0303 1948 Aus Eng- 52/10 A Lindwall R.R       1 16.1- 5- 20- 6 W
0415 1955 Pak Nzl- 70/10 A Khan Mohammad      1 16.2- 6- 21- 6 =
0421 1956 Win Nzl- 74/10 A Ramadhin S       S 1 21.2-13- 23- 6 W
1462 1999 Nzl Ind- 83/10 A Nash D.J           1 11.0- 3- 27- 6 =
1267 1994 Pak Slk- 71/10 A Waqar Younis       1 14.0- 4- 34- 6 W
0343 1951 Win Aus- 82/10 A Worrell F.M.M    S 1 17.1- 3- 38- 6 W
0014 1884 Aus Eng- 95/10 A Boyle H.F          1 16.4- 9- 42- 6 =
0066 1902 Eng Aus-112/10 A Barnes S.F         1 16.1- 5- 42- 6 
0346 1952 Eng Ind-121/10 A Tattersall R     S 1 21.0- 3- 48- 6 W
0037 1892 Eng Saf- 97/10 A Ferris J.J         1 24.3-11- 54- 6 W
0140 1921 Aus Eng-112/10 A Gregory J.M        1 19.0- 5- 58- 6 W
0275 1946 Aus Nzl- 42/10 A O'Reilly W.J     S 1 12.0- 5- 14- 5 W
0031 1889 Eng Saf- 84/10 A Smith C.A          1  9.0- 6- 19- 5 W
1929 2009 Aus Eng-102/10 A Siddle P.M       S 1  9.5- 0- 21- 5 W
1871 2008 Saf Ind- 76/10 A Steyn D.W          1  8.0- 2- 23- 5 W
1080 1987 Win Ind- 75/10 A Patterson B.P      1  8.5- 1- 24- 5 W
1566 2001 Zim Bng-107/10 A Friend T.J         1 18.0- 7- 31- 5 =
0186 1930 Eng Nzl-112/10 A Allom M.J.C        1 19.0- 4- 38- 5 W
1354 1997 Eng Nzl-124/10 A Gough D            1 16.0- 6- 40- 5 W
0356 1952 Pak Ind-106/10 A Fazal Mahmood      1 24.1- 8- 52- 5 W

I had to separate the first, almost always opening day, performances into home and away since the criteria were different. For away performances, I have selected all innings in which the concerned bowler dismissed the opposition for a 125 or lower score. The most devastating was Glenn McGrath's 1997 Lord's spell when he ran through a strong English line-up for 77. Then comes the famous Curtly Ambrose blitz in Perth, including 7 for 1 (or was it 6 for 1), which dismissed a strong Australia for 119. Dwell on Chris Pringle's opening day effort in Faisalabad during 1990, which dismissed a tough Pakistani team for 102. That New Zealand lost should not detract anything from his effort. They ran into a gentleman called Waqar Younis, who captured 12 wickets. Of recent vintage is Peter Siddle's five-for at Headingley, although it must be said that Siddle captured the 7-11 wickets. More relevant is Dale Steyn's pre-lunch demolition of India. Makhaya Ntini played an equal part in this.

15. Bowling spells which dismissed teams for low scores in the first innings of match - Home

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

0205 1931 Aus Win- 99/10 H Ironmonger H       1 20.0- 7- 23- 7 W
1073 1987 Ind Pak-116/10 H Maninder Singh   S 1 18.2- 8- 27- 7 
0025 1887 Aus Eng- 45/10 H Turner C.T.B       1 12.0-11- 15- 6 
1516 2000 Aus Win- 82/10 H McGrath G.D        1 20.0-12- 17- 6 W
1811 2006 Eng Pak-119/10 H Harmison S.J       1 13.0- 7- 19- 6 W
0059 1899 Saf Eng- 92/10 H Sinclair J.H     S 1 10.0- 4- 26- 6 
1528 2001 Saf Slk- 95/10 H Pollock S.M        1 13.4- 6- 30- 6 W
0531 1962 Eng Pak-100/10 H Trueman F.S        1 17.4- 6- 31- 6 W
0430 1956 Pak Aus- 80/10 H Fazal Mahmood      1 27.0-11- 34- 6 W
0050 1896 Eng Aus- 53/10 H Richardson T       1  9.4- 3- 39- 6 W
0101 1909 Eng Aus- 74/10 H Blythe C         S 1 23.0- 6- 44- 6 W
0003 1879 Aus Eng-113/10 H Spofforth F.R      1 16.4- 9- 48- 6 W
0034 1890 Eng Aus- 92/10 H Martin F           1 22.3- 9- 50- 6 W
1072 1987 Nzl Win-100/10 H Hadlee R.J         1 12.3- 2- 50- 6 W
1471 1999 Saf Eng-122/10 H Donald A.A         1 15.0- 3- 53- 6 W
0216 1932 Aus Saf- 36/10 H Ironmonger H       1  7.2- 5-  6- 5 W
1561 2001 Slk Bng- 90/10 H Muralitharan M   S 1  9.4- 4- 13- 5 W
1495 2000 Eng Zim- 83/10 H Giddins E.S.H      1  7.0- 2- 15- 5 W
1837 2007 Slk Bng- 89/10 H Muralitharan M   S 1  7.3- 3- 15- 5 W
0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Foster F.R         1 13.1- 7- 16- 5 W
0456 1958 Eng Nzl- 67/10 H Laker J.C        S 1 22.0-11- 17- 5 W
0009 1882 Eng Aus- 63/10 H Barlow R.G         1 20.4-22- 19- 5 
0029 1888 Eng Aus- 80/10 H Briggs J         S 1 24.4-24- 25- 5 W
0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Barnes S.F         1 13.0- 3- 25- 5 W
0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Barnes S.F         1 21.0-10- 28- 5 W
0043 1895 Aus Eng- 75/10 H Turner C.T.B       1 20.0- 9- 32- 5 
0852 1979 Eng Ind- 96/10 H Botham I.T         1 19.0- 9- 35- 5 =
0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Woolley F.E      S 1 15.3- 1- 41- 5 W

At home, I set tougher criteria. All innings below 100 and innings between 100 and 125 where the bowlers captured 6 or more wickets. The interesting part about Bert Ironmonger is that he kept Clarrie Grimmett at bay, while capturing 7 wickets. Maninder Singh's effort was in Sunil Gavaskar's last Test and the famous all-time classic of 96. India lost narrowly but Maninder more than did his bit. West Indies found that McGrath was unplayable in Brisbane during 2000. As did Pakistan against Steve Harmison in Manchester, a few years later.

16. Bowling spells which dismissed teams for matching low totals in the second innings of match

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R F-Inns

0104 1909 Aus Eng-119/10 A Laver F            2 18.2- 7- 31- 8 =  147
0094 1907 Eng Saf-110/10 H Blythe C         S 2 15.5- 1- 59- 8 W   76
0066 1902 Aus Eng- 61/10 H Noble M.A        S 2  7.4- 2- 17- 7 W  112
0009 1882 Aus Eng-101/10 A Spofforth F.R      2 24.3-18- 46- 7 W   63
0800 1977 Aus Eng- 95/10 H Lillee D.K         2 17.5- 2- 26- 6 W  138
0471 1959 Pak Win- 76/10 A Fazal Mahmood      2 18.3- 9- 34- 6 W  145
0252 1936 Ind Eng-134/10 A Amar Singh L       2 25.1-11- 35- 6    147
0052 1896 Eng Aus-119/10 H Hearne J.T         2 21.5-10- 41- 6 W  145
1296 1995 Aus Win-136/10 A McGrath G.D        2 21.5-11- 47- 6    128
0390 1954 Pak Eng-130/10 A Fazal Mahmood      2 30.0-16- 53- 6 W  133
0343 1951 Aus Win-105/10 H Johnston W.A     S 2 16.0- 0- 62- 6    82
0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 12.4-13- 17- 5 W  113
0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Peel R           S 2 12.3- 9- 18- 5 W  113
0347 1952 Aus Win- 78/10 H Miller K.R         2 10.2- 1- 26- 5 W  116
0028 1888 Aus Eng- 53/10 A Turner C.T.B       2 16.4- 9- 27- 5 W  116
0101 1909 Aus Eng-121/10 A Armstrong W.W    S 2 15.3- 7- 27- 5     74
1633 2002 Ind Nzl- 94/10 A Zaheer Khan        2 13.2- 4- 29- 5     99
0031 1889 Saf Eng-148/10 H Rose-Innes A     S 2 12.0- 5- 43- 5     84
1220 1993 Win Pak-140/10 H Bishop I.R         2 15.5- 6- 43- 5 W  127
1073 1987 Pak Ind-145/10 A Iqbal Qasim      S 2 30.0-15- 48- 5 W  116
1073 1987 Pak Ind-145/10 A Tauseef Ahmed    S 2 27.0- 7- 54- 5 W  116
1080 1987 Ind Win-127/10 H Sharma C           2 13.1- 2- 55- 5     75
0043 1895 Eng Aus-123/10 A Richardson T       2 23.0- 6- 57- 5 W   75
0387 1954 Pak Eng-117/ 9 A Khan Mohammad      2 15.0- 3- 61- 5 =   87

These are the second (in the match) innings spells. It would be silly if I considered Jim Laker's nine for 37, backed by a huge score of 459. Hence I have selected only five-fors in matches where the teams had a cover of 150 runs or less. The best modern spell was Dennis Lillee's top-class effort in the Centenary Test at Melbourne. He had only an innings of 138 behind him and helped secure a lead of 43 which was very crucial since Australia finally won by 45 runs. McGrath did similarly against West Indies although the effort went in vain as did Amar Singh's 60 years earlier. The most recent spell has been Zaheer Khan's five-for while defending a low score of 99 at Hamilton. It can be seen that quite a few of these brave efforts have ended in vain.

17. Match-winning five-fors in third innings when in arrears of over 100 runs

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Arrears

0320 1950 Aus Saf- 99/10 A Johnson I.W      S 3 22.4- 2- 34- 5 W  236
2016 2011 Saf Aus- 47/10 H Philander V.D      3  7.0- 3- 15- 5 W  188
1876 2008 Eng Nzl-114/10 H Panesar M.S      S 3 17.0- 5- 37- 6 W  179
1677 2003 Pak Nzl-103/10 A Shoaib Akhtar      3 18.0- 3- 30- 6 W  170
1453 1999 Win Aus-146/10 H Walsh C.A          3 17.1- 3- 39- 5 W  161
0074 1902 Eng Aus-121/10 H Lockwood W.H       3 20.0- 6- 45- 5 W  141
1503 2000 Eng Win- 54/10 H Caddick A.R        3 13.0- 8- 16- 5 W  133
1796 2006 Pak Slk- 73/10 A Mohammad Asif      3 12.0- 6- 27- 5 W  109
1414 1998 Saf Slk-122/10 H Donald A.A         3 13.3- 2- 54- 5 W  103
1455 1999 Eng Nzl-107/10 H Caddick A.R        3 14.0- 3- 32- 5 W  100

Now we come to the third innings of the match. Since two innings have already been played this is the setting innings. Here it is essential that I look for performances which defined the results. Hence I have selected matches in which the third bowling team was in arrears by over 100 runs and went on to win the match.

Ian Johnson's performance set up an unlikely win orchestrated by Neil Harvey's all-time great innings of 151 not out. The most recent spell above is Vernon Philander's effort in his debut Test last month. South Africa were trailing by 188 runs and Philander captured 5 for 15 on that manic Thursday and paved the way for a South African win. Monty Panesar did similarly a few years back. However the most noteworthy spell was Shoaib Akhtar's in the Wellington Test during 2003. Pakistan narrowly avoided follow-on and then Shoaib ran through New Zealand for 103 to set a famous win, cemented by Mohammed Yousuf and Inzamam-ul-Haq. Andy Caddick appears twice with one effort dismissing West Indies for 54. Mohammad Asif's effort was away in Sri Lanka. Trailing by 109, Asif (and Abdul Razzaq) dismissed Sri Lanka for 73 and Pakistan won comfortably.

18. Five-fors in each innings & 14-plus wkts in match

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

 0428 1956 Eng Aus H Laker J.C        S  9 for  37 & 10 for  53 W
 0131 1913 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          8 for  56 &  9 for 103 W
 1089 1988 Ind Win H Hirwani N.D      S  8 for  61 &  8 for  75 W
 0699 1972 Aus Eng A Massie R.A.L        8 for  84 &  8 for  53 W
 1423 1998 Slk Eng A Muralitharan M   S  7 for 155 &  9 for  65 W
 0032 1889 Eng Saf A Briggs J         S  7 for  17 &  8 for  11 W
 0047 1896 Eng Saf A Lohmann G.A         7 for  38 &  8 for   7 W
 0094 1907 Eng Saf H Blythe C         S  8 for  59 &  7 for  40 W
 0234 1934 Eng Aus H Verity H         S  7 for  61 &  8 for  43 W
 1029 1985 Nzl Aus A Hadlee R.J          9 for  52 &  6 for  71 W
 0079 1904 Eng Aus A Rhodes W         S  7 for  56 &  8 for  68 W
 1539 2001 Ind Aus H Harbhajan Singh  S  7 for 133 &  8 for  84 W
 0009 1882 Aus Eng A Spofforth F.R       7 for  46 &  7 for  44 W
 0372 1953 Eng Aus H Bedser A.V          7 for  55 &  7 for  44 =
 0011 1883 Eng Aus A Bates W          S  7 for  28 &  7 for  74 W
 0927 1982 Pak Slk H Imran Khan          8 for  58 &  6 for  58 W
 0483 1959 Ind Aus H Patel J.M        S  9 for  69 &  5 for  55 W
 0133 1914 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          7 for  56 &  7 for  88 =
 0781 1976 Win Eng A Holding M.A         8 for  92 &  6 for  57 W
 1572 2001 Slk Win H Vaas WPUJC          7 for 120 &  7 for  71 W
 0215 1932 Aus Saf H Grimmett C.V     S  7 for 116 &  7 for  83 W

What does one say of Laker? The 400 might very well be beaten one day by an attacking batsman, ordinary attack, shorter boundaries and two+ day's time availability. The 952 for 7 might be beaten one day by a bloody-minded captain and equally bloody-minded batsmen. The 10-wicket capture might be equalled, as I have already prophesied, probably around 2050. Some one might take a double hat-trick in a match. An Indian may win Wimbledon. India might qualify for the football World Cup. Someone might do the Grand Slam in Tennis. Wigan Athletic might win the Premier Division title. Okay I will stop here.

But no one is going to capture all 20 wickets in a match. Everyone must co-operate. The other bowlers, the umpires and the opposing team's batsmen. No sir, not in a thousand years.

Narendra Hirwani's and Bob Massie's were on debut only for the two to fade away. Muralitharan's is probably the best bowling effort in a match over the past 13 years, after Richard Hadlee's efforts against Australia in 1985, which in turn was the best match effort for nine years, after Holding's 14-wicket effort at The Oval shirt-front. These three, and Massie's, are the defining bowling efforts during the past 35 years.

19. Two bowlers who got five-fors & ran through the batting team

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

1207 1993 Pak Nzl- 93/10 A Wasim Akram        4 22.0- 4- 45- 5 W
1207 1993 Pak Nzl- 93/10 A Waqar Younis       4 13.3- 4- 22- 5 W

0911 1981 Ind Eng-102/10 H Kapil Dev N        4 13.2- 0- 70- 5 W
0911 1981 Ind Eng-102/10 H Madan Lal S        4 12.0- 6- 23- 5 W

0760 1975 Aus Eng-101/10 A Walker M.H.N       2 17.3- 5- 48- 5 W
0760 1975 Aus Eng-101/10 A Lillee D.K         2 15.0- 8- 15- 5 W

0667 1969 Ind Aus-107/10 H Bedi B.S         S 3 23.0-11- 37- 5 W
0667 1969 Ind Aus-107/10 H Prasanna E.A.S   S 3 24.2-10- 42- 5 W

0354 1952 Eng Ind- 98/10 H Bedser A.V         2 14.5- 4- 41- 5 =
0354 1952 Eng Ind- 98/10 H Trueman F.S        2 16.0- 4- 48- 5 =

0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Woolley F.E      S 1 15.3- 1- 41- 5 W
0128 1912 Eng Saf- 95/10 H Barnes S.F         1 21.0-10- 28- 5 W

0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Foster F.R         1 13.1- 7- 16- 5 W
0122 1912 Eng Saf- 58/10 H Barnes S.F         1 13.0- 3- 25- 5 W

0068 1902 Aus Eng- 99/10 H Noble M.A        S 3 24.0- 7- 54- 5 W
0068 1902 Aus Eng- 99/10 H Saunders J.V     S 3 24.1- 8- 43- 5 W

0028 1888 Aus Eng- 62/10 A Turner C.T.B       4 16.0- 8- 36- 5 W
0028 1888 Aus Eng- 62/10 A Ferris J.J         4 15.2-11- 26- 5 W

0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Peel R           S 2 12.3- 9- 18- 5 W
0027 1888 Eng Aus- 42/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 12.4-13- 17- 5 W

This has been reverse-chronologically listed. I have also taken only innings of 110 and fewer. Wasim Akram and Waqar did this double-act away against New Zealand. Kapil Dev and Madan Lal needed no one else, during 1981 at home. Max Walker and Lillee, in England, were too much for the home team. Wonderful to see the great spin combination of Bishen Bedi and Erapalli Prasanna over 40 years back, keeping Australia (and S Venkataraghavan) at bay. Alec Bedser's and Fred Trueman's combined effort is the only dual-performance which did not help their team win.

20. Five-fors in lost matches

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R

0967 1983 Ind Win-201/10 H Kapil Dev N        3 30.3- 6- 83- 9 *
0683 1971 Win Ind-352/10 H Noreiga J.M      S 2 49.4-16- 95- 9 *
0461 1958 Ind Win-222/10 H Gupte S.P        S 1 34.3-11-102- 9 *
1398 1998 Eng Win-191/10 A Fraser A.R.C       2 16.1- 2- 53- 8 *
0036 1892 Eng Aus-145/10 A Lohmann G.A        1 43.2-18- 58- 8 *
1899 2008 Aus Saf-281/10 H Johnson M.G        2 24.0- 4- 61- 8 *
0074 1902 Aus Eng-183/10 A Trumble H        S 2 31.0-13- 65- 8 *
0703 1972 Ind Eng-200/10 H Chandrasekhar B. S 2 41.5-18- 79- 8 *
0082 1904 Eng Aus-247/10 A Braund L.C       S 1 29.1- 6- 81- 8 *
1027 1985 Slk Pak-259/10 A Ratnayeke J.R      2 23.2- 5- 83- 8 *
1444 1999 Ind Pak-316/10 H Srinath J          3 27.0- 6- 86- 8 *
1110 1988 Aus Win-349/ 9 H Hughes M.G         3 37.0- 9- 87- 8 *
0057 1898 Eng Aus-239/10 A Richardson T       2 36.1- 7- 94- 8 *
0990 1984 Eng Win-245/10 H Botham I.T         2 27.4- 6-103- 8 *
0323 1950 Win Eng-312/10 A Valentine A.L    S 1 50.0-14-104- 8 *
1077 1987 Eng Pak-353/10 H Foster N.A         2 46.2-15-107- 8 *
1510 2000 Zim Nzl-338/10 H Strang P.A       S 2 51.5-12-109- 8 *
1002 1984 Aus Win-356/10 H Lawson G.F         1 40.0- 7-112- 8 *
0755 1975 Aus Eng-529/10 H Walker M.H.N       2 56.2- 7-143- 8 *
1892 2008 Aus Ind-441/10 A Krejza J.J         1 43.5- 1-215- 8 *

Wonderful efforts, only captures of eight or more wickets included, but in a losing cause. I have mentioned in Part one about the three 9-wicket captures of Kapil, Jack Noreiga and Subhash Gupte which finished on the losing side. Now come the eight-wicket captures. The other notable bowling performance in this table is that of Javagal Srinath, whose eight wickets, with another five-for in the second innings had the best figures in a losing match, i-e., 13 for 132. However he was in good company, since three others, SF Barnes, Merv Hughes and Tom Richardson all captured 13 wickets and lost. During 2008, two Australian bowlers, Mitchell Johnson and Jason Krejza, captured eight wickets but lost the match.

21. Six or more Bowled dismissals in a five-for

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Bowled

0032 1889 Eng Saf- 43/10 A Briggs J         S 3  9.4- 5- 11- 8 W  8
0026 1887 Eng Aus- 84/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 16.4-12- 35- 8 W  7
0047 1896 Eng Saf- 93/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 13.1- 6- 38- 7 W  7
0020 1885 Aus Eng-269/10 H Giffen G         S 1 34.4-14-117- 7 W  6
0032 1889 Eng Saf- 47/10 A Briggs J         S 2 12.5-11- 17- 7 W  6
0050 1896 Eng Aus- 53/10 H Richardson T       1  9.4- 3- 39- 6 W  6
0226 1933 Eng Nzl-158/10 A Bowes W.E          1 19.0- 5- 34- 6 =  6
0662 1969 Pak Nzl-274/10 H Mohammad Nazir   S 2 30.1- 3- 99- 7 =  6
0781 1976 Win Eng-435/10 A Holding M.A        2 33.0- 9- 92- 8 W  6

This is easy. But Briggs deserves his own paragraph. He neither needed the umpire nor his fielders to capture his eight wickets. This was after the first innings in which Briggs bowled six of his seven victims, making a total of 14 in the match. And the 15th wicket, well he made the umpire raise his hand, to uphold a Lbw claim. And let me continue, all these 15 wickets were captured in one day, 26 March 1889.

Lohmann twice bowled seven of the hapless batsmen, once out of eight wickets he captured. That puts Holding's six bowled, out of eight, in the flat Oval track in perspective. One of only two occurrences during the last 80 years.

22. Five or more Lbw dismissals in a five-for

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R Lbw

1143 1990 Win Eng-191/10 H Ambrose C.E.L      4 22.4-10- 45- 8 W  5
1342 1996 Pak Nzl-168/10 H Mohammad Zahid     3 20.0- 3- 66- 7 W  5
1647 2003 Eng Zim- 94/10 H Johnson R.L        2 12.0- 4- 33- 6 W  5
1831 2007 Eng Win-437/10 H Panesar M.S      S 2 36.1- 3-129- 6 =  5
1134 1990 Aus Pak-336/10 H Alderman T.M       4 33.5- 6-105- 5 W  5

These five Lbws in one innings occurrences are all modern, clearly indicating the drastic changes in Lbw law. Previously batsmen could stick their pad with immunity, not now. Alderman's Lbw exploits during the England tour are well known. Then Ambrose did it. The most recent occurrence is by Panesar (what happened to him - is his fielding so bad he is out of the frame).

23. Seven or more Bowled/Lbw dismissals in a five-for

MtId Year For Vs  Score HA Bowler          BT I <--Analysis--> R B+L

0032 1889 Eng Saf- 43/10 A Briggs J         S 3  9.4- 5- 11- 8 W  8
0781 1976 Win Eng-435/10 A Holding M.A        2 33.0- 9- 92- 8 W  8
0026 1887 Eng Aus- 84/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 16.4-12- 35- 8 W  7
0047 1896 Eng Saf- 93/10 A Lohmann G.A        2 13.1- 6- 38- 7 W  7
0483 1959 Ind Aus-219/10 H Patel J.M        S 2 35.5-16- 69- 9 W  7
0583 1965 Ind Nzl-262/10 H Venkataraghavan  S 1 51.1-26- 72- 8 W  7
0032 1889 Eng Saf- 47/10 A Briggs J         S 2 12.5-11- 17- 7 W  7
0942 1982 Pak Ind-197/10 H Imran Khan         3 20.1- 4- 60- 8 W  7

Now the combination. On Briggs and Lohmann we have talked about enough. Holding, at Oval, got all his eight wickets unaided, two with Lbws. Venkataraghavan's was in his debut match.

24. Matches in which bowler captured 10 or more top-order wickets

MtId Year For Vs HA Bowler          BT  Inns1   Inns1  R  TopOrder
                                                          1  2 Mat

0428 1956 Eng Aus H Laker J.C        S  9/ 37 & 10/ 53 W  5  6  11
0131 1913 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          8/ 56 &  9/103 W  6  5  11
0133 1914 Eng Saf A Barnes S.F          7/ 56 &  7/ 88 =  5  5  10
0009 1882 Aus Eng A Spofforth F.R       7/ 46 &  7/ 44 W  5  5  10
0754 1975 Eng Aus A Underwood D.L    S  7/113 &  4/102 *  6  4  10
... and quite a few 9 top order captures later
0910 1981 Aus Pak H Lillee D.K          5/ 81 &  4/ 51 W  5  4   9

This was asked for by Rameshkumar. This adds the top order wickets (1-6) of both innings and orders the table based on this measure. No surprise that Laker tops with 11 top order wickets. Jim Burke managed to get dismissed by Lock, the only non-Laker wicket in the match. The other bowler to capture 11 top order wickets was SF Barnes during 1913. Barnes dismissed 10 top order batsmen the next year, before the fighting took over. Spofforth had done this way back. The last one to capture 10 top order wickets was Underwood, during 1975. This seems to be a tough feat to achieve. So if I lowered the bar to 9 top order wickets, this would have allowed a few recent bowlers like Hirwani, Holding, Kumble, Hoggard, Waqar, Asif and Lillee to come in. But I am going to keep the bar high to preserve the sanctity of achievement. However look at Lillee's feat. All the 9 wickets he captured were top order ones.

Finally a summary of 5-wicket and 10-wicket captures. All these, and more, are available in StatsGuru of Cricinfo. I have just given a summary to round off the articles.

1. Muralitharan has captured five-fors in an innings 67 times. He has achieved this once in every 1.99 Tests. The only bowlers ahead of him are all from way back: Barnes - 1.12, CTB Turner - 1.55 and Grimmett - 1.76. At the other end, Abdul Razzaq has achieved this once in 46 Tests.

2. Muralitharan has captured 10 or more wickets in a match 22 times. Mind-blowing it is, this s one every six Tests. That is like scoring a double-century every six Tests.

3. SF Barnes has captured five-fors in six consecutive Tests. These were the last six Tests he played. CTB Turner also had a run of six Tests: this time, his first six Tests. The third bowler to do this in six consecutive Tests was Alec Bedser. Muralitharan and Waqar Younis have had runs of four Tests, on two separate occasions in their careers.

4. CTB Turner has captured five-fors in six consecutive innings. T Richardson has had a run of five consecutive innings in which he captured five or more wickets.. 10 other bowlers have had runs of four consecutive five-fors.

This has been one huge exercise and inarguably the most comprehensive analysis I have ever done on a single topic. Unfortunately the reader reaction is muted. Not surprising since batsmen get 75% of the attention.

Readers' selections:

Maximum of five per reader, to be given in the form (this is my selection)
Tayfield 9/113, Hadlee 14/149, Laker 10/53, Hadlee 9/52, Murali 9/65
Also short names, not "cricket-follower-from-pietermaritzburg" ???
Must be limited to a single line.
Can include innings or match performances.

Mitchell Johnson: surprisingly less variance in performances
© Getty Images

This post is an extremely belated follow-up to my earlier analysis of streakiness among batsmen. This time, the focus is on bowlers. I've used exactly the same methods as before – analysing and graphing moving averages (calculated over a 20-innings window, in my base case); for details, please see the batting form column.

As before, an example should help to clarify the approach and, because it's always helpful to use as much data as you can get your hands on, let's start with Muttiah Muralitharan. Murali's Longitudinal Career Graph (LCG) is shown in Figure 1. It shows, in the shaded area, his 20-innings moving average (i.e. his bowling average for every consecutive 20 innings in which he bowled). The moving average is shown relative to the average with which he finished his career: whenever the black area is above the axis, he averaged more over the previous 20 innings than he did over his whole career and, whenever the black area is below the axis, his average for the last 20 innings was worse than he achieved in the long run. The innings-by-innings progress of his career average (what StatsGuru calls the cumulative average) is shown by the red line.

Longitudinal career graph of Muttiah Muralitharan's career © Gabriel Rogers

Looking at the red line, we can see that, from the beginning of 1996 until the end of 2008, Murali's career average showed a pretty steady improvement (it fell from 33.89 to a low-point of 21.26). But, if we were to concentrate on that career average alone, we'd probably be tempted to infer that Murali was getting better and better during this period. However, the LCG helps us to understand that wasn't exactly the case: what actually happened was that he got quite a lot better fairly suddenly, then got a bit better again, and then maintained the level of achievement for a number of years while his long-run average slowly caught up (in lengthy careers, long-run averages will only ever catch up slowly, and they'll never catch up completely). At his best during this period, Murali achieved a 20-innings streak of 89 wickets at 15.13.

It should be clear that, the greater the black area on a bowler's LCG, the streakier his performance over his career. In the same way, a single streakiness statistic can be calculated that is directly related to the area of black on each bowler's LCG. [Technically, the measure is the root mean squared deviation of the moving average relative to the long-run career average, which is then scaled by the overall average, to provide CV(RMSD).] Table 1 gives a list of the most and least streaky bowlers in Test history, sorted according to this measure.

Wilfred Rhodes's position at the top of the list reflects the very different ways in which his skills were deployed during his career: in his first Test, he batted at no. 10 and opened the bowling; a decade later, he was routinely opening the batting and his bowling had become occasional. Little wonder, then, that his bowling average fluctuated enormously: he achieved a 20-innings average of 15.58 in 1900–05 whereas, in 1909–13, the same measure sank to 74.60 (note how many did-not-bowleds there are in the latter sample, underlining Rhodes's change of role).

It's little surprise to see Andrew Flintoff high on the list of streaky bowlers. His LCG (Figure 2) gives a clear depiction of the well recognised tripartite nature of his career record. In the worst 20-innings period of his distinctly unimpressive first 50 or so innings, Flintoff managed just 21 wickets at an average of 60.05. Just a couple of years later, he achieved his best 20-inns streak, averaging 22.30 (although note that he only amassed 42 wickets – without a single five-fer – in that period).

Longitudinal career graph of Andrew Flintoff's career © Gabriel Rogers

Shift that whole profile down by the best part of ten runs, and you have something eerily similar: Imran Khan's career as a Test bowler (Figure 3). Again, you have the (relative) famine followed by the (relative) feast, with an unhappy coda where the body could no longer do justice to the ability. In Imran's case, the highlight was an amazing 79 wickets at 13.15 from these 20 consecutive innings in 1982–83. His worst 20 innings were the last 20 in which he bowled but, as worst runs go, 31 wickets at 34.87 is very far from an embarrassment.

Longitudinal career graph of Imran Khan's career © Gabriel Rogers

With Flintoff and Imran as our clue, we might notice that there are a fair few allrounders at the top of the streakiness league. Sobers (another whose bowling was pretty ordinary through his first 50 innings), Botham (whose "streakiness" was actually a fairly linear deterioration), Shaun Pollock (pretty constantly great for most of his career, but suffered an extended horrible streak at the end of it), and Jacques Kallis (up and down throughout) are all amongst the 30 most identifiably streaky, as are Trevor Bailey, Ravi Shastri, and Monty Noble. Conversely, it seems like those at the bottom of the list have a tendency to be pretty poor with the willow. In fact, there is a noisy but identifiable statistical correlation between a bowler's streakiness (CV[RMSD]) and his batting average (r²=0.102; p<0.001). The most likely explanation for this finding, it seems to me, is that bowlers who bat are more likely to endure prolonged streaks of poor form with the ball without getting dropped (it's fair to assume that Flintoff would have been given up as a lost cause long before his 50th innings if he had no capacity to contribute with the bat). As a result, bowlers with extended poor streaks – be that true underperformance or just a run of bad statistical luck – are under-represented in this dataset. If everybody was allowed to play 100 test matches regardless of how well they were doing, then I wouldn't expect allrounders' bowling figures to be any different.

When judged according to these methods, the least streaky bowler in Test history is Bill O'Reilly. His LCG (Figure 4) illustrates the serenely excellent progress of his career. In his worst 20 innings, he took 54 at 25.87; in his best 20 innings, he took 54 wickets at 19.87.

Longitudinal career graph of Bil O'Reilly's career © Gabriel Rogers

According to the maths, the least streaky bowler with at least 100 innings under his belt is Javagal Srinath but, for me, it's Dennis Lillee's numbers that really stand out, with a career record almost as smooth as his bowling action. As his LCG (Fig 5) shows, it was only really his last few Test matches that spoiled what was otherwise an incredibly consistent career. Aside from his last six innings, his 20-innings moving average never left the twenties.

Longitudinal career graph of Dennis Lillee's career © Gabriel Rogers

Mitchell Johnson's low position in the streakiness table may be a surprise to some; after all, he doesn't have much of a reputation for steady results. However, it turns out that, over periods of 20 innings, any real or perceived fluctuations in his performance tend to even themselves out, and the range over which his moving average oscillates (23.22 to 37.56) is, in comparative terms, not so great. On average, across this dataset, a bowler's performance in his best and worst 20-innings streaks are 72% and 150% of his career average, respectively. If Johnson were entirely typical, in this respect, his best and worst streaks would be 21.40 and 44.62, which confirms that his performance has been a bit less variable than average. You don't get a very different picture when you use shorter windows, either (I also looked at 10-innings averages and 5-innings averages; see Technical Appendix for a brief description and links to the results). I conclude that Johnson has a bit of an unfair reputation for wildly varying performances, though one thing these stats can't confirm or deny is that he goes through phases of conspicuously looking terrible and brilliant.

Immediately following what may be the most famous 1-wicket match-haul in Test history (at Old Trafford in 1956), Tony Lock achieved something almost as exceptional as his partner's feat: during his next twenty innings, he became the only bowler amongst those analysed here to average less than 10.00 over a period of that length, taking 54 wickets in the process. He even managed to get dropped during this streak although, to be fair to the selectors, the man they preferred – Johnny Wardle – was in the middle of a sub-20 streak of his own. With Laker's 20-innings moving average dropping to 11.86 in the same period, it's fair to assume England's spin-bowling resources of that time are unlikely ever to find a statistical equal.

There are only ten bowlers in the history of Test cricket who never averaged over 30.00 in any 20 consecutive innings. Most of them belong to an era of pervasively lower averages, but there are two modern-day exceptions – Curtly Ambrose, whose highest 20-innings moving average was just 26.81, and Mohammad Asif, who never did worse than the 28.19 he averaged in his last 20 Test innings (it's probably appropriate to speak about Mohammad Asif in the past tense, now, right?).

As with batsmen, there is no association between streakiness (or the lack of it) and success, either in terms of average (r ²=0.007; p=0.298) or win-rate (r ²<0.001; p=0.993). Some bowlers achieved great figures with up-and-down performance; others were closer to their long-run average throughout; there's no evidence that one profile or another leads to more wins or better stats at the end of your career.

What does it all mean?

As ever, though, this story only really gets interesting when we question the patterns underlying the data. Statisticians like to make a distinction between descriptive statistics (those that simply present observed data) and inferential statistics (those that seek to make sense of it). In this case, what we need to do is account for the play of random variation in bowlers' careers. It is inevitable that chance alone will lead to variation in each player's figures, and we need to distinguish this from real swings of performance.

I investigated this in exactly the same way as with batsmen – shuffling each bowler's career into a purely random order 10,000 times, and seeing how often a career as streaky as the real one emerged (the technical term for this technique is bootstrapping). This way, we get to quantify how likely it is that their careers would have happened in a world where form didn't exist (this is the figure marked p in the table – technically, it is a one-tailed empirical p-value).

The results provide a very similar picture to that which I found when analysing form amongst batsmen. The key finding is that there are surprisingly few bowlers whose careers give a convincing picture of variation in form over and above that which would be expected by chance.

One example is Terry Alderman. There are only two possible explanations for his career showing as much variation as it did: (i) for one reason or another, his essential wicket-taking ability varied over the course of his career (i.e. he really did have runs of good and bad performance), or (ii) a statistical event with probability 0.0007 (1-in-1,429) has occurred. In this circumstance, we can probably conclude with some confidence that there's some non-random variation afoot and, indeed, looking at Alderman's LCG (Figure 6), it's hard to imagine that horrible 1984 and that dazzling 1989–1990 could have happened to the same bowler.

Longitudinal career graph of Terry Alderman's career © Gabriel Rogers

However, bowlers whose careers show such an identifiably streaky pattern are the exception rather than the rule. The relatively small number of very low p-values suggests that random variation around a career-long mean is very often a pretty plausible explanation of the peaks and troughs we tend to think of as form. Turning back to Mitchell Johnson, we can see that shuffling his career into a random order produces at least as much up-and-down as we've seen in his actual career about three-quarters of the time. Similarly, the prevailing wisdom is that a career like Steve Harmison's has been massively influenced by swings of form. However, when I took form out of the equation by putting his career in a random order, something that was – on the whole – every bit as streaky emerged nearly a quarter of the time (although less than a twentieth of the virtual careers featured a single streak as hot as Harmison's 50 wickets at 18.64 in 2003–2004). In any other field, a statistician faced with such numbers would be very unlikely to conclude that there was anything other than random variation at play.

However, one interesting finding is that Muttiah Muralitharan – although his streakiness stat (CV[RMSD]) is nothing out of the ordinary – has a pretty low p-value (much lower than those around him on the list). One reason for this is that, because his career is longer than most, it provides more data and, hence, more opportunity to distinguish signal from noise (a statistician would say that, when we look at Murali's career, we get a more powerful analysis, meaning it is less susceptible to Type II error). This raises the possibility that, if we had more data on other bowlers, we'd be able to detect streakiness in their careers more easily (in the same way that it's a lot easier to tell whether you've got an unevenly weighted coin by tossing it 200 times than it is when you toss it only 20).

Conclusions

One thing it's important to emphasise is that, although I've used the word form throughout this analysis, that's really just a shorthand term for variation-of-performance-for-whatever-reason. The methods described here can identify up-and-down results, and can account for the play of chance in contributing to apparent hot and cold streaks. What they can't do is explain the causes of any non-random variation in performance. It may be that a bowler really was worse at taking wickets in a given period, but it's equally likely that he was bowling in unfavourable circumstances beyond his control. Above, we saw that Terry Alderman's Test career appears to have more than a hint of up-and-down about it. However, that monstrous hump in his LCG just happens to coincide with a period during which he spent a disproportionate amount of time bowling at a pretty formidable West Indies side. Maybe he would have done just as badly against other opponents at this time, or maybe he would have achieved a level of performance that was more consistent with the rest of his career; nothing in the numbers alone helps us to guess.

One way or another, though, the findings described in this blog – in conjunction with my earlier analysis of test batting form – lead me to question whether, as cricket fans, we read rather too much into apparent peaks and troughs of performance. I'm quite sure few bowlers would dispute the assertion that their figures are susceptible to dumb luck; they'd certainly acknowledge that, in any individual innings, their best balls may beat the bat while they pick up wickets with deliveries that they wouldn't otherwise have wanted to remember. So it's maybe not so great a leap to conclude that the fact that bowlers end up with figures that can be quite variable across sequences of matches does not necessarily imply that there was fundamental variation in their wicket-taking capacity over those periods. In this way, it's not so surprising to see that, in a substantial majority of cases, you get just as much peak and just as much trough if you rearrange test bowlers' careers in any old order. One thing's for certain: every bowler who gets dropped after a bad trot feels certain he was on the verge of a performance that would have redressed the balance. Maybe more of them are right than we would've guessed.

Technical appendix

1. As before, I should start by acknowledging that the approach set out in this blog is heavily influenced by an excellent baseball stats book, Curve Ball by Jim Albert and Jay Bennett.

2. As I did for batsmen, I undertook a series of sensitivity analyses, varying the size of the window over which the moving average is calculated. I looked at longer and shorter windows; here are the results for 5 innings, 10 innings, and 30 innings. Once again, none of these analyses is very different from the 20-innings version. Funnily enough, the six bowlers with the most successful 10-inns streaks are all Englishmen – Lock, Barnes, Laker, Wardle, Statham, and Bedser – five of them achieving the feat in the 1950s! Most of them are also amongst the best 30-inns streaks, where they're joined by the likes of Imran, Hadlee, and Muralitharan. I also saw what difference it makes to use a different type of moving average – the exponentially weighted moving average – in which innings are never completely discarded; they just receive ever-decreasing weight as they recede into the past. The weighting coefficient I used was 0.066967, which dictates that the weight applied halves every ten innings. The results table is here. By and large, there is very little difference between these results and those calculated according to the simple moving average. I notice that a couple of bowlers whose career had a distinct upward or downward trend rise up the list (Richard Hadlee is a good example of someone who got better and better). On the whole, though, I can't tell much difference between them.

3. In the comments of my column about batting streakiness (which used an identical statistical approach to this analysis), there was some interesting discussion about p-values and multiple testing. This is an important issue in statistical analyses which look at the same thing repeatedly – in this case, the streakiness of 149 different bowlers. For example, when we say Terry Alderman appears to be a significantly streaky bowler because he has a very low p-value of 0.0007, we mean that there are only two possible explanations for his career showing as much variation as it did: (i) for one reason or another, his essential wicket-taking capacity varied over the course of his career (i.e. he really did have runs of good and bad performance), or (ii) a statistical event with probability 0.0007 (1-in-1,429) has occurred. At first glance, 1-in-1,429 seems very long odds, so it's tempting to conclude that we have a robust finding of streakiness. After all, you'd be amazed if you rolled four dice and got four sixes, and that's a slightly more likely event. However, we need to remember that there are 149 separate bowlers being analysed, here; if we repeated our dice-rolling experiment that many times, would we be very surprised to see 6-6-6-6 come up at least once along the way? So we need to be careful before assuming that something unlikely couldn't have happened when it had many opportunities to do so. There are several methods for adjusting p-values for multiple comparisons, but I chose not to extend and complicate my analysis by applying them (not least because I'm not much of a fan of obsessive p-value-spotting, in any case).

4. So, if we have to be a bit hesitant about identifying individual bowlers as especially streaky, can we tell whether there's any streakiness going on? One way to get a handle on that question (thanks to Russ and Dave, whose comments on my last column led me in this direction) is to calculate a global p-value – that is, an estimate of the weight of evidence that there's at least some streakiness somewhere amongst all the bowlers analysed. This can be done by counting the number of individual p-values below a certain level, and estimating the probability that that many bowlers (or more) would have streaky-looking records if there were nothing but random variation at play. In this instance, we can say that, with a global dataset of 149 bowlers, we would expect roughly 7 of them to have a p-value of 0.05 or less, just by chance, if there were no such thing as streakiness amongst bowlers (149 × 0.05 = 7.45). In fact, there are 21 such players in the dataset. Comparing this observed frequency to a Poisson distribution, we can calculate that the probability of getting 21 streaky players when you expect 7.45 is 0.00004. In other words, the amount of streakiness observed across all bowlers is extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance alone (in technical terms, we are likely to reject the global null hypothesis that there's no such thing as a streaky bowler).

Richard Hadlee: 33 wickets in just three Tests against Australia in 1985 © Getty Images

I have embarked on a major project. This has been triggered by a few comments on performance of all-rounders in series. I have extended the scope of the same and will cover, over three articles, the performance of batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders in series. I am aware that Cricinfo statistics section gives you an insight into the runs scored and wickets captured in Test series. However those are raw numbers and also do not show the results by series types. Even Statsguru might not provide that. What I intend to do is to weight the individual player performances in series with various relevant parameters. It is necessary to recognize where players performed (home or away), how did the performance measure against those of the other bowlers, what were the quality of wickets captured, was there a critical series situation et al. That would let us judge performances at their true worth.

My previous article was on the batting performances in series. Now I look at the bowling performances in Test series. The wickets captured are weighted by the following factors.

1. Where the series was played: Home, away or neutral locations. Instead of penalizing home performances I have left the home wickets at no additional weight and weighted wickets captured at neutral locations at 5% and away at 10%. One could raise endless queries on the subjectivity or not of these weights. However there is no better solution on offer. As far as bowler friendly tracks are concerned, the visiting bowlers might get the extra weight, playing away, but will lose out on the Pitch type. And vice versa.

2. Series situation: I leave the other Tests as they are. An additional weight of 5% is given for the deciders only. As far as I am concerned there is no dead rubber Test. Over the past 10 years every Test is important, because of Test Rankings. The Oval Test, technically, is a dead rubber. However, for England there is a chance to widen the gap at the top and effect a 4-0 whitewash, for India the no.2 rank is at stake and the chance to finish the series at a respectable 1-3 instead of a humiliating 0-4. So the idea of dead rubber will remain only in the minds of some cricket followers/analysts, not with this analyst. Readers should not forget that if India had taken the challenge of 70-plus runs at run-a-ball against West Indies in the last Test, the no.1 position would never have come up for grabs and might have needed a 3/4 match difference.

3. Quality of wickets captured: This is best explained with the following example. Which performance is better. This happened in the Pakistan first innings of last year's Edgbaston Test (Test # 1972).

Anderson 14.3 6 20 4.
S. Broad 17.0 7 38 4.

This is done by determining the quality of wickets captured. In two ways: The first is the position of the batsman (it is very important to capture top wickets) and the second is the batting average of the dismissed batsman (equally important to dismiss the better batsmen). The weight ranges from 75% to 150%. The range is quite wide since the situations vary very considerably. I have got the weight for this measure go below 100 so that low order and lesser batsmen's wickets count less.

To weight at a higher level, the dismissal of a specific batsman (because of his beyond-the-zone performance) against a specific team, a la Laxman against Australia, is a great idea, suggested by my tough editor, but is too complicated and beyond the scope of this exercise. It would have more value in Bowling performance rating analysis.

4. Pitch type: This is determined by the Runs per Wicket value for the match. This value ranges from 10 to 100 and the weight ranges from 80% (for 10) to 120 (100). Here also I have got the weight for this measure to go below 100 so that wickets captured on seaming/spinning bowler-friendly tracks are weighted less and on flat tracks, weighted more.

5. Bowler's average vs Teams' series average: This is a completely new measure which has been introduced based on the readers' comments for the batsmen article. The ratio between the series bowling average (for both teams) and Bower bowling average is worked out. This ranges from 0.94 (for the considered 25-wickets plus performances. Can go way down for others) to 3.32 (the bowler out-performs his compatriots by 3-plus times). The weighting ranges from 0.99 to 1.33. I have used the average for both teams rather than for the bowler's team since I felt that would be a correct comparison, incorporating some form of peer performance concept.

The overall effort is that the runs scored in each innings are weighted by the five factors leading to an overall weighting ranging from a theoretical low of around 75% to a theoretical high of 200%. However these are theoretical values and in practice, the range is from 90% to 130%. Stray spells might be weighted down or more. The results are, to say the least, stunning. The true value of bowler performances in series unfolds before us.

The other decision I have taken is that the performances in a series is not going to be influenced by the number of Tests played. Whether a player was dropped or injured is outside the purview of this analysis. A 6-Test series is what it says, whether 4 or 5 Tests were played by a player. The other point is that a series has to have a minimum of 3 Tests to be included in this analysis. Also, the three Triangular tournaments, the 1912 one and the two Asian Championships are not included. This is because these are not bi-lateral series.

The tables are shown for 6, 5, 4 and 3 Test series. These are ordered on the base information, which is the wickets captured. The weighting factor and weighted wickets are also shown. Later in the article similar tables are shown, this time ordered on the weighted wickets. I have stayed away from superfluous information, at least for this analysis, of bowling averages (used however), best bowling, 5/10 wicket hauls et al. When someone captures 30 wickets in a 3/4/5 Test series, it really does not matter whether the average was 15 or 20. At the end I have also shown the top 5 and bottom 5, in terms of weighting, of the wickets captured table (over 500 runs).

First the 6-Test series table. Those who have captured 33 wickets in the series have been shown.

232 1981 ENG-Aus Alderman T.M      (Aus) 21.26 6 42 1.034 43.4 
296 1989 ENG-Aus Alderman T.M      (Aus) 17.37 6 41 1.289 52.8 
213 1978 AUS-Eng Hogg R.M          (Aus) 12.85 6 41 0.988 40.5 
244 1982 PAK-Ind Imran Khan        (Pak) 13.95 6 40 1.257 50.3 
232 1981 ENG-Aus Lillee D.K        (Aus) 22.31 6 39 1.109 43.3 
382 1997 ENG-Aus McGrath G.D       (Aus) 19.47 6 36 1.066 38.4 
331 1993 ENG-Aus Warne S.K         (Aus) 25.79 6 34 1.180 40.1 
232 1981 ENG-Aus Botham I.T        (Eng) 20.59 6 34 0.940 32.0 
250 1983 IND-Win Marshall M.D      (Win) 18.82 6 33 1.206 39.8 
190 1974 AUS-Eng Thomson J.R       (Aus) 17.94 6 33 1.114 36.8 

This table is dominated by Australian bowlers, with two stunning performances by Alderman leading. The later performance by Alderman was more devastating with more top order dismissals. An interesting fact is that 19 out of 41 dismissals were leg-before dismissals. Imran's is the stand-out performance on the sub-continental feather-beds. The 6-Test series were primarily the domain of Australia and England.

Now the 5-Test series table. Those who have captured 35 wickets in the series have been shown.

 37 1913 SAF-Eng Barnes S.F        (Eng) 10.94 5 49 1.111 54.4 
108 1956 ENG-Aus Laker J.C         (Eng)  9.61 5 46 1.091 50.2 
 65 1935 SAF-Aus Grimmett C.V      (Aus) 14.59 5 44 1.120 49.3 
526 2005 ENG-Aus Warne S.K         (Aus) 19.92 5 40 1.121 44.8
 96 1953 ENG-Aus Bedser A.V        (Eng) 17.49 5 39 1.035 40.4 
 43 1924 AUS-Eng Tate M.W          (Eng) 23.18 5 38 1.147 43.6 
 34 1910 AUS-Saf Whitty W.J        (Aus) 17.08 5 37 1.026 38.0 
111 1956 SAF-Eng Tayfield H.J      (Saf) 17.19 5 37 0.918 34.0 
 38 1920 AUS-Eng Mailey A.A        (Aus) 26.28 5 36 1.034 37.2 
 33 1910 SAF-Eng Vogler A.E.E      (Saf) 21.75 5 36 0.959 34.5 
289 1988 ENG-Win Marshall M.D      (Win) 12.66 5 35 1.192 41.7 
177 1972 IND-Eng Chandrasekhar B.S (Ind) 18.91 5 35 0.946 33.1 

Barnes' record will stand forever. There are going to be very few 5-Test series and even in these, one bowler capturing half the wickets that fall is never going to happen. Laker almost beat that record. The stand-out modern performance is that of Warne in the 2005 Ashes series, with 40 wickets.

Next the 4-Test series table. Those who have captured 25 wickets in the series have been shown.

 84 1950 ENG-Win Valentine A.L     (Win) 20.42 4 33 1.134 37.4 
410 1999 WIN-Aus McGrath G.D       (Aus) 16.93 4 30 1.092 32.7 
496 2003 SAF-Win Ntini M           (Saf) 21.38 4 29 1.168 33.9 
 91 1952 ENG-Ind Trueman F.S       (Eng) 13.31 4 29 1.057 30.6 
263 1985 WIN-Nzl Marshall M.D      (Win) 18.00 4 27 1.091 29.4 
509 2004 IND-Aus Kumble A          (Ind) 25.37 4 27 0.998 27.0
282 1987 IND-Win Walsh C.A         (Win) 16.81 4 26 1.109 28.8 
169 1970 SAF-Aus Procter M.J       (Saf) 13.58 4 26 1.084 28.2 
 84 1950 ENG-Win Ramadhin S        (Win) 23.23 4 26 1.073 27.9 
410 1999 WIN-Aus Walsh C.A         (Win) 20.73 4 26 0.962 25.0 
157 1967 AUS-Ind Prasanna E.A.S    (Ind) 27.44 4 25 1.052 26.3 

The 4-Test series are the poor cousins. Not many and even the performances are average. Valentine, on his first tour of England, leads the table. McGrath's 1999 Caribbean performance is the modern classic. An unlikely bowler, Ntini, is next. It will be of interest to note that this was Kumble's only 25-plus wicket capture in a series.

Let us now see the 3-Test series table. Those who have captured 25 wickets in the series have been shown.

 19 1896 SAF-Eng Lohmann G.A       (Eng)  5.80 3 35 1.080 37.8 
267 1985 AUS-Nzl Hadlee R.J        (Nzl) 12.15 3 33 1.241 41.0 
440 2001 IND-Aus Harbhajan Singh   (Ind) 17.03 3 32 1.164 37.2 
459 2001 SLK-Zim Muralitharan M    (Slk)  9.80 3 30 1.182 35.4 
283 1987 PAK-Eng Abdul Qadir       (Pak) 14.57 3 30 1.025 30.7 
306 1990 PAK-Nzl Waqar Younis      (Pak) 10.86 3 29 0.976 28.3 
499 2004 SLK-Aus Muralitharan M    (Slk) 23.18 3 28 1.036 29.0
335 1993 PAK-Zim Waqar Younis      (Pak) 13.81 3 27 0.950 25.6 
494 2003 SLK-Eng Muralitharan M    (Slk) 12.31 3 26 1.210 31.4 
499 2004 SLK-Aus Warne S.K         (Aus) 20.04 3 26 1.101 28.6 
455 2001 SLK-Win Vaas WPUJC        (Slk) 15.42 3 26 1.058 27.5 
430 2000 SLK-Saf Muralitharan M    (Slk) 18.46 3 26 1.056 27.5 
571 2008 SLK-Ind Mendis B.A.W      (Slk) 18.38 3 26 1.050 27.3
423 2000 PAK-Slk Muralitharan M    (Slk) 19.85 3 26 1.044 27.1 
554 2007 SLK-Bng Muralitharan M    (Slk) 10.85 3 26 1.029 26.7
 30 1907 ENG-Saf Blythe C          (Eng) 10.38 3 26 0.977 25.4 
339 1994 NZL-Pak Wasim Akram       (Pak) 17.24 3 25 1.118 28.0 
 26 1902 SAF-Aus Llewellyn C.B     (Saf) 17.92 3 25 0.885 22.1

Even though Lohmann leads the table, Hadlee's was the most devastating of all, coming in an away series against Australia. Harbhajan suffers only in comparison with Laxman. It can be seen that many of these 25-plus wicket performances are modern ones.

I have given below the top bowlers in each of the series types, this time based on the weighted wickets captured. Varying number of bowlers have been shown.

296 1989 ENG-Aus Alderman T.M      (Aus) 17.37 6 41 1.289 52.8
244 1982 PAK-Ind Imran Khan        (Pak) 13.95 6 40 1.257 50.3
232 1981 ENG-Aus Alderman T.M      (Aus) 21.26 6 42 1.034 43.4
232 1981 ENG-Aus Lillee D.K        (Aus) 22.31 6 39 1.109 43.3
213 1978 AUS-Eng Hogg R.M          (Aus) 12.85 6 41 0.988 40.5
331 1993 ENG-Aus Warne S.K         (Aus) 25.79 6 34 1.180 40.1
...
 37 1913 SAF-Eng Barnes S.F        (Eng) 10.94 5 49 1.111 54.4
108 1956 ENG-Aus Laker J.C         (Eng)  9.61 5 46 1.091 50.2
 65 1935 SAF-Aus Grimmett C.V      (Aus) 14.59 5 44 1.120 49.3
526 2005 ENG-Aus Warne S.K         (Aus) 19.92 5 40 1.121 44.8
 43 1924 AUS-Eng Tate M.W          (Eng) 23.18 5 38 1.147 43.6
289 1988 ENG-Win Marshall M.D      (Win) 12.66 5 35 1.192 41.7
 96 1953 ENG-Aus Bedser A.V        (Eng) 17.49 5 39 1.035 40.4
...
 84 1950 ENG-Win Valentine A.L     (Win) 20.42 4 33 1.134 37.4
496 2003 SAF-Win Ntini M           (Saf) 21.38 4 29 1.168 33.9
410 1999 WIN-Aus McGrath G.D       (Aus) 16.93 4 30 1.092 32.7
 91 1952 ENG-Ind Trueman F.S       (Eng) 13.31 4 29 1.057 30.6
...
267 1985 AUS-Nzl Hadlee R.J        (Nzl) 12.15 3 33 1.241 41.0
 19 1896 SAF-Eng Lohmann G.A       (Eng)  5.80 3 35 1.080 37.8
440 2001 IND-Aus Harbhajan Singh   (Ind) 17.03 3 32 1.164 37.2
459 2001 SLK-Zim Muralitharan M    (Slk)  9.80 3 30 1.182 35.4
494 2003 SLK-Eng Muralitharan M    (Slk) 12.31 3 26 1.210 31.4
283 1987 PAK-Eng Abdul Qadir       (Pak) 14.57 3 30 1.025 30.7

Note how much Alderman's 1989 effort has gained, mainly because of the quality of wickets. Imran's wonderful effort of 40 wickets in the subcontinent gets its due. Similarly Hadlee's Trans-Tasman away-haul of 33 moves up to 41 wickets.

Now the top-10, across all series types, whose weight value is the highest and lowest. This is a very interesting mini-table which brings out the value of this type of weighting.

175 1972 WIN-Nzl Taylor B.R        (Nzl) 17.70 5 27 1.303 35.2 
296 1989 ENG-Aus Alderman T.M      (Aus) 17.37 6 41 1.289 52.8 
137 1964 IND-Eng Titmus F.J        (Eng) 27.67 5 27 1.270 34.3 
 62 1934 ENG-Aus O'Reilly W.J      (Aus) 24.93 5 28 1.265 35.4 
197 1976 ENG-Win Holding M.A       (Win) 12.71 5 28 1.262 35.3 
244 1982 PAK-Ind Imran Khan        (Pak) 13.95 6 40 1.257 50.3 
516 2004 SAF-Eng Hoggard M.J       (Eng) 25.50 5 26 1.249 32.5
267 1985 AUS-Nzl Hadlee R.J        (Nzl) 12.15 3 33 1.241 41.0 
447 2001 ENG-Aus McGrath G.D       (Aus) 16.94 5 32 1.227 39.2 
293 1988 AUS-Win Ambrose C.E.L     (Win) 21.46 5 26 1.227 31.9 
...
...
...
 33 1910 SAF-Eng Faulkner G.A      (Saf) 21.90 5 29 0.892 25.9 
 26 1902 SAF-Aus Llewellyn C.B     (Saf) 17.92 3 25 0.885 22.1 
 24 1901 AUS-Eng Noble M.A         (Aus) 19.00 5 32 0.872 27.9
200 1976 IND-Eng Bedi B.S          (Ind) 22.96 5 25 0.834 20.8

Taylor's effort was against a good West Indian side, away, and included quite a few top order wickets. He also achieved this in 4 Tests. I have already talked about Alderman and will do so again later. Titmus' case is interesting. He was playing away, against a good Indian line-up. However the real clincher was the quality of wickets, an amazing 23 out of 27 were those of the top batsmen. Similar was the situation with O'Reilly and Holding.

Finally the top-10, across all series types, whose series average has been the way above the rest of the bowlers who bowled in the series. A true peer performance indicator.

459 2001 SLK-Zim Muralitharan M    (Slk) 3 30  9.80  86-32.57 3.32
554 2007 SLK-Bng Muralitharan M    (Slk) 3 26 10.85  72-34.40 3.17
244 1982 PAK-Ind Imran Khan        (Pak) 6 40 13.95 130-42.17 3.02
 19 1896 SAF-Eng Lohmann G.A       (Eng) 3 35  5.80  98-17.38 3.00
 55 1931 AUS-Saf Ironmonger H      (Aus) 5 31  9.55 155-26.24 2.75
494 2003 SLK-Eng Muralitharan M    (Slk) 3 26 12.31  96-32.58 2.65
115 1958 ENG-Nzl Lock G.A.R        (Eng) 5 34  7.47 135-19.38 2.59
197 1976 ENG-Win Holding M.A       (Win) 5 28 12.71 164-31.55 2.48
267 1985 AUS-Nzl Hadlee R.J        (Nzl) 3 33 12.15  95-30.11 2.48
175 1972 WIN-Nzl Taylor B.R        (Nzl) 5 27 17.70 120-43.69 2.47

Finally let me give my own selection of the top performances in a series. This time ordered based on my preference.

Hadlee's 33 wickets vs Australia, away, during 1985: In my opinion, this was the best ever performance by a bowler in a Test series. There is no denying that Australia were not a great team during 1985. However this was an away tour and Australia are not pushovers in their backyard. Hadlee captured 9, 6, 5, 2, 5 and 6 wickets in the six innings. 5 times out of 6 innings he captured 5-plus wickets. Even Muralitharan in his prime did not achieve this. In a reasonably low-scoring series, he also scored 126 runs. The 2-1 win for New Zealand was the icing on the cake.

Imran Khan's 40 wickets vs India during : This suffered only by comparison to Hadlee's master class. To capture 40 wickets on the flat-bed pitches of Pakistan against a very strong Indian batting lineup was Imran's best ever effort as a bowler and captain. He had 5 five-wicket hauls and helped Pakistan win 3-0. His only support came from Sarfraz Nawaz, with 19 wickets.

Laker's 46 wickets vs Australia during 1956: This has to come in because of the 19 wickets at Manchester. But then there is the small matter of 27 wickets in the four remaining Tests. This was somewhat similar to Richards' 1976 performance, a bowler dominating a quality batting team throughout the series. The Australians, despite McDonald, Harvey, Craig, Davidson, Miller, Benaud, Lindwall et al, had no answers.

SF Barnes' 49 wickets vs South Africa during 1914: Just as I could not ignore Bradman's 974, there is no way I can miss this performance. Barnes achieved this, playing away in South Africa. He captured 49 wickets in four Tests. Then, according to C M-J "S.F.Barnes declined to play after a difference of opinion concerning administrative matters.". If he had played he would have ended with 60-plus wickets and a career tally of 200-plus wickets. He played no more Tests.

Alderman's 41 wickets vs England, away, during 1989: Alderman had captured 42 wickets on the 1981 tour of England. However I selected this one since his overall wicket quality was much better, as evidenced by the significant weight-up these performances have received. 28 of Alderman's 41 wickets were those of 1-6 batsmen. The English batting quality in these two tours was approximately the same. Australia won 4-0 and this was due to two men, Alderman and Taylor.

Warne's 40 wickets vs England, away, during 2005: This is a modern classic. Reminds me of Lara's efforts at Sri Lanka. Warne, coming to the end of the career, captured 40 wickets against a strong English team. That Australia lost 1-2 should not take anything away from Warne's magnificence. If Lee had hit the full toss a few yards to the left or right Australia might have won 3-0. Warne's bowling in the last Test, when his tally of 12 wickets included 9 top batsmen is one of the greatest bowling efforts ever.

I have fixed 3 Tests as the minimum criteria for defining a proper Test series. Let me confirm that, unlike the batsmen crossing 500 runs, no bowler has crossed 25 wickets in a 2-Test series.

Just to complete the Series bowling analysis, I have given below the table of batsmen who have captured 25 wickets or more in a series most number of times. Totally expected results with Muralitharan at the top. Once again emphasises the top quality and class of the West Indian greats, four of them featured here. Grimmett and O'Reilly feature 9 times. Surprises, Kumble, Harbhajan and Wasim Akram just once and Zaheer, not even once.

Muralitharan: 6
Grimmett:     5
Ambrose:      5
Garner:       5
Marshall:     5
Warne:        5
           on 4, plenty (O'Reilly, Lillee, Kapil Dev, McGrath and Walsh).

To download the complete list of players who have crossed 500 runs in a Test series, please right-click here and save the file.

Now for the Bowling hall of fame (or more correctly, shame). While I sympathise with these bowlers, I like this part of the exercise since it throws a challenge to me to identify such performances. The only criteria I have set is that the concerned bowler should have captured 100 Test wickets or more. This is to ensure that the list contains only regular bowlers.

Ser Year Hme Vs  Bowler                   Avge  Wkts

535 2006 PAK-Ind Harbhajan Singh   (Ind) 355.00*  0  ( 83 overs)
281 1987 ENG-Pak Emburey J.E       (Eng) 222.00*  0  (104 overs)
554 2007 SLK-Bng Mohammad Rafique  (Bng) 344.00   1  ( 78 overs)
169 1970 SAF-Aus McKenzie G.D      (Aus) 333.00   1  (111 overs)

384 1997 SLK-Ind Chauhan           (Win) 277.00   1
481 2003 WIN-Aus Collins P.T       (Win) 263.00   1
599 2010 NZL-Aus Martin C.S        (Nzl) 260.00   1
523 2005 ENG-Bng Mohammad Rafique  (Bng) 257.00   1
578 2008 AUS-Saf Lee B             (Aus) 249.00   1
314 1991 AUS-Ind Warne S.K         (Aus) 228.00   1
274 1986 IND-Aus Reid B.A          (Aus) 222.00   1
438 2000 SAF-Slk Vaas WPUJC        (Slk) 218.00   1
487 2003 ENG-Saf Gough D           (Eng) 215.00   1
502 2004 PAK-Ind Saqlain Mushtaq   (Pak) 204.00   1

* To pre-empt readers coming out with comments on the average being infinity.

Emburey at least managed to bowl accurately and kept his RpO to a very good 2.13. Rafique bowled in only 3 innings, but at least managed a wicket, at a high RpO of 4.41. McKenzie bowled in the first two Tests, was dropped for the third, came back in the fourth and successfully claimed a wicket. His RpO was 3.0.

Since the article has already become long, I will keep the all-round analyses to later posts. This will also enable the readers to exchange information in an informed manner.

Readers' selection: I would expect some justification supporting your nomination. Please lighten my task.

Harbhajan Singh (32 in 3 Tests during 2001 vs Aus at home: 37.2 AdjWkts). Arjun.
Marshall (35 in 4 Tests during 1988 vs Eng away: 41.7 adjwkts). Gerry.
Ambrose (33 in 5 Tests during 1992 vs Aus away: 39.9 adjwkts). Gerry.
Larwood (33 in 5 Tests during 1932 vs Aus away: 38.3 adjwkts). Paul.
Davidson (33 in 4 Tests during 1960 vs Aus away: 36.8 adjwkts). Ruchir.
Muralitharan (24 in 3 Tests during 2006 vs Eng away: 31.0 (est) adjwkts) Ruchir.
Alderman (42 in 6 Tests during 1981 vs Eng away: 43.4 adjwkts) Tom.
Hogg (41 in 6 Tests vs Eng at home during 1978: 40.5 adjwkts) Manish/Jerry.
Mendis (26 in 3 Tests vs Ind at home during 2008: 27.3 adjwkts). Ajinkya/Pallab.
Warne (26 in 3 Tests vs Slk, Away during 2004: 28.6 adjwkts).
Marshall (35 in 5 vs Eng, away during 1988: 41.7 adjwkts). Harsh 
Donald (33 in 5 Tests vs Eng, away during 1998: 37.4 adjwkts). Arjun.
Snow (31 in 5 Tests vs Aus, away during 1970: 37.8 adjwkts).Engle+Turner.
Garner (31 in 5 Tests vs Aus, at home during 1984: 33.3 adjwkts. Alex.
Holding (24 in 3 Tests vs Aus, away during 1981. Gerry+Alex
Saqlain (20 in 3 Tests during 1999 vs Ind, away). Arjun+others
Kumble (21 in 3 Tests during 1999 at home). Arjun+others
Bedser (39 in 5 Tests during 1953 at home-5x5 wkts: 40.4 adj). Waspsting.
Tyson (28 in 5 Tests, vs Aus, away: 29.3 adj). Shane
Thomson (33 in 5 Tests vs Eng at home during 1974: adj 36.8 ). Gerry/WS.
Barnes (34 in 5 Tests vs Aus, away during 1911: 38.5 adjwkts). Delmeister.
Waqar Younis (29 in 3 Tests vs Nzl, at home during 1990: adj 28.3 wkts). Del.

After a series of heavy analytical articles it is time for an anecdotal article or two. However let me assure the readers that this article also, as my other anecdotal articles have been, would be based on solid analysis and not just some subjective selection. This article has been on the anvil for the past two months.

Colin Croft: 8 for 29 in just 18.5 overs against Pakistan © Getty Images

This time I have had a look at the bowlers who dominated the first day. This is both easier and tougher than the batting analysis. Easier because the cut-offs are rather well-defined and it was easier to implement these. Harder because the bowling performances at the end of the day is not available in the Cricinfo scorecards and there was a need to do some interpretation of what could have been the final analysis based on perusal of individual scorecards. I request the readers to show the same level of enthusiasm and interest in coming out with alternative bowling performances. Since no one moved the world at Lord's today, this article is not affected.

During the past 134 years there have been over 1950 first days in Test cricket. The first day is the most important one in a Test match. The team which wins the first day goes a long way towards winning the Test. Stated in other words, the team which goes behind on the first day would always play catch up.

The basis for selection of outstanding first day bowling performances was not simple. Cricinfo does not store the day-end bowling performances and care has to be exercised in analysing this information, especially in incomplete innings. Each of the following situations is represented differently and has to be analyzed individually.

- Where an innings is incomplete. This is the toughest of all and might form the basis for most of readers' inputs.
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play.
- Where one innings has been completed by end of day's play and the other innings has started.
- Where two innings have been completed.

Now for selection of the performances. There have been three 9-wicket hauls on the first day. These get selected automatically, irrespective of the batting team. Anything which occurs once in 650 matches does not require any further vetting. Interestingly there is one instance of a bowler capturing all 9 wickets to fall during the first day. The other two have been in completed innings.

There have been eight 8-wicket hauls on the first day. Interestingly there is no instance of a bowler capturing 8 wickets in an incomplete innings. All 8 instances have been in completed innings. These performances do not get selected automatically. Six are included based on the quantum of top-order wickets captured and the quality of the batting team. So this is a question of checking whether there is sufficient justification for dropping the performance.

There have been 37 instances of 7-wicket captures on the first day. Most of these are in completed innings. Here this is a case of checking these performances if there is sufficient justification for inclusion. Various factors such as quantum of top order wickets captured, quality of the batting team and runs conceded are used to select performances. Ten 7-wicket performances are selected. I am confident that the readers would be able to push the claims of a few 7-wicket performances.

In summary, 2 of the 3x9-wkt captures, 4 of the 8x8-wkt captures and 21 of the 37x7-wkt captures have resulted in wins for the first bowling teams. This makes it 27 out of 48 and a much higher win % than the overall numbers.

It would indeed take an exceptionally good and memorable 6-wicket performance to be selected. Only one is considered worthy of inclusion. Maybe the readers might unearth a few gems.

Two second innings performances have been included in the selected 20. The second innings performance is a Hobson's choice. On the one hand, the bowler's task is difficult since he would be defending a relatively low total. The flip side is that the pitch is almost always a bowler-friendly pitch since there has already been a low-scoring first innings. So no special consideration has been shown for performing in the second innings during the first day.

The Wisden-100 table has also been used as a guideline. The final ordering is purely my own preference. The reader may not agree, but should refrain from overtly criticizing the selection or the order. Again, as normally happens, readers can send their suggestions, but with adequate supporting material. Just a single statement pointing out a certain bowling performance is unlikely to merit serious consideration. You have to take the trouble of a perusal of the Cricinfo (or alternate) scorecard and support your candidate.

1. Muralitharan: 39-18-51-9 (74) vs Zimbabwe 234/9 (30.62). Match 1583 (2002)

There are quite a few reasons why Muralitharan's performance against Zimbabwe is on top. He is the only bowler to capture all the wickets which fell on the first day, in relevant matches (7+ wickets). He went to the second day still with a chance to get the perfect 10. He bowled a maiden over. Then Olonga made sure that this would not happen by losing his wicket to Vaas at the end of the second over. Let me remind the readers that Zimbabwe were a good team, having the Flower brothers and Streak. Sri Lanka won by an innings. This is the only performance selected which is from an incomplete innings.

An explanation on the two numbers shown. The number 74 represents WPI (Wicket position index). This is just a batting-position-based number to measure the value of the wickets captured. This is not used for any analysis. Hence the batting averages are not used. Dismissal of the top six batsmen gets 10 points each, 7-11 are allotted 7, 4, 3, 2 and 2 respectively. Thus 76 is the maximum points. Muralitharan's WQI is 74 (6x10 + 7 + 4 + 3). The number 30.62 indicates the batting quality index, based on ctd values. 50+ is Don-driven, 45+ is outstanding, 40+ is very good, 35+ is good and 30+ is average, 25+ is fair and 20+ is poor.

2. S.P.Gupte: 34-11-102-9 (73) vs West Indies 222 ao (37.62). Match 0461 (1958).

Subash Gupte, that wonderful purest of pure leg-spinners. What magic he wove with the ball. None more than on a wintry evening at Kanpur. Against a strong West Indian team, he captured 9 wickets and helped dismiss the powerful line-up for 222. When compared with Muralitharan, he captured the no.10 batsman rather than no.8. This collection of wickets included Sobers at 4 and Kanhai at 0 and Butcher at 0. That India lost, after tying at 222 in the first innings, was a reflection of the strength of West Indians. Unfortunately Gupte was collared in the second innings.

3. Abdul Qadir: 37-13-56-9 (66) vs England (31.24) 175 ao. Match 1081 (1987).

Abdul Qadir, as much of a classicist as Subash Gupte. He wove a different type of magic, but magic all the same. One laments, where have all the classic spinners gone. At Lahore on a November day during 1987, the English batsmen had no answers. Not a great line-up, and all at sea. Qadir missed out on the wicket of Capel, who batted at no.6. Despite late resistance by Foster and French, who added 57 runs, Qadir captured the last two wickets and finished with an outstanding analysis. Subash Gupte is ahead only because of the quality of West Indian lineup. Pakistan won comfortably.

Three spinners at the top, and all on merit. They are also really the first amongst equals.

3.5. Barnes: 16.1-5-42-6 (112 ao) and 4 for 20 (45 for 5) vs Australia (37.82). Match 0066 (1902).

This is the only instance of a bowler capturing 10 wickets on the first day,. However this was spread over two innings. This excellent performance has been recommended by Arjun (thanks, Arjun). I thought since this was a unique performance I would add it to the main list itself. The second innings performance is an extrapolation. One of the five batsmen dismissed in the second innings was run out. I have not pushed this to the top since these are two very good performances, rather than one.

4. Croft: 18.5-7-29-8 (59) vs Pakistan (36.61) 180 ao. Match 0799 (1977).

Against a strong Pakistani line-up, Garner dismissed Majid Khan early. Then Croft captured the next five and the last three wickets. He was unplayable on that day at Port of Spain, as also evidenced by the few runs he conceded. Roberts went wicket-less and Garner went for plenty. This is the best analysis by a fast bowler on the opening day. It must be remembered that Croft bowled only 28% of the overs.

5. Valentine: 50-14-104-8 (67) vs England (31.98) 312 ao. Match 0323 (1950).

What an amazing day of Test Cricket at Old Trafford. A good England line-up takes the field. Valentine, on his debut, comes quickly as first change and captures the first five wickets to sink England to 88 for 5. Then Bailey and Evans add 161 runs and Evans leaves after scoring 104. Valentine gets two more wickets but the last two wickets are captured by Ramadhin. Note the high wicket-value figure of Valentine. He captured the top eight wickets.

I have done a different method of presenting the bowling performances. I have selected my top-5 already. Now I am going to present the next 5 performances in a group as I cannot identify anything to separate one from the other in a strong manner. Although I must say that there is some preference of mine in the order in which these five are presented. Finally I am going to present the next 10 performances as another group.

6-10. McDermott: 24-2-97-8 (63) vs England (37.08) 244 ao. Match 1163 (1991).

A top-drawer fast bowling performance by an under-rated modern fast bowler. McDermott captured the top 7 wickets before Hughes chipped in with two and McDermott finished off the innings with the last wicket. His performance is one of the best ever by a fast bowler on the first day. Australia won the match, played at WACA, comfortably.

6-10. Doull: 24-7-65-7 (61) vs India (42.35) 208 ao. Match 1435 (1998).

This spell of Simon Doull competes with Croft's as one of the best ever by a fast bowler mainly because he captured the first 7 wickets of a very good Indian line-up. Note the very high value of the WPI, for a 7-wicket haul. It was only the fact that his long spells necessitated replacements by the other bowlers did not let him take more wickets. New Zealand won a close match.

6-10. Ambrose: 18-9-25-7 (53) vs Australia (36.88) 119 ao. Match 1212 (1993).

This is almost a mirror image of the performance of the other giant, Croft. The only reason why this has been moved to the second group is the fact that two of the top three wickets were captured by Bishop and Croft captured 8 wickets. It was still a stunning performance by one of the greats at WACA. West Indies won comfortably, thanks to Bishop's excellent spell in the second innings.

6-10. F.Laver: 18-7-31-8 (54) vs England (36.27) 119 ao. Match 0104 (1910).

The only Laver we all know is the tennis legend. But this was the other Laver. 37 wickets in 15 Tests indicates a journeyman but this day was his 15 seconds of fame. Laver's is one of two second innings bowling performances. As I have already mentioned, this factor should not carry additional weight. Australia, batting first, were dismissed for 147 by Barnes and Blythe, who shared all the 10 wickets, for 147. Then Laver got into the act and finished with the best ever follow-up performance on the first day. After Macartney and Cotter got the first two wickets, Laver captured the next 8 wickets at a very low cost of 31 runs. England were dismissed for 119. The match was, however, drawn.

6-10. SF Barnes: 26-9-56-8 (65) vs South Africa (22.29) 160 ao. Match 0131 (1913).

Playing South Africa at Wanderers, Barnes captured the first six wickets before Hartigan and Ward steadied the innings. Rhodes and Woolley chipped in with a wicket each before Barnes finished off the innings with the last two wickets to finish with 8 for 56. It must be admitted that this was a fairly weak South African batting line-up. England won comfortably.

Now the 11-21 performances, in strict (reverse) chronological order.

11-21. Harmison: 13-7-19-6 (50) vs Pakistan (40.60) 119 ao. Match 1811 (2006).

This is the only 6-wicket haul in this collection. I have selected a modern giant who delivered less than what he promised. However on this day he was devastating. Only one of the six wickets was that of a late order batsman. His performance is one of the best by a fast bowler on the first day. Well supported by Panesar, Harmison helped England win comfortably.

11-21. Muralitharan: 34-9-87-8 (63) vs India 234 ao (32.39). Match 1559 (2002)

Muralitharan again, this time against the Indian team. Although it must be admitted that this team, sans Tendulkar, was a relatively inexperienced team. One reason why this performance, despite being a first day haul of 8 wickets has been moved into the third group. Vaas captured the wickets of Kaif and Harbhajan and Murali captured the rest. Sri Lanka won by an innings.

11-21. McGrath: 21-4-76-7 (63) vs England (31.56) 180 ao. Match 1377 (1997).

McGrath captured the first six wickets of a good English line-up. He finished with 7 for 87, dismissing England for 180. Australia had their dead-rubber blues and somehow managed to lose the Test by 19 runs. That should not take anything away from McGrath's first day effort.

11-21. Warne: 27-8-56-7 (54) vs South Africa (31.10) 169 ao. Match 1243 (1994).

This time it was Warne against his favourite opponents. South Africa were sitting comfortably at 110 for 3 when Warne, starting with Cullinan (who else), captured the next 7 wickets to help dismiss South Africa for 169. Not a surprise considering that this was at SCG. However South Africa, with that famous last day spell of de Villiers, had the last laugh, winning by 5 runs. Warne had a five wicket haul in the second innings also.

11-21. Border: 26-10-46-7 (54) vs West Indies (42.18) 224 ao. Match 1113 (1989).

A very unlikely bowling hero on the first day. A very strong West Indian batting line-up, Border outshone Alderman and Hughes, picking up the batsmen 3-9 for 46 runs. West Indies were dismissed for 224 and Australia duly won the match by 7 wickets. This is undoubtedly the best opening day effort by a non regular bowler.

11-21. Maninder Singh: 18-8-27-7 (52) vs Pakistan (30.93) 116 ao. Match 1073 (1987).

Against an average Pakistani lineup, Maninder bowled one of the best first day spin bowling spells in India. After Kapil Dev prised out the openers, Maninder captured the next 5 wickets and the last two to finish with outstanding figures of 7 for 27. Finally the Pakistani spinners proved more resourceful, despite Gavaskar's legendary 96, and won by 16 runs. This performance pipped Kumble's 7 for 48 against Australia mainly on wicket quality factor.

11-21. Ramadhin: 31-16-49-7 (60) vs England (31.84) 186 ao. Match 0439 (1957).

Lord Beginner's one little pal has already come in. So the other pal would not miss out. This was seven years later. A more experienced Ramadhin, sans Valentine, picked up 6 of the top 7 wickets against a reasonable English lineup. England were dismissed for 186 and looked like losing heavily when May and Cowdrey stepped in with a record match-saving stand. Finally West Indies struggled to save the test.

11-21. Bailey: 16-7-34-7 (53) vs West Indies (45.21) 139 ao. Match 0386 (1954).
11-21. Bailey: 21-8-44-7 (53) vs West Indies (43.06) 127 ao. Match 0440 (1957).

Bailey had two such 7 wicket performances on the opening day against West Indies during the 1950s. First one was the one referred to above. Three top order wickets quickly against a very strong West Indian lineup helped dismiss West Indies for 139 and eventual easy win. Three years later he performed a similar feat, this time taking 7 for 44, again leading to an England win. These two performances have been presented together as one entry since these two performances are virtually identical.

11-21. Faulkner: 27-4-84-7 (54) vs England (40.43) 176 ao. Match 0128 (1912).

This is the other second innings performance. South Africa were dismissed for 95 by Barnes and Woolley. Then Faulkner, bowling unchanged, kept them in the game by capturing 7 for 74, including 4 top order wickets and helped dismiss England for 176. Barnes was unplayable in his 8-wicket spell in the second innings and England won comfortably in the end.

11-21. SF Barnes: 22-6-60-7 (53) vs Australia (42.97) 137 ao. Match 0100 (1908).

This is the other bowling performance of Barnes against a very strong Australian lineup with almost all pre-war greats playing. Australia were dismissed for 137 but won the match in the end through Trumper and Saunders.

Just a final note. The two 8-wicket bowling performances not considered are 8 for 58 by Lohmann (0036) and 8 for 81 by Braund (0082). Lohmann's was against a very weak Australian side. Braund's was against a better team, but not so great a collection of wickets. Anyhow either could have come in.

Unrelated to the above article I am compelled to make a brief comment on the ICC all-time best XI selected by public. The all-time ICC best XI represents a paucity of clear thinking and inability on the part of the voters to consider the greats of the past, predominantly due to lack of knowledge and historic perspective. It would be interesting to see the demographic break-down of the quarter million voters. My guess is 80% from India and 80% of those below-35. I also feel it was somewhat fortuitous that Bradman was selected.

At some time in the future I will try and get a dialog going with the readers on the subject. One thing I do not associate with the readers of this blogspace is myopia, the inability to recognize greatness and lack of historic perspective.

Readers' selections

1. Fazal Mohd: 6/34 in 27 straight overs vs Australia 80 ao (0430/1956) Pawan.
2. Underwood 7/113 vs Aus 304 ao (0754/1975) Ruchir. 2nd day but no play on first.
3. MacGill 7/104 vs West Indies 256 for 9 (1527/2001). Ruchir.
4. C.Pringle 7 for 56 vs Pakistan 102 ao (1153/1990). Arjun.
5. McGrath 5 for 21 vs England 92 for 7 (1756/2005) Arjun. 2nd inns.
6. Blythe 8 for 59 vs South AFrica 110 ao (0094/1907). Alex. 2nd inns.
7. Lawson 7 for 78 vs Australia (incl hat-trick) (1645/2003). Arjun.
8. Ironmonger 7 for 23 vs West Indies (0205/1931). Tom/Alex.
9. Kumble 7 for 48 vs Australia (1714/2004). Pavan.
10. McKenzie 7 for 66 vs India (0625/1968). Arjun.
11. Old 6 for 48 vs Pakistan (0825/1978). Alex.
12. Tattersall 6 for 48 vs India (0346/1952). Ad.
13. Martin 6 for 54 vs Sri Lanka (1748/2005). Arjun.
14. Lance Cairns 7 for 74 vs England (0958/1983) Arjun/Gerry.
15. Garner 6 for 60 vs Australia (0983/1984) Gerry.
16. Ghulam Ahd 7 for 49 vs Australia 177 ao (0433/1956). Arjun/Alex.
17. Motz 6 for 69 vs West Indies 297 ao (0651/1969) Arjun.
18. Spofforth 7 for 46 vs England 101 ao (0009/1882) Ad. 2nd inns.
19. Imran Khan 7 for 52 vs England 272 ao. (0931/1982) Pallab.
20. Lever 6 for 38 vs Australia 152 ao (0755/1975) Arjun.
21. Worrell (6/38 - 82 ao) & Johnston (6/62 - 105 ao) (0343/1951) Arjun.
22. Donald 6 for 53 vs England 122 ao (1471/1999) Venkat/Gerry.  

I am glad to resume my articles after a break of a month during which I was immersed in World Cup related work. I had done so much of WC related work that I decided that I would go back to Tests. My next article will be the comprehensive analysis of World Cup performances that I had promised before the beginning of the World Cup.

I have also selected a very unusual area for this article. Pure analysis can be done by anyone with access to a Database, a set of tools and an analytical flair. What I have selected is a programming specialty. This is a graphical look at the 8 West Indian pace bowling giants who played across 28 years and 226 Tests. This required a lot of specialized programming work and the results have come out very nicely and pleasing to the eye. The layouts and formatting work itself took a few days. The readers can download the graphs, study these at leisure and come out with their conclusions.

First, a graphic time-line of the careers of the 8 bowlers.

West Indies fast bowlers career summary
© Anantha Narayanan

The following facts are clear through a perusal of the time-line graph above. This is only for the purpose of gathering overall intelligence. The detailed by-Test graphs come later.

1. West Indian pace bowling saga of 28 years is comprised of two clear periods. The first one between 1974 and 1987 during which Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft held sway. Then the second period between 1988 and 2001 during which Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop held forte.
2. Ha!!! I can hear knives being sharpened. I can clearly see a mail saying that I have gone senile and missed, arguably, the greatest of all these bowlers, Marshall. No I have not forgotten the genial "giant". He is the connecting player across the two eras. Note the following.
- He is the only one to have straddled both periods almost completely.
- He has played with all the other 7 bowlers, at their peak. That is truly amazing. 14 years at the top, 376 wickets at 20.95, arguably, Marshall is the greatest amongst this collection of greats.
- He is the one bowler who defines clearly the West Indian pace supremacy. No wonder he is held in such high esteem.
3. Croft's career was a sub-set of Garner's career. Marshall's arrival hastened Croft's departure.
4. Roberts handed over the baton to Walsh.
5. Holding and Garner retired almost simultaneously and Ambrose took over from them.
6. Bishop had to retire quite early. Severe back injuries meant he had long breaks in his career twice. Just extend his career by another 5 years, at least until 2001, when Walsh retired. Think of the impact this would have had on West Indian cricket.

The detailed graphs have been split into three individual ones since it would be impossible to show all 226 tests in one graph. While these graphs have been split in such a manner that these cover approximately the same number of tests, some career date-lines have been followed.

The first graph covers the career of Andy Roberts and incorporates 74 tests. Roberts made his debut in Test# 734 (1974) and made his last appearance in Test# 972 (1983), 74 tests later. During this period, Holding, Garner and Marshall made their debuts and Croft completed his career.

West Indies fast bowlers period 1
© Anantha Narayanan

Roberts was alone for over 10 tests before Holding made his debut. Lance Gibbs and Holder were the two bowlers with whom he shared these 10 tests. Holding and Roberts, along with Gibbs and Holder, played for another 15 tests before Garner and Croft made their debut in the same Test. For some reason, Holding went off when these two made their debuts. It is possible that he was even dropped ??? The huge gap between Test$ 822 and 845 was the Packer period during which none of these four played. Marshall made his debut during the middle of these Packer tests.

In the post-WSC era, West Indies started by playing four top pace bowlers for the first time. This was the golden period for these four greats, although it meant that Marshall lost his place. Despite losing their hold over the World Cup, they were lethal and very potent as a Test team. They played in different combinations in a number of tests. Marshall took over from Croft. What is surprising is that even Holding has missed quite a number of tests during these years, even before the WSC absence. The level of competition for 3/4 places amongst these 5 top-quality bowlers must have been intense.

I have made another analysis of this period in terms of bowler combinations, results etc. These are shown at the end.

Now the second period during which six bowlers are present. This comprises of the later part of the Holding/Garner careers, the bulk of the Marshall career and the start of the Ambrose/Bishop careers. This was the most successful period for West Indies as the summary of results is shown at the end. Barring one series in the middle, they had an embarrassment of riches, the problem being who to leave out. Ambrose took over from Holding/Garner seamlessly and Bishop was potent. Marshall had retired well before the end of this period.

West Indies fast bowlers period 2
© Anantha Narayanan

The third period had the three bowlers, Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop. Walsh played in all but two of the tests during this period. Ambrose played in most of these tests. Unfortunately Bishop had to retire because of injuries. That was a blow to the West Indies from which they never recovered. Walsh and Ambrose struggled for a few Tests together, then Walsh alone for a few more and he also retired. The results, as expected, were quite mixed. Mervyn Dillon was the major support player to Ambrose and Walsh during these last few Tests.

West Indies fast bowlers period 3
© Anantha Narayanan

After Test# 1544, came the fall, and what a fall it was. It was left to the unfortunate Brian Lara to preside, more unsuccessfully than successfully, over this crumbling edifice. 10 years have passed and there is no light at the end of the tunnel, barring a lone completely unexpected success in the Champions' Trophy during 2004.

An analysis of the results is given below.

Period                  Matches Wins Draws Losses %-success

1974 (0734)-1984 (0983)   76    26   36    14     57.8% (No real dominating run)
1983 (0986)-1994 (1257)   79    47   20    12     72.1% (11/7/7 consecutive wins)
1994 (1258)-2001 (1544)   71    20   19    32     41.5% (7/6 consecutive losses)

Total                    226    93   75    58     57.7%

Out of the 226 Tests, there were a maximum of 100 tests in which 4 of the pace bowlers could have been played. This number could be lower since information on injuries is not known. Details on various combinations are given below. Incidentally such instances are identified on the graphs with the sign '!'.

Bowler combination                Matches  Wins

Roberts/Holding/Garner/Croft      11       5
Roberts/Holding/Garner/Marshall    6       3
Holding/Garner/Croft/Marshall      3       0
Holding/Garner/Marshall/Walsh      4       2
Marshall/Walsh/Ambrose/Bishop      6       4

Total                             30      14

The career summaries of the 8 bowlers is given below.

Bowler     Wkts  Mats Career details

Roberts:    202   47 ( 74) : 0734 (1974) - 0972 (1983)
Holding:    249   60 ( 92) : 0764 (1975) - 1068 (1987)
Garner:     259   58 ( 79) : 0797 (1977) - 1072 (1987)
Croft:      125   27 ( 38) : 0797 (1977) - 0919 (1982)

Marshall:   376   81 (106) : 0837 (1978) - 1175 (1991)

Walsh :     519  132 (142) : 0997 (1984) - 1544 (2001)
Ambrose:    405   98 (108) : 1095 (1988) - 1509 (2000)
Bishop:     161   43 ( 73) : 1117 (1989) - 1407 (1998)

Finally a tribute to these 8 great bowlers. I cannot remember any instance of their engaging in any verbal duel with any batsman. One penetrating glare was all what was on view. They let the ball do all the talking and what conversation the 121282 deliveries engaged in. Capturing their haul of 2296 wickets at a rate of 52.8 balls and at an average of 22.8 runs per wicket. Did they bowl like millionaires. No, they conceded only 2.59 runs per over. Any of these 8 could have found a place in 90% of Test teams across the years. They graced the Test scene for nearly 3 decades. We can only stand back and admire them at this point in time.

Coming to the other dominating team over the past 10 years, I would like to hear from the readers whether such an analysis would be possible or worthwhile at all. There were only two great bowlers, McGrath and Warne and a host of good supporting bowlers. Such a graph as done above may not make sense.

To view/down-load the .zip file containing the graphs, please click/right-click here.
This will let you view the graphs at leisure and draw your own conclusions.

Muttiah Muralitharan: an amazing run of seven wickets per Test for 90 matches © Getty Images

For the bowlers I have aggregated wickets which are the most important acquisitions which any bowler can have. The averages really do not matter too much since wickets are the means to win in Test cricket. I have also made sure that the few-Test wonders like Sivaramakrishnan and Massie find their deserved place in these tables.

This also turned out to be a tough task since I had to create a player-performance database. This is essential since I needed to get the best 1-10 Test performances for each bowler and then get the all-time best performances. I also wanted to provide the information on the top bowlers' 1-10 Tests best performances so that the readers could do their own comparisons. And I was sure that there would be queries on the best performances by specific bowlers after the article was published. I have also provided the table of key bowlers for downloading.

First let me emphasize that this is only a wicket aggregate and will clarify that this aggregating of wickets in specific sequences of 1-10 Tests is irrespective of opposing team, home or away, match conditions, period lapsed between matches, quality of batsmen dismissed et al. That is not the purpose of this article. Readers should appreciate this and not come in with a comment such as "opposition batting quality is not considered". But that is wishful thinking! Also readers who worry about bowling average should understand that when someone captures over 50 wickets in 5-6 Tests, it does not matter about averages. It is going to be quite low. This is consistent with my stand on the comparable Batsmen analysis.

Let us now look at the tables.

Maximum wickets captured in a single Test

Bowler           Cty Wkts  StTest/Year

Laker J.C        Eng  19   (0428-1956) (9+10)
Barnes S.F       Eng  17   (0131-1913) (8+9)
Muralitharan M   Slk  16   (1423-1998) (7+9)
Hirwani N.D      Ind  16   (1089-1988) (8+8)
Massie R.A.L     Aus  16   (0699-1972) (8+8)

Laker's 19 wickets in a Test, a performance, which I am certain, will not be bettered in 100 more years of Test cricket, leads the pack of one Test wicket aggregates. Nine wickets in the second innings, followed, a day later with 10 wickets, is a la Harry Potter. Barnes's 17 wickets, a unique single-time performance, follows next. Now comes, arguably the best spin bowling performance, away from home; Muralitharan's Oval compilation of 16 wickets.

The significance is the absence of 18-wicket hauls, indicating how difficult it is to do these. Then come two debut performances, by Hirwani and Massie. Unfortunately both faded away afterwards. Hirwani at least played 16 more matches, capturing 50 wickets. Massie played a mere 5 Tests more, capturing 15 wickets, one less than what he captured in his first test. Why? An intriguing question for which there seems to be no answer other than the debut of Jeff Thomson and Max Walker a few months after Massie's debut.

It is of interest to note that 3 out of these 5 have occurred in England.

Maximum wickets captured in 2 consecutive Tests

Bowler           Cty Wkts  StTest/Year

Laker J.C        Eng  30   (0427-1956) (5+6, 9+10)
Harbhajan Singh  Ind  28   (1535-2001) (7+6, 7+8)
Barnes S.F       Eng  27   (0130-1913) (5+5, 8+9)
Lohmann G.A      Eng  27   (0047-1896) (7+8, 9+3)

Laker had preceded his 19-wicket monster Test with 11 wickets in the previous Tests. Harbhajan's first Test in this sequence was the famous Calcutta Test against Australia. Then at Chennai he single-handedly won the Test for India. Two platinum oldies come in next, with 27 wickets in two Tests.

Maximum wickets captured in 3 consecutive Tests

Bowler        Cty Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F    Eng  39  (0131-1913) (8+9, 3+5, 7+7) 
Laker J.C     Eng  37  (0427-1956) (5+6, 9+10, 4+3)
Lohmann G.A   Eng  35  (0047-1896) (7+8, 9+3, 7+1)

These were the last three Tests of Barnes's career. He finished with 39 in 3 and preceded by similar successes. Laker followed with a 7-wicket haul to accumulate 37 wickets. Lohmann clocks in next with 35 wickets.

Maximum wickets captured in 4 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      49  (0130-1913) (5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  43  (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7)
Lohmann G.A     41  (0036-1892) (8+2, 3+1, 7+8, 9+3)

This was a single series in which Barnes captured 49 wickets and still remains a record for all series, including 5/6 Test series. For the first time Muralitharan comes in, with 43 wickets and then Lohmann, with 41 wickets.

Maximum wickets captured in 5 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      54 (0129-1912) (5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  50 (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3)
Lohmann G.A     49 (0036-1892) (8+2, 3+1, 7+8, 9+3, 7+1)

The same three players, in the same sequence, with a few more wickets added.

Maximum wickets captured in 6 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      67 (0128-1912) (5+8, 5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  60 (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3, 4+6)
Laker J.C       53 (0412-1955) (2+5, 4+2, 3+0, 5+6, 9+10, 4+3) 

Barnes and Muralitharan are in top positions. Now there is a change with Laker chipping in with 53 wickets in 6 Tests.

Maximum wickets captured in 7 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Muralitharan M  69 (1803-2006) (6+4, 3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3, 4+6, 5+4)
Barnes S.F      67 (0126-1912) (dnb, 5+8, 5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Grimmett C.V    59 (0236-1934) (4+3, 3+5, 2+3, 3+3, 5+5, 3+7, 7+6)

Muralitharan moves to top place with 69 wickets. Barnes is second with 67 wickets. Then Grimmett comes in with 59 wickets, these 7 Tests being the last seven of his illustrious career. From this point no bowler averages more than 10 wickets/Test.

Maximum wickets captured in 8 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Barnes S.F      77 (0124-1912) (6+4,dnb, 5+8, 5+0, 5+5, 8+9, 3+5, 7+7)
Muralitharan M  76 (1804-2006) (3+8, 4+6, 5+7, 4+3, 4+6, 5+4, 4+1, 6+6)
Richardson T    66 (0041-1893) (5+5, 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, 2, 3+6, 6+5, 7+6)
Hadlee R.J      66 (1029-1985) (9+6, 5+2, 5+6, 3, 7+2, 3+1, 6+1, 6+4)

Barnes now moves to the top and pushes Muralitharan into second place. Then we have Tom Richardson and Richard Hadlee tied for third place. This was Hadlee's golden period, starting with the 15 wickets against Australia.

Maximum wickets captured in 9 consecutive Tests

Bowler         Wkts StTest/Year

Muralitharan M  86 (1803-2006) (6+4,3+8,4+6,5+7,4+3,4+6,5+4,4+1,6+6)
Barnes S.F      77 (0123-1912) (0,6+4,dnb,5+8,5+0,5+5,8+9,3+5,7+7)
Hadlee R.J      70 (1016-1985) (4+0,9+6,5+2,5+6,3,7+2,3+1,6+1,6+4)

Same three players, in the same sequence. with a Test added at the start. The amazing fact behind Barnes's figures is that these are actually off 7 Tests, he not having bowled in one Test and not captured a single wicket in another.

fact Maximum wickets captured in 10 consecutive Tests

Bowler      Wkts StTest/Year

Muralitharan 89 (1802-2006) (3,6+4,3+8,4+6,5+7,4+3,4+6,5+4,4+1,6+6)
Barnes S.F   88 (0122-1912) (5+6,0,6+4,dnb,5+8,5+0,5+5,8+9,3+5,7+7)
Waqar Younis 75 (1222-1993) (5+4,7+6,5+4,5,4+2,3+2,6+1,1+2,6+5,3+4)
Warne S.K    75 (1593-2002) (2+6,4+2,7+4,4+4,5+3,1+3,4+3,1+2,5+5,5+5)

Muralitharan and Barnes are in the top two positions with 89 and 88 wickets respectively. The amazing fact behind Barnes's figures is that these are actually off 8 Tests, for reasons already mentioned. Now we have two modern greats tied for the third place. Waqar Younis and Shane Warne have compiled 75 wickets in 10 Tests at the peak of their wonderful bowling careers.

I anticipated that the readers would ask for information on long successful streaks. I started with the wonderful aggregate of 189 wickets captured over 27 Tests (his entire career), at an average of 16.43, by the incomparable SF Barnes. For a long time during the 1970s-80s, I thought this sort of aggregate and wickets-per-Test measure of 7.00 would never ever be beaten. Consider that Lillee retired with a tally of 5.07 w/t and Hadlee retired with 5.01. Then a gentleman with an infectious smile, going by the name of Muralitharan made his debut. He had a fairly ordinary start to his career and captured his 100th wicket only in his 27th Test, a journeyman-like performance. Then he moved into a zone way above what he or anyone else had done henceforth.

So I decided to keep 27 Tests as the base and started work, looking at long successful streaks. First I found that there were only two bowlers who had crossed a w/t average of 7, Barnes and Muralitharan. Not surprising. However I found that Murali had captured 16 wickets more than Barnes. I started looking at Murali's successful streaks, expecting it to fall below 7.00 at 40 Tests. No, at 50 tests, still no, at 60 tests, still no. What was happening. I went past 70, 80 and finally at 90, it was still over 7.00. Finally at 91 Tests, the average dropped to below 7.00. Amazing and unbelievable. Imagine a bowler capturing 631 wickets in 90 Tests over 10 years.

And those sceptics who talk about his capturing quite a few wickets against minnows should not forget that he himself was playing, for a few years, in a minnow team and transformed that team into a world-class one working with Jayasuriya, Ranatunga, Vaas and De Silva and later Sangakkara and Jayawardene.

Given below is information related to a few longest-streaks.

Streaks exceeding 7.00 wickets per Test

Muralitharan: 1394(2008) 90 Tests 631 wickets 7.00
Barnes S.F. :   65(2001) 27 Tests 189 wickets 7.00
Lohmann G.A  :  24(1886) 15 Tests 108 wickets 7.20
W Younis    : 1192(1992) 15 Tests 107 wickets 7.13

Streaks exceeding 8.00 wickets per Test

Muralitharan: 1776(2008) 16 Tests 130 wickets 8.13
Barnes SF :  122(1912) 15 Tests 122 wickets 8.17

It is possible that Barnes might have been helped by the conditions, although he played 25 years after the advent of Test cricket. However his strike rate of 7 wickets per Test at an average of 16+ average set the lofty standard which, I think with certainty, that Muralitharan has crossed.

Muralitharan's 90-Test run exceeding 7 wickets per Test and at a sub-20 average is comparable to Bradman's career. Even at a conservative estimate, the 7 wickets can be equated to upwards of 140 runs and this compares favourably with Bradman's 135 runs per Test. No other player, batsmen included, has achieved such figures in anything more than 25-30 Tests. Granted that Muralitharan played in a weak team, but then he had to bowl to batsmen of stronger team, these are still figures which make one stand up and take notice.

Muralitharan's career had three distinct parts, as outlined below.

34 Tests 135 wickets 3.97 @ 31.16
90 Tests 631 wickets 7.00 @ 19.94
10 Tests  34 wickets 3.40 @ 40.88

He started in an ordinary manner, went into a 10-year zone and then struggled at the end, a la Kapil Dev.

To view/down-load the complete 1-10 Tests table, please click/right-click here.

To view/down-load the complete player table, please click/right-click here. The bowlers who have captured 100 wkts or more are included. I have also ordered the table by career wickets captured.

To view/down-load the table of average quality of bowling faced by batsmen, as requested by some readers, please click/right-click here. The batsmen who have scored 4000 runs or more are included. An interesting column, which is the difference between the Batting average of the batsman and the Average Bowling quality value, is shown. This is a loose indication of the batsman's over-achievement.

Kapil Dev:one of the best third innings bowling performances © Getty Images

This completes the quartet of anecdotal articles on the "second" innings batting and bowling performances. The "first" innings does not offer this level of variations and I will refrain from looking at the first/second innings performances.

The third innings bowling performances broadly fall into three categories.

1. In this case the third bowling team is bowling with a substantial deficit and only a truly great performance can help them win. About 4 such performances find their place in this list.

2. The second category is one in which the teams have finished within about 10% of each other's score and a powerful bowling performance helps the team to win. About 7 bowling performances belong to this category. There are obviously many more such performances but only the outstanding ones are selected.

3. Matches in which the third bowling team enjoys a huge first innings lead and the bowlers bowl with this cushion. It is immaterial whether this is a follow-on innings or not. The bowlers would have to come in with once-in-a-lifetime performances to get selected in this tough list. Only two bowler efforts in this category have been selected.

It is a fact that there could be truly great batting performances which help teams save tests (Hanif, Amiss et al). However normally great bowling performances help their teams win tests. Indeed it is almost impossible to win a test without capturing 20 wickets. However I have managed to locate two wonderful bowling efforts which ended in a draw and loss respectively.

I have the usual second XV. And this time I have earmarked the empty table containing Readers' selections and would fill as comments come in.

These match summaries are presented in the order of the type of matches already outlined. Within the type, the matches are presented in a random order. Do not draw any conclusions from the order of presentation.

First the matches in which the teams came back from a huge deficit in the first innings.

MtId: 1876 Year: 2008 Test# 2 of 3 (0-0) England won by 6 wickets

    Nzl 381 all out.
    Eng 202 all out.
    Nzl 114 all out     (Panesar M.S: 17.0-5-37-6).
    Eng 294 for 4 wkts.

England just about avoided the follow-on but were 179 runs in arrears. Anderson dismissed Redmond early but New Zealand recovered to 50 for 1. Then Panesar produced, inarguably, his finest spell for England. He captured the next six wickets and reduced New Zealand to 106 for 7. Sidebottom cleaned up the tail and New Zealand were dismissed for 114, leaving England to get a formidable 294 to win, which they did in style, winning by 6 wickets. One of the best come-back wins ever. Panesar, who has not done much otherwise, engineered this remarkable win.

MtId: 1677 Year: 2003 Test# 2 of 2 (0-0) Pakistan won by 7 wickets

    Nzl 366 all out.
    Pak 196 all out.
    Nzl 103 all out     (Shoaib Akhtar: 18.0-3-30-6).
    Pak 277 for 3 wkts.

This match is almost a replica of the first one. Pakistan just about avoided the follow-on but were 170 runs in arrears. Then Shoaib Akhtar produced, almost certainly, his finest spell for Pakistan. He captured six wickets for 30 runs and dismissed New Zealand for 103, leaving Pakistan to get a huge score of 274 to win, which they did in style, winning by 7 wickets. Shoaib Akhtar has done this on other occasions but this was amongst the best ever by this devastating bowler.

MtId: 1503 Year: 2000 Test# 2 of 5 (0-1) England won by 2 wickets

    Win 267 all out.
    Eng 134 all out.
    Win  54 all out     (Caddick A.R: 13.0-8-16-5).
    Eng 191 for 8 wkts.

The English bowlers seem to have specialized in these third innings bowling efforts. This time England trailed by 133 runs against an excellent West Indian bowling attack.then Caddick produced a dream spell, capturing 5 for 16, the only 5-wicket spell in this elite collection. West Indies, with Lara, Chanderpaul and Adams were a fair batting side. England struggled to make the 188 needed to win and lost eight wickets. Only Cork's brave 33 carried them to an unlikely win.

MtId: 0692 Year: 1971 Test# 3 of 3 (0-0) India won by 4 wickets

    Eng 355 all out.
    Ind 284 all out.
    Eng 101 all out     (Chandrasekhar B.S: 18.1-3-38-6).
    Ind 174 for 6 wkts.

Next the matches in which the teams were more or less equal in the first innings.

England were 71 runs ahead in the first innings and were expected to stream-roller India in this deciding Test match. However, Chandrasekhar produced what is, arguably, the best bowling performance by an Indian spinner abroad. He broke the back of English batting with three top order wickets and then cleaned up the late order, to finish with 6 for 38. England were dismissed for 101, leaving India to score 173 to win. This was not easy, but was achieved by contributions from all batsmen. India had won their first test series in England.

MtId: 1687 Year: 2004 Test# 1 of 4 (0-0) England won by 10 wickets

    Win 311 all out.
    Eng 339 all out.
    Win  47 all out     (Harmison S.J: 12.3-8-12-7).
    Eng  20 for 0 wkts.

After two matching first innings, England had a lead of only 28 runs. It was expected that West Indies would wipe out this lead quickly and go for a win. Instead Harmison produced a vintage fast bowling performance, capturing 7 for 12 in 12 overs of devastation. West Indies lost half their side wiping the deficit and were finally dismissed for 47, their lowest total in Test cricket. One of the great modern day bowling efforts.

MtId: 1673 Year: 2003 Test# 2 of 4 (0-0) India won by 4 wickets

    Aus 556 all out.
    Ind 523 all out.
    Aus 196 all out     (Agarkar A.B: 16.2-2-41-6).
    Ind 233 for 6 wkts.

This was probably the only moment of greatness in Agarkar's otherwise journeyman Test career for India, forgetting the throwing-the-bat 100. Two huge first innings of 500+ left Australia with a lead of 33 runs. Then Agarkar had his few hours in the sun, capturing 6 for 41, including three top order wickets. India managed the chase of 233 reasonably well and India had won a historic test after conceding 556 in the first innings. Agarkar more than made up for his sequence of zeroes.

MtId: 1266 Year: 1994 Test# 3 of 3 (0-1) England won by 8 wickets

    Saf 332 all out.
    Eng 304 all out.
    Saf 175 all out     (Malcolm D.E: 16.3-2-57-9).
    Eng 205 for 2 wkts.

Another English bowler !!! After two middling first innings England finished 28 short. Then Malcolm produced one of the greatest ever bowling performances by an English fast bowler, capturing 9 wickets for 57 runs. He captured the first three wickets for no run in 2 overs. Gough captured the other wicket. Malcolm's bowling performance has been bettered by two fast bowlers only, Hadlee and Lohmann.

MtId: 1159 Year: 1990 Test# 2 of 5 (1-0) Australia won by 8 wickets

    Eng 352 all out.
    Aus 306 all out.
    Eng 150 all out     (Reid B.A: 22.0-12-51-7).
    Aus 197 for 2 wkts.

After two 300+ scores Australia were 52 runs adrift. England were sitting pretty at 103 for 1. Then Bruce Reid destroyed England capturing 7 for 51 and got them all out for 150, that too on a good MCG batting track. Australia chased the target comfortably by 8 wickets. Bruce Reid was an under-rated left arm pace bowler. His is the only Australian performance featured here, ahead of greats like Warne, Lillee, Spofforth, McGrath et al.

MtId: 1477 Year: 1999 Test# 1 of 2 (0-0) New Zealand won by 9 wickets 1477 1999 Cairns C.L New Zealand Win 28 22.5 10 27 7

    Win 365 all out.
    Nzl 393 all out.
    Win  97 all out     (Cairns C.L   : 22.5-10-27-7).
    Nzl   70 for 1 wkt.

New Zealand led by 28 runs. West Indies were nowhere the dominating side they were during the 80s or early 90s. However they were also not the pathetic side of the 2000s. Cairns produce a devastating spell of 7 for 27 which included 4 top wickets. West Indies were blown off for 97 and New Zealand won comfortably. Let us not forget that Cairns also captured 3 wickets in the first innings and scored 72. One of the truly great all-round performances ever.

Finally the matches in which the teams had a huge lead in the first innings.

MtId: 1423 Year: 1998 Test# 1 of 1 (0-0) Sri Lanka won by 10 wickets

    Eng 445 all out.
    Slk 591 all out.
    Eng 181 all out     (Muralitharan M: 54.2-27-65-9).
    Slk  37 for 0 wkts.

This time Sri Lanka had a huge first innings lead over England of 146 runs. Then Muralitharan wove his magic and captured 9 wickets for 65 runs in 54 overs. If Stewart had not been run out, Murali might very well have captured all ten wickets. All this, at Oval, London. And on a pitch on which over 1000 runs had been scored in the first two innings. The fact that Murali conjured 9 wickets on a batsman-friendly pitch has made this performance a stand-out contender.

MtId: 0128 Year: 1912 Test# 8 of 9 (0-0) England won by 10 wickets

    Saf  95 all out.
    Eng 176 all out.
    Saf  93 all out     (Barnes S.F: 16.4-4-29-8).
    Eng  14 for 0 wkts.

Two low scores meant England were ahead by 81 runs. Then S.F.Barnes, certainly in the top group of all-time best fast medium bowlers, bowled unchanged. He bowled 16 overs and captured 8 for 29. South Africa were dismissed for 93 and England won in a canter. Barnes had another equally great third innings spell of 9 for 103 a few months later in a match where England had a big lead.

MtId: 0428 Year: 1956 Test# 4 of 5 (1-1) England won by an innings and 170 runs

    Eng 459 all out.
    Aus  84 all out.
    Aus 205 all out     (Laker J.C: 51.2-23-53-10).

And the matches which were drawn or lost.

This is the only performance in this collection by a team leading by million runs in the first innings. There is a reason. The first 10-wicket haul by a bowler. Laker bowled 51 overs and captured 10 wickets for 53. What is amazing is that the other bowlers, Statham and Lock, no mean bowlers themselves, bowled 71 overs and did not pick up a wicket. This was the bowling performance of multiple life-times. Not to forget the small matter of 9 wickets in the first innings.

MtId: 0436 Year: 1957 Test# 3 of 5 (0-2) Match drawn

    Eng 218 all out.
    Saf 283 all out.
    Eng 254 all out     (Tayfield H.J: 37.7-14-69-8).
    Saf 142 for 6 wkts.

This is the only drawn Test match performance in this collection. South Africa led by 65 runs. Then Tayfield produced an excellent spell of classical off-spin bowling, capturing 8 for 69 runs. South Africa had about 4 hours to score 190 runs and, readers note, England bowled the equivalent of 77 overs. Today, the Dhoni-led India, with two spinners, bowls 26 overs in two hours. South Africa struggled and finished 48 short to earn a good draw. In the course of Tayfield's spell, he bowled 119 consecutive score-less balls, and 19 in the second innings, a world record.

MtId: 0967 Year: 1983 Test# 3 of 6 (0-1) West Indies won by 138 runs

    Win 281 all out.
    Ind 241 all out.
    Win 201 all out     (Kapil Dev N: 30.3-6-83-9).
    Ind 103 all out.

The only losing performance in the third innings is featured here. Again it is the turn of Kapil Dev. This was a forgettable match for India, barring a fighting 90 by Gavaskar and this bowling performance by Kapil Dev. India were only 40 runs behind in the first innings. Then Kapil Dev captured 9 for 83 in what is, undoubtedly, the greatest display of pace bowling by an Indian and the most memorable on Indian grounds. Haynes was dismissed by Sandhu. West Indies were dismissed for 241 leaving India to get a reasonable target of 242. However West Indies, still smarting under the World Cup loss a few months before, blasted India out of the park for 103. But Kapil Dev cannot be blamed for the batting failures.

In this selection, bowlers like Panesar, Cairns, Agarkar, Reid, Harmison and Caddick would not rank amongst the great bowlers. The bowlers in this group other than Cairns would not figure amongst the top-10 of their teams. However when there was a need they produced once-in-lifetime performances and find their well-deserved place in this list.

The second XV of third innings bowling performances

MtId Year Bowler          For          Vs   Deficit   Analysis

1812 2006 Muralitharan M  Sri Lanka    Saf    -40  46.5 12  97  7
1796 2006 Mohammad Asif   Pakistan     Slk   -109  12.0  6  27  5
1747 2005 Ntini M         South Africa Win     51  19.5  7  37  7
1539 2001 Harbhajan Singh India        Aus    110  41.5 20  84  8
1248 1994 Wasim Akram     Pakistan     Nzl    -27  16.1  4  43  6 
1206 1992 Donald A.A      South Africa Ind     63  28.0  4  84  7
1040 1986 Bracewell J.G   New Zealand  Aus    -56  22.0  8  32  6
0874 1980 Botham I.T      England      Ind     54  26.0  7  48  7
0699 1972 Massie R.A.L    Australia    Eng     36  27.2  9  53  8
0527 1962 Gibbs L.R       West Indies  Ind    217  53.3 37  38  8
0372 1953 Bedser A.V      England      Aus   -105  17.2  7  44  7 (Match drawn)
0320 1950 Johnson I.W     Australia    Saf   -236  17.0  2  34  5 
0234 1934 Verity H        England      Aus    156  22.3  8  43  8
0138 1921 Mailey A.A      Australia    Eng    105  47.0  8 121  9
0128 1912 Barnes S.F      England      Saf     81  16.4  4  29  8

This is my selection, 75% objective and 25% subjective. Readers will have their own favourite third innings bowling performance and are welcome to send in their comments referring to these innings. The only requirement is that you have to take the trouble of looking up the concerned scorecard and give some details. Rather than posting comments such as "What about Imran's 8-wkt spell", the comments which are likely to get published are the ones where a better insight into the concerned innings are provided. Do not get upset that one specific performance is not in this list or in the nearly-made-it list. Put up your cases in a nice and emphatic manner, without resorting to abusive language, unfortunately used in a few mails recently.

The Readers' selection third innings bowling performances, in order of comment acceptance.

1906 2009 J.E.Taylor  Win (Eng) 9-4-11-5 (Balaraman)  
0991 1984 M.D.Marshall  Win (Eng) 26-9-53-7 (Alex)
0765 1975 AME Roberts  Win (Aus) 14-3-54-7 (Alex) 
1110 1988 Hughes M.G  Aus (Win) 37-9-87-8 (Shane) loss
1554 2001 Warne S.K.  Aus (Eng) 18-5-33-6 (Karthik)
0032 1889 Briggs J  Eng (Saf) 14-5-11-8 (Alex)
1444 1999 Srinath J  Ind (Pak) 27-6-86-8 (Adil) loss
1377 1997 Kasprowicz  Aus (Eng) 16-5-36-7 (Karthik) loss
1654 2003 Pollock S  Saf (Eng) 18-4-39-6 (Venkat) loss
1615 2002 Shoaib Akhtar  Pak (Aus) 8-2-21-5 (Yasir) loss
0172 1928 G.F.Bisset  Saf (Eng) 19-5-29-7 (Ad)
0677 1969 Bedi 23-11-37-5 & Prasanna 24-10-42-5 Ind (Aus) (Arjun)
1719 2004 Kaneria  Pak (Slk) 60-20-118-7 (Arjun)
1356 1997 Warne Aus (Saf) 28-15-43-4  
0443 1957 Lock GAR Eng (Win) 16-7-20-6 (Abhishek)
1630 2002 Lawson JJC WIn (Bng) 6.5-4-3-6 (Arjun)
0876 1980 Iqbal Qasim Pak (Aus) 42-22-49-7 (Ad)
0427 1957 DS Atkinson 40-21-53-7 WI (Nzl) (Ad)
1747 2005 M Ntini  Saf (Win) 20-7-37-7 (Mayank)

I have really enjoyed doing these series of four anecdotal articles. My editor probably more. As many a reader has pointed out this has opened the door on wonderful efforts of the past. I myself have learnt a lot. The readers' response has been terrific.

Bob Willis: remarkable spell at Headingley © Getty Images

As a follow-up to the epochal fourth innings batting performances, this analysis covers the great bowling performances. Again let me emphasize that this is a predominantly objective selection, based loosely on the Wisden-100 tables, but also incorporating my own perceptions. Let me also emphasize that this covers only individual bowling performances, not team bowling performances. That is for a later article.

The fourth innings bowling performances are quite different to the batting performances. The alternatives in front of the batting teams in the fourth innings are two-fold. Whether the target is 100 runs or 500 runs, the objective is to win if one can or go for a draw. It allows batsmen to play pre-dominantly defensive innings, help their team to draw the matches and be recognized. The bowlers have very few choices. Whether they are defending 100 runs or 500 runs, they have to go for a win. It is not possible to bowl for a draw other than the rare instances of, say, 100 runs in 15 overs or so. Bowlers win matches and this dictum is all the more true in the fourth innings. Truly great teams have invariably had great bowling attacks. Whether the attack is dominated by one great bowler or 3/4 equally great bowlers, this is true.

This also makes the search for non-winning great performances in fourth innings quite difficult. After searching far and wide, I have been able to locate two such performances. Consequently 11 of these 13 performances have been winning ones. Only one has been in a dead rubber situation. There is a fair distribution over the years. One pre-WW1, two are bowling performances in between wars and the rest after WW2 including one during the current decade. The countries are well-represented.

Let us look at the 13 performances. These performances are presented more or less in the Wisden-100 list order. Not that the order matters. Readers should note that the complete bowling spell is indicated by the term "innspell" and a specific unbroken bowling stint is called "spell".

1. MtId: 0437 Year: 1957 Test# 4 of 5 (0-2) South Africa won by 17 runs

    Saf 340 all out.
    Eng 251 all out.
    Saf 142 all out.
    Eng 214 all out (Tayfield H.J: 37.0-11-113-9).

South Africa took a useful first innings lead of 89 runs but were then dismissed for 142 by a strong English bowling attack. England, with an excellent batting lineup led by May, Compton and Cowdrey looked poised to score the 230 runs needed. The fearsome pair of Adcock and Heine did very little. Then Tayfield took over and bowled 37 consecutive 8-ball overs and captured 9 English wickets for 113 runs taking South Africa to an unlikely narrow win. The low target, quality of English batting and the number of wickets captured meant that Tayfield's innspell was adjudged the best ever bowling bowling performance in the Wisden-100 analysis. There can be very few dissenters to this conclusion.

2. MtId: 1443 Year: 1999 Test# 2 of 2 (0-1) India won by 212 runs

    Ind 252 all out.
    Pak 172 all out.
    Ind 339 all out.
    Pak 207 all out (Kumble A: 26.3-9-74-10).

As matches go, this was a veritable rout by India. Pakistan's poor first innings, coupled with India's effective second innings meant that Pakistan had before them an impossible task of scoring 420 runs on a wicket turning square. I would not normally have placed Kumble's 10-wicket innspell in the top drawer amongst fourth innings bowling performances taking into account all these conditions. However the fact that this was a historic innspell, one of only two achieved by bowlers in 133 years has made me select this. It is also the second best innspell in the Wisden-100 tables. Kumble bowled beautifully taking full advantage of the turn and bounce offered. The miracle was not the 10-wicket haul but the fact that three other excellent bowlers bowled 34 overs and did not pick up a wicket. It was also very sporting of the Pakistan batsmen not to have gifted their 9th or 10th wicket to someone else.

3. MtId: 1804 Year: 2006 Test# 3 of 3 (1-0) Sri Lanka won by 134 runs

    Slk 231 all out.
    Eng 229 all out.
    Slk 322 all out.
    Eng 190 all out (Muralitharan M: 30.0-11-70-8).

Two average first innings, followed by a very good Sri Lankan second innings, meant that England had a tough task of 325 runs, albeit on their own home ground. Then Muralitharan bowled his heart out and captured first 7 wickets, before Hoggard was run out. Then he captured Lewis' wicket and there was a swinging last wicket stand which was ended by Jayasuriya. Muralitharan had the outstanding figures of 8 for 70 and Sri Lanka tied the series. This is the only performance of the current decade included in this selection. This was also at Nottingham, not at Kandy or Galle.

4. MtId: 0179 Year: 1929 Test# 4 of 5 (0-3) England won by 12 runs

    Eng 334 all out.
    Aus 369 all out.
    Eng 383 all out.
    Aus 336 all out (White J.C: 64.5-21-126-8).

This is the only dead-rubber performance included. England had an unbeatable 3-0 lead against Australia in Bradman's welcome series. Three healthy innings left Australia to score 349 runs to win. White, the slow left arm spinner, bowled 65 overs, almost continuously, against the strong Australian lineup and captured 8 wickets for 126 runs. A margin of 12 runs reinforces the magnificence of the innspell.

5. MtId: 0905 Year: 1981 Test# 3 of 6 (0-1) England won by 18 runs

    Aus 401 for 9 wkts.
    Eng 174 all out.
    Eng 356 all out.
    Aus 111 all out (Willis R.G.D: 15.1-3-43-8).

This is more known as Botham's test (and Ashes). However, there is no doubt that the win was set up by Botham but was achieved by Willis with his magnificent innspell, defending a very low total of 130. England, after following on and 82 in arrears at the fall of the seventh wicket, were rescued by Botham, with support from Dilley and Old. Then Willis took over and this was one of the most devastating fourth innings bowling performances ever. Incidentally the first 5 performances occupy the first 5 positions in the Wisden-100 table.

6. MtId: 1243 Year: 1994 Test# 2 of 3 (0-0) South Africa won by 5 runs

    Saf 169 all out.
    Aus 292 all out.
    Saf 239 all out.
    Aus 111 all out (de Villiers P.S: 23.3-8-43-6).

This match has some similarities to the Botham/Willis match. The target was even lower at 116. Australia, with its strong batting lineup was expected to waltz through. However SCG always offers help for the faster bowlers and de Villiers took over the defence of the meagre total.He captured the first 4 wickets. Then Donald moved in and claimed the next 3 wickets. Australia rallied through McDermott and reached 110 for 8 and looked like winning. Then Warne was run out and de Villiers dismissed Healy and McGrath to carve out a 5 run win. In some ways this must be the unlikeliest win, comparable to West Indies win by a single run, an year earlier. And let us not forget who was bowling at the other end, the white lightning, Donald.

7. MtId: 0849 Year: 1979 Test# 1 of 2 (0-0) Pakistan won by 71 runs

    Pak 196 all out.
    Aus 168 all out.
    Pak 353 for 9 wkts.
    Aus 310 all out (Sarfraz Nawaz: 35.4-7-86-9).

After two low innings, Pakistan posted a competitive total and set Australia an imposing 381 to win. Sarfraz Nawaz bowled, arguably the finest innspell by a Pakistani bowler and captured 9 wickets for 86 runs to win the match for Pakistan. The other batsman was run out. At 305 for 3, Sarfraz dismissed 5 batsmen for 0. The amazing thing was that 38 overs by Imran Khan and Mushtaq Mohd did not produce a wicket. This was an unlikely bowling performance by a pace bowler. Unlike Willis and de Villiers who ran through Australia in fewer overs, this was somewhat like the innspell of White in that Sarfraz bowled 35 8-ball overs.

8. MtId: 1143 Year: 1990 Test# 3 of 4 (0-1) West Indies won by 164 runs

    Win 446 all out.
    Eng 358 all out.
    Win 267 for 8 wkts.
    Eng 191 all out (Ambrose C.E.L: 22.4-10-45-8).

It doesn't often happen that a West Indian pace bowler runs through a team. There are other equally fearsome and intimidating bowlers who participate in the clean-up act. This was a rare instance. England were set over 350 runs to win and Ambrose bowled a Willis-type innspell, capturing 8 wickets for 45 and helped dismiss England for 191. Since the attack included Bishop, Marshall and Moseley, this effort is all the more praise-worthy.

9. MtId: 0390 Year: 1954 Test# 4 of 4 (1-0) Pakistan won by 24 runs

    Pak 133 all out.
    Eng 130 all out.
    Pak 164 all out.
    Eng 143 all out (Fazal Mahmood: 30.0-11-46-6).

Pakistan were babes-in-the-wood in this series. This was only their second series, both away. They were pitted against the mighty England, led by Hutton, May, Compton, Graveney, Tyson, Wardle and Statham. They trailed 1-0 and everybody expected England to walk away with a 2-0 series win. Three innings below 165 meant that England's mighty lineup had to score only 167 for a win. England reached 109 for 2, confirming all these predictions. Then Fazal Mahmood, the master of swing, took over and took the next 5 wickets for nothing, finishing with 6 for 46. England were dismissed for 143, leaving Pakistan winners by 24 runs. Pakistan drew the series and Pakistan's pace bowling pedigree, true even today, was appreciated. This must be one of the greatest upsets ever in the history of Test cricket.

10. MtId: 0009 Year: 1882 Test# 1 of 1 (0-0) Australia won by 7 runs

    Aus  63 all out.
    Eng 101 all out.
    Aus 122 all out.
    Eng  77 all out (Spofforth F.R: 28.0-15-44-7).

This was the famous "Ashes" test. Three very low innings meant that England had to only score 85 for a win. Spofforth took the central stage and bowled 28 4-ball overs continuously, capturing 7 for 44 and the "Ashes" legend was born. It is quite difficult to comprehend a wicket in which 40 wickets fell for 363 runs and a wicket was captured every 27 balls.However we have to admire Spofforth's effort since this represents the lowest total ever defended. This performance just about gets into the top-50 of Wisden-100 table in view of the very strong bowler-friendly conditions.

11. MtId: 0510 Year: 1961 Test# 4 of 5 (1-1) Australia won by 54 runs

    Aus 190 all out.
    Eng 367 all out.
    Aus 432 all out.
    Eng 201 all out (Benaud R: 32.0-11-70-6).

This match has come in purely for my nostalgic sake. This was the first series I was fortunate enough to hear on borrowed radio, in a hostel room as the junior-most student, trying to pull the wool over the warden's eyes and ears. And Benaud was my favourite cricketer. England had taken a lead of 177. Then Lawry pitched tent and with the help of some lusty late-order hitting by Davidson, Australia reached 432. England had to score 255 for a win. Everyone knew that it was a battle between Benaud and the English batsmen, led by the imperious Dexter. Dexter was batting at his commanding beat and England reached 150 for 1. Then Benaud essayed one of the finest spells of leg-spin bowling ever, pitching into the rough created by Davidson. He dismissed Dexter and picked up the next 6 wickets. Davidson and Simpson finished the job and Australia ran out winners by 54 runs. Benaud captured 6 for 70.

12. MtId: 0277 Year: 1946 Test# 2 of 3 (1-0) Match drawn

    Eng 294 all out.
    Ind 170 all out.
    Eng 153 for 5 wkts.
    Ind 152 for 9 wkts (Bedser A.V: 25.0-4-52-7).

This is the only drawn match in this list. Even though India were only playing their 9th match, they were quite strong with a lineup boasting of Merchant, Mushtaq, Mod, Hazare, Amarnath and Mankad. England took a first innings lead of 124 and set India a target of 278 to win, a tough ask at Manchester against a powerful English attack. The first two wickets were captured by Pollard. Then Modi and Hazare steadied the ship. However Alec Bedser bowled beautifully and captured the next 7 wickets. India were 138 for 9 and looked like losing. However Sohoni and Hindlekar stood firm and avoided defeat. Bedser's innspell of 7 for 52 represents one of the finest closing innspells in a drawn match.

13. MtId: 0149 Year: 1923 Test# 2 of 5 (1-0) England won by 1 wicket

    Saf 113 all out.
    Eng 183 all out.
    Saf 242 all out.
    Eng 173 for 9 wkts (Hall A.E: 37.3-12-63-7).

This is the only innspell included from a losing match. After three average innings, England were set 173 for a win. England had Sandham, Wooley, Mead and Fender in their lineup. Alf Hall, a left arm pace bowler, single-handedly almost denied England a win. He captured 7 for 63, dismissing all the top batsmen. He reduced England to 86 for 6 before Mann and Jupp added 68 runs. Then Hall dismissed both batsmen. He could not claim the last wicket and England ran out winners by 1 wicket. It is worth mentioning here that these were 3-day tests.

The other innspells which came under consideration are listed below.

Statham's 7 for 39 against South Africa during 1955 (a real contender).
R.Peel's 6 for 67 against Australia during 1894.
O'Reilly's 7 for 27 against England during 1934.
Hoggard's 7 for 61 against South Africa during 2005.
McGrath's 8 for 24 against Pakistan during 2004.
Snow's 7 for 40 against Australia during 1971.
Kluesener's 8 for 64 against India during 1996.
Cowans' 6 for 77 against Australia during 1982.
Fazal Mahmood's 6 for 66 against West Indies during 1959.
Underwood's 7 for 50 against Australia during 1968
Warne's 8 for 71 against England during 1994.
Ambrose's 6 for 24 against England during 1994.
Dean Headley's 6 for 60 against Australia during 1998.
Whitney's 7 for 27 against India during 1992.
Kumble's 7/63 against Pakistan at Kolkata in 2005
Gibbs' 6 for 60 against India during 1968 (Drawn match).

In the famous 1-run win by West Indies against Australia during 1993,
the wickets were shared by Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh. Ambrose's 4 for 46 is still
an excellent individual effort.

In a later article we will see team performances in fourth innings. That will do
justice to the multi-pronged bowling attacks.

Muralitharan: statistically the best bowler © AFP

As I had mentioned in my recent article on Muralitharan, this is the right time to have an in-depth look at the great bowlers of our times and before. We have just seen the retirement of one of the all-time great bowlers and the next active bowler is, in Formula-1 parlance, three laps behind.

I have selected the following fifteen bowlers for analysis. Readers might have their own favourites. However I believe that this collection contains the best ever bowlers, barring personal preferences. I have also tried hard to have as wide a selection as possible, covering all the major test playing countries. I did a Test bowlers analysis last year. However this one has removed all the warts from that and is also at the career-end stage for all the fifteen bowlers. I have a major advantage in doing this analysis. Since the analysis is limited to 15 bowlers, I do not need to worry about the wide disparity which existed between around 60 bowlers who were part of my previous analysis.

Australia:      Shane Warne
                Glenn McGrath
                Dennis Lillee
West Indies:    Malcolm Marshall
                Curtley Ambrose
                Joel Garner
Pakistan:       Imran Khan
                Wasim Akram
                Waqar Younis
India           Anil Kumble
                Kapil Dev
Sri Lanka:      Muralitharan
New Zealand:    Richard Hadlee
South Africa:   Allan Donald
England:        Fred Trueman.

A few notes on the selections. I did not select any pre-WW2 bowlers since their figures would have distorted the numbers considerably, especially Sydney Barnes. The three Australian bowlers select themselves. For West Indies I selected their three best bowlers over the past 30 years. Holding for Garner could be an option. However Garner has a bowling average of 20.98 against Holding's 23.69. First I had selected only Imran Khan and Wasim Akram for Pakistan. Then I realized that Waqar Younis led in one key measure (strike rate) and there was no way could miss him. I did not want to drop Wasim Akram since he is the only left-hander in this group.

Kumble selects himself while Kapil Dev, although he has average overall figures deserves a place since he was the leading wicket-taker for quite some time and changed the face of Indian fast bowling. Shaun Pollock is the only one who could challenge Donald's place. I selected Fred Trueman to represent the period between 1947 and 1969. He is also the best modern English bowler. I also followed the basic principle that any bowler who was the best in a key category (wkts/strike rate/rpo) cannot be left out. One could find justifications for including Walsh, Holding, Shaun Pollock, Willis et al. However this is my selection and not a bad one at that. Let me also add that this is not necessarily the top bowlers list. I am sure Holding, Roberts, Pollock et al would be placed higher than a few in this list. However I wanted to have as wide a representation as possible and restricted one country to 3 bowlers.

Now for the measures on which the rating work is done. First let me clarify two fundamental differences to the way I have done such exercises before.

The first is that I have selected ten measures and given equal weight to all. That way I reduce the chances of subjective valuations.

The next is that for each measure, the best gets the maximum points, viz., 10.0 and the others get proportionate points. This reduces the possibility of differential weights and ensures a fair allocation of points.

The following measures are used.

1. Wickets captured.
2. Bowling strike rate (Bpw).
3. Bowling accuracy (Rpo). 
   (These two are components of the Bowling average, but have been considered 
    independently).
4. Quality of wickets captured (Average of dismissed batsmen's batting averages)
5. Away bowling average.
6. % of top order wickets captured.
7. Team load borne by bowler (balls bowled and wickets captured).
8. Ratio of bowling average to peer bowling average - all teams.
9. Ratio of bowling average to peer bowling average - other bowlers of own team.
10.Win index (Combination of two ratios)- (% of win wickets to career wickets 
     and % of win wickets to team win wickets).

Just to summarize, Muralitharan leads in 2 measures (Wickets and Team load factor). The other 8 measures are led by Ambrose (RpO), Garner (Away bowling average), Imran Khan (Dismissed batsman quality), Waqar Younis (Bowling strike rate), Marshall (Peer comparison to all bowlers), Hadlee (Peer comparison to own team bowlers), McGrath (Top order wickets ratio) and Warne (Win index). A very fair distribution of the top positions with nine bowlers leading in one or more measures. There is no domination by one bowler.

There is one point worth mentioning here. There have been a number of comments about the wickets captured by Muralitharan against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I have thought long and hard and decided not to do anything about it. What is the definition of a weak team. India against Trueman in 1952 were much worse than Bangladesh against Muralitharan. England in 1984 were the rabbits against Marshall. How do we value the English wickets against Australia in 2006. It pains me to say this, what about Pakistan during the past few months. And finally where do we place Sri Lanka itself during its first 10 years. Let us not forget that Warne did not bowl against the strong Australian batsmen, nor Kumble against the great Indian line-up and so on. However the fact that the bowlers in the strong batting lineups did not bowl against their own lineups does not make them any less bowlers. Let Muralitharan not get penalized for playing in a weaker team.

If Muralitharan captured wickets against a team including the Flower brothers, Campbell and Goodwin, how can anyone downgrade these wickets. Where do we draw the line. A test wicket is a test wicket. There are enough measures built in to take care of wickets of batsmen of lower quality. If we start down-valuing performances against Bangladesh, what about Tendulkar's recent 105 out of 243, one of his best ever. For that matter, Gilchrist's 144 or Inzamam's 138 were all truly great match-winning innings. So let us put to rest this red herring, once and for all.

A final point to ponder for those doubting Thomases. Zimbabwe have won 8 of their 83 tests played. India won 8 out of their first 83 tests and New Zealand won 4 of their first 83 tests. Nice to remember that the first away test India won was past the 100th test they played (during 1968). Both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have won away tests well before this number.

I understand that this analysis favours the fast bowlers slightly. This is primarily because fast bowlers' strike rates are lower and they have a better chance of capturing top order wickets. However we have to consider the contribution to team causes and taking top order wickets and having lower strike rates are very essential to the team cause. As far as Strike rates and Rpo are concerned there is no need to do any adjustment since these are all great bowlers. Only two of these bowlers, Kumble and Kapil Dev have strike rates exceeding 60. Muralitharan and Warne have strike rates comparable to the pace bowlers. Surprisingly the bowler with the best Rpo figure is Ambrose. This clearly shows that there is no need to do any special adjustment.

Now for the tables.

1. Career wickets captured

Bowler            Value   Points

Muralitharan M      800   10.00
Warne S.K           708    8.85
Kumble A            619    7.74
McGrath G.D         563    7.04
Kapil Dev N         434    5.43
Hadlee R.J          431    5.39
Wasim Akram         414    5.18
Ambrose C.E.L       405    5.06
Marshall M.D        376    4.70
Waqar Younis        373    4.66
Imran Khan          362    4.53
Lillee D.K          355    4.44
Donald A.A          330    4.12
Trueman F.S         307    3.84
Garner J            259    3.24

This table is self-explanatory.

2. Bowling strike rate (Bpw)

Bowler            Value   Points

Waqar Younis      43.49   10.00
Marshall M.D      46.77    9.30
Donald A.A        47.03    9.24
Trueman F.S       49.44    8.72
Hadlee R.J        50.85    8.42
Garner J          50.87    8.41
McGrath G.D       51.95    8.18
Lillee D.K        52.02    8.17
Imran Khan        53.75    7.79
Ambrose C.E.L     54.58    7.62
Wasim Akram       54.66    7.60
Muralitharan M    55.05    7.52
Warne S.K         57.49    6.99
Kapil Dev N       63.92    5.61
Kumble A          66.00    5.16

Waqar Younis is the bowler with the lowest strike rate. It is not surprising to see that the three spinners and Kapil Dev prop up the table, although Muralitharan and Warne are not too far from Wasim Akram.

3. Bowling accuracy (Rpo)

Bowler            Value   Points

Ambrose C.E.L      2.31   10.00
Garner J           2.47    9.12
Muralitharan M     2.48    9.10
McGrath G.D        2.50    8.98
Imran Khan         2.55    8.74
Wasim Akram        2.59    8.49
Trueman F.S        2.62    8.35
Hadlee R.J         2.63    8.29
Warne S.K          2.65    8.18
Marshall M.D       2.69    7.99
Kumble A           2.70    7.95
Lillee D.K         2.76    7.61
Kapil Dev N        2.78    7.49
Donald A.A         2.84    7.19
Waqar Younis       3.25    5.02

One would have expected a spinner like Murali to head this table. It is a surprise that the often-underrated Ambrose is on top with a Rpo value of 2.31. Waqar Younis has topped the previous table and is propping up this table.

4. Average quality of wickets captured

Bowler            Value   Points

Imran Khan        25.76   10.00
Lillee D.K        24.58    9.54
Kapil Dev N       23.83    9.25
Hadlee R.J        23.64    9.18
Marshall M.D      22.97    8.92
Garner J          22.18    8.61
Kumble A          20.51    7.96
Waqar Younis      20.34    7.89
Muralitharan M    20.27    7.87
Donald A.A        20.06    7.79
Ambrose C.E.L     20.01    7.77
Wasim Akram       19.56    7.59
McGrath G.D       19.22    7.46
Warne S.K         18.48    7.17
Trueman F.S       17.80    6.91

Imran Khan's wickets were of high quality as proved by his high placing here. Warne's and McGrath's low placing is the result of many late order wickets and the fact that they played for a very strong batting lineup. Muralitharan is also pulled down by the number of wickets against the weaker teams. However his figures are still higher than those of Warne.

5. Away wicket bowling average

Bowler            Value   Points

Garner J          20.33   10.00
Ambrose C.E.L     20.39    9.98
McGrath G.D       21.23    9.70
Marshall M.D      22.25    9.35
Hadlee R.J        22.37    9.31
Donald A.A        23.51    8.93
Wasim Akram       23.97    8.77
Lillee D.K        24.18    8.70
Warne S.K         25.27    8.33
Trueman F.S       26.16    8.04
Imran Khan        26.29    7.99
Waqar Younis      26.29    7.99
Muralitharan M    27.02    7.74
Kapil Dev N       32.69    5.83
Kumble A          37.36    4.26

Garner has captured his away wickets at an incredible average of 20.33, closely followed by Ambrose with an away average of 20.39. In fact Garner, Ambrose, McGrath and Warne have an away bowling average which is better than their home bowling average. Kumble's away bowling average was abysmal. Look at the huge daylight which exists between Murali and Kapil/Kumble.

6. % of top order wickets captured

Bowler            Value   Points

McGrath G.D       0.501   10.00
Donald A.A        0.497    9.92
Kapil Dev N       0.494    9.84
Ambrose C.E.L     0.475    9.46
Lillee D.K        0.468    9.33
Imran Khan        0.462    9.21
Trueman F.S       0.453    9.04
Marshall M.D      0.445    8.87
Hadlee R.J        0.439    8.75
Waqar Younis      0.437    8.72
Garner J          0.406    8.09
Wasim Akram       0.394    7.86
Kumble A          0.383    7.64
Muralitharan M    0.350    6.99
Warne S.K         0.318    6.35

Just over half of the wickets captured by McGrath are top order wickets. The three spinners prop up the table, with figures around a third of the total wickets. This is to be expected.

7. % of team load borne

Bowler            Value   Points

Muralitharan M    0.361   10.00
Hadlee R.J        0.298    8.26
Kumble A          0.296    8.21
Warne S.K         0.281    7.77
Lillee D.K        0.275    7.62
Imran Khan        0.267    7.40
Donald A.A        0.253    7.01
Wasim Akram       0.250    6.92
Marshall M.D      0.249    6.89
McGrath G.D       0.247    6.85
Ambrose C.E.L     0.244    6.76
Garner J          0.243    6.74
Trueman F.S       0.242    6.71
Waqar Younis      0.239    6.63
Kapil Dev N       0.222    6.14

This is a composite value taking into account the work load in terms of balls bowled and the resultant wicket captures. Muralitharan is way out on top having shared captured 39% of his team wickets and bowling 33% of his team balls. 6 of the pace bowlers fall below 25%.

8. Peer comparison of average to all peer bowlers

Bowler            Value   Points

Marshall M.D      1.550   10.00
McGrath G.D       1.527    9.84
Ambrose C.E.L     1.514    9.76
Garner J          1.509    9.73
Muralitharan M    1.478    9.53
Hadlee R.J        1.447    9.33
Trueman F.S       1.435    9.25
Donald A.A        1.433    9.24
Imran Khan        1.410    9.09
Waqar Younis      1.363    8.79
Wasim Akram       1.361    8.77
Lillee D.K        1.332    8.59
Warne S.K         1.295    8.35
Kumble A          1.107    7.14
Kapil Dev N       1.085    7.00

This is a comparison of the bowler's bowling average with that of his peers, exactly measured from his first test to last test. Marshall, McGrath and Ambrose stand at over 150%. Kumble and Kapil Dev just about stay either side of 110%.

9. Peer comparison of average to own team peer bowlers

Bowler            Value   Points

Hadlee R.J        1.534   10.00
Muralitharan M    1.418    9.25
Imran Khan        1.377    8.98
Ambrose C.E.L     1.233    8.04
Donald A.A        1.197    7.80
Lillee D.K        1.188    7.74
Kapil Dev N       1.181    7.70
Marshall M.D      1.170    7.63
Trueman F.S       1.169    7.62
Garner J          1.156    7.54
Wasim Akram       1.151    7.51
McGrath G.D       1.149    7.49
Kumble A          1.125    7.33
Waqar Younis      1.123    7.32
Warne S.K         1.017    6.63

This is a comparison of the bowler's bowling average with that of his peers, from his own team, exactly measured from his first test to last test. As expected, the two so called weak-team bowlers, Hadlee and Murali are on top, Hadlee exceeding 150%. Warne just about goes past 100%, which is understandable. A surprise is Kumble's somewhat low figure. This is a reflection of Kumble's somewhat high bowling average nearing 30. This is not too different from his contemporary bowlers.

10. Performance in won matches

Bowler            Value   Points

Warne S.K         0.500   10.00
McGrath G.D       0.492    9.84
Marshall M.D      0.486    9.73
Muralitharan M    0.477    9.54
Lillee D.K        0.451    9.01
Waqar Younis      0.440    8.81
Donald A.A        0.426    8.51
Trueman F.S       0.419    8.38
Ambrose C.E.L     0.414    8.27
Kumble A          0.401    8.01
Hadlee R.J        0.398    7.96
Garner J          0.393    7.86
Wasim Akram       0.384    7.68
Imran Khan        0.364    7.27
Kapil Dev N       0.198    3.96

This is done by doing a composite calculation involving two ratios. The first is the ratio of the bowler wickets in won matches with his own career wickets. The other is the ratio of the bowler wickets in won matches against the team wickets in won matches. This rewards success and as expected, Warne and McGrath lead the pack. Not so surprisingly Kapil Dev is last, indicating that the Indian wins were probably crafted by the spinners during Kapil's era. The presence of Hadlee, Akram, Imran and Kapil in the last five also indicates that their contributions to their team wins was also with the bat. These four are the best batsmen in this elite group of bowlers.

Now for the summary table.

                Total  Wkts BowSR  RpO  WkQty AwAvg TORto  TmLd Peer1 Peer2 WinId

Muralitharan M  87.54 10.00  7.52  9.10  7.87  7.74  6.99 10.00  9.53  9.25  9.54
McGrath G.D     85.38  7.04  8.18  8.98  7.46  9.70 10.00  6.85  9.84  7.49  9.84
Hadlee R.J      84.89  5.39  8.42  8.29  9.18  9.31  8.75  8.26  9.33 10.00  7.96
Marshall M.D    83.36  4.70  9.30  7.99  8.92  9.35  8.87  6.89 10.00  7.63  9.73
Ambrose C.E.L   82.72  5.06  7.62 10.00  7.77  9.98  9.46  6.76  9.76  8.04  8.27

Imran Khan      81.00  4.53  7.79  8.74 10.00  7.99  9.21  7.40  9.09  8.98  7.27
Lillee D.K      80.76  4.44  8.17  7.61  9.54  8.70  9.33  7.62  8.59  7.74  9.01
Donald A.A      79.75  4.12  9.24  7.19  7.79  8.93  9.92  7.01  9.24  7.80  8.51
Garner J        79.34  3.24  8.41  9.12  8.61 10.00  8.09  6.74  9.73  7.54  7.86
Warne S.K       78.63  8.85  6.99  8.18  7.17  8.33  6.35  7.77  8.35  6.63 10.00

Trueman F.S     76.86  3.84  8.72  8.35  6.91  8.04  9.04  6.71  9.25  7.62  8.38
Wasim Akram     76.37  5.18  7.60  8.49  7.59  8.77  7.86  6.92  8.77  7.51  7.68
Waqar Younis    75.84  4.66 10.00  5.02  7.89  7.99  8.72  6.63  8.79  7.32  8.81
Kumble A        71.40  7.74  5.16  7.95  7.96  4.26  7.64  8.21  7.14  7.33  8.01
Kapil Dev N     68.24  5.43  5.61  7.49  9.25  5.83  9.84  6.14  7.00  7.70  3.96

It does not matter which route is taken, be it the high road or low road, be it the country road or the highway, be it the scenic route or the road through the concrete jungle, there is only one destination. The one which proclaims Muralitharan as the best amongst the equals. Let no one forget the X-factor here, the impact Muralitharan has had on Sri Lankan cricket. Glenn McGrath comes in next, a well-deserved place for this outstanding metronome. Richard Hadlee, the legendary fast bowler from down under clocks in the third position. Malcolm Marshall, that fearsome Bajan fast bowling "giant" is in fourth position, closely followed by the other Caribbean giant, this time physically also, Curtley Ambrose.

Imran Khan follows next, a well-deserved position for this wonderful bowler, batsman and born leader of men, despite playing in quite a few tests as a batsman. Dennis Lillee, one of the all-time greats, follows next. He is the highest placed bowler who does not lead in any category. Alan Donald is in seventh position, closely followed by the other West Indian giant, Joel Garner. Now comes Shane Warne, a well-deserved top-10 position for this magician.

The third section of the table is led by the fiery Englishman, Trueman. Now we have arguably the best fast bowling pair ever, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, paired together here also. The two Indian bowlers come in next. First, Anil Kumble, whose contributions to Indian cricket can be matched by only one player, the little master. One could say the same of Kapil Dev. The fact that these two Indian stalwarts come in at the end indicates that India has traditionally relied on its batting. However these two are definitely India's best bowlers ever.

Postscript:

In response to the readers' requests I have added Holding, Botham, Underwood and Shaun Pollock (my choice) and presented the revised table below. Surprisingly, it is Shaun pollock who comes into the table in the 11th position, followed by Holding in 12th position. Underwood comes in the 16th position and is followed by Botham.

I have since added Gibbs and Walsh in response to a few readers' requests. They have not exactly moved the world. Walsh splits the Pakistani pair while Gibbs has taken over the last place from Kapil dev. I have steadfastly not included SF Barnes since he changes the whole dynamics since he leads in couple of meaasures. This rounds off such requests.

                Total  Wkts BowSR  RpO  WkQty AwAvg TORto  TmLd Peer1 Peer2 WinId

Muralitharan M  87.54 10.00  7.52  9.10  7.87  7.74  6.99 10.00  9.53  9.25  9.54
McGrath G.D     85.38  7.04  8.18  8.98  7.46  9.70 10.00  6.85  9.84  7.49  9.84
Hadlee R.J      84.89  5.39  8.42  8.29  9.18  9.31  8.75  8.26  9.33 10.00  7.96
Marshall M.D    83.36  4.70  9.30  7.99  8.92  9.35  8.87  6.89 10.00  7.63  9.73
Ambrose C.E.L   82.72  5.06  7.62 10.00  7.77  9.98  9.46  6.76  9.76  8.04  8.27
Imran Khan      81.00  4.53  7.79  8.74 10.00  7.99  9.21  7.40  9.09  8.98  7.27
Lillee D.K      80.76  4.44  8.17  7.61  9.54  8.70  9.33  7.62  8.59  7.74  9.01
Donald A.A      79.75  4.12  9.24  7.19  7.79  8.93  9.92  7.01  9.24  7.80  8.51
Garner J        79.34  3.24  8.41  9.12  8.61 10.00  8.09  6.74  9.73  7.54  7.86
Warne S.K       78.63  8.85  6.99  8.18  7.17  8.33  6.35  7.77  8.35  6.63 10.00
Pollock S.M     78.05  5.26  6.91  9.52  7.86  8.21  8.82  6.42  9.28  8.18  7.58
Holding M.A     77.60  3.11  8.40  7.45  9.81  9.19  9.14  6.37  8.59  6.95  8.58
Trueman F.S     76.86  3.84  8.72  8.35  6.91  8.04  9.04  6.71  9.25  7.62  8.38
Wasim Akram     76.37  5.18  7.60  8.49  7.59  8.77  7.86  6.92  8.77  7.51  7.68
Walsh C.A       76.07  6.49  6.91  8.80  8.02  8.20  8.77  6.59  8.42  6.94  6.92
Waqar Younis    75.84  4.66 10.00  5.02  7.89  7.99  8.72  6.63  8.79  7.32  8.81
Underwood D.L   71.74  3.71  3.52 11.06  8.97  7.62  8.34  6.59  7.78  7.71  6.43
Kumble A        71.40  7.74  5.16  7.95  7.96  4.26  7.64  8.21  7.14  7.33  8.01
Botham I.T      70.06  4.79  7.10  6.38  8.76  7.08  8.08  6.67  7.24  6.84  7.11
Kapil Dev N     68.24  5.43  5.61  7.49  9.25  5.83  9.84  6.14  7.00  7.70  3.96
Gibbs L.R       65.08  3.86  0.48 11.68  7.79  6.30  6.33  7.00  7.12  6.94  7.57

One final request. Please restrict yourself to comments relevant to the article.

Curtly Ambrose: one of the best match winners © Getty Images

In a recent Numbers game piece, the focus was on the match winning ability of South African spearhead Dale Steyn. Steyn has proven to be by far the best fast bowler in the last few years which have been predominantly in favour of batsmen. The earlier decades were more balanced with sporting pitches and presence of top quality fast bowlers in most teams. This prompted me to take a statistical look at match winning Test bowlers since 1970. Quite a few interesting numbers and names pop up during the course of this exercise.

The first table lists the bowlers with the best bowling averages in Test victories. Of all the bowlers, who have a minimum of 100 wickets in wins; Richard Hadlee has the best numbers. A stunning average of just over 13, with a strike rate of 33 further emphasises how important he was for New Zealand throughout his career. New Zealand did not win a single game when Hadlee wasn’t a part of the team. Imran Khan led Pakistan brilliantly throughout the 1980’s when they were the only team to compete with the West Indies, drawing three series against them. The presence of Dale Steyn at the top shows what an incredible match winner he has been for South Africa over the last few years.

Muttiah Muralitharan, who announced his retirement from Test cricket recently has been the key to Sri Lanka’s successes both home and away. His 16 wicket haul at the Oval enabled Sri Lanka to win their first series in England. Malcolm Marshall and Michael Holding were crucial to the success of the West Indies through the 70’s and 80’s. When both played together, the West Indies lost only a single match and won 19. Marshall was the best of the West Indian bowlers with excellent performances home and away and in all conditions. He averaged 23.05 in the subcontinent and an astounding 11.72 in subcontinent wins. The presence of Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akthar and Curtly Ambrose at the top clearly shows how vital they were to their team’s fortunes. Ambrose played quite a few matches in a team that was on its way down and together with Courtney Walsh, carried the hopes of success for the West Indies for much of the 90’s.

The next table lists the bowlers with the best averages in Test wins at home. The presence of Hadlee, Imran and Marshall is not surprising. Dennis Lillee was Australia’s best fast bowlers throughout his career and this is vindicated by his presence. Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh have been crucial to almost every Indian win at home over the last fifteen years. Muralitharan has been nothing short of exceptional in home conditions, enabling Sri Lanka to be a very potent force in home games. His average though does go up a notch when the matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are not considered. He averages close to 18 with a strike rate of about 47 in games not involving these two teams. Ian Botham bowled brilliantly in the 1981 Ashes and his remarkable performances kept England competitive, but his average of nearly 32 against West Indies, the best team of his era was rather poor.

The list of bowlers with the best averages in away wins brings up some new names. Apart from the top bowlers like Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and McGrath, the presence of Zaheer Khan and Jason Gillespie is an excellent indicator of their superb away performances over the years. Gillespie, together with McGrath, formed the best opening bowling pair in the world for much of the first half of the 2000’s. Zaheer Khan’s bowling over the last few years has been instrumental in India’s improved away performances.

The tables below take a look at the bowlers with the highest percentage of their wickets in wins. The presence of bowlers from Australia and West Indies on top is a clear indicator that they were part of world class teams. Stuart MacGill and Jason Gillespie picked up more than 75% of their wickets in wins. Three more Australians McGrath, Lee and Warne make up the list at the top along with Dale Steyn. Marshall and Holding are also high on the list but the numbers are a little lower considering the higher number of draws then. Ambrose, Muralitharan and Akram despite being world class match winners were never part of a top team throughout and they have picked up only about half their wickets in wins.

Also listed in the table is the percentage contribution by a bowler to a team’s wickets in wins. Muralitharan and Richard Hadlee contributed over 40 % of the team wickets in wins which undoubtedly is an indicator of the team’s dependence on them. McGrath and Warne were part of a much more powerful bowling attack and the numbers are much more evenly distributed between them. Marshall, despite being a part of a quality attack, was easily the finest bowler and contributed over 30% of the team wickets in wins. Anil Kumble’s bowling was the single biggest reason why India were among the best at home through the 90’s and 2000’s and his contribution of almost 35% of the team’s wickets illustrates that.

Australia, did not lose a single series at home for over 15 years until the loss to South Africa in 2009. This dominance can be seen in Glenn McGrath’s extraordinary figures of 87% of wickets in home wins. Steve Harmison is the surprise entry at the top, with 80% of his home wickets in wins. The other top bowlers in home wins include the Australians Warne and Lee and fast bowlers Malcolm Marshall and Allan Donald.

Muralitharan, as expected contributes 43% to the team wickets in home wins, while Anil Kumble and Hadlee are not far behind with about 38%. The Australian pairing of McGrath and Warne contributes a more even 25%.

The final table looks at the percentage of wickets in away wins and the contribution to team wickets in away wins. Jason Gillespie is on top here with almost 77% of his away wickets coming in wins. Shane Warne and Brett Lee, who were also a part of the top class Australian team make up the top three. Marshall and McGrath were consistent performers for their respective teams in away conditions and their presence is justified. Pakistan’s opening bowling pair of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis pick up about 50% of their wickets in away wins. Zaheer Khan and Anil Kumble are the biggest contributors to Indian away wins in the last decade.

As expected, Muralitharan contributes 43% of the team’s wickets in away wins, despite the Sri Lankan team not being as dominant away as in home conditions. Shane Warne and Malcolm Marshall, with more than 30% contribution to team wickets definitely prove their worth in away matches.

* Team wickets are in matches involving player.

Muttiah Muralitharan has taken ten or more wickets in a Test in four consecutive matches © AFPs

The innings, one of the greatest ever, need not be and is not the best ODI innings ever. The numbers 189/189/194/175/183/149/140/158 et al are floating around. By Tendulkar's own high standards, the 175/138/143/134/98 innings lay claim to being his best. But not to take away from the greatness and perfection of the innings. There might be greater innings but certainly no greater batsman during the past six decades. The gap is widening and soon would be insurmountable.

This is similar to the 400 which, despite being the highest Test innings, is nowhere near innings associated with the numbers 270/153/154/281/149/213/293 et al.

Instead I have come out with an analysis based on the excellent suggestion made by Alex Tierno. This is to determine the successful bowler sequences from a minimum of 3 wkts per Test to 10 wickets per Test. The more I did the work the more I felt that this is an excellent method of determining bowler consistency.

I needed to create a completely new Database of Player-Match records. However this will be very useful since I can do many new analysis without resorting to individual programs. That will be a great bonus.

Let us see the tables starting with 3 or more wickets. I have shown the first three in each classification. Where there are multiple bowlers with same number of Tests, the one with the highest WpT figure is shown.

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>= 3 wkts Warne S.K          39   1576   244    6.3     
>= 3 wkts Muralitharan M     34   1555   251    7.4     
>= 3 wkts McGrath G.D        17   1718    88    5.2

At this point it is worth explaining that there could be 3+ wkts streaks of more than 17 Tests from either Warne or Murali. I have deliberately shown the top three bowlers, rather than the top three bowling streaks, to broaden the scope of the anaysis.

As expected Muralitharan dominates the other classifications, leading in the 10+, 9+, 8+(shared), 7+, 6+, 5+ and 4+ wickets categories.

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>= 4 wkts Muralitharan M     19   1626   135    7.1     
>= 4 wkts Bedi B.S           13    785    78    6.0     
>= 4 wkts Waqar Younis       12   1192    86    7.2

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>= 5 wkts Muralitharan M     14   1670   109    7.8     
>= 5 wkts Lee B              11   1824    70    6.4     
>= 5 wkts Donald A.A          9   1403    61    6.8

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>= 6 wkts Muralitharan M      8   1670    68    8.5     
>= 6 wkts Warne S.K           7   1582    53    7.6     
>= 6 wkts Lee B               7   1824    47    6.7

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>= 7 wkts Muralitharan M      7   1670    62    8.9     
>= 7 wkts Barnes S.F          5    117    41    8.2     
>= 7 wkts Turner C.T.B        4     25    39    9.8

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>= 8 wkts Barnes S.F          4    130    49   12.2     
>= 8 wkts Muralitharan M      4   1559    42   10.5     
>= 8 wkts Turner C.T.B        4     25    39    9.8     

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>= 9 wkts Muralitharan M      4   1559    42   10.5     
>= 9 wkts Turner C.T.B        3     26    31   10.3     
>= 9 wkts Richardson T        3     46    33   11.0
>= 9 wkts Grimmett C.V        3    249    33   11.0

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
                           tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT

>=10 wkts Muralitharan M      4   1559    42   10.5     
>=10 wkts Grimmett C.V        3    249    33   11.0     
>=10 wkts Lohmann G.A         2     47    27   13.5

Murali's four consecutive 10-wkt hauls are shown below. The concerned year was 2001. This is one record which might, like Laker's 19 wickets in a single test, never be bettered.

1559 vs India       34.1  9  87 8   46.5 17 109 3  
1561 vs Bangladesh   9.4  4  13 5   35.3  6  98 5  
1567 vs West Indies 53.4 11 126 6   31.3 10  44 5  
1570 vs West Indies 23.4  5  54 4   35.5 16  81 6  

An interesting exchange of mails

Posted by: Alex at March 11, 2010 10:06 AM
Ananth - Pl see if you can do analysis to answer the following question: Suppose we restrict ourselves to test matches that have produced a result (including the "tie" tests). What fraction of these featured a winning team bowler taking X wkts/match (where X=7,8,9, ...)? If we split this data into decades (or venue countries), is there any pattern? You could do similar analysis for SR and averages. I feel most result-oriented matches feature a winning team with a bowler who takes at least 7 wkts in that match ... very rare to win with a bunch of bowlers contributing 2-5 wkts each.

[[ Alex That is a lovely idea. It will clearly show whether there is a discernible change in the winning methods of Test teams. Will have to do a special program but will be worth it. Thanks Ananth: ]]

Posted by: Jeff at March 12, 2010 9:37 AM
@ Alex
These are the figures that I have:
1269 tests have produced a winning result
On winning teams, the number of times players took & or more wickets are:

7 = 390 times (0.31 per match)
8 = 311 (0.25)
9 = 187 (0.15)
10+=269 (0.21)

7 = 156 (0.12)
8 = 137 (0.11)
9 =  46 (0.04)
10+= 65 (0.05)

7 = 197 (0.14)
8 =  81 (0.06)
9 =  49 (0.04)
10+= 65 (0.05)

Era      %7wkts %8wkts %9wkts %10+wkts

PreWW1    25%     31%    15%     26%
Inter War 31%     24%    11%     32%
40s/50s   26%     28%    18%     23%
60s       20%     20%    19%     15%
70s       31%     17%    18%     18%
80s       31%     22%    15%     26%
90s       33%     32%    15%     19%
2000s     36%     21%    12%     16%

	Shane Bond's Test career lasted only 18 matches, but fittingly, it ended with a match-winning performance © Getty Images

Bond in full flight was an utterly spectacular sight, which makes it doubly sad that the cricket world has seen so little of him, especially in a form of the game that allows him to attack without fear. It’s almost unfair that his decision means he’ll continue to play in formats which will curb those attacking instincts and force him to bowl defensive lines to defensive fields with the onus on saving runs.

The series which stands out for me in a brief Test career was the one against India at home in 2002-03. Admittedly conditions were tailormade for seam and swing, and none of the batsmen got runs consistently, but the manner in which Bond prized out India’s much-vaunted batting line-up made for superb viewing. The second innings of the Wellington Test was the most memorable, when he removed Sehwag, Dravid, Ganguly and Tendulkar with high-class seam and swing to win the match for New Zealand. That series remains his most successful against the top teams.

The stat that best sums up Bond’s effect in the New Zealand team is the team’s results in matches in which he played and in the ones he didn’t. The difference, it turns out, is huge. In the 18 Tests he played, New Zealand won ten (though four of those were against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe). They lost only twice, to Sri Lanka and South Africa. During the period since Bond’s Test debut, they played 49 times without him, and managed to win only ten, and lost 24. New Zealand’s bowling average was ten runs lower, and their strike rate was 20 balls better, when Bond was in the line-up.

It’s also interesting to see the effect that Bond had on his bowling mates. Among the specialist bowlers, it seems Bond’s absence effected Daniel Vettori and Daryl Tuffey more than the others – Vettori’s average went up from 24 to 37 in Tests when Bond didn’t play, which indicates the pressure he put on batsmen helped the others bowlers too. Similarly, Tuffey averaged 21 when he played with Bond, and 32 when Bond wasn’t around.

Another stat that demonstrates his match-winning ability is the number of Man-of-the-Match awards he has won – is just 18 matches he won the award four times, including, quite fittingly, in what turned out to be his last Test. (Which makes a good quiz question – how many players have won the match award in their last Test? I don’t the answer myself, but will try and find out. In the meantime, do send in your answers.)

I wish he’d played more Tests against Australia and improved his record against them – in two Tests he averaged 96.33, but those were his first two Tests, so he deserves some slack (and he bowled better than those figures suggest).

He enjoyed his matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe – as did most bowlers – but even after removing his games against them, his stats still look good – an average of 26.22, with a wicket every 43.6 balls. For New Zealand’s sake, here’s hoping they find a like-for-like replacement soon.

	Muttiah Muralitharan has taken more than 40% of Sri Lanka's wickets in the Tests they've won © AFP

The reason is very simple and fundamental. Look at the following two Tests.

In 1932, Australia scored 153 runs in the match and WON.

    South Africa:36 & 45.
    Australia: 153.

In 1921, England scored 817 runs in the match and LOST.

    Australia: 354 & 582.
    England: 447 & 370.

The common thread running through these two extreme matches is that the winning team captured 20 wickets. This is the mandatory requirement of all wins, barring a few matches in which there might have been declarations or retired-hurt situations.

So I am going to take a somewhat different look at the bowlers' analysis. I have also been influenced by Unnikrishnan's excellent suggestion that the % runs should be calculated for each match, summed and averaged. I applied that to the bowler analysis. However let me inform Unni that there is almost no difference at all in the two ways of calculations since the team wickets is 20 for over 99% of the matches. There would obviously be a difference in batting because the total team runs in won matches vary a lot. I have also compared the bowling averages of bowlers, in winning causes, to the bowling averages of the other bowlers.

This time I have done a table of the top 25 for each of these analysis and a single team-based table, listing only the top-10 for each team. The full table is available through a link.

The criteria is simple. The bowler should have been involved in a minimum of 10 wins and captured over 100 wickets in their career.

1. Top 25 bowlers based on % of team wickets in wins

No Cty  Bowler            Mat Wins  Wkts  Wkts %-of-Wkts
                                     Own  Team

 1.Eng  Barnes S.F         27   13   115   260   44.23
 2.Slk  Muralitharan M    129   53   430  1060   40.57
 3.Nzl  Hadlee R.J         86   22   173   440   39.32
 4.Aus  Grimmett C.V       37   20   143   400   35.75
 5.Ind  Chandrasekhar B.S  58   14    98   276   35.71
 6.Saf  Steyn D.W          33   18   124   360   34.44
 7.Saf  Tayfield H.J       37   11    74   220   33.64
 8.Ind  Kumble A          132   43   284   860   33.02
 9.Aus  Lillee D.K         70   31   203   618   32.80
10.Aus  O'Reilly W.J       27   14    91   279   32.61
11.Eng  Fraser A.R.C       46   12    78   240   32.50
12.Eng  Peel R             20   12    78   240   32.50
13.Eng  Lohmann G.A        18   15    94   300   31.33
14.Aus  McKenzie G.D       60   18   112   360   31.11
15.Eng  Gough D            58   18   105   342   30.83
16.Pak  Imran Khan         88   26   155   520   29.81
17.Win  Marshall M.D       81   43   254   857   29.62
18.Win  Ramadhin S         43   13    76   260   29.23
19.Ind  Bedi B.S           67   17    97   336   28.90
20.Win  Croft C.E.H        27   10    57   200   28.50
21.Pak  Waqar Younis       87   39   222   780   28.46
22.Saf  Donald A.A         72   33   187   660   28.33
23.Eng  Caddick A.R        62   21   114   402   28.27
24.Aus  Davidson A.K       44   16    89   320   27.81
25.Aus  Trumble H          32   14    77   280   27.50

The top-10 has 6 spinners. Also 6 modern bowlers appear in these positions.

To view the complete list, please click here.

2. Top 5 bowlers for each country based on % of team wickets in wins

Cty  Bowler            Mat Wins  Wkts  Wkts %-of-Wkts
                                  Own  Team

Aus  Grimmett C.V       37   20   143   400   35.75
Aus  Lillee D.K         70   31   203   618   32.80
Aus  O'Reilly W.J       27   14    91   279   32.61
Aus  McKenzie G.D       60   18   112   360   31.11
Aus  Davidson A.K       44   16    89   320   27.81
...
Eng  Barnes S.F         27   13   115   260   44.23
Eng  Fraser A.R.C       46   12    78   240   32.50
Eng  Peel R             20   12    78   240   32.50
Eng  Lohmann G.A        18   15    94   300   31.33
Eng  Gough D            58   18   105   342   30.83
...
Ind  Chandrasekhar B.S  58   14    98   276   35.71
Ind  Kumble A          132   43   284   860   33.02
Ind  Bedi B.S           67   17    97   336   28.90
Ind  Harbhajan Singh    77   31   168   619   27.13
Ind  Prasanna E.A.S     49   15    81   300   27.00
...
Nzl  Hadlee R.J         86   22   173   440   39.32
Nzl  Martin C.S         50   12    59   240   24.58
Nzl  Cairns C.L         62   16    76   320   23.75
Nzl  Chatfield E.J      43   12    52   240   21.67
Nzl  Cairns B.L         43   12    48   240   20.00
...
Pak  Imran Khan         88   26   155   520  29.81
Pak  Waqar Younis       87   39   222   780  28.46
Pak  Wasim Akram       104   41   211   820  25.73
Pak  Danish Kaneria     54   21   108   420  25.71
Pak  Shoaib Akhtar      46   20    99   400  24.75
...
Saf  Steyn D.W          33   18   124   360  34.44
Saf  Tayfield H.J       37   11    74   220  33.64
Saf  Donald A.A         72   33   187   660  28.33
Saf  Ntini M            99   50   233  1000  23.30
Saf  Pollock P.M        28   10    46   200  23.00
...
Slk  Muralitharan M    129   53   430  1060  40.57
Slk  Vaas WPUJC        111   43   166   860  19.30
...
Win  Marshall M.D       81   43   254   857  29.62
Win  Ramadhin S         43   13    76   260  29.23
Win  Croft C.E.H        27   10    57   200  28.50
Win  Roberts A.M.E      47   21   110   420  26.19
Win  Ambrose C.E.L      98   44   229   878  26.12

To view the complete list, please click here.

3. Top 25 bowlers based on Ratio of bowling average in wins

No Cty  Bowler           Wkts  <-Wins Bow Avge-> Ratio
                               Team   Own Others

 1.Eng  Fraser A.R.C       78  24.20 16.53 27.90  1.69
 2.Nzl  Hadlee R.J        173  18.38 13.07 21.82  1.67
 3.Pak  Imran Khan        155  20.16 14.50 22.56  1.56
 4.Eng  Barnes S.F        115  17.71 13.58 20.98  1.54
 5.Slk  Muralitharan M    430  20.57 16.04 23.66  1.47
 6.Saf  Steyn D.W         124  21.33 16.68 23.77  1.43
 7.Pak  Shoaib Akhtar      99  21.78 17.52 23.19  1.32
 8.Eng  Briggs J           84  16.01 13.01 16.86  1.30
 9.Aus  Davidson A.K       89  19.52 16.04 20.86  1.30
10.Aus  McKenzie G.D      112  23.47 19.49 25.27  1.30
11.Eng  Underwood D.L     123  18.65 15.19 19.67  1.30
12.Aus  O'Reilly W.J       91  17.84 14.96 19.23  1.29
13.Aus  Lillee D.K        203  21.56 18.27 23.18  1.27
14.Win  Gibbs L.R         154  22.93 19.17 24.23  1.26
15.Saf  Goddard T.L        47  23.03 19.09 24.10  1.26
16.Eng  Verity H           71  20.01 16.65 20.97  1.26
17.Eng  Lohmann G.A        94  11.21  9.67 11.91  1.23
18.Ind  Pathan I.K         66  23.70 20.26 24.88  1.23
19.Eng  Peel R             78  16.97 14.67 18.07  1.23
20.Aus  Grimmett C.V      143  19.99 17.60 21.32  1.21
21.Aus  Trumble H          77  20.79 18.00 21.85  1.21
22.Eng  Bedser A.V         74  20.09 17.54 21.04  1.20
23.Ind  Kumble A          284  21.18 18.71 22.40  1.20
24.Saf  Pollock P.M        46  22.86 19.83 23.77  1.20
25.Win  Croft C.E.H        57  19.39 17.12 20.29  1.18

Note the low averages by the concerned bowlers in wins. No doubt these figures would be influenced, partly, by the outstanding analysis against weaker teams. But neither Fraser nor Hadlee had one easy match in their careers.

To view the complete list, please click here.

4. Top 5 bowlers for each country based on Ratio of bowling average in wins

Cty  Bowler           Wkts  <-Wins Bow Avge-> Ratio
                      Wins  Team   Own Others

Aus  Davidson A.K       89  19.52 16.04 20.86  1.30
Aus  McKenzie G.D      112  23.47 19.49 25.27  1.30
Aus  O'Reilly W.J       91  17.84 14.96 19.23  1.29
Aus  Lillee D.K        203  21.56 18.27 23.18  1.27
Aus  Grimmett C.V      143  19.99 17.60 21.32  1.21
...
Eng  Fraser A.R.C       78  24.20 16.53 27.90  1.69
Eng  Barnes S.F        115  17.71 13.58 20.98  1.54
Eng  Briggs J           84  16.01 13.01 16.86  1.30
Eng  Underwood D.L     123  18.65 15.19 19.67  1.30
Eng  Verity H           71  20.01 16.65 20.97  1.26
...
Ind  Pathan I.K         66  23.70 20.26 24.88  1.23
Ind  Kumble A          284  21.18 18.71 22.40  1.20
Ind  Bedi B.S           97  19.43 17.66 20.14  1.14
Ind  Chandrasekhar B.S  98  20.83 19.28 21.69  1.13
Ind  Prasanna E.A.S     81  19.04 17.62 19.57  1.11
...
Nzl  Hadlee R.J        173  18.38 13.07 21.82  1.67
Nzl  Cairns C.L         76  21.35 20.20 21.70  1.07
Nzl  Bracewell J.G      35  19.54 19.29 19.59  1.02
Nzl  Chatfield E.J      52  18.39 19.00 18.22  0.96
Nzl  Vettori D.L       109  19.07 21.40 18.52  0.87
...
Pak  Imran Khan        155  20.16 14.50 22.56  1.56
Pak  Shoaib Akhtar      99  21.78 17.52 23.19  1.32
Pak  Waqar Younis      222  19.84 18.21 20.49  1.13
Pak  Sarfraz Nawaz      75  21.47 20.52 21.76  1.06
Pak  Wasim Akram       211  18.63 18.49 18.68  1.01
...
Saf  Steyn D.W         124  21.33 16.68 23.77  1.43
Saf  Goddard T.L        47  23.03 19.09 24.10  1.26
Saf  Pollock P.M        46  22.86 19.83 23.77  1.20
Saf  Tayfield H.J       74  20.98 18.85 22.05  1.17
Saf  Donald A.A        187  18.77 16.80 19.56  1.16
...
Slk  Muralitharan M    430  20.57 16.04 23.66  1.47
Slk  Vaas WPUJC        166  20.20 22.64 19.62  0.87
...
Win  Gibbs L.R         154  22.93 19.17 24.23  1.26
Win  Croft C.E.H        57  19.39 17.12 20.29  1.18
Win  Marshall M.D      254  18.70 16.79 19.50  1.16
Win  Ambrose C.E.L     229  18.66 16.86 19.29  1.14
Win  Ramadhin S         76  19.08 17.80 19.61  1.10

To view the complete list, please click here.

	Dale Steyn has the second-best strike rate among bowlers with at least 100 Test wickets © AFP

If an active player is at the top of an all-time list, he keeps on widening the gap on the second placed player, unless otherwise the top two or three are also active. This true of the aggregate type of measures. On the other hand in performance related measures, it does not matter since it is possible for later players to catch up with the particular measure.

The tables are shown in a standardised format. The first five entries are shown to get an idea, not just of the top entry, but also the ones immediately following the top. When required, more entries are shown. Then the 50th entry, exactly at mid-point, is shown to get an idea of the % drop. Finally the 100th entry is shown to get a further idea of the table's distribution of the key measure.

1. Table of Bowling averages (minimum 100 wkts)

SNo.Bowler             Type  Cty    Runs Wkts   Avge     %

  1.Lohmann G.A         RFM  Eng    1205  112  10.76  100.0
  2.Barnes S.F          RFM  Eng    3106  189  16.43   65.5
  3.Turner C.T.B        RFM  Aus    1670  101  16.53   65.1
  4.Peel R              lsp  Eng    1715  102  16.81   64.0
  5.Briggs J            lsp  Eng    2095  118  17.75   60.6
  6.Blythe C            lsp  Eng    1863  100  18.63   57.8
  7.Wardle J.H          lsp  Eng    2080  102  20.39   52.8
  8.Davidson A.K        LFM  Aus    3819  186  20.53   52.4
  9.Marshall M.D        RF   Win    7876  376  20.95   51.4
 10.Garner J            RF   Win    5433  259  20.98   51.3
...
 50.Tate M.W            RFM  Eng    4055  155  26.16   41.1
...
100.Doshi D.R           lsp  Ind    3502  114  30.72   35.0

Then come Wardle, a 50s bowler, Davidson, a 60s bowler and two modern West Indian giants, Marshall and Garner. I would say that the best any modern bowler can hope for is an entry into the top-10, as Muralitharan and Steyn are trying for.

Note how far off the 50th placed bowler, Tate and Doshi, at no.100, are.

To view the complete list, please click here.

2. Table of Wickets per Test (minimum 100 wkts)

SNo.Bowler           Type  Cty  Mat  Wkts    WpT    %

  1.Barnes S.F        RFM  Eng   27   189   7.00 100.0
  2.Lohmann G.A       RFM  Eng   18   112   6.22  88.9
  3.Muralitharan M    rob  Slk  129   783   6.07  86.7
  4.Turner C.T.B      RFM  Aus   17   101   5.94  84.9
  5.Grimmett C.V      rlb  Aus   37   216   5.84  83.4
...
 50.Wasim Akram       LFM  Pak  104   414   3.98  56.9
...
100.Giffen G          rob  Aus   31   103   3.32  47.5

The 50th placed bowler is well above 50% indicating a clustering on top.

To view the complete list, please click here.

3. Table of Career wickets captured

SNo.Bowler            Type  Cty  Mat  Wkts      %

  1.Muralitharan M     rob  Slk  129   783   100.0
  2.Warne S.K          rlb  Aus  145   708    90.4
  3.Kumble A           rlb  Ind  132   619    79.1
  4.McGrath G.D        RFM  Aus  124   563    71.9
  5.Walsh C.A          RF   Win  132   519    66.3
...
 11.Ntini M            RF   Saf   99   388    49.6
...
 50.Hughes M.G         RF   Aus   53   212    27.1
...
100.Cork D.G           RFM  Eng   37   131    16.7

The career wickets tally drops off so drastically that the 50th placed bowler is only at 27%. Also the 100th placed bowler is 83% away.

To view the complete list, please click here.

4. Table of Bowling economy (minimum 1000 overs)

SNo.Bowler             Type  Cty  Overs  Mdns  Runs   RpO    %

  1.Goddard T.L         LFM  Saf 1956.0   706  3226  1.65 100.0
  2.Nadkarni R.G        lsp  Ind 1527.3   665  2559  1.68  98.4
  3.Verity H            lsp  Eng 1862.1   604  3510  1.88  87.5
  4.Wardle J.H          lsp  Eng 1099.3   403  2080  1.89  87.2
  5.Illingworth R       rob  Eng 1989.0   715  3807  1.91  86.2
...
 22.Edmonds P.H         lsp  Eng 2004.4   613  4273  2.13  77.4
...
 50.Statham J.B         RFM  Eng 2676.0   595  6261  2.34  70.5
...
100.Reid B.A            LFM  Aus 1040.4   244  2784  2.68  61.7

Bowling accuracy was probably more valued in Tests during 50s and 60s. Goddard and Nadkarni are 50s/60s bowlers and have unimaginable accuracy rates. Can we even imagine an analysis of 32-27-5-0 which Nadkarni essayed in 1964. The best modern bowler in this regard is Edmonds, who is 23% away.

The clustering at the top is so pronounced that Statham, at no.50, is only 30% away. And the 100th placed bowler is less than 40% away.

To view the complete list, please click here.

5. Table of Bowling strike rate (Min 100 wkts)

SNo.Bowler             Type  Cty   Balls Wkts  St Rt     %

  1 Lohmann G.A         RFM  Eng    3821  112  34.12  100.0
  2 Steyn D.W           RF   Saf    6676  170  39.27   86.9
  3 Barnes S.F          RFM  Eng    7873  189  41.66   81.9
  4 Waqar Younis        RFM  Pak   16223  373  43.49   78.4
  5 Briggs J            lsp  Eng    5332  118  45.19   75.5
...
 50 Harmison S.J        RFM  Eng   13375  226  59.18   57.6
...
100 DeFreitas P.A.J     RFM  Eng    9838  140  70.27   48.5

To view the complete list, please click here.

A table of the best bowling performances in a Test or innings does not belong to this analysis since that is a specific single innings/match event and does not warrant such a comparison. For 10 years, no one might reach 10 or 19 wicket mark, and in one week, two bowlers might go past it.

	Richard Hadlee moves up to second spot among bowlers since 1970 © Getty Images

Match performance ratings

1. Halve the balls bowled base points (a wicket equivalent for about 45 overs).
2. Introduce the bowler strike rate, in relation to team strike rate, as a new base measure, at a relatively lower weight.
3. Minor changes to the batsman dismissed base point calculation, to be based on recent form. This will lower the value of wickets of top batsmen while going through a poor patch and increase the weight of capturing in-form batsmen.

Career measures:

1. Have a cut-off of 200 wickets for the current era, reducing the number from 89 to 44. We have lost Shoaib Akhtar, Steyn, Alderman, Bishop et al. But it cannot be helped.
2. Increase the Wickets weight from 5 points to 7.5 points. Within this, do a 5% on either side (105% & 95%) valuation for away and home wickets.
3. Correspondingly reduce the Wickets per Innspell weight from 5 points to 2.5 points.
4. Remove the Performance Ratio measure, the last column in the table.
5. Instead introduce the Peer Comparison ratios. This time I have allotted an equal weight for strike Rate and accuracy.
6. Introduce a simple 5-Test slice based Consistency index using wickets captured as the indicator. Also include the % of wicket spells out of qualifying spells as a consistency measure.

Revised allocations of the Career points:

The points have gone up to 45 and there is a slight increase in the Match performance points because of changes in Base points calculation.

- Career wickets captured (7.5 points)
- Career wickets per innspell (2.5 points)
- Bowling Strike rate-BpW (9 points)
- Bowling accuracy-RpO (6 points)
- Consistency (4) points
- Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (5 points)
- Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (3 points)
- Peer ratio: Strike rate (4 points)
- Peer ratio: Accuracy (RpO) (4 points).

Let us look at the revised tables. I am not going to make too many comments and will let the readers draw their own conclusions. The overall feeling I get is that there are not that many changes indicating that the initial methodology itself was quite sound.

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

No.Cty Bowler         BT  Total Match  Wkt  Bow Bow  Wkt  Wkt  Cons Peer Peer
                           Pts   Perf  Pts StRt Acc BtAvg Qlty  Idx  S/R  RpO
                      Max 85-90 40-45 10.0  9.0 6.0  5.5  2.5   4.0  4.0  4.0

 1.Slk Muralitharan M ROB 56.95 22.76 8.24 6.89 4.47 4.01 2.05 3.62 2.48 2.43
 2.Nzl Hadlee R.J     RFM 54.46 22.03 5.33 7.89 3.89 4.73 2.10 3.58 2.88 2.03
 3.Aus Warne S.K      RLB 53.79 22.13 7.33 6.59 4.18 3.69 1.89 3.43 2.35 2.20
 4.Aus Lillee D.K     RF  53.18 21.83 4.53 7.81 3.68 4.92 2.18 3.55 2.81 1.88
 5.Pak Imran Khan     RF  52.70 21.36 4.60 7.55 3.98 5.15 2.14 3.11 2.72 2.09
 6.Win Marshall M.D   RF  50.85 18.99 4.55 8.19 3.88 4.59 2.21 3.32 3.09 2.02
 7.Aus McGrath G.D    RFM 50.80 18.94 5.93 7.21 4.39 3.84 2.24 3.27 2.63 2.36
 8.Pak Waqar Younis   RFM 49.73 19.41 4.56 8.15 3.35 4.07 2.12 3.19 3.16 1.72
 9.Saf Donald A.A     RF  49.29 18.68 4.21 7.71 3.85 4.01 2.22 3.73 2.94 1.95
10.Win Ambrose C.E.L  RF  49.27 18.67 4.71 7.06 4.41 4.00 2.17 3.33 2.52 2.40

11.Ind Kumble A       RLB 49.22 19.07 6.54 5.65 4.12 4.13 2.03 3.47 2.03 2.18
12.Pak Wasim Akram    LFM 48.70 18.77 4.85 7.06 4.11 3.91 1.95 3.37 2.56 2.13
13.Win Holding M.A    RF  47.76 17.43 3.39 7.90 3.70 5.06 2.17 3.39 2.80 1.92
14.Saf Pollock S.M    RFM 47.64 17.53 4.72 6.55 4.57 4.04 2.12 3.30 2.32 2.50
15.Win Garner J       RF  47.26 17.11 3.49 7.84 4.10 4.44 1.99 3.32 2.80 2.16
16.Aus Thomson J.R    RF  47.23 17.75 3.01 7.76 3.21 5.44 2.36 3.31 2.73 1.66
17.Win Walsh C.A      RF  47.16 16.56 5.54 6.76 4.15 4.13 2.06 3.38 2.42 2.16
18.Eng Willis R.G.D   RF  46.99 16.75 3.93 7.70 3.60 4.51 2.24 3.68 2.75 1.83
19.Aus McDermott C.J  RF  46.86 18.32 3.80 6.93 3.53 4.35 2.27 3.31 2.54 1.81
20.Eng Botham I.T     RFM 46.68 17.68 4.55 7.09 3.52 4.51 2.08 2.93 2.54 1.79

The significant changes can be summarised below.

1. The most significant change is that Lillee and Hadlee exchange places with Hadlee moving to second and Lillee to fourth place. Warne remains sandwiched between these two great bowlers.
2. Imran, Marshall, McGrath and Waqar retain their places in the top-10 indicating that the changes cancelled each other out and their relative placings remained.
3. The next significant change is that Kumble moves out of the top-10 and is replaced by Donald. This is probably due to the differential weighing of home and away wickets. Donald and Ambrose are welcome additions to the top-10.
4. The sub-200 wicket brigade of Reid, Croft, Akhtar and Lawson move out of the top-20 and are replaced by the worthy quintet of Shaun Pollock, Garner, Walsh, Willis and McDermott.
5. The next significant change is that Harbhajan Singh moves out of the top-20 and is replaced by Botham. This is probably due to the differential weighing of home and away wickets.

To view the complete list, please click here.

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

No.Cty Bowler         BT  Total Match  Wkt  Bow Bow  Wkt  Wkt  Cons Peer Peer
                           Pts   Perf  Pts StRt Acc BtAvg Qlty  Idx  S/R  RpO
                      Max 85-90 40-45 10.0  9.0 6.0  5.5  2.5   4.0  4.0  4.0

 1.Aus O'Reilly W.J   RLB 53.42 24.74 2.95 6.01 4.47 4.62 1.98 3.83 2.12 2.71
 2.Aus Grimmett C.V   RLB 53.34 24.74 3.68 6.22 4.27 4.22 1.96 3.62 2.27 2.35
 3.Pak Fazal Mahmood  RFM 50.02 22.99 2.90 6.15 3.87 4.32 2.29 3.09 2.26 2.15
 4.Eng Trueman F.S    RF  49.75 19.37 4.01 8.77 3.38 3.56 2.05 3.57 3.31 1.73
 5.Saf Tayfield H.J   ROB 47.97 21.54 3.08 5.02 3.98 4.93 2.01 3.16 1.95 2.29
 6.Eng Laker J.C      ROB 47.74 19.09 3.01 7.09 3.86 4.33 2.19 3.38 2.58 2.21
 7.Ind ChandrasekharB RLB 46.43 18.65 3.52 6.62 3.56 4.50 2.12 3.26 2.40 1.82
 8.Win Hall W.W       RF  46.29 18.46 2.95 8.22 3.15 3.44 2.33 3.11 3.00 1.64
 9.Aus McKenzie G.D   RF  46.26 18.97 3.38 6.06 3.67 4.39 2.26 3.36 2.25 1.92
10.Eng Bedser A.V     RFM 46.25 18.72 3.47 6.48 3.70 3.85 2.15 3.35 2.42 2.12

11.Aus Davidson A.K   LFM 46.21 17.98 2.92 7.15 4.01 3.98 2.13 3.22 2.52 2.29
12.Eng Snow J.A       RFM 45.87 18.06 2.98 7.36 3.56 3.69 2.17 3.57 2.64 1.83
13.Eng Underwood D.L  LSP 44.99 17.00 3.68 5.55 4.30 4.62 2.29 3.14 2.03 2.39
14.Ind Bedi B.S       LSP 44.79 17.55 3.60 4.77 4.20 4.50 2.20 3.75 1.88 2.33
15.Aus Lindwall R.R   RF  44.74 15.74 3.09 7.47 3.62 4.67 2.12 3.35 2.71 1.97
16.Saf Pollock P.M    RF  44.48 17.35 2.35 7.95 3.55 3.68 2.17 2.71 2.86 1.85
17.Ind Gupte S.P      RLB 43.90 18.42 2.84 5.53 3.61 3.59 2.07 3.85 2.08 1.90
18.Eng Statham J.B    RFM 43.81 15.81 3.32 7.03 3.65 3.70 2.26 3.54 2.54 1.95
19.Nzl Taylor B.R     RFM 43.79 16.21 2.23 7.67 3.41 4.28 2.32 3.13 2.81 1.72
20.Eng Tate M.W       RFM 43.78 18.11 2.66 4.70 4.52 4.09 2.11 3.07 1.90 2.62

To view the complete list, please click here.

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

No.Cty Bowler         BT  Total Match  Wkt  Bow Bow  Wkt  Wkt  Cons Peer Peer
                           Pts   Perf  Pts StRt Acc BtAvg Qlty  Idx  S/R  RpO
                      Max 85-90 40-45 10.0  9.0 6.0  5.5  2.5   4.0  4.0  4.0

 1.Eng Barnes S.F     RFM 55.86 26.38 3.89 6.95 4.06 3.37 2.17 3.92 2.78 2.35
 2.Eng Lohmann G.A    RFM 47.17 17.98 3.01 7.57 4.59 2.65 2.01 3.81 3.06 2.50
 3.Aus Turner C.T.B   RFM 46.11 18.04 2.89 6.07 4.54 3.97 2.32 3.93 1.96 2.39
 4.Aus Saunders J.V   LSP 45.11 19.16 2.45 6.60 3.33 3.40 2.09 3.84 2.44 1.80
 5.Eng Richardson T   RF  44.71 19.21 3.11 6.07 3.39 3.30 2.15 3.33 2.39 1.75
 6.Aus Spofforth F.R  RFM 44.42 17.03 2.69 6.69 3.93 4.10 2.14 3.36 2.73 1.75
 7.Eng Blythe C       LSP 44.39 17.63 2.47 6.60 3.96 3.30 2.43 3.33 2.44 2.22
 8.Eng Peel R         LSP 43.99 18.29 2.57 6.07 4.50 2.69 2.12 3.33 2.04 2.38
 9.Aus Trumble H      ROB 43.94 17.20 2.67 5.54 4.16 4.79 2.13 3.14 2.00 2.31
10.Aus Cotter A       RFM 43.17 17.72 2.27 5.98 3.01 4.30 2.29 3.71 2.19 1.69

11.Aus Palmer G.E     ROB 41.59 15.57 2.35 5.54 4.21 3.91 2.04 3.85 2.14 1.98
12.Aus Giffen G       ROB 41.53 17.75 2.57 5.10 3.78 3.53 2.13 3.22 1.71 1.74
13.Aus Noble M.A      ROB 40.92 15.27 2.33 5.37 3.87 4.85 1.96 3.24 1.93 2.11
14.Eng Briggs J       LSP 40.08 14.46 2.55 6.60 4.07 2.93 2.01 3.00 2.44 2.02
15.Saf Faulkner G.A   RLB 39.58 14.88 2.06 6.61 3.24 3.47 1.94 3.26 2.35 1.78
16.Eng Rhodes W       LSP 37.08 13.57 2.17 5.49 3.91 3.54 1.80 2.45 2.03 2.13
17.Eng Woolley F.E    LSP 32.26  9.93 1.51 4.41 3.79 4.10 2.06 2.63 1.82 2.01
18.Aus Armstrong W.W  RLB 32.07 10.78 1.58 2.55 4.26 4.00 2.17 2.94 1.22 2.58

Avge Rating points: 42.44

4. Across all Tests: Table of top pace bowlers

No.Cty Bowler         BT  Total Match  Wkt  Bow Bow  Wkt  Wkt  Cons Peer Peer
                           Pts   Perf  Pts StRt Acc BtAvg Qlty  Idx  S/R  RpO
                      Max 85-90 40-45 10.0  9.0 6.0  5.5  2.5   4.0  4.0  4.0

 1.Eng Barnes S.F     RFM 55.86 26.38 3.89 6.95 4.06 3.37 2.17 3.92 2.78 2.35
 2.Nzl Hadlee R.J     RFM 54.46 22.03 5.33 7.89 3.89 4.73 2.10 3.58 2.88 2.03
 3.Aus Lillee D.K     RF  53.18 21.83 4.53 7.81 3.68 4.92 2.18 3.55 2.81 1.88
 4.Pak Imran Khan     RF  52.70 21.36 4.60 7.55 3.98 5.15 2.14 3.11 2.72 2.09
 5.Win Marshall M.D   RF  50.85 18.99 4.55 8.19 3.88 4.59 2.21 3.32 3.09 2.02
 6.Aus McGrath G.D    RFM 50.80 18.94 5.93 7.21 4.39 3.84 2.24 3.27 2.63 2.36
 7.Pak Fazal Mahmood  RFM 50.02 22.99 2.90 6.15 3.87 4.32 2.29 3.09 2.26 2.15
 8.Eng Trueman F.S    RF  49.75 19.37 4.01 8.77 3.38 3.56 2.05 3.57 3.31 1.73
 9.Pak Waqar Younis   RFM 49.73 19.41 4.56 8.15 3.35 4.07 2.12 3.19 3.16 1.72
10.Saf Donald A.A     RF  49.29 18.68 4.21 7.71 3.85 4.01 2.22 3.73 2.94 1.95

11.Win Ambrose C.E.L  RF  49.27 18.67 4.71 7.06 4.41 4.00 2.17 3.33 2.52 2.40
12.Pak Wasim Akram    LFM 48.70 18.77 4.85 7.06 4.11 3.91 1.95 3.37 2.56 2.13
13.Win Holding M.A    RF  47.76 17.43 3.39 7.90 3.70 5.06 2.17 3.39 2.80 1.92
14.Saf Pollock S.M    RFM 47.64 17.53 4.72 6.55 4.57 4.04 2.12 3.30 2.32 2.50
15.Win Garner J       RF  47.26 17.11 3.49 7.84 4.10 4.44 1.99 3.32 2.80 2.16
16.Aus Thomson J.R    RF  47.23 17.75 3.01 7.76 3.21 5.44 2.36 3.31 2.73 1.66
17.Eng Lohmann G.A    RFM 47.17 17.98 3.01 7.57 4.59 2.65 2.01 3.81 3.06 2.50
18.Win Walsh C.A      RF  47.16 16.56 5.54 6.76 4.15 4.13 2.06 3.38 2.42 2.16
19.Eng Willis R.G.D   RF  46.99 16.75 3.93 7.70 3.60 4.51 2.24 3.68 2.75 1.83
20.Aus McDermott C.J  RF  46.86 18.32 3.80 6.93 3.53 4.35 2.27 3.31 2.54 1.81

To view the complete list, please click here.

5. Across all Tests: Table of top spinners

No.Cty Bowler         BT  Total Match  Wkt  Bow Bow  Wkt  Wkt  Cons Peer Peer
                           Pts   Perf  Pts StRt Acc BtAvg Qlty  Idx  S/R  RpO
                      Max 85-90 40-45 10.0  9.0 6.0  5.5  2.5   4.0  4.0  4.0

 1.Slk Muralitharan M ROB 56.95 22.76 8.24 6.89 4.47 4.01 2.05 3.62 2.48 2.43
 2.Aus Warne S.K      RLB 53.79 22.13 7.33 6.59 4.18 3.69 1.89 3.43 2.35 2.20
 3.Aus O'Reilly W.J   RLB 53.42 24.74 2.95 6.01 4.47 4.62 1.98 3.83 2.12 2.71
 4.Aus Grimmett C.V   RLB 53.34 24.74 3.68 6.22 4.27 4.22 1.96 3.62 2.27 2.35
 5.Ind Kumble A       RLB 49.22 19.07 6.54 5.65 4.12 4.13 2.03 3.47 2.03 2.18
 6.Saf Tayfield H.J   ROB 47.97 21.54 3.08 5.02 3.98 4.93 2.01 3.16 1.95 2.29
 7.Eng Laker J.C      ROB 47.74 19.09 3.01 7.09 3.86 4.33 2.19 3.38 2.58 2.21
 8.Ind HarbhajanSingh ROB 46.63 19.42 4.14 5.67 4.13 3.81 1.89 3.37 2.03 2.17
 9.Ind ChandrasekharB RLB 46.43 18.65 3.52 6.62 3.56 4.50 2.12 3.26 2.40 1.82
10.Pak SaqlainMushtaq ROB 45.26 18.80 3.22 5.54 4.19 3.95 1.96 3.42 2.00 2.17

11.Eng Underwood D.L  LSP 44.99 17.00 3.68 5.55 4.30 4.62 2.29 3.14 2.03 2.39
12.Ind Bedi B.S       LSP 44.79 17.55 3.60 4.77 4.20 4.50 2.20 3.75 1.88 2.33
13.Aus MacGill S.C.G  RLB 44.77 18.26 3.16 6.81 3.58 3.65 1.83 3.16 2.44 1.87
14.Eng Blythe C       LSP 44.39 17.63 2.47 6.60 3.96 3.30 2.43 3.33 2.44 2.22
15.Eng Peel R         LSP 43.99 18.29 2.57 6.07 4.50 2.69 2.12 3.33 2.04 2.38
16.Aus Trumble H      ROB 43.94 17.20 2.67 5.54 4.16 4.79 2.13 3.14 2.00 2.31
17.Ind Gupte S.P      RLB 43.90 18.42 2.84 5.53 3.61 3.59 2.07 3.85 2.08 1.90
18.Aus Johnston W.A   LSP 43.71 16.63 2.59 6.24 3.83 4.10 2.27 3.50 2.32 2.24
19.Aus Benaud R       RLB 43.52 17.76 3.40 5.30 3.89 3.97 2.01 2.98 2.05 2.16
20.Win Gibbs L.R      ROB 43.48 17.88 3.83 4.03 4.23 4.01 1.92 3.32 1.82 2.45

To view the complete list, please click here.

I have done another selection. From each era I have picked the best 5-bowler balanced attack. This is my selection. You could do your own selection and mail me for publication. There are no restrictions whatsoever. This is your opportunity to have Marshall or Snow or Imran Khan or whoever lead the attack.

Current: Holding, McGrath, Wasim Akram, Warne and Muralitharan.
(Wasim Akram gets the nod over Waqar Younis for the sake of variety).

Middle: Trueman, Larwood, Davidson, Grimmett, Bedi.

Pre-WW1: Barnes, Lohmann, Turner, Spofforth, Briggs.

In the next few days I will come out with the Peer-based tables for different aspects of Test Batting.

	Malcolm Marshall leads his peers by a long way © Getty Images

The idea is to compare a player's performances with his peers. The comparisons with his own team is one limited step and is quite useful. However the real comparison is with all the peer players since it takes perfect care of the vexed question of a player playing in a very strong team. I had done this in a limited way for ODI strike rates. Now I have extended this to Test players in a much more extended manner as explained below.

My initial idea was to come out with the batting tables also in this article. However I have decided to that in a later article so that the analysis currently on hand, on Test bowlers, gets its due attention and does not get side-tracked.

1. For each player, I created a match subset of their career limits, in other words from their first to last Tests. For Muralitharan it is 1195(1992) to 1912 (2009), 717 Tests. For Tendulkar it is 1127(1989) to 1918(2009), a subset of 791 Tests, the longest span for any player.

2. For Bowling, sum the three main data elements, Balls Bowled, Runs Conceded, and Wickets Captured for all the players for these matches. These are quite high numbers.

3. For Batting, sum the three main data elements, Innings, Not Outs, Balls Faced (if available) and Runs Scored for all the players for these matches. This will be covered in depth in a later article.

4. Subtract the player's own career figures from the total for the match subset and post these figures as a database segment. Even though the players' own numbers are quite low compared to the match subsets (Muralitharan 770 out of 21281 wkts and Tendulkar 12773 out of 749558 runs) and the impact of this subtraction is minimal, it is done to get an exact peer segment.

I have not done a separation by bowler type nor by period. This is a pure peer comparison, cutting across all divisions. I wanted to see the place of a great spinner like Muralitharan across all bowlers, to understand his true value.

First let us look at the Bowler tables. There are three tables in all, one which compares the Bowling Average, the second, the Bowling Strike rate and the third, compares the RpO.

1. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling Average

SNo.Bowler            Cty    Own  <--Peer Bowlers-->
                                         Avge    Runs  Wkts Avge Ratio

  0.Lohmann G.A       Eng 0022-0050( 29) 10.76  17664   847 20.85 1.94
  0.Barnes S.F        Eng 0065-0133( 69) 16.43  53823  2029 26.53 1.61
...
  1.Marshall M.D      Win 0837-1175(339) 20.95 299245  9217 32.47 1.55
  2.McGrath G.D       Aus 1235-1826(592) 21.64 562481 17029 33.03 1.53
  3.Muralitharan M    Slk 1195-1912(718) 22.18 683748 20511 33.34 1.50
  4.Garner J          Win 0797-1072(276) 20.98 241822  7644 31.64 1.51
  5.Ambrose C.E.L     Win 1095-1509(415) 20.99 374642 11797 31.76 1.51
  6.Wardle J.H        Eng 0296-0440(145) 20.39 125187  4152 30.15 1.48
  7.Hadlee R.J        Nzl 0710-1147(438) 22.30 391665 12140 32.26 1.45
  8.Steyn D.W         Saf 1728-1916(189) 23.70 193060  5530 34.91 1.47
  9.Pollock S.M       Saf 1312-1860(549) 23.12 529531 15921 33.26 1.44
 10.O'Reilly W.J      Aus 0215-0275( 61) 22.60  52334  1617 32.36 1.43
...
145.Boje N            Saf 1484-1812(329) 42.65 325844  9701 33.59 0.79
146.Giffen G          Aus 0005-0052( 48) 27.10  29298  1449 20.22 0.75
147.Hooper C.L        Win 1085-1622(538) 49.43 496933 15592 31.87 0.64

A number of readers are bound to be quite happy at seeing Marshall at the top. He was 55% ahead of his peers, including his illustrious team-mates. Probably this was the X-factor which many readers found in Marshall. Next is the incomparable McGrath who was 53% ahead of his peers. No surprise there. However there is a big surprise at the next placed bowler, Muralitharan. His figure of 50% over his peers should, once and for all, put to rest any doubts about his greatness. Those who say that he has succeeded only because he was in a weak team should stop and look at this figure. His figure of 50% is on all types of bowlers, pace included.

The two great West Indian fast bowlers, Garner and Ambrose come in next, again a vindication of their position among their contemporaries. Wardle (a surprise), Hadlee, Steyn, Shaun Pollock (a recognition of this modern great) and O'Reilly complete the top-10. Maybe that is why O'Reilly was chosen ahead of Grimmett in the Cricinfo all-time Australian XI.

The top-10 consists of 7 fast bowlers and 3 spinners, one from each era. There are three great West Indian fast bowlers, 2 South African speedsters and two Australian bowlers in this group.

The table is propped up by two average modern spinners and Giffen from the pre-WW1 era.

To view the complete list, please click here.

2. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling Strike rate

SNo.Bowler            Cty   Own  <-Peer Bowlers-->
                                         S/R   Overs  Wkts S/R Ratio

  1.Steyn D.W         Saf 1728-1916(189) 39.3  60370  5530 65.5 1.67
  2.Trueman F.S       Eng 0351-0592(242) 49.4  92110  6759 81.8 1.65
  3.Waqar Younis      Pak 1127-1637(511) 43.5 167408 14587 68.9 1.58
  4.Lohmann G.A       Eng 0022-0050( 29) 34.1   7478   847 53.0 1.55
  5.Marshall M.D      Win 0837-1175(339) 46.8 110126  9217 71.7 1.53
  6.Hall W.W          Win 0459-0648(190) 54.3  73998  5449 81.5 1.50
  7.Donald A.A        Saf 1188-1590(403) 47.0 132130 11470 69.1 1.47
  8.Shoaib Akhtar     Pak 1389-1852(464) 45.7 151393 13672 66.4 1.45
  9.Hadlee R.J        Nzl 0710-1147(438) 50.9 146757 12140 72.5 1.43
 10.Pollock P.M       Saf 0515-0673(159) 56.2  62434  4672 80.2 1.43
...
147.Shastri R.J       Ind 0897-1206(310)  104 101002  8600 70.5 0.68
148.Emburey J.E       Eng 0830-1301(472)  104 156168 13341 70.2 0.67
149.Hooper C.L        Win 1085-1622(538)  121 178031 15592 68.5 0.57

The table is propped by three very average modern spinners.

To view the complete list, please click here.

3. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling RpO

SNo.Bowler            Cty   Own  <--Peer Bowlers-->
                                         RpO   Overs  Runs  RpO Ratio

  1.Goddard T.L       Saf 0407-0672(266) 1.65 102848 240647 2.34 1.42
  2.Verity H          Eng 0210-0272( 63) 1.88  20504  53897 2.63 1.39
  3.O'Reilly W.J      Aus 0215-0275( 61) 1.95  19804  52334 2.64 1.36
  4.Tate M.W          Eng 0153-0245( 93) 1.94  31583  80403 2.55 1.31
  5.Edmonds P.H       Eng 0762-1079(318) 2.13 105373 282754 2.68 1.26
  6.Pollock S.M       Saf 1312-1860(549) 2.40 176869 529531 2.99 1.25
  7.Illingworth R     Eng 0457-0727(271) 1.91 105842 253356 2.39 1.25
  8.Lohmann G.A       Eng 0022-0050( 29) 1.89   7478  17664 2.36 1.25
  9.Emburey J.E       Eng 0830-1301(472) 2.20 156168 425350 2.72 1.24
 10.Gibbs L.R         Win 0448-0770(323) 1.99 122295 297389 2.43 1.22
...
147.Hall W.W          Win 0459-0648(190) 2.92  73998 176672 2.39 0.82
148.Edwards F.H       Win 1649-1920(272) 3.98  88839 281972 3.17 0.80
149.Wright D.V.P      Eng 0263-0333( 71) 3.12  26891  65859 2.45 0.79

The last three is a motley collection of a West Indian great, West Indian journeyman and an outstanding but extravagant leg spinner.

To view the complete list, please click here.

Test Bowlers Analysis: Follow-up

Based on the comments received, both in public and personal mails, I have decided to make the following tweaks to the Test bowlers analysis. Interested readers may send in their comments at the earliest.

1. Have a cut-off of 200 wickets for the current era, reducing the number from 89 to 44. We will lose Shoaib Akhtar, Steyn, Alderman, Bishop et al. But it cannot be helped.
2. Increase the Wickets weight from 5 points to 7.5 points. Within this, do a 5% on either side (105% & 95%) valuation for Away and Home wickets.
3. Correspondingly reduce the Wickets per Innspell weight from 5 points to 2.5 points.
4. Remove the Performance Ratio measure, the last column in the table.
5. Instead introduce the Peer Comparison ratios. This time I have allotted an equal weight for Strike Rate and Accuracy (Yash will be happy to note).
6. Introduce a simple 5-Test slice based Consistency index using wickets captured as the indicator.
7. In the Match performance Ratings, halve the balls bowled base points (a wicket equivalent for about 45 overs).
8. In the Match performance Ratings, introduce the bowler strike rate, in relation to Team strike rate as a new base measure, at a relatively lower weight.
9. In the Match performance Ratings, minor changes to the batsman dismissed base point calculation, to be based on recent form. This will lower the value of wickets of top batsmen while going through a poor patch and increase the weight of capturing in-form batsman.

The revised allocations of the Career points are given below. The points have gone up to 45 and there is a slight increase in the Match performance points because of changes in Base points calculation.

- Career wickets captured (7.5 points)
- Career wickets per innspell (2.5 points)
- Bowling Strike rate-BpW (9 points)
- Bowling accuracy-RpO (6 points)
- Consistency (4) points
- Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (4 points)
- Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (4 points)
- Peer ratio: Strike rate (4 points)
- Peer ratio: Accuracy (RpO) (4 points).

My thanks to Arjun Hemnany, Shankar Krishnan, Kartik, Alex, Ed, Yash Rungta et al.

The Batting Peer tables will follow the Test Bowlers follow-up article.

	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.

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.