An in-depth analysis of Test bowlers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.