it is a bit meaningless to rank bowlers based on averages alone. Lot of other factors count too. For example both Anderson & Broad plays in this era where it is least condusive for bowling in general. Testimony to this fact is that very few bowlers average <25 now a days.So they need to be weighed a lot more than their plain averages.But on the other hand both of them played with each other in the vast majority of their careers so that they supported each other really hugely. So things even out in that case.Look up to avg:s with these facts in mind.
Another case is Andy Roberts. He played along with other 3 bowlers who averaged <25. Played only in 44 tests or so. Yet his avg: rises to above 25. So he needs to be evaluated a lot lesser than his 25 avg:.
Yet another contrasting case is Kapil & Botham. Botham avg:ed slightly lesser to Kapil which gives the impression that he was a better bowler to Kapil.But in reality it is not the case. Botham's bowling has 2 parts.
First part is where he was a monster. In this period he got more than enough support from Willis & Underwood, 2 great bowlers.He benefitted the most in their company to have an avg: that rivalled that of even great bowlers of those times. But when both Willis & Underwood retired & thrust with the responsibility
of leading the attack, Botham became exactly the opposite. In his 2nd part as a bowler he was a pale shadow of his first half.
Kapil played with dibbly dobblies like Binny ,Madan Lal, Sandhu, Shastri etc etc thru out his career.I mean he didn't get enough support from these partners as some other bowlers of his times got.He didn't miss even a single test( i think only 1 because of some other factor),played for so long, played 10-11 tests a year in his peak etc etc. Despite all this he avg:ed only slightly higher to Botham.So i rate Kapil higher to Botham as a bowler.
Another case is that bowling economy rate & str: rate. Imagine 2 bowlers who bowled almost same no: of balls in their career & avg:ed almost the same. Suppose that first bowler has a str: rate much better than that of 2nd bowler despite his econ: rate lot higher than that of the other , then first bowler is a level above the 2nd one despite both having similar averages. Because str: rate denotes the wicket taking ability & hence carries a bit more weightage in tests.
In short it is meaning less to just take averages and decide the comparative greatness.
I can just see where this thread would probably end up with......
