Greatest Ever Fast Bowler?

[gunner]

Get over it.

why?
whats it to you who i think is the greatest bowler?

 

[sirdj]

Michael 'Whispering Death' Holding

I am someone who holds the visual aspects of a pace bowlers run-up and delivery as important as his stats.
I particularly like the old fashioned concept of a true professional making sport look as if its easy and effortless.
Holding's action was pure and effortless.

 

[pup11]

McGrath is the only bowler in that list who is still effective even in the last-leg of his career, i think that is also a very good indicator of the fact that how great a fast-bowler McGrath he really is.

 

[SJS]

McGrath is the only bowler in that list who is still effective even in the last-leg of his career, i think that is also a very good indicator of the fact that how great a fast-bowler McGrath he really is.

Well it would be just a little bit difficult for Imran (54), Lillee (58), Hadlee (56) and Holding (53) to be as effective as McGrath (37) 'still' even if they 'were on their legs' in a cricketing sense.

Ambrose (44), Donald (41) and Akram (41) might deem the comparison a wee bit unfair and would prefer to see McGrath bowling five years later before agreeing.

Barnes. Marshall and Trueman (God bless their souls) are, unfortunatly, unable to defend themselves with superior bowling skills or arguments..

 

[pup11]

SJS, I was talking about the last-legs in international cricket of every bowler on that poll, so i think you didn't get my point their mate!?!



McGrath is the only bowler fast-bowler who even in the last-leg of his career is as effective as ever and that is truely a hallmark of greatness.

 

[haroon510]

how come shuon pollock's name isn't in that list? at his peak he was considered one of the most dangrous bowler.

 

[Perm]

how come shuon pollock's name isn't in that list? at his peak he was considered one of the most dangrous bowler.

He's good, but I don't think he'll ever be considered as good as these guys. He is kind of like a poor man's McGrath, who can bat.

 

[haroon510]

i think polly was a much better bowler than mcGrath on 97, 98 and even 99. he declined for some reasons. in contrast McGrath improved.

 

[Perm]

i think polly was a much better bowler than mcGrath on 97, 98 and even 99. he declined for some reasons. in contrast McGrath improved.

No doubt Pollock has declined, and that coincides directly with his pace slowing down as he gets older. McGrath passed the age test of being able to perform with the same consistency as he get older and his body became more knocked around by the rigors of international cricket, Pollock has passed to a degree, but McGrath has come out with the better marks.

 

[haroon510]

No doubt Pollock has declined, and that coincides directly with his pace slowing down as he gets older. McGrath passed the age test of being able to perform with the same consistency as he get older and his body became more knocked around by the rigors of international cricket, Pollock has passed to a degree, but McGrath has come out with the better marks.

agree with u here.

what about shoaib akhter. i know he hasn't or won't be able to play a full series of three test matches and five one day series but he is pretty good when he is in the team and fit

 

[Perm]

agree with u here.

what about shoaib akhter. i know he hasn't or won't be able to play a full series of three test matches and five one day series but he is pretty good when he is in the team and fit

No, the man hasn't enough played 50 Test matches if memory serves. In this day and age it's ridiculous.

 

[haroon510]

ya he hasn't played 50 test and i think he won't be able to play 50 test matches.

 

[archie mac]

Michael 'Whispering Death' Holding

I am someone who holds the visual aspects of a pace bowlers run-up and delivery as important as his stats.
I particularly like the old fashioned concept of a true professional making sport look as if its easy and effortless.
Holding's action was pure and effortless.

Lillee also had a beautiful action after his comeback

 

[SJS]

SJS, I was talking about the last-legs in international cricket of every bowler on that poll, so i think you didn't get my point their mate!?!



McGrath is the only bowler fast-bowler who even in the last-leg of his career is as effective as ever and that is truely a hallmark of greatness.

Sorry for the misunderstanding pup. Old age and all that you know

Just by the way, Ambrose bowled beautifully at the end of his career. Statisticswise it was perhaps the best period of his entire career.

 

[xduncanx]

Hadlee

For me this one is easy. Even if i am from NZ.
Hadlee had to single handedly hold and sustain the entire bowling attack of a nation for a long time. this means no wickets through the good work of others while batsmen were free to (attempt to) see off Hadlee with no added pressure. All this while emerging with such remarkable figures.
Fluid traditional action, Very fast, swing and seam, Extremely accurate and Economical to boot.

While i'm speading the Hadlee love, and i know it doesn't count on this particular topic, but did i say he could bat too.

 

[Francis]

For me this one is easy. Even if i am from NZ.

Hadlee had to single handedly hold and sustain the entire bowling attack of a nation for a long time. this means no wickets through the good work of others while batsmen were free to (attempt to) see off Hadlee with no added pressure.

To be honest, I think that played into Hadlee's hands, statistically speaking. Consider Malcolm Marshall, who certainly had good bowling partners. But his partners didn't put the ball in the right spot for him, they didn't swing the ball for him, they didn't read batsman for him etc. This whole "he had help from the other end" argument is overblown, good bowling gets good wickets. When Marshall bowled a bad ball, it got put away, when he bowled a good ball, he got wickets... it's more often than not as simple as that. There's only two ways bowling from the other end can help you:

1. Runs are needed quickly
Basically runs are needed, and the economy that your bowling partner provides basically means that they'll try and score runs off you, giving you an oppotunity for a wicket. That being said, this can also go against you. I've seen players like Brett Lee go for runs, simply because batsmen couldn't get runs off McGrath and they thought they'd have a go at Lee. But if you are good enough like Marshall, yes it makes getting wickets easier... though I'd argue it shouldn't be held against him much, as only high class bowling gets wickets.

2. Variation in partners
Dean Jones often said a big problem he had with the West Indies was Joel Garner could bowl deliveries that would bounce incredibly off the pitch, while Marshall would come on and the ball would skid. Basically it means you can't get used to the bounce of the ball, which is of course important when balls are coming at you at fast speed. So it was hard to settle. That's the true beauty of the West Indian quartet - they complimented each other. I mean Akram and Younis were both great bowlers who put great pressure on teams, but they were both similar in some respects... the West Indies had variation in partners.

All this doesn't take away the fact that:

*Only good deliveries get you wickets
*His bad balls were put away
*Pressure from one end often only means you have to be good enough to apply the same pressure, or else you'll go for runs like Brett Lee.

And lets not forget that if your ranking the 50 best cricketers ever, the likes of Roberts, Holding and Garner would be likely to make that list... it's incredibly hard to get fivers when you have some of the greatest bowlers ever taking wickets off you. We all know taking wickets takes time, and I've seen players who look like getting a wicket, after bowling many overs, and then they're partner comes on and gets the wickets... then another batsmen comes in and hurts the bowler. There's plenty of scenarios that simply mean you can't rely purely on stats.

That being said, it's bloody close between the two of them - Hadlee and Marshall. I'd give the slight nod to Marshall, but I don't really care when people say Hadlee as there is a good case for him!

While i'm speading the Hadlee love, and i know it doesn't count on this particular topic, but did i say he could bat too.

While I never liked it when people said Hadlee was an all-rounder, since he rarely had great success as a batsman. It's his batting that's the reason why I think Hadlee is a greater cricketer than Marshall. While I think Marshall was the better bowler, Hadlee was the better cricketer...

 

[Francis]

Thought I'd add that my post may seem a bit subjective, but I do believe the bowling scenarios work both ways.

Just as Hadlee had more oppotunity for wickets, he also had more responsibility.

So it can work both ways... I just don't think people should rely on stats too much. They're just ratios that measure certain aspects of cricket, and they don't discriminate against varying scenarios. I mean 150 years ago someone probably thought, "OK we need some ways to keep track of form, we'll do an average of runs and strike-rate etc." They wouldn't have though, "OK this is going to accurately determine who the best is."

I find it ridiculous when I hear people say, "Oh so and so has a better average" when the difference is average might be two or three runs. It means nothing when it's that close!

The truth is, if the argument of Hadlee vs. Marshall were a scientific experiment, scientists would be unable to decide who was better because they'd say, "Oh they aren't the same. They bowled under completely different circumstances and you can't compare them directly." Best judge is just going by what people saw of them when they played. It's the same with Warne vs. Murali, they both bowled under such completely different circumstances that it's useless and impossible to compare them, as everyone here should already know.

 

[SJS]

Just by the way, Ambrose bowled beautifully at the end of his career. Statisticswise it was perhaps the best period of his entire career.

Error again.

I meant Courtney Walsh.

He had an amazing end to his career.

His first 'innings'

- By the time he reached celeberated his 35h birthday in October 1997 he had taken 339 test wickets in 93 tests at 25.9 runs each.

Good but not great figures. A once fiery bowler had by now lost his fire and whats worse all his former fellow pacers had left (or just leaving) except Ambrose in a side struggling to maintain its world dominance of the time when he had debuted.

..and his 'second'

- In the winter of 1997 he played Pakistan when into his 36th year and from then till the end of Kiwis tour of the West Indies two years later he had played five test series and took 87 wickets in 19 tests at 23.6 each.

- He was now taking 4.6 wkts per test as against 3.6 in his first 93 !
- He was getting a five wicket haul every 4.8 tests as against every 7.2 earlier !
- His economy rate had dropped slightly from 2.66 to 2.54
- and his strike rate too had improved by 2 balls per wicket
- He took 20 wickets or more in 3 of the 5 series he played in this period. In his entire career before that he had done this only 3 times in 27 series !

In every possible way it was an amazing performance by a bowler on his last legs. Of these four series the last was an away series against the Kiwis. This was a bad one for him with just 3 wickets at 75 each. Surely the time had come to call it a day.

No Sir. There was more to come !!

...and more

Zimbabwe came to West Indies as they returned from New Zealand and Walsh got 9 cheap wickets in two games. Remember Zimbabwe were a far better side than they are today.

Then came Pakistan and he got another 14 in 3 tests at just under 21 each. This surely would have been a good time to leave since he had done reasonably well but he wanted to go back to England where he had played most of his first class cricket. So off he went with Windies to England in 2000.

- He took 34 wickets in England at 12.8 each just one short of Marshall's 35 a record for all test matches for either side in tests between England and Windies !
- His strike rate dropped to under 39 !
- His economy rate went below 2 runs an over !
- 28 of his victims were top and middle order batsmen ! These included Atherton (6 times), Thorpe and Hick (4 each), Nasser Hussain, Ram Prakash and Alec Stewart (3 times each) and Vaughan (twice) !

It was the last truly great bowling performance in a test series by a West Indian bowler and it maybe a long time before we see one to better that.

Walsh played another two series after this. A modest one against Australia away from home and a superb one against South Africa at home when he took another 25 wickets at 19.7 each !

- In the last five series he had taken 93 wickets at 19.7 each ! Nearly 5 wickets per test.
- He took another 4 five fors making it one every 4 test matches !
- He took another ten for to go with just 2 in his first 93 tests.
- His economy rate was 2.07.

With this he ended his career and perhaps one of the the most amazing last runs by any sportsman playing so late in his life.

Here are his statistics before and after his 35th birthday. They transform a modest record to a fantastic one.

 

[KINGOFKINGS]

McGrath !

Very Old Poll and 8 years is way too late to vote in this, I'm aware of that.

Having said that I would like to add that no one ever talks of ODIs seriously when they discuss Marshall and bowling greatness ? Why is that so? Is that because people find it so convenient to ignore the fact that Joel Garner was the best ODI bowler in the team and the world at that time and even in the WI team Holding arguably had equal presence as Marshall if not better when it came to ODIs? Marshall's strike rate in ODIs is poorer than ALL of his peers (Imran, Hadlee, Holding, Garner, Kapil Dev, Ian Botham .... U name them .... Infact its worse than even someone like Greg Chappell ). His bowling average in ODIS is probably as worse as Danny Morrison's (haven't checked stats, just guessing from the top of my mind). WHY is this ignored ?

And that is precisely where Lillee, McGrath, Allan Donald and Akram stand out. These 3 were awesome in both the formats which is no small feat. I am tempted to add Waqar as well but then he bowled as much rubbish as the number of great balls that he bowled. Hence ignoring him for the time being.

So the way I see it, Medium pace McGrath, FAST - Lillee, A bit of both and for sub continent - Akram and if I have to pick someone to play all formats in all countries then McGrath.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

For me this one is easy. Even if i am from NZ.



To be honest, I think that played into Hadlee's hands, statistically speaking. Consider Malcolm Marshall, who certainly had good bowling partners. But his partners didn't put the ball in the right spot for him, they didn't swing the ball for him, they didn't read batsman for him etc. This whole "he had help from the other end" argument is overblown, good bowling gets good wickets. When Marshall bowled a bad ball, it got put away, when he bowled a good ball, he got wickets... it's more often than not as simple as that. There's only two ways bowling from the other end can help you:

1. Runs are needed quickly
Basically runs are needed, and the economy that your bowling partner provides basically means that they'll try and score runs off you, giving you an oppotunity for a wicket. That being said, this can also go against you. I've seen players like Brett Lee go for runs, simply because batsmen couldn't get runs off McGrath and they thought they'd have a go at Lee. But if you are good enough like Marshall, yes it makes getting wickets easier... though I'd argue it shouldn't be held against him much, as only high class bowling gets wickets.

2. Variation in partners
Dean Jones often said a big problem he had with the West Indies was Joel Garner could bowl deliveries that would bounce incredibly off the pitch, while Marshall would come on and the ball would skid. Basically it means you can't get used to the bounce of the ball, which is of course important when balls are coming at you at fast speed. So it was hard to settle. That's the true beauty of the West Indian quartet - they complimented each other. I mean Akram and Younis were both great bowlers who put great pressure on teams, but they were both similar in some respects... the West Indies had variation in partners.

All this doesn't take away the fact that:

*Only good deliveries get you wickets
*His bad balls were put away
*Pressure from one end often only means you have to be good enough to apply the same pressure, or else you'll go for runs like Brett Lee.

And lets not forget that if your ranking the 50 best cricketers ever, the likes of Roberts, Holding and Garner would be likely to make that list... it's incredibly hard to get fivers when you have some of the greatest bowlers ever taking wickets off you. We all know taking wickets takes time, and I've seen players who look like getting a wicket, after bowling many overs, and then they're partner comes on and gets the wickets... then another batsmen comes in and hurts the bowler. There's plenty of scenarios that simply mean you can't rely purely on stats.

That being said, it's bloody close between the two of them - Hadlee and Marshall. I'd give the slight nod to Marshall, but I don't really care when people say Hadlee as there is a good case for him!



While I never liked it when people said Hadlee was an all-rounder, since he rarely had great success as a batsman. It's his batting that's the reason why I think Hadlee is a greater cricketer than Marshall. While I think Marshall was the better bowler, Hadlee was the better cricketer...

I think you brush over free runs from other bowlers in the attack to "runs are needed quickly". If two,three, or four bowlers all have the batsmen under pressure to preserve his wicket, a batsman is more likely to fall than if only having to see off one bowler.

But that can be argued against.

In my opinion, you missed the most crucial reason why having a quality attack of two, three or four bowlers will help the remaining bowler.

They get wickets. New batsmen are easier to get out than set batsmen. Bowling your second or third spell to someone on 2* is easier than doing it to someone on 48*. If other bowlers are also getting wickets, the bowler then needs less deliveries to bowl the batsman out, and can improve his averages by bowling to the tail and lesser batsman, and move the game into a second innings to be bowled. Bowlers will be in the field for less time per innings and stay fresh - particularly important for a seamer. The game just moves faster with a four pronged excellent attack, than one spear head. Also with other bowlers taking wickets, when say said Hadlee type bowler resumes, the batsman are under more scoreboard pressure as wickets are falling for not many runs. That is better for Hadlee to get more wickets cheaply as the batsman will "dig in" instead of looking to score. Could be counter argued that looking to score of Hadlee would get him some cheap wickets, but Hadlee bowled good nuts, not jammy pies caught in the deep.

Hadlee took 5 wickets a test give or take, out of 20 available. This whole Murali or Hadlee got more wickets because there was noone else to take wickets does not hold water as far as I am concerned because while there may be an extra wicket per test, it comes at the cost of the average and SR as they have had to invest more time on getting the true opposing batsmen out by themselves before they crack into the tail. Where one great bowler has to hold the attack together, it is arguably more draining on them to get the good batsmen out, than say a pack of greats and it is possibly balanced out if they were to get first crack at the tail-enders, but I doubt it.

Imagine Hadlee's figures if he bowled two spells per innings, taking the first new ball and the tail or second new ball. It would be sensational. Or resuming bowling when their were two new batsmen at the crease. I firmly believe that 4 Hadlee's in an attack, may average slightly less wickets per test, but that the averages and SR would improve. 2 or 3 Hadlee's, the wickets per test would probably remain the same or slightly less, but the averages and SR improve, as they are more often bowling to newer batsmen who are under scoreboard pressure. That is pretty much how the West Indies attack operated. 4 high quality bowlers, who got roughly 4 wickets a test each, and in turn assisted each others SR and average, at the expense of wickets per test for each bowler. But there were four of them. They didn't win every test.

There will be anomalies. I have read that Wasim had better averages with Waqar in the attack, but Waqar remained the same give or take. Wasim also apparently has a higher proportion of tailenders than Waqar in his wickets. So if Waqar is the exception, Wasim figures improved with Waqar taking wickets, because it gave him the opportunity to bowl more balls at tailenders than to the batsman, proportionately. That then improves the SR and the bowling average.