The Fast Bowler's fast Bowlers

[SJS]

And what about Malcolm Marshall ?

Coming to Marshall and to find if there is stuff written about him. I have autobiographies of four cricketers who played a hell of a lot of international cricket at the same time as Malcolm Marshall. These are - Ian Botham, Mike Gatting, Steve Waugh and Javed Miandad.

Steve Waugh :

As I have hinted before, inspite of 801 oages (PHEW!!) weighing a ton, on his Out of My Comfort Zone, Mr Steve Waugh does not give his readers chance to know much about what he thinks of so many illustrious contemporaries of his. Instead of spending so many words on stuff he could have done without (and made his magnum opus far more readable) he should have added a chapter on the greats of the modern era and we would have loved it. On Richards asking, I went back today to the book (two really), that I haven't been able to read beyond a few pages inspite of several attempts, and found a few lines scattered around the book. Here they are.

On his first sight of the West Indian attack in a Test match (Brisbane 1988) and remembers...

... missing a straight one from the great Marshall to be lbw for four. I was mesmerized by his explosive run up, his systematic and beautifully balanced front-on action and his speedy arm, and in all honesty I don't think I even watched the ball, for the man was too impressive to ignore. He was martial arts work in full flow, with a wrist that could eliminate you in one swipe.​

Again talking of the same series...

Facing a champion like Marshall had to be good for tightening up my defensive technique, because he invigorated my every move, probing for a chink in the armour, waiting for that split second of indecision that proves fatal. For that reason my 55 not out at Sydney, on a dry and dusty pitch that enabled him to swing it 'Irish' was as tough an examination as I had experienced to that point of my career.​

He explains further that swinging Irish refers to reverse swing.

Ian Botham :

Botham confronted Malcolm Marshall in every single one of the five series he played against the West indies in his entire career and yet he hardly mentions the great west Indian in his Botham - My Autobiography ( 1994)

In the last chapter of the book he selects 13 players for a 'Fantasy World Team' and prefers Hadlee, Ambrose, Garner and Lillee as the pace bowlers.

He does have one line..

When selecting the Best of the World from those I have come in contact with at Test level, I have had to omit some outstanding talent. In my World 13 for instance, there is no place for Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Michael Holding or Malcolm Marshall.​

It does give an idea of how he rates Marshall.

Mike Gatting :

Gatting's book, Leading from the Front ( 1988), understandably has graphic discription of his getting knocked and having his nose broken by Marshall. Other than that (which goes into great detail not so much about Marshall as about Gatting his nose, his blood and so on) he has this to say of Marshall.

Malcolm Marshall bowls at 90 mph. He has a vry fast arm, and he is altogetherr very, very quick, and with bowlers like him, even if you can see the shine on the ball, you don't necessarily know which way the ball is going to swing. because sometimes they wet one side and it swings the other way, and sometimes even the bowler himself doesn't know which way the swing direction.​

Talking of the match MCC played against a World XI he writes ...

... you may imagine my feelings as captain, being able to toss the ball to Malcolm Marshall and say, 'Go on, Malcolm. Have a bowl.' I suppose its a bit like owning a Rolld Royce. Malcolm is probably the best fast bowler in the world. Not only that he plays to win. He is very professional and a very very deep thinking cricketer - people don't give him credit for that. He really considers his bowling very carefully indeed.​

There you are.

Javed Miandad :

I think I have posted it before but here it is from Miandad's Cutting Edge - My Autobiography (2003)

Malcolm Marshall ran in like a rocket and bowled with great nip and bite; of all the bowlers I have faced, he was the fastest off the pitch. A big part of his bowling success was his rhythm, which never wavered. He kept up a steady tempo in his run-up and delivery from start to finish. He would run in with the same super speed whether he was bowling at the start of the day or towards the end of it. When you were facing Marshall, you knew there would be no let up. He was also an exceptionally clever bowler. I pride myself in being able to out-think bowlers and predict their deliveries, but I always had a hard time trying to figure out what Marshall was up to. He was so good mentally that he could trick you into thinking that you had his bowling plan figured out and he would then, invariably, surprise you.

Some of the West Indian bowlers were more successful than others in their careers, but as a batsman it is hard for me to choose between them. They each had special qualities, but on their day, they were all equally good.​

 

[SJS]

HERE is what Miandad had to say of the other fast bowlers he came across.

 

[zaremba]

Marshall was the best fast bowler I've ever seen. It's odd that Botham doesn't rate him more highly, particularly given all the wickets he took against England in the 80s.

 

[Sanz]

Reading about Marshall in the 'Legends of Cricket' - Fascinating stuff. Will post when I have some time. Lot of typing involved.

 

[Burgey]

HERE is what Miandad had to say of the other fast bowlers he came across.

Interesting Miandad's views on Lillee despite the latter's poor series in Pakistan. Surely a reckless comment given Lillee's stats in those three tests...

 

[archie mac]

Interesting Miandad's views on Lillee despite the latter's poor series in Pakistan. Surely a reckless comment given Lillee's stats in those three tests...

Tbf the knockers of DKL on this site have moderated their opinions of FOT, and I think all of the contemporary backing of the great man (a lot of it posted on this thread) has had a lot to do with it

 

[SJS]

Tbf the knockers of DKL on this site have moderated their opinions of FOT, and I think all of the contemporary backing of the great man (a lot of it posted on this thread) has had a lot to do with it

Yes I have noticed that. And I am really pleased because all the trouble and time spent over it has been worthwhile. You cant blame people whom are not exposed to cricket writing and hence views of those who have seen the greats in action, if they form their opinions based only on the next best source available to them, in some cases this is statistics which, to rub in a much abused cliche reveal less than they conceal.

 

[Richard]

Tbf the knockers of DKL on this site have moderated their opinions of FOT, and I think all of the contemporary backing of the great man (a lot of it posted on this thread) has had a lot to do with it

Only very few people ever said Lillee wasn't one of the best bowlers there's ever been.

 

[zaremba]

Tbf the knockers of DKL on this site have moderated their opinions of FOT, and I think all of the contemporary backing of the great man (a lot of it posted on this thread) has had a lot to do with it

Sorry Archie I'm being thick (again) but who is FOT?

 

[archie mac]

Sorry Archie I'm being thick (again) but who is FOT?

Tony Lock once yelled at Lillee when he was slow in the field "Lillee your fielding like a ******* Old Tart"

 

[SJS]

Tony Lock once yelled at Lillee when he was slow in the field "Lillee your fielding like a ******* Old Tart"

Wonder how many ******* Old Tarts' Lock had the pleasure of 'taking the field' with

 

[fredfertang]

Lockie was a miserable ****** at the best of times - my Dad met him once - made the mistake of asking him about his 1 wicket at Old Trafford in 1956 - FOT was the height of politeness compared to what he came out with then.

 

[SJS]

Botham in his book Botham's century writes on all the fast and medium fast bowlers who played with or against him. Here are excerpts:-

The West Indians
Curtley Ambrose

The abiding impression I had of Amby as a bowler and an opponent was that of a cricketer who thrived on aggression and menace, he was one of the quietest that I ever encountered. Sometimes even in moments of great triumph 'long bones' seemed to be the most reluctant and detatched of heroes.

I can honestly say that the Test arena never saw him bowl badly. Of course he was miserly accurate. Of course, he had the stamina of a horse. Of course,m he never seemed to give you anything to hit, and of course, when the mood hit him as it did when he obliterated Mike Atherton's side for 46 at Port of Spain in 1994, he could be as unforgiving and as devastating as a hurricane. In certain conditions at his peak, he was virtually unplayable. But maybe of all these weapons, the most potent was his silence.

Many fast bowlers have tried to put batsmen off their strokes by utilizing various forms of verbal and physical intimidation. Curtley intimidated you with hush.

Ambrose 7-1 against Australia at Perth
England 46 all out
Colin Croft

I found batting against Crocft one of the more challenging experiences of my career. Bowling from wide of the crease with an awkward, gangling action he was always at you. It was extremely difficult to pick up the length of the ball - which varied from short to very short - and he never seemed to give you any width to work with. He absolutely detested getting hit which only happened once in his career, to my knowledge, when Viv took him on and destroyed him playing for Somerset against Lancashire on a real flyer at Southport. And he was one of those rare athletes who actually seemed to get stronger the more he bowled !

Joel 'Big Bird' Garner

From the batsman's point of view I always thought it a blessing that he operated while Holding, Roberts and Marshall were also in their prime. With these three fighting over the red cherry, the more laid back Joel was content to bide his time. It was hard to argue with mikey and Malcolm but to my mind had Joel been given first use he would have caused more problems than anyone.

He had genuine pace, he bowled at the batsman with unerring accuracy and he could make the ball bounce on sand. From his gigantic height and long reach, and with a whippy wrist action, he always got more than anyone thought possible. On surfaces where other quicks would be struggling to get the ball through above stump height, he would get another foot or so. And he did all that when he was in a good mood.

When he was riled, maybe because a batter had the temerity to try an attacking shot against him or when he bowled one of the three half-volleys he sent down in his entire career, stand by your beds. Playing for Somerset, I witnessed this phenomenon more than once. He would crouch at the start of his run up - the signal for all of us to retreat by about three yards - then grow taller and taller as he came to the crease. And when he let the ball go he did it with such vnomous force that it would devour anything in its path.

When the mood was with him . . . not only was it agonizing to bat against it was also painful to field to. . . I caught catches smack in the palms of my hands and it took about ten minutes for the feeling to return.

On anything but the flatest of batting surfaces he was quite lethal; (and) if the pitch was offering, forget it, which is why, after Viv Richards and Dennis Lillee, Joel would be the third automatic choice in the best XI I ever watched or played against.

Michael Holding

To some observers, the image of Michael Holding that emerges is that of the frightening and merciless barrage that he and Andy Roberts unleashed on Brian Close and John Edrich in that infamous passage of play during the Old Trafford Test of 1976. Not only does that do injustice to one of the finest fast bowlers that ever lived by obscuring the enormity of his magnificent talent but it also gives the wrong impression of one of the truly good guys of the game.

Make no mistake, Mike played for wickets not for fun. And he was prepared to be ruthless when he felt it was necessary or justified. Just how terrifying that Old Trafford experience was for all concerned can be measured in the words of Greig himself, who later admitted, "When my turn came to bat, it was the first time in my career I felt frightened. For tuppence I would have given up the game there and then. I felt as though my world had collapsed. The quick men had got to me."

Far from intimidation, what Michael's game was about was rhythm, agility and high pace. We called him 'whispering death' for a good reason. Mikey was a superb athlete - formerly a high-quality 400 meter runner, and had an unusually long run-up. It wasn't a kick-off-the-sightscreen job mainly for effect. He ran in that far to build up the momentum he needed. The difference was that you could never hear him coming. With most of these blokes you could hear the pounding as they approached the crease. . . With Mikey you heard not a thing. He seemed to caress the surface with his feet and that was a night-mare when you were at the non-striker's end, because you never knew when to start backing up. Mind you, not many of us backed up too far because the best place to face him was from the other end.

The over-riding memories I have of Michael concern two examples of his quite brilliant bowling. The first was the final Test of that 1976 series at The Oval. ON a gorgeous flat wicket and a parched outfield Viv set the tone with 291 out of 687. Denness Amiss replied with 203 from England's 435. The rest was all about Mikey.

He took 8 for 92 (in that England innings of 435) and six for 57 to help his side to victory by 231 runs. The pitch was a featherbed so Michael ignored it, doing the job through sheer pace in the air instead.Eight of his victims were bowled and five leg-before.

The second selection is that famous over he bowled to Boycott in Barbados in 1981. It was awesome. Boycs played at every single delivery .... and missed every single delivery, the last of which uprooted his leg stump and sent it cart-wheeling towards the boundary.

Here is Michael Holdong taking those eight first innings wickets in 1976. And here he is taking another three of the second innings wickets in the same game. Its great stuff and easily the finest piece of bowling I have seen all my life.

 

[SJS]

Lillee's ammendments

I started this thread with Lillee's selection of the teb best pacers he played with and against. Its worth recalling that list in the order as ranked by Lillee.

1. Roberts
2. Snow
3. Thomson
4. Holding
5. Imran
6. Hadlee
7. Garner
8. McKenzie
9. Willis
10. Kapil Dev

This was from his book Lillee - Over and Out which was published in 1984 by which time Lillee had finished his international career.

Lillee later wrote another, more elaborate, autobiography Menace which was published in 2003. In this too he listed the great pacers of his time but with a slight change in rankings. Here it is.

1. Roberts
2. Snow
3. Thomson
4. Holding
5. Hadlee
6. Garner
7. Marshall (New)
8. Imran (5)
9. Willis
10. Kapil
11. McKenzie

There are basically two changes in that list. Imran moves down 3 places below Hadlee, Garner and Marshall and the last named is a new entrant in the list.

There seems to be valid reasons for this.

Firstly Imran in the 38 Tests that he played after Lillee retired clearly declined as a Test strike bowler. He was not giving away too many runs as older and more experienced great bowlers rarely do so his average does not reflect this. However his strike rate declined remarkably. He was now taking 3.4 wickets per Test against 4.64 and taking 83.4 balls per wicket ! Lillee may or may not have looked at the statistics (I suspect not) but the impression is clearly of a great bowler on the decline.

Marshall on the other hand, had hardly played much Test cricket by the time Lillee moved on. His 88 Test wickets had been taken till then at 30 runs apiece. He was to take another 288 at 18.1 and a strike rate of 28 balls per wicket !!

Lillee does mention in the second book that Marshall perhaps shouldn't qualify for this section since he had not played much against him at his peak.

By the way, Lillee mentions Ambrose in the list also but that is clearly an error for not only did Ambrose start his career 4 years after Lillee ended his, but he also does not find any mention subsequently where Lillee talks in detail about each bowler selected by him.

The interchanging of places between the last three in the list also seems to be a proof-reader's error since in the main body they appear in the same order as the original list.

The Modern Greats
In the latter book Lillee also lists the modern great pacers starting with Marshall on top and Curtly Ambrose as sharing that spot with him. He writes very well of these bowlers as he did of those of his times. I particularly like his bit about Gaugh's bowling and his analysis of and advice to Shoaib Akhtar is great.

1 and 2. Malcom Marshall and Curtley Ambrose :

I bracket Malcolm Marshall with Joel Garner. Both are great bowlers, with Marshall going on to be acknowledged by a top judge as one of the best ever. I only played against him at about 18 or 19 years old. . .

Marshall and Ambrose share the number one position for the following reasons. Curtley Ambrose could hold his own with anyone on his day. Anyone who bowls from 7 ft tall has an advantage, but you still need to have the ability. He had very good pace and he was hard to handle.

Malcolm Marshall was a magician, a more complete bowler than Ambrose but Curtley because of his trajectory, even on the deadest wickets was dangerous. I cant split them.​

3. Wasim Akram :

Akram is at number two for his economy of action, his swing and his ability in all conditions, in one day cricket as well as in Test matches. He is just an incredible player. He sometimes allows the batsman to get on top of him in mid-innings, but reverse swing made him as dangerous late on as he was with the new ball.​

4. Glenn McGrath :

McGrath is like a metronome, the ultimate bowling machine, who can bowl all day if asked.​

5. Bruce Reid :

Reid was as close to being unplayable as anyone I saw in the short time he was a round. If his body had held together, he would have gone right to the top. At around 6ft 7in, he could bowl inswing, outswing and a beautiful line and length, which for a left armer was quite rare, like Wasim and Alan Davidson. He had a bouncer too and never gave you any reprieve.​

6. Courtney Walsh :

Walsh was a workhorse, another Willis type of body which never broke down.

The Choice gets tougher after that.​

7. Craig McDermott :

. . . started his Test career very young, bowling a good line and length with a good outswinger and an off-cutter at pace. He was also a fine competitor, fierce and uncompromising. There was a period of five or six years when he was a real tough-nut bowler.​

8. Alan Donald :

South African Alan Donald lived upto his nickname of 'White Lightening'. He did not come into international cricket until the age of 27 or 28, which is the peak for a fast bowler. He missed six or seven years before that, and I suspect he could have been even beter had he played earlier.​

9. Shaun Pollock :

. . . is another who bowls both inswingers and outswingers and has a bouncer which hurries from nowhere. He's very accurate, gets on with the job and is a tough competitor with a good cricketing brain. An excellent all rounder, as a bowler he has the ability to think batsmen out, finding and probing their weaknesses.​

10 Brett Lee :

If Australian Brett Lee keeps fit, he can be up there with those other guys. He has a great outswinger, terrific pace, a yorker, reverse swing, an off cutter, a slower ball, a good work ethic and is a great competitor - thats an entire armoury of weapons. Who knows what he can do if injury does not gobble him up.​

11. Darren Gaugh :

Gough is too inconsistent for me to call him one of the all-time great bowlers. He has great matches rather than great series.. You never know when he is going to do amazing things, such as take a hat-trick, but he is just as likely to be ordinary in the next game. The county cricket circuit's workload could be too much for him to stay fresh for Test and, indeed, he has missed a lot of cricket with injury. I'm sure it affects some players more than others.

Fred Trueman, for example, thrived on lots of work while Gough may need to peak and then wind down his workload. That system suits me and a few others.

Gough can look good and can look exceptional. If he can put the package together, he would be one of the greats. He bowls a great yorker and good slower balls and they are top weapons. Perhaps he tries to do too much and should bowl line and length instead of two inswingers, one out-swinger, a slower ball and a yorker followed by a bouncer. I would like to see him develope a good stock ball.​

12. Jason Gillespie :

I have chosen Jason Gillespie as the future because of his ability to to bowl bloody well on dead tracks when the chips are down, a breakthrough is needed and no one else is putting up his hand. He is becoming more refined but he can stil produce that really quick ball or quick spell. I have heard Justin Langer say that the quickest spell he ever faced was Gillespie for an hour or so. Probably he always has plenty up his sleeve, and knows how to bowl well within himself. He is a solid, all-round fast bowler who could end up having a great career if his body holds together.​

The Ones that got left Out :

It was very difficult to leave out Merv Hughes, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Javagal Sreenath, Chaminda Vaas.

Leaving out Waqar is almost sacrilege but he has struggled over the last few years.

Merv Hughes was a great competitor, great team man, good in the dressing room and a great mate but just couldn't make the cut although you would have him in the trenches. He was more a competitor than a gifted fast bowler and I take my hat off to him.​

Shoaib Akhtar

There has been discussion about the validity of Shoaib's bowling. Medically, he has a lever in his arm that goes back about fifteen degrees the wrong way which can make the action look worse. We have videoed him, put his action through computers, analysed him and I don't have an argument with him generally. There are times when he bowls a bouncer that the front arm pulls away towards gully and not the batsman, putting the extra bit of shoulder in. I worry then because it looks bad. My advise to him is not to try and do all his bowling with the right arm. If he uses his left arm and trunk to bowl fast, he will not have a problem. His weapon his pace. I have not seen him bowl regular outswing and not any new ball in-swing. There is some reverse swing but his outright pace is his great asset and I don't think it is good enough to have just that to do well in top-class cricket in the long run.

He is young and most of us go through that period, but it is the smarter ones who survive by enlarging their repertoire with something different. That makes you a more complete bowler rather than one dimensional. All Shoaib is bothered about at the moment is being the fastest in the world. That is what he loves but that single objective can cloud the real issue, which is to be a fast bowler for your country, not a side show trying to bowl the 100 mile per hour ball at every outing. We will see if he has the character to back it up and, knowing the man and having worked with him, I would say he has.

Often you bowl your quickest when you are not trying. The quickest I bowled was when I didn't stream in but when I was running in more relaxed, using a smoother action than usual. In England, it surprised me at times that I felt more coordinated when I was not charging in trying to let fly. Its like a sprinter who tightens up instead of being relaxed and forceful.​

Vaas swings the ball both ways at a brisk pace without being express. He is almost the perfect one day fast bowler, an Alan Davidson type with a lovely run up and perfect rhythm - an athlete with a smooth action combined with a good command of length. He is not a big exponent of the bouncer, or yorker, or even the odd slower ball, but there is more to come from him.

Srinath has suffered from being a fast bowler bowling on dead wickets designed to take spin. He has had to adapt more than most of the others because thats his own turf. Had he played in another country, perhaps England, he would have had better figures and taken more wickets. He has had lot of injuries and I have a lot of respect for him, consistently bowling well in difficult conditions.​

 

[SJS]

Since Lillee has Marshall in both lists and since he is at the top of the latter list, it becomes possible to put most of the bowlers he has listed (from 1970 till date) into a ranking as conferred by him. This makes an interesting list and ranking.

1. Roberts
2. Snow
3. Thomson
4. Holding
5. Imran
6. Hadlee
7. Garner
8. Marshall
9. Ambrose
10. Akram
11. McGrath
12. Reid
13. Walsh
14. McDermott
15. Donald
16. Pollock
17. Lee
18. Gough
19. Gillespie.

To avoid comlication, I have left Imran in the place where Lillee placed him in his first list.

This leaves us with . . .

• McKenzie
• Willis
• Kapil Dev

in that order. I would suggest they would fit in between Walsh and McDermott where Lillee makes the statement, here "the choice gets tougher"

That seems reasonable.

I would not find too much to disagree with in that list except, perhaps, the very high rank of Thomson. Otherwise, I would be happy to take that list, put Lillee on top and with very few exceptions (Waqar being the one that comes readily to mind) take it as fair.

 

[Fusion]

SJS - as always I appreciate the effort you put in to copy these entries. I can't speak for others, but I certainly learn a lot. One request: I notice that when you post something from a book, the font is very small. Combine the small font with the italics and the color combination and it makes for some difficult reading. Can you please increase the font size of these selections? Thanks!

 

[TT Boy]

SJS - as always I appreciate the effort you put in to copy these entries. I can't speak for others, but I certainly learn a lot. One request: I notice that when you post something from a book, the font is very small. Combine the small font with the italics and the color combination and it makes for some difficult reading. Can you please increase the font size of these selections? Thanks!

Seconded.

Great stuff though. Pleasure to read.

 

[Slifer]

Thirded thanks for the info.

 

[SJS]

SJS - as always I appreciate the effort you put in to copy these entries. I can't speak for others, but I certainly learn a lot. One request: I notice that when you post something from a book, the font is very small. Combine the small font with the italics and the color combination and it makes for some difficult reading. Can you please increase the font size of these selections? Thanks!

Seconded.

Great stuff though. Pleasure to read.

Thirded thanks for the info.

Lillee's ammendments

I started this thread with Lillee's selection of the teb best pacers he played with and against. Its worth recalling that list in the order as ranked by Lillee.

1. Roberts
2. Snow
3. Thomson
4. Holding
5. Imran
6. Hadlee
7. Garner
8. McKenzie
9. Willis
10. Kapil Dev

This was from his book Lillee - Over and Out which was published in 1984 by which time Lillee had finished his international career.

Lillee later wrote another, more elaborate, autobiography Menace which was published in 2003. In this too he listed the great pacers of his time but with a slight change in rankings. Here it is.

1. Roberts
2. Snow
3. Thomson
4. Holding
5. Hadlee
6. Garner
7. Marshall (New)
8. Imran (5)
9. Willis
10. Kapil
11. McKenzie

There are basically two changes in that list. Imran moves down 3 places below Hadlee, Garner and Marshall and the last named is a new entrant in the list.

There seems to be valid reasons for this.

Firstly Imran in the 38 Tests that he played after Lillee retired clearly declined as a Test strike bowler. He was not giving away too many runs as older and more experienced great bowlers rarely do so his average does not reflect this. However his strike rate declined remarkably. He was now taking 3.4 wickets per Test against 4.64 and taking 83.4 balls per wicket ! Lillee may or may not have looked at the statistics (I suspect not) but the impression is clearly of a great bowler on the decline.

Marshall on the other hand, had hardly played much Test cricket by the time Lillee moved on. His 88 Test wickets had been taken till then at 30 runs apiece. He was to take another 288 at 18.1 and a strike rate of 28 balls per wicket !!

Lillee does mention in the second book that Marshall perhaps shouldn't qualify for this section since he had not played much against him at his peak.

By the way, Lillee mentions Ambrose in the list also but that is clearly an error for not only did Ambrose start his career 4 years after Lillee ended his, but he also does not find any mention subsequently where Lillee talks in detail about each bowler selected by him.

The interchanging of places between the last three in the list also seems to be a proof-reader's error since in the main body they appear in the same order as the original list.

The Modern Greats
In the latter book Lillee also lists the modern great pacers starting with Marshall on top and Curtly Ambrose as sharing that spot with him. He writes very well of these bowlers as he did of those of his times. I particularly like his bit about Gaugh's bowling and his analysis of and advice to Shoaib Akhtar is great.

1 and 2. Malcom Marshall and Curtley Ambrose :

I bracket Malcolm Marshall with Joel Garner. Both are great bowlers, with Marshall going on to be acknowledged by a top judge as one of the best ever. I only played against him at about 18 or 19 years old. . .

Marshall and Ambrose share the number one position for the following reasons. Curtley Ambrose could hold his own with anyone on his day. Anyone who bowls from 7 ft tall has an advantage, but you still need to have the ability. He had very good pace and he was hard to handle.

Malcolm Marshall was a magician, a more complete bowler than Ambrose but Curtley because of his trajectory, even on the deadest wickets was dangerous. I cant split them.​

3. Wasim Akram :

Akram is at number two for his economy of action, his swing and his ability in all conditions, in one day cricket as well as in Test matches. He is just an incredible player. He sometimes allows the batsman to get on top of him in mid-innings, but reverse swing made him as dangerous late on as he was with the new ball.​

4. Glenn McGrath :

McGrath is like a metronome, the ultimate bowling machine, who can bowl all day if asked.​

5. Bruce Reid :

Reid was as close to being unplayable as anyone I saw in the short time he was a round. If his body had held together, he would have gone right to the top. At around 6ft 7in, he could bowl inswing, outswing and a beautiful line and length, which for a left armer was quite rare, like Wasim and Alan Davidson. He had a bouncer too and never gave you any reprieve.​

6. Courtney Walsh :

Walsh was a workhorse, another Willis type of body which never broke down.

The Choice gets tougher after that.​

7. Craig McDermott :

. . . started his Test career very young, bowling a good line and length with a good outswinger and an off-cutter at pace. He was also a fine competitor, fierce and uncompromising. There was a period of five or six years when he was a real tough-nut bowler.​

8. Alan Donald :

South African Alan Donald lived upto his nickname of 'White Lightening'. He did not come into international cricket until the age of 27 or 28, which is the peak for a fast bowler. He missed six or seven years before that, and I suspect he could have been even beter had he played earlier.​

9. Shaun Pollock :

. . . is another who bowls both inswingers and outswingers and has a bouncer which hurries from nowhere. He's very accurate, gets on with the job and is a tough competitor with a good cricketing brain. An excellent all rounder, as a bowler he has the ability to think batsmen out, finding and probing their weaknesses.​

10 Brett Lee :

If Australian Brett Lee keeps fit, he can be up there with those other guys. He has a great outswinger, terrific pace, a yorker, reverse swing, an off cutter, a slower ball, a good work ethic and is a great competitor - thats an entire armoury of weapons. Who knows what he can do if injury does not gobble him up.​

11. Darren Gaugh :

Gough is too inconsistent for me to call him one of the all-time great bowlers. He has great matches rather than great series.. You never know when he is going to do amazing things, such as take a hat-trick, but he is just as likely to be ordinary in the next game. The county cricket circuit's workload could be too much for him to stay fresh for Test and, indeed, he has missed a lot of cricket with injury. I'm sure it affects some players more than others.

Fred Trueman, for example, thrived on lots of work while Gough may need to peak and then wind down his workload. That system suits me and a few others.

Gough can look good and can look exceptional. If he can put the package together, he would be one of the greats. He bowls a great yorker and good slower balls and they are top weapons. Perhaps he tries to do too much and should bowl line and length instead of two inswingers, one out-swinger, a slower ball and a yorker followed by a bouncer. I would like to see him develope a good stock ball.​

12. Jason Gillespie :

I have chosen Jason Gillespie as the future because of his ability to to bowl bloody well on dead tracks when the chips are down, a breakthrough is needed and no one else is putting up his hand. He is becoming more refined but he can stil produce that really quick ball or quick spell. I have heard Justin Langer say that the quickest spell he ever faced was Gillespie for an hour or so. Probably he always has plenty up his sleeve, and knows how to bowl well within himself. He is a solid, all-round fast bowler who could end up having a great career if his body holds together.​

The Ones that got left Out :

It was very difficult to leave out Merv Hughes, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Javagal Sreenath, Chaminda Vaas.

Leaving out Waqar is almost sacrilege but he has struggled over the last few years.

Merv Hughes was a great competitor, great team man, good in the dressing room and a great mate but just couldn't make the cut although you would have him in the trenches. He was more a competitor than a gifted fast bowler and I take my hat off to him.​

Shoaib Akhtar

There has been discussion about the validity of Shoaib's bowling. Medically, he has a lever in his arm that goes back about fifteen degrees the wrong way which can make the action look worse. We have videoed him, put his action through computers, analysed him and I don't have an argument with him generally. There are times when he bowls a bouncer that the front arm pulls away towards gully and not the batsman, putting the extra bit of shoulder in. I worry then because it looks bad. My advise to him is not to try and do all his bowling with the right arm. If he uses his left arm and trunk to bowl fast, he will not have a problem. His weapon his pace. I have not seen him bowl regular outswing and not any new ball in-swing. There is some reverse swing but his outright pace is his great asset and I don't think it is good enough to have just that to do well in top-class cricket in the long run.

He is young and most of us go through that period, but it is the smarter ones who survive by enlarging their repertoire with something different. That makes you a more complete bowler rather than one dimensional. All Shoaib is bothered about at the moment is being the fastest in the world. That is what he loves but that single objective can cloud the real issue, which is to be a fast bowler for your country, not a side show trying to bowl the 100 mile per hour ball at every outing. We will see if he has the character to back it up and, knowing the man and having worked with him, I would say he has.

Often you bowl your quickest when you are not trying. The quickest I bowled was when I didn't stream in but when I was running in more relaxed, using a smoother action than usual. In England, it surprised me at times that I felt more coordinated when I was not charging in trying to let fly. Its like a sprinter who tightens up instead of being relaxed and forceful.​

Vaas swings the ball both ways at a brisk pace without being express. He is almost the perfect one day fast bowler, an Alan Davidson type with a lovely run up and perfect rhythm - an athlete with a smooth action combined with a good command of length. He is not a big exponent of the bouncer, or yorker, or even the odd slower ball, but there is more to come from him.

Srinath has suffered from being a fast bowler bowling on dead wickets designed to take spin. He has had to adapt more than most of the others because thats his own turf. Had he played in another country, perhaps England, he would have had better figures and taken more wickets. He has had lot of injuries and I have a lot of respect for him, consistently bowling well in difficult conditions.​

Better ??

 

[SJS]

I knew I had an action picture of S F Barnes somewhere. Today I stumbled across it when going through an old book. It is a very small one and in the book in question it has been blown up which looks impressive but also very grainy in the bargain. Here it is and gives a more 'solid' perspective of the greatest bowler than we get from all those posed pictures.