Ranking the great fast bowlers

[silentstriker]

Well it's not science at all but nonetheless, no one is arguing against the notion that Thommo was faster than Lillee. No one in this thread has implied that Thommo was anything other than the amongst the fastest bowlers to ever play the game.

 

[watson]

If you say so SS then you must be right by definition.

 

[silentstriker]

If you say so SS then you must be right by definition.

I'm not sure what you mean but I don't disagree with you on the point that Thommo might have been the fastest bowler of all time. So therefore I think it's a fair comment that he was faster than Lillee.

 

[Debris]

Not unfortunately unless there are very high speed cameras that recorded those games that we just don't know about.

There is always the option of inventing time travel. or possibly faster-than-light travel if there were television transmissions from the era. Maybe cloning if we can get it accurate enough to replicate the original conditions. I remain optimistic.

 

[Red]

This is pretty unscientific, but when I watch guys who have bowled fairly quick in recent times (Tait and Lee), and then watch footage of guys like Holding, Roberts, early Lillee and Thommo, the guys from the late 70s look so much faster than the modern guys.

A great clip from fire in babylon - YouTube

That second bouncer at 1.30 looks about as quick as anything i've seen. Might be just Holding's action though....

 

[Jacknife]

This is pretty unscientific, but when I watch guys who have bowled fairly quick in recent times (Tait and Lee), and then watch footage of guys like Holding, Roberts, early Lillee and Thommo, the guys from the late 70s look so much faster than the modern guys.

A great clip from fire in babylon - YouTube

That second bouncer at 1.30 looks about as quick as anything i've seen. Might be just Holding's action though....

and because it's filmed behind the batsmen, you lose sight of the ball for a bit then it seems to come out of nowhere at Close's head.

 

[weldone]

According to 2 ranking systems I have worked on recently (on test match performances only) -

Ranking System 1:
1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Richard Hadlee
3. Malcolm Marshall
4. Glenn McGrath
5. Courtney Walsh
6. Imran Khan
7. Allan Davidson
8. Joel Garner
9. Shaun Pollock
10. Wasim Akram

Ranking System 2:
1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Richard Hadlee
4. Malcolm Marshall
5. Imran Khan
6. Allan Davidson
7. Courtney Walsh
8. Shaun Pollock
9. Keith Miller
10. Allan Donald

 

[silentstriker]

What criteria are you using? Seems interesting - virtually by any statistical judgement, Marshall should be higher than #3 or #4, I'd think?

 

[smash84]

weldone's system assigns an exceptionally high weightage to longevity i think hence you see courtney walsh so high

 

[ankitj]

I like the methodology that puts Ambrose and Hadlee on top.

 

[watson]

Walsh is a great fast bowler.

However, Walsh lacks that thing called 'Strikepower' that enables him to regularly crash into a batting order and completely wreck it.

I prefer the second list although I would have Marshall and Miller slightly higher.

 

[Red]

According to 2 ranking systems I have worked on recently (on test match performances only) -

Ranking System 1:
1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Richard Hadlee
3. Malcolm Marshall
4. Glenn McGrath
5. Courtney Walsh
6. Imran Khan
7. Allan Davidson
8. Joel Garner
9. Shaun Pollock
10. Wasim Akram

Ranking System 2:
1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Richard Hadlee
4. Malcolm Marshall
5. Imran Khan
6. Allan Davidson
7. Courtney Walsh
8. Shaun Pollock
9. Keith Miller
10. Allan Donald

No Lillee, no Holding, no Trueman, no Roberts on either list.

I struggle to see what method you are using.

Shaun Pollock and Courtney Walsh , great cricketers no doubt. But any method that ranks themm ABOVE Lillee and Holding and Trueman and Roberts as pace bowlers is wrong imo....

 

[Prince EWS]

What criteria are you using? Seems interesting - virtually by any statistical judgement, Marshall should be higher than #3 or #4, I'd think?

I think his process is fairly similar to mine (in fact it actually uses some of my data) and I always get Marshall below Hadlee as well, and sometimes Ambrose.

 

[kyear2]

I think his process is fairly similar to mine (in fact it actually uses some of my data) and I always get Marshall below Hadlee as well, and sometimes Ambrose.

Will never understand that.

 

[Red]

I think his process is fairly similar to mine (in fact it actually uses some of my data) and I always get Marshall below Hadlee as well, and sometimes Ambrose.

I can understand Marshall, Hadlee and Ambrose being somewhat on par.

I cannot fathom Shaun Pollock and Courtney Walsh ranking above Lillee, Trueman and Holding.

 

[kyear2]

Can't fathom either

 

[Red]

Can't fathom either

I think Marshall is the best, but I don't think there's a heap in it. Hadlee, Ambrose and McGrath are all close, and imo, so is Lillee. All top shelf.

Walsh sits a tier below ATGs for me. No serious WIs cricket fa would choose Walsh in an ATG WIs team over Holding or Roberts.

 

[kyear2]

I would remove Hadlee fron that first group and replace him with possibly Trueman, and I was agreeing with you on the second point. And I do belive that Marshall was half a level above the rest, like Warne among the spinners and Hobbs with openers.

 

[Red]

I would remove Hadlee fron that first group and replace him with possibly Trueman, and I was agreeing with you on the second point. And I do belive that Marshall was half a level above the rest, like Warne among the spinners and Hobbs with openers.

Yeh, fair enough point on Marshall.

Not sure I'd say Warne is half level above O'Reilly or Murali, hard call to make. I'd have him in my side any day though!

Hobbs definitely above all other openers.

 

[watson]

Will never understand that.

I think that it's probably got something to do with the percentage of wickets taken relative to the other Kiwi bowlers.

In other words, Hadlee was far more important to the NZ team than Marshall ever was to the WI team, plus he didn't have someone like Holding or Ambrose' to 'soften up' the batsman at the other end. You could argue that being a 'loan ranger' is more difficult than working in tandem.