Ranking the great fast bowlers

[silentstriker]

Why is Viv rated higher than Chappell

I am not sure that he is TBF. I have Chappell as higher, as do many others, judging from various time sides.

 

[Red]

I am not sure that he is TBF. I have Chappell as higher, as do many others, judging from various time sides.

I'd put them on par. Viv in his prime however, was one of the greatest sights in cricket.

There's also an intimidation factor with Viv that not many cricketers (especially batsmen) have had.

 

[kyear2]

To rank Ambrose and Hadlee ahead of Marshall purely based on longevity is a joke, because none of the two of them were as good as Marshall when they did play. Hadley had to drop his pace to achieve his best, Marshall didn't have to, Marshall had to fight for wickets, Hadlee had the run of the mill and especially the tail in the seam friendly conditions of N.Z. I don't know of any of the era who rated him the best as he was seen as behind Marshall, Holding, Lillee, Imran and some even Roberts. In every series againts the W.I. the umpiring was beyond awful, and his actual response to that was pitiful at best. He is rated highly here because of role as the coveted bowling all rounder and his two test hundreds, I just don't rank him as highly.

 

[watson]

I'd put them on par. Viv in his prime however, was one of the greatest sights in cricket.

There's also an intimidation factor with Viv that not many cricketers (especially batsmen) have had.

So was Greg Chappell during the 70s.

Aesthetics is a personal thing. The Sledge Hammer or The Scalpel Blade?

 

[watson]

To rank Ambrose and Hadlee ahead of Marshall purely based on longevity is a joke, because none of the two of them were as good as Marshall when they did play. Hadley had to drop his pace to achieve his best, Marshall didn't have to, Marshall had to fight for wickets, Hadlee had the run of the mill and especially the tail in the seam friendly conditions of N.Z. I don't know of any of the era who rated him the best as he was seen as behind Marshall, Holding, Lillee, Imran and some even Roberts. In every series againts the W.I. the umpiring was beyond awful, and his actual response to that was pitiful at best. He is rated highly here because of role as the coveted bowling all rounder and his two test hundreds, I just don't rank him as highly.

Hadlee was as good as Marshall IMO.

Certainly not as quick. But just as skillful, and probably more so.

(I'll see if I can find that over where Hadlee took Dean Jones apart in the mid-80s. Jones was an excellent batsman but was made to look like Chris Martin before edging a leg-cutter through to the keeper.)

 

[BackFootPunch]

To rank Ambrose and Hadlee ahead of Marshall purely based on longevity is a joke, because none of the two of them were as good as Marshall when they did play. Hadley had to drop his pace to achieve his best, Marshall didn't have to, Marshall had to fight for wickets, Hadlee had the run of the mill and especially the tail in the seam friendly conditions of N.Z. I don't know of any of the era who rated him the best as he was seen as behind Marshall, Holding, Lillee, Imran and some even Roberts. In every series againts the W.I. the umpiring was beyond awful, and his actual response to that was pitiful at best. He is rated highly here because of role as the coveted bowling all rounder and his two test hundreds, I just don't rank him as highly.

Hadlee actually had more success overseas than he did at home. You can't accuse him of having a great record based solely on dominating at home.

 

[watson]

BTW If I can ever achieve the impossible and flook Marshall and Hadlee in the same ATG draft then I will declare myself the automatic winner.

 

[Burgey]

Hadlee was as good as Marshall IMO.

Certainly not as quick. But just as skillful, and probably more so.

(I'll see if I can find that over where Hadlee took Dean Jones apart in the mid-80s. Jones was an excellent batsman but was made to look like Chris Martin before edging a leg-cutter through to the keeper.)

Lol, Dean Jones in the mid-80s? Seriously?

I know the passage of play you're talking about. He bowled him a cracking short one then two great outswingers, the second of which Deano edged because it wasn't a dead rubber and he wasn't playing for his spot.

 

[kyear2]

I was asked for my reasons and they are picked apart, they are my reasons and not going to change. Marshall was a winner and never lost a series while carrying the W.I for the better part of the 80's especially after Holdings departure and Viv's decline.

 

[watson]

Lol, Dean Jones in the mid-80s? Seriously?

I know the passage of play you're talking about. He bowled him a cracking short one then two great outswingers, the second of which Deano edged because it wasn't a dead rubber and he wasn't playing for his spot.

So the 'cracking short one' and 'two great outswingers' had little to do with the dismissal then?

 

[Valer]

I think the problem here is that your defining "great" diffrently.

You can look at this problem in two ways...
The first is the playing the martian XI. In this case not only does longevity not matter* but you also have an argument for pick a period out of players career.

*Sample size can be an issue however.

The second is the value added to their team. This means given two players A and B, with longevities 10 and 15, one is really comparing 10 years of A + 5 years of generic player to 15 years of B.

One should note that my problem with many of these systems is they don't define the "generic player" well.

As an aside I'd be intrested to see a system base on the improvement form the average player base upon longevity.

eg (period avg - adj avg*) ~ longevity.

~ -- being your normal way of including longevity.
Adj avg* -- including all factors bar longevity

 

[Burgey]

So the 'cracking short one' and 'two great outswingers' had little to do with the dismissal then?

Of course they did, I'm just saying there are better examples of Hadlee's bowling greatness than that particular episode with Jones. I say that principally because I think Jones is over rated, but that's a discussion for another time.

I think Hadlee is a great bowler, but I don't quite rate him as highly as I do a few (and I mean a few) others.

 

[ankitj]

Why is Viv rated higher than Chappell, they played in more or less the same era, more or less the same record and equally dominant in WSC, Greg was classical to Viv;s destructive. It's not always rational.
None the less I have my reasons.

Bowlers get nothing by being flamboyant or destructive (if there is such a thing for bowlers), so long as they take wickets at the same rate. The team is not demoralized anymore if its batsman gets bowled by an inswinging yorker than if he gets caught behind on a length ball that had slightest of deviation.

You're also inconsistent in your arguments. You rate McGrath very highly who was very similar to Hadlee in terms being a line and length bowler without being particularly flamboyant. You also don't rate Akram very highly who arguably possessed the ***iest fast bowling style.

 

[ankitj]

I don't know of any of the era who rated him the best as he was seen as behind Marshall, Holding, Lillee, Imran and some even Roberts.

This is pretty ridiculous to be honest.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You also don't rate Akram very highly who arguably possessed the ***iest fast bowling style.

I've never actually found Akram a particularly attractive bowler. His action seemed all cramped and rushed.

 

[watson]

I've never actually found Akram a particularly attractive bowler. His action seemed all cramped and rushed.

Plus his pants were often pulled up way too high for my liking.

As in, "Harry High Pants".

 

[ankitj]

Things Akram could do with the ball, no one could with so much ease. But he doesn't have the greatest record, so I don't rate him in the highest tier of fast bowlers.

 

[Red]

This is pretty ridiculous to be honest.

Why?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I was reading this last night at a blog and found the writing quite interesting. Quoting some para on Hadlee and Marshall from the blog:

RJ Hadlee:

He bowled a huge amount of overs for a pace bowler, under enormous pressure and nearly always came through. His 9/52 (15/123 in the match)against Australia in Brisbane is one of the greatest bowling performances in history. He saw New Zealand to their first series win in England in 1983, taking 21 wickets in 4 matches. Hadlee lacked true pace, but had the best inswinger of this group and a surprisingly effective bouncer. Versatility with the old ball was demanded of him, and he responded with the ability to bowl seam better and better as his career went on. He finished as the record holder for most wickets in a career. He is the best swing/seam bowler combination of this bunch. Hadlee’s longevity is also to be commended – he played until he was 39 and averaged 23.20 with 5.0wpm in his final year in cricket, an amazing accomplishment. Richard Hadlee averaged 13.06 (!) with 7.9wpm in New Zealand victories – it is entirely possible that no player in Test history has ever been more valuable for their team, including Murali. Despite possible charges that Hadlee had the advantages of bowling in New Zealand (the most bowler friendly country in the world), Hadlee actually averaged lower on the road (21.72) with a higher wpm (5.3). He also averaged 21.58 (5.2wpm) in Asia where swing is all but non existent.

Malcolm Marshall:

The great West Indian fast bowling revolution that began with Holding and Roberts in the 70’s produced no less than three sub 21 average bowlers. To give you some perspective, only two other players since WWI have taken 100 wickets and have lower averages – Alan Davidson and Johnny Wardle (further evidence that almost any kind of left arm chinaman would blow like a hurricane through batting cards that have never seen it).Marshall was incredibly consistent, he averaged below 23 against every team he faced, a remarkable achievement. For nine years (1981-1989 inclusive), Marshall averaged below 22 in every one except 1987…where he only played three matches. His most batsman dismissed reads like a who’s who of batting in the 80’s; Graham Gooch, Allan Border, David Boon, Sunil Gavaskar, David Gower. Sure, all the West Indian pace bowlers were excellent, but that only reinforces Marshall’s claim as the crème de le crème.

Now comparing:

Hadlee got a massive boost playing six Tests against Sri Lanka (6.2wpm, 12.78 average). Even the batting numbers are helped here – one of his two centuries is against the same opponent, eroding his already thin all-rounder case. He played in just 17 Tests in his career not in New Zealand, Australia or England, the three best places in the world to bowl fast. His numbers more or less hold up although, again, boosted by performances against Sri Lanka (Hadlee took 5WI once in 7 Tests in Pakistan and the West Indies). Malcolm Marshall has no such statistical hurdles to overcome, but the objection is a more global one. He had so much help. Garner, Walsh, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Bishop, Ambrose, Holding. Hadlee had no one remotely close to any of those bowlers next to him, feeding him a steady diet of tailenders to bowl to, or keeping his overs to a minimum on the bad days. Really, how good Marshall was is almost a matter of conjecture. Not only did he have the best supporting cast ever assembled, but they also covered everything he did well (Trueman had Statham, Locke, Laker, but he was the only true new ball threat). Not happening with the new ball? No problem, Holding was there to deliver killer outswingers. No seam movement? Give it to Garner to choke things up and deliver an unassisted wicket with the best yorker in the world. Hadlee almost literally could not have been in a worse situation. Before 1973, New Zealand had won 7 of their first 102 Test matches, Hadlee guided the team to 22 in his 86 Tests. No player has ever carried so much of his teams load as Hadlee. His numbers are comparable to all of the competitors, with more wickets than any of them. None of the other bowlers on this list could last more than 13 years, despite the workload, Hadlee toiled for seventeen years.

 

[smash84]

You're also inconsistent in your arguments. You rate McGrath very highly who was very similar to Hadlee in terms being a line and length bowler without being particularly flamboyant. You also don't rate Akram very highly who arguably possessed the ***iest fast bowling style.

You've hit the nail on the head.

This is the main problem with kyear2 I feel.

Akram could bowl some real magic deliveries that none of the other fast bowlers could. Yet he doesn't get any extra marks for style or skill (unlike Viv)

Might slip in a few great ones here

CRAP UMPIRING! PLUMB LBW - WASIM AKRAM 'MAGIC BALL' 1996 - YouTube

Bria Lara Toe broken by Wasim Akram - OUCH!.flv - YouTube

Wasim Akram Magic Ball - To Croft - YouTube

Waseem Akram's Superb ball to Rahul Dravid. - YouTube

Wasim Akram vs Marcus Trescothick - YouTube