Ranking the candidates for best fast bowler ever - ~20 contenders

[cnerd123]

I love your work with these things MM, but I always find it ridiculous when people exclude players from such things due to a low number of Test matches played. Obviously the reason why Cowie, and others such as Procter, played such a low number of Tests was due to external factors. It's not like he was dropped and couldn't break back into the team or something.

But then it's a question of sample size - do we consider how they played over X number of Tests indicative of their overall quality as a bowler? Plenty of bowlers have great stats when you reduce the sample size. What if this bowler just strung together a few good performances when in good form in helpful conditions, and then never played Tests again and so never got found out for his limitations?

So then you need to expand your evaluation criteria - don't just look at the handful of Tests, look at their record and performances in domestic cricket. Well, now, we've opened a whole can of worms haven't we. Is everyone's FC record now brought into consideration? What about great FC bowlers who never played Tests? Do they get equal footing? Is Vince van der Bijl now in contention? Bart King? And lets not forget the discussion we are going to have about trying to evaluate the quality of domestic cricket - the opposition, the pitches, etc. And what about the players who were great domestically but didn't perform at Tests and got dropped? Maybe Pankaj Singh would have Philander-esque figures right now if India didn't drop him after two games - after all, check out his Ranji stats.

The counter to this is obviously "Oh we should watch footage of bowlers, actually see them bowl, that tells us whose good or not" - I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I don't have access to a complete archive of footage for all these bowlers, especially those that played before the 50s. At best I'm finding highlight reels, or snippets from an ODI here or a Test there. I'm not getting complete information on how they put together their spells, what skills they have, how they sustain their intensity throughout the day. Not only that, but I lack the time required to sit and watch all the footage - whose going to do that work? And as it is cricket has evolved so much - watch old grainy footage of cricketers in the 30s and they really don't look all that more impressive than club cricketers today. You now have to figure out how talented they are relevant to their peers, which means watching all the footage of all their peers, and now you're also back to stats diving in an attempt to place them and their skills in context to the era they're playing in...

Sometimes you just want to nip all this craziness in the bud and just put a minimum number of Tests required, and limit evaluation purely down to performances within those Tests they've played.

 

[jimmy101]

Lillee was better than McGrath.

 

[Starfighter]

watch old grainy footage of cricketers in the 30s and they really don't look all that more impressive than club cricketers today.

You must've been watching different footage.

 

[Burgey]

Lillee was better than McGrath.

Nah he wasn’t really. DK admits as much himself.

 

[Burgey]

But then it's a question of sample size - do we consider how they played over X number of Tests indicative of their overall quality as a bowler? Plenty of bowlers have great stats when you reduce the sample size. What if this bowler just strung together a few good performances when in good form in helpful conditions, and then never played Tests again and so never got found out for his limitations?

So then you need to expand your evaluation criteria - don't just look at the handful of Tests, look at their record and performances in domestic cricket. Well, now, we've opened a whole can of worms haven't we. Is everyone's FC record now brought into consideration? What about great FC bowlers who never played Tests? Do they get equal footing? Is Vince van der Bijl now in contention? Bart King? And lets not forget the discussion we are going to have about trying to evaluate the quality of domestic cricket - the opposition, the pitches, etc. And what about the players who were great domestically but didn't perform at Tests and got dropped? Maybe Pankaj Singh would have Philander-esque figures right now if India didn't drop him after two games - after all, check out his Ranji stats.

The counter to this is obviously "Oh we should watch footage of bowlers, actually see them bowl, that tells us whose good or not" - I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I don't have access to a complete archive of footage for all these bowlers, especially those that played before the 50s. At best I'm finding highlight reels, or snippets from an ODI here or a Test there. I'm not getting complete information on how they put together their spells, what skills they have, how they sustain their intensity throughout the day. Not only that, but I lack the time required to sit and watch all the footage - whose going to do that work? And as it is cricket has evolved so much - watch old grainy footage of cricketers in the 30s and they really don't look all that more impressive than club cricketers today. You now have to figure out how talented they are relevant to their peers, which means watching all the footage of all their peers, and now you're also back to stats diving in an attempt to place them and their skills in context to the era they're playing in...

Sometimes you just want to nip all this craziness in the bud and just put a minimum number of Tests required, and limit evaluation purely down to performances within those Tests they've played.

Ok

 

[TheJediBrah]

Does anyone else just switch off completely the second they see a ***** slab of text?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah. It’s the Ikki On Politics of CC.

 

[jimmy101]

But then it's a question of sample size - do we consider how they played over X number of Tests indicative of their overall quality as a bowler? Plenty of bowlers have great stats when you reduce the sample size. What if this bowler just strung together a few good performances when in good form in helpful conditions, and then never played Tests again and so never got found out for his limitations?

So then you need to expand your evaluation criteria - don't just look at the handful of Tests, look at their record and performances in domestic cricket. Well, now, we've opened a whole can of worms haven't we. Is everyone's FC record now brought into consideration? What about great FC bowlers who never played Tests? Do they get equal footing? Is Vince van der Bijl now in contention? Bart King? And lets not forget the discussion we are going to have about trying to evaluate the quality of domestic cricket - the opposition, the pitches, etc. And what about the players who were great domestically but didn't perform at Tests and got dropped? Maybe Pankaj Singh would have Philander-esque figures right now if India didn't drop him after two games - after all, check out his Ranji stats.

The counter to this is obviously "Oh we should watch footage of bowlers, actually see them bowl, that tells us whose good or not" - I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I don't have access to a complete archive of footage for all these bowlers, especially those that played before the 50s. At best I'm finding highlight reels, or snippets from an ODI here or a Test there. I'm not getting complete information on how they put together their spells, what skills they have, how they sustain their intensity throughout the day. Not only that, but I lack the time required to sit and watch all the footage - whose going to do that work? And as it is cricket has evolved so much - watch old grainy footage of cricketers in the 30s and they really don't look all that more impressive than club cricketers today. You now have to figure out how talented they are relevant to their peers, which means watching all the footage of all their peers, and now you're also back to stats diving in an attempt to place them and their skills in context to the era they're playing in...

Sometimes you just want to nip all this craziness in the bud and just put a minimum number of Tests required, and limit evaluation purely down to performances within those Tests they've played.

Yes, I actually think in the case of players with little to no Tests, they should have their FC records looked at. And yes, Bart King deserves a place in here too. I for one don't really read too much into stats for the reasons you mentioned. It's true that stats don't tell anywhere near the full story, infact I'm probably least swayed by stats than anyone on this forum. Hence I feel Hall should be on this list.

WG Grace is another great example here. Grace had a small sample size, yet his Test stats are not all that great. Cowie has a small sample size, and fantastic figures. CK Nayudu is another perfect example. However, all of these players were extremely influential on the game for a good reason. My main point is players such as Cowie were restricted to playing as few Tests as they did due to external factors (WW2/ NZ not having all that much opposition in the early years). It's harsh to exclude them.

 

[mr_mister]

But then it's a question of sample size - do we consider how they played over X number of Tests indicative of their overall quality as a bowler? Plenty of bowlers have great stats when you reduce the sample size. What if this bowler just strung together a few good performances when in good form in helpful conditions, and then never played Tests again and so never got found out for his limitations?

So then you need to expand your evaluation criteria - don't just look at the handful of Tests, look at their record and performances in domestic cricket. Well, now, we've opened a whole can of worms haven't we. Is everyone's FC record now brought into consideration? What about great FC bowlers who never played Tests? Do they get equal footing? Is Vince van der Bijl now in contention? Bart King? And lets not forget the discussion we are going to have about trying to evaluate the quality of domestic cricket - the opposition, the pitches, etc. And what about the players who were great domestically but didn't perform at Tests and got dropped? Maybe Pankaj Singh would have Philander-esque figures right now if India didn't drop him after two games - after all, check out his Ranji stats.

The counter to this is obviously "Oh we should watch footage of bowlers, actually see them bowl, that tells us whose good or not" - I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I don't have access to a complete archive of footage for all these bowlers, especially those that played before the 50s. At best I'm finding highlight reels, or snippets from an ODI here or a Test there. I'm not getting complete information on how they put together their spells, what skills they have, how they sustain their intensity throughout the day. Not only that, but I lack the time required to sit and watch all the footage - whose going to do that work? And as it is cricket has evolved so much - watch old grainy footage of cricketers in the 30s and they really don't look all that more impressive than club cricketers today. You now have to figure out how talented they are relevant to their peers, which means watching all the footage of all their peers, and now you're also back to stats diving in an attempt to place them and their skills in context to the era they're playing in...

Sometimes you just want to nip all this craziness in the bud and just put a minimum number of Tests required, and limit evaluation purely down to performances within those Tests they've played.

Put it better than I could have

 

[jimmy101]

Nah he wasn’t really. DK admits as much himself.

DK might have been being humble when he said that. But I can't really argue with something that came from the horse's mouth.

 

[cnerd123]

You know you've made a good post on CW when 3 different people attempt to hit a punchline right off it

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I’m not saying these other blokes are duds, Fmd they’re all brilliant. We’re sorting wheat from wheat here, there’s no chaff involved (*****’s posts aside).

 

[Burgey]

You know you've made a good post on CW when 3 different people attempt to hit a punchline right off it

Mate, no one read it ffs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Rating Lillee ahead of McGrath really vexes me. McGrath was the perfect fast bowler. Supposedly played in one of the toughest eras for bowling, in the toughest country for bowling. The better the player the more he got you out. Marshall's the only guy even in the contest.

 

[jimmy101]

For me, the golden pageant of fast bowlers would look like this: Barnes, Larwood, Lindwall, Trueman, Procter, Lillee, Hadlee, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, McGrath & Steyn.

 

[jimmy101]

Rating Lillee ahead of McGrath really vexes me. McGrath was the perfect fast bowler. Supposedly played in one of the toughest eras for bowling, in the toughest country for bowling. The better the player the more he got you out. Marshall's the only guy even in the contest.

Don't you think you're underrating Sir Richard a wee bit?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Don't you think you're underrating Sir Richard a wee bit?

He's definitely up there but still not quite in the same league

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, McGrath was ****ing awesome. Can be easily regarded the greatest fast bowler ever. They guy just kept going even on dead Indian wickets he wrecked havoc. Hadlee for mine just gets a few extra points for getting great results for a mediocre sides. Barnes has eye popping stats and has mystery surrounding his style, can be hard to properly compare with others. Marshall has most perfect stats of all and a very complete record. It hurts to put any of Ambrose's contemporaries above Ambrose, but this time I did put McGrath ahead because that's at the end fair.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The reason Aussies don't like Paddles is because he destroyed them. 70 wickets in 9 tests in Oz in the 80s (10 5 wicket bags!) @ 15.97

 

[Prince EWS]

Burgey has probably deliberately elicited a reaction by specifically mentioning Hadlee because he's like that, but if you read his rationale his point wasn't so much against Hadlee but against anyone who isn't McGrath.