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

[Burgey]

Nah I've got nothing against Hadlee at all, he was a genius bowler. One of the greatest ever. I only mentioned him because I think people had erroneously put him ahead of McGrath in a couple of posts just before I made mine.

 

[srbhkshk]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but fancy putting Hadlee (or indeed anyone) ahead of McGrath. You'd have to have suffered a closed head injury to even contemplate it.

The only bloke who's close to McGrath is Marshall, and he bests MM as well. People have spent years on here downplaying the records of batsmen in the 2000s because it was meant to be such an easy batting era, yet don't take this into consideration when they point out McGrath's average is similar to blokes who played in the 80s and 90s. He's head and shoulders the best fast bowler of all time. Just do the right thing and run the poll for places 2-25 ffs.

Does anyone really downplay the batsman in those times though, Ponting , Kallis and Dravid are the three main ones that come to mind who were great in that period and they are all rated as ATG bats in spite of not having averages particularly superior to the ATG bats of other eras.

 

[vcs]

I can't understand how guys of this calibre can be separated by anything except fine margins.

I mean, McGrath was great, but he didn't do as many demolition jobs as Ambrose.

He had the advantage of bowling alongside Warne, Gillespie, Fleming etc. and even on bad/average days, get away with 2/50 type figures.

He didn't have a sub-50 SR like Marshall or Steyn.

He wasn't credited with pioneering the art of fast bowling like Lillee.

He wasn't as pretty to watch as Holding.

He does have probably the most "complete" record of all, with decent sample sizes everywhere. So, obviously he has a great case, but hardly the slam dunk that Burgey is making it out to be.

 

[mr_mister]

Does anyone really downplay the batsman in those times though, Ponting , Kallis and Dravid are the three main ones that come to mind who were great in that period and they are all rated as ATG bats in spite of not having averages particularly superior to the ATG bats of other eras.

Lots of players from that era averaged ~50 (Mo Yousuf, Chanderpaul, Jayawardene) and are never really considered ATG

 

[Burgey]

It's a very common thing to say those players' records are inflated to some extent by the fact pitches were very flat in the 2000s. No one is saying they were awful players who got lucky by accident of birth - they're great players and you're talking about two or three runs in an average over a career, as an example. I'm sure if those blokes played in other eras they would excel because great players adapt, it's one of the things which makes them great.

My point is simply that McGrath is entitled to some credit for bowling in that era, just as the batsmen are entitled to be marked a bit harder.

 

[srbhkshk]

Lots of players from that era averaged ~50 (Mo Yousuf, Chanderpaul, Jayawardene) and are never really considered ATG

Yes, but that has more to do with their failures in certain conditions and/or lack of certain gears in their batting rather than the era itself.

 

[akilana]

It's a very common thing to say those players' records are inflated to some extent by the fact pitches were very flat in the 2000s. No one is saying they were awful players who got lucky by accident of birth - they're great players and you're talking about two or three runs in an average over a career, as an example. I'm sure if those blokes played in other eras they would excel because great players adapt, it's one of the things which makes them great.

My point is simply that McGrath is entitled to some credit for bowling in that era, just as the batsmen are entitled to be marked a bit harder.

These are all true for Steyn too but people hardly give him the extra credit

 

[ankitj]

Surprised to see that McGrath in fact doesn't have a fiver in India, though his average is still great at 21.xx. Somehow thought he did pick a few here.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Nah I've got nothing against Hadlee at all, he was a genius bowler. One of the greatest ever. I only mentioned him because I think people had erroneously put him ahead of McGrath in a couple of posts just before I made mine.

Don't worry I was just having you on mate. McGrath was a genius but as a kid I wanted to be Hadlee when I wasn't wanting to be an AB (All Black, not Allan Border!)

 

[Burgey]

I think bowling attacks in general, and pitches to some extent, aren't as flat this decade as they were in the 2000s, though I don't think the difference is as pronounced as it was between the 90s and the 2000s. But Steyn gets lots of raps on here - most regard him as being in the very top echelon of fast bowlers and in this argument, as well he should be.

 

[Burgey]

Don't worry I was just having you on mate. McGrath was a genius but as a kid I wanted to be Hadlee when I wasn't wanting to be an AB (All Black, not Allan Border!)

You know deep in your heart you really wanted to be Allan Border (Happy Birthday to the great man btw). Everyone did. Most still do.

 

[cnerd123]

I think, from a statistical point of view, you absolutely need to adjust for eras to removal external factors (pitches, law/playing condition changes, modern equipment). When you're comparing these bowlers on the basis of their numbers, guys like McGrath and Steyn should get some extra credit compared to someone like Barnes

But I don't buy the argument that McGrath/Steyn etc are greater bowlers because they bowled in a tougher era for bowlers. Just because the modern era has been easier on batsmen, doesn't mean that it's harder to be a 'great' bowler. It's just harder to get better results. But the bar for being a great bowler has never been set by absolute numbers - it's always been set by 'whose the best bowler in the world right now'. The bar for 'great' just changes with the times. Steyn and McGrath were best bowlers in the world relative to their peers, just like how Marshall and Hadlee were. Quality of pitches have nothing to do with it.

We should only be giving them credit for bowling on flat pitches when we speak statistically, and especially when we look at old school bowlers who averaged in the low 20s and such - were these guys considered amongst the best in the world while they were playing, or were they just standard for the era. When you start getting to the Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath level then this shouldn't be a talking point anymore.

Having said that - one point in favour of modern bowlers that people seem to be missing is increased level of competition - there are so many more cricketers now days, that in order to be considered the best in the world you have to beat out a lot more people. I think this should be a factor when you do a comparison like Anderson vs Trueman. We know we can't compare absolute skills, and in a comparison of one against their peers, surely it's more impressive to stand out in a larger group than a smaller one?

 

[ankitj]

^ tl;dr

 

[Prince EWS]

^ tl;dr

Good decision. Was basically just an obvious argument against a straw man anyway.

 

[ankitj]

That's basically three quarters of *****'s posting. Other quarter being "clever" posts on food and snacks.

 

[cnerd123]

I think bowling attacks in general, and pitches to some extent, aren't as flat this decade as they were in the 2000s, though I don't think the difference is as pronounced as it was between the 90s and the 2000s. But Steyn gets lots of raps on here - most regard him as being in the very top echelon of fast bowlers and in this argument, as well he should be.

I think another reason the 2010s have seemed more balanced than the 2000s is because in the 2000s you had batsmen who built their games in the 90s - an era of smaller bats and juicier wickets - which mean solid defensive games and tighter techniques. These batsmen were then batting on the flat decks of the 2000s, which lead to a lot of the slow, high scoring draws that we were getting accustomed too

Now we have batsmen who built their games in the 2000s - bigger bats, harder hands, flatter feet and a more attacking mindset - batting on pitches that seem to vary between the extremes. This is why we have had so much more fun games in the last 8 years IMO - more high scores, more collapses, more games with 450 in the first innings that then still produce a result.

 

[Starfighter]

This is why we have had so much more fun games in the last 8 years IMO

Guess who hasn't watched any matches in Australia over said period.

 

[cnerd123]

Good decision. Was basically just an obvious argument against a straw man anyway.

mate

My point is simply that McGrath is entitled to some credit for bowling in that era, just as the batsmen are entitled to be marked a bit harder.

 

[cnerd123]

Guess who hasn't watched any matches in Australia over said period.

Australia is where cricket goes to die tbf

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Tests in Hobart have been good but mainland Aussies don't count Tasmania as Australia