smash84
The Tiger King
I think Stuart Clark belongs in the discussion with Harris.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Ranking the candidates for best fast bowler ever - ~20 contenders
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
No. For example, I'd take Mo Asif way before Stu Clark (but not before Harris).
smash84
The Tiger King
why?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Harris's career was short much more because he was rubbish for the first half of it than due to injuries after he became a good bowler. In fact these things were probably related -- the extra pace he found to make him better than an Adelaide grade cricketer wasn't really sustainable on his body with a Test workload.
At his peak he was a truly excellent bowler, but he wasn't some unlucky soul who deserved a longer Test career. If he played Tests for twelve years his average would've blown right out at the start and most of you blokes wouldn't rate him at all. And who's more useful -- someone who's as good as Harris for five years (of which he's injured half the time) and rubbish beyond consideration for the rest of his career, or someone was a very good but not great Test bowler for a long period with few injuries, like Vaas? It's honestly a tough call IMO -- it'd depend quite a bit on the depth of your side. A side with lots of fast bowling depth would probably take Harris as they wouldn't be losing a lot when he wasn't playing due to early-career pie chucking or late-career injuries, while a team with less depth that would see a huge drop down in quality when he wasn't playing would probably take Vaas instead.
At his peak he was a truly excellent bowler, but he wasn't some unlucky soul who deserved a longer Test career. If he played Tests for twelve years his average would've blown right out at the start and most of you blokes wouldn't rate him at all. And who's more useful -- someone who's as good as Harris for five years (of which he's injured half the time) and rubbish beyond consideration for the rest of his career, or someone was a very good but not great Test bowler for a long period with few injuries, like Vaas? It's honestly a tough call IMO -- it'd depend quite a bit on the depth of your side. A side with lots of fast bowling depth would probably take Harris as they wouldn't be losing a lot when he wasn't playing due to early-career pie chucking or late-career injuries, while a team with less depth that would see a huge drop down in quality when he wasn't playing would probably take Vaas instead.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
>tfw you type out a long post and then the very next post makes the same point but much more concisely
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Too many.
ATG/Great bowlers are fine and all, but the cult bowlers are the thinking man's priority.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
From purely a recent Aus point of view, Stuart Clark, Harris and Gillespie are all better than a few on this list
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And Bruce Reid who could have been an ATG with better management.
As for the rest of the discussion, we had a fast bowler survival thread around 2010 and the Pakistani quicks ended up quite high on the list. Marshall rightly was number 1.
The main question at the time was where would Steyn end up at the end of his career. He's moved to top 5/10 for mine. Brilliant bowler. Best non- McGrath/Ambrose I've seen since Marshall.
I guess my top five are:
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Ambrose
Steyn
As for Australian bias, I guess it happens when your side has been the number one more often than anyone else.
As for the rest of the discussion, we had a fast bowler survival thread around 2010 and the Pakistani quicks ended up quite high on the list. Marshall rightly was number 1.
The main question at the time was where would Steyn end up at the end of his career. He's moved to top 5/10 for mine. Brilliant bowler. Best non- McGrath/Ambrose I've seen since Marshall.
I guess my top five are:
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Ambrose
Steyn
As for Australian bias, I guess it happens when your side has been the number one more often than anyone else.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's almost exactly my top 5, too although sometimes I'd have Marshall and Mcgrath #1 and switch Ambrose and Steyn.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
because I was strangely thinking of Simon Jones when you said Stuart Clark
Yes, Clark and Harris were comparable (certainly not Simon Jones, lol).
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bishop but no Hall?
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
1. Wasim Akram
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Richard Hadlee
4. Dale Steyn
5. Dennis Lillee
6. Glenn Mcgrath
7. Fred Trueman
8. Allan Donald
9. Curtly Ambrose
10. Imran Khan
11. Michael Holding
12. Alec Bedser
13. Waqar Younis
14.Harold Larwood
15. Andy Roberts
16. Ray Lindwall
17. Allan Davidson
18. Joel Garner
19. Neil Adcock
20. Courtney Walsh
21. Shaun Pollock
22. Frank Tyson
23. Vernon philander
24. James Anderson
SYDNEY BARNES>>>>> Akram and company.
Personally I prefer , Mike Procter in Top 20, Peter Pollock and Kapil Dev ahead of Anderson and Philander.
2. Malcolm Marshall
3. Richard Hadlee
4. Dale Steyn
5. Dennis Lillee
6. Glenn Mcgrath
7. Fred Trueman
8. Allan Donald
9. Curtly Ambrose
10. Imran Khan
11. Michael Holding
12. Alec Bedser
13. Waqar Younis
14.Harold Larwood
15. Andy Roberts
16. Ray Lindwall
17. Allan Davidson
18. Joel Garner
19. Neil Adcock
20. Courtney Walsh
21. Shaun Pollock
22. Frank Tyson
23. Vernon philander
24. James Anderson
SYDNEY BARNES>>>>> Akram and company.
Personally I prefer , Mike Procter in Top 20, Peter Pollock and Kapil Dev ahead of Anderson and Philander.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah that's a bit harsh on Anderson. Kapil was a great all rounder and cricketer but no way is he better than Jimmy with the better average and SR in a more batting friendly era. I get the comparison between them based on longevity but Jimmy is hands down better.
akilana
International 12th Man
Kapil played half of his tests in India
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And he averaged worse away from India. What gives?
Virtually all ATG fast bowlers who bowled in both India and Australia had better bowling averages in India than Australia. The 2 notable exceptions where Hadlee and Ambrose.