Ranking the candidates for best fast/pace bowler ever: The Rankings thread

[Bolo]

I don't like the idea of extrapolating Rice's FC bowling average to tests. Fast medium bowlers often produce some excellent averages that don't translate to test level.

While it's difficult to extrapolate from Procters FC to test level, his achievements are immense, and I don't think it's fair to compare Imrans test record to his FC. Far more RPM. Less WPM, but heavily influenced by the fact that he was playing in an era of 3 day games, plus the fact that he played a big stretch of his career post injury bowling spin, which balances against Imrans batting allrounder phase. Its a stretch to rate Procter equal to or ahead of Imran, but not to imagine he could have been.

 

[a massive zebra]

This is a clip from a one hour VHS video titled Legends of Cricket - Sydney Barnes, released in 1997. This video features several minutes of in match coverage showing Sydney Barnes bowling, nearly all of which I have never seen posted online. Admittedly, most of this coverage is of relatively poor quality (similar to the clip above), showing Barnes bowling in club cricket in the 1920s, when he would have been around 50 years old.

The video can be found here, but doesn't seem to be available.

I have a copy of this video, but no longer posses a VHS player on which to play it! If anyone would like this video, please PM me.

 

[Starfighter]

I'd say you should find someone who could do a digital copy but I'd rather not be seen as promoting the illegal reproduction of copyrighted videos, let alone sharing them.

 

[Starfighter]

I mean, who wants to see rare historically interesting footage anyway?

 

[trundler]

I mean, who wants to see rare historically interesting footage anyway?

Great save, Starfighter. Inconspicuous as can be.

 

[Starfighter]

Great save, Starfighter. Inconspicuous as can be.

I am a master of subtlety, as anyone who reads my posts would no doubt be aware.

 

[mr_mister]

5th. Dale Steyn (455 points)

Top 5 finishes: 14
Bottom 5 finishes: 0
Highest finish: 2nd (1 time)
Lowest finish: 9th (3 times)


A relentless quick, Steyn begins the top 5 and is only the only current player to feature in it. There's only 5 points separating 3rd from 5th so it's a bit of log jam at the business end of the list. Steyn is best known for his amazing strike-rate of 42, the best of any bowler on this list other than Sydney Barnes and the best for basically any bowler of the last 100 years other than the brief career of Shane Bond and the ongoing career of Rabada.

Steyn has done amazingly well in this batsman-dominated age of cricket to be a feared, effective and respected bowler and it really is a testament to his skill that CW rates him so high. Traditionally non-retired players need time to pass for the resident CW experts to consider their careers to be above those of players past. Well done Dale. He's currently tied on 421 wickets with Shaun Pollock for the most for his nation. You'd back him to get there but he plays very little cricket these days.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Steyn Below Ambrose, unexpected.

 

[Bolo]

Steyn Below Ambrose, unexpected.

Wouldn't have surprised me before that Steyn vs Ambrose poll, but Steyn won that pretty comfortably

 

[Slifer]

Barnes did it in four tests!

I know that. But I'm pretty sure given a 5 test series against a minnow he would've taken more than 49 wickets.

 

[Slifer]

Murali got loads of tests against minnows though

But never in a series of more than 3 tests. If he'd played a 5 test series vs any minnow and particularly at home, that record would've been in jeopardy. And before anyone says that applies to any great bowler, I know that. Im talking about how certain players' careers panned out. Murali was pretty much a lone wolf, where as it's unlikely warne would've broken 49 because he'd have had more competition for wickets.

 

[mr_mister]

Vaas took 350+

Hadlee was the ultimate lone wolf

 

[Starfighter]

I know that. But I'm pretty sure given a 5 test series against a minnow he would've taken more than 49 wickets.

His best is 30 in 3 against Zim. So it's conjectural that he may just have gotten there but to be 'pretty sure' is a stretch.

Besides, if you're going to conjecture, what if Barnes had payed all five in 1912/13? You'd be looking at 60+ wickets.

 

[Bolo]

Murali didn't really pick up more against minnows than top teams. He was competing for wickets against minnows, because the rest of the attack was good enough against really weak bats. He struck slower against top teams, but got a chance to bowl more.

Murali on matting wickets would have been destruction though

 

[a massive zebra]

But never in a series of more than 3 tests. If he'd played a 5 test series vs any minnow and particularly at home, that record would've been in jeopardy. And before anyone says that applies to any great bowler, I know that. Im talking about how certain players' careers panned out. Murali was pretty much a lone wolf, where as it's unlikely warne would've broken 49 because he'd have had more competition for wickets.

I don't think Warne would have had it in him to take 50 wickets in a five match series against minnows, even if he had played for Sri Lanka in place of Murali. Don't get me wrong, Warne was an iconic matchwinner who won many Tests against quality opposition including plenty against Australia's old enemy, and put in a match winning performance in a world cup final. But he simply wasn't the sort of player who decimated the weaker teams. He was the kind of big match bowler who could use his innovative bowling brain to pick his game up for the big matches in order to maintain the same level of effectiveness at the highest level of the game as he achieved in first class and even first grade cricket. For instance, he averaged 26 for St Kilda in first grade cricket, 35 for Victoria in the Sheffield Shield, 27 for Hampshire in the county championship, 27 in Tests against Bangladesh and 23 in Tests against Zimbabwe. These aren't the kind of figures one would expect of a bowler capable of taking 50 wickets in a single series against minnows. By comparison, Murali averaged 14 in the county championship, 13 against Bangladesh and 16 against Zimbabwe - pretty much half Warne's average against the corresponding opposition.

That's not to say Warne couldn't bowl as effectively as Murali in big matches against top sides.

 

[Logan]

Dale Steyn is arguably the greatest fast bowler of all time. Every era had four or five bowlers who were regarded as all time greats. Between 2005-2015, Steyn is perhaps the only fast bowler who is considered as an all time great. It showed how tough bowling has become especially for fast bowlers in modern times and yet Steyn managed to have the best strike rate in the history of Test cricket.

 

[a massive zebra]

Dale Steyn is arguably the greatest fast bowler of all time. Every era had four or five bowlers who were regarded as all time greats. Between 2005-2015, Steyn is perhaps the only fast bowler who is considered as an all time great. It showed how tough bowling has become especially for fast bowlers in modern times and yet Steyn managed to have the best strike rate in the history of Test cricket.

Welcome to the forum, Logan!

An excellent first post.

 

[Slifer]

His best is 30 in 3 against Zim. So it's conjectural that he may just have gotten there but to be 'pretty sure' is a stretch.

Besides, if you're going to conjecture, what if Barnes had payed all five in 1912/13? You'd be looking at 60+ wickets.

Did I say pretty sure?? I'm sorry about that. But I think he may have gotten close to 49.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Steyn is not just only great pacer today..
He is the only true great player today.

 

[ankitj]

Steyn is not just only great pacer today..
He is the only true great player today.

Nope. Steve Smith and Kohli too.