• 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/pace bowler ever: The Rankings thread

Victor Ian

Victor Ian

International Coach
Aggressive batsmen are Heros like Superman. Fast Bowlers are like Batman. They have a dark side and need some cunning.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Logan said:
1) It does mean a lot that Steyn was way ahead of his peers. It is a proven fact that batting had become easier and bowling had become tougher. Even good bowlers like James Anderson and Mitchell Johnson found it tough to bowl in those conditions. On the other hand, it made no difference to Dale Steyn.

ABD’s average in ODIs is 53 and his Strike Rate is 101. Still we regard Viv Richards with an average of 47 and SR of 91 as superior. Why? Because Viv Richards was only batsman of his era who had such numbers. Nowadays, batting in ODIs has become much easier. Even guys like Amla and Root have better stats than Viv. That doesn’t make them better. The reverse scenario applies to Dale Steyn.


2) I am not comparing Steyn with Hadlee. Of course, they had different roles for their teams. I meant Hadlee was the fastest to get to 400 wickets and Steyn broke his record by an astonishing 3600 balls. This means he was getting wickets at a faster rate than not only Hadlee but also legends(and strike bowlers) like McGrath, Ambrose, Akram etc. Hell, he was getting wickets at a faster rate than even the mighty Malcolm Marshall, who is possibly the GOAT fast bowler.




3) I am curious on why people think Curtly Ambrose is better than Allan Donald. Back in the 90s, I thought Donald was faster and more consistent than Ambrose though Ambrose bowled at a higher peak at times.
Click to expand...
I dont think people necessarily rate Ambrose higher but he probably got extra points for his outstanding record vs the best team and best players of pace of his time. He's the only non aussie fast bowler from his era that I can think of who did well home and away vs Oz. Both Donald and Ambrose of course are in a similar category as atg though.
 
L

Logan

U19 Captain
Donald>Akram>Ambrose

1) Donald had a sub-23 average and sub-50 strike rate against all teams except Australia.

2) Let’s compare how they fared against their weakest teams:

Donald’s average against Australia was 31 and a SR of 61.

Akram had an average of 28 and SR of 65 against India. Akram had an average of 29 and SR of 65 against SouthAfrica. Akram had an average of 30 and a SR of 69 against England.

Ambrose had an average of 28 and a SR of 68 against Pakistan. Ambrose had an average of 38 and a SR of 100 against India.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Logan said:
Donald>Akram>Ambrose

1) Donald had a sub-23 average and sub-50 strike rate against all teams except Australia.

2) Let’s compare how they fared against their weakest teams:

Donald’s average against Australia was 31 and a SR of 61.

Akram had an average of 28 and SR of 65 against India. Akram had an average of 29 and SR of 65 against SouthAfrica. Akram had an average of 30 and a SR of 69 against England.

Ambrose had an average of 28 and a SR of 68 against Pakistan. Ambrose had an average of 38 and a SR of 100 against India.
Click to expand...
Small sample sizes.
 
E

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Amby > Wasim > Donald

Frankly, fast bowlers need to bring something new to the table, beyond statistical performances to separate themselves from the herd
 
ankitj

ankitj

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Engle said:
Amby > Wasim > Donald

Frankly, fast bowlers need to bring something new to the table, beyond statistical performances to separate themselves from the herd
Click to expand...
Why though? Their job is to take wickets and help their teams win. Which also happens to give them good statistics.
 
B

Bolo

State Captain
Engle said:
Amby > Wasim > Donald

Frankly, fast bowlers need to bring something new to the table, beyond statistical performances to separate themselves from the herd
Click to expand...
So the guy with the best stats needs to bring more to the table? He did, hence why he has the best stats. He was the quickest, the most aggressive, movement with old and new ball both directions in the air and off the pitch. Wasim could do just about everything, but there were a bunch of things Donald could do better. Wasim just seemed to be far more in control of what he was doing, although he seemed pretty bad at chosing what to do with the control. Ambrose could do only a fraction of the things Donald could do, he was just very good at putting the ball in the right place.

The stats come from somewhere. It's guys from the same era with reasonably comparable teammates who were not that impacted by home/away. Differing stats reflects on their skillsets.
 
B

Bolo

State Captain
I tend to value consistency very highly, which I guess is most of the reason I rate Ambrose. I'm not too sure how everyone else is ordering it. Almost everyone seems to rate inconsistent bats above consistent ones on the whole. Bowlers are a mixed batch. The top guys are extremely consistent, other than Steyn who was in a class of his own as a matchwinner. Marshall, as usual, defies categorisation.


Waqar, probably the leaat consistent is fairly low down, as is Donald. Imran was super inconsistent and is somewhat middle of the road.

Garner is probably the most consistent of all, and his consistentcy is held against him. Pollock (majority of career) was really consistent as well, a fact that gets thrown at him like garner.

With lesser bowlers people seem to prize spectacular performances slightly more, even if it means picking someone who is otherwise terrible.

What's the criteria here. You must balance the spectacular and consistency even if it means sacrificing on both (not that the guys at the top do particularly, but I'm conveniently ignoring the completeness of their records)? Why not go full hog and rank either Waqar and garner poles apart? They were magnificent both in their roles and statistically. Was Ambrose a better bowler than garner because he went ape a few times despite under performing the rest of his career? Or was Mcgrath better than Waqar even though he never hit the same heights?
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Waqar's peak was 20 odd matches and 140 wickets and then a lot of mediocrity. McGrath's peak was basically half his career. 64 matches 324 wickets @19. I tend to value sustained peaks more. I've got both Garner and Donald in my top 15 though.
 
B

Bolo

State Captain
trundler said:
Waqar's peak was 20 odd matches and 140 wickets and then a lot of mediocrity. McGrath's peak was basically half his career. 64 matches 324 wickets @19. I tend to value sustained peaks more. I've got both Garner and Donald in my top 15 though.
Click to expand...
Sub out Waqar for imran. Marginally better.

It's really tough to argue against the records of the top 3 in any way, except maybe to say that they aren't Steyn, who comes with a grocery list of unique problems.

With Ambrose though a number of problems are coming in. He was consistently good, but too consistently not effective. Garner might just have the best record of all of them considering he was a change bowler, and I love his consistency, just not sure we saw enough of him.

Just about everything about Donalds record tells me he is a far better bowler than Ambrose, but there is just something about a bowler you can't get on top of
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top