Fast Bowler Survival - 2020 edition

[stephen]

Group E and F Results

Group E

Imran Khan
Michael Holding
George Lohmann
Brian Statham
Shoaib Akhtar
Graham McKenzie
Stuart Broad
Jack Gregory

Group F

Joel Garner
Waqar Younis
Shane Bond
Neil Adcock
Ian Bishop
Terry Alderman
Wayne Daniel
Ken Farnes

Here are the full results from the two groups, with the average ranking of the player next to them:

Group E

Imran Khan	1.75
Michael Holding	1.875
George Lohmann	3.125
Brian Statham	3.875
Shoaib Akhtar	5.625
Graham McKenzie	6.75
Stuart Broad	7.25
Jack Gregory	7.75
Billy Barnes	9
Andrew Flintoff	9.5
Peter Loader	10.5
Peter Siddle	11.125
Bob Woolmer	12.875

Group F

Joel Garner	1.125
Waqar Younis	1.875
Shane Bond	3.5
Neil Adcock	3.75
Ian Bishop	4.75
Terry Alderman	7.375
Wayne Daniel	8.125
Ken Farnes	8.625
Paul Reiffel	9.125
Mohammad Nissar	10
Mohammed Shami	9.75
Dick Motz	11.375
Michael Kasprowicz	12.125

 

[stephen]

Group F had some highly variant views on a number of players. Neither group unanimously ranked a player the same.

What has become clear to me throughout this process is just how many fantastic fast bowlers there are in cricketing history. I remember watching Reiffel as a kid and thinking he was a wonderful bowler and here I am three decades later realising just how many other bowlers were better than him over the years.

 

[Bolo.]

Morkel edging Ntini out is a surprise for me

Ntini was basically a talentless hack. Im not sure any other quick has ever been as dependent on favourable home conditions. Loved his heart and enthusiam, as well as the fact that he really manned up and came right for RSA when the talent pool was empty, and you really have to respect a guy that takes nearly 400 wickets, with his limitations, but he is practically Siddle.

Morkel at least had a lot of talent. He underdelivered, but plenty of that is down to poor management/coaching.

 

[stephen]

Ntini aged like a fine wine. He was completely fodder when he first started but got better and better as time went on. He was the one bowler I really remember managing to get on top of Hayden post 2000 (admittedly only at home). He is underrated because he was so garbage at first.

 

[morgieb]

Ntini aged like a fine wine. He was completely fodder when he first started but got better and better as time went on. He was the one bowler I really remember managing to get on top of Hayden post 2000 (admittedly only at home). He is underrated because he was so garbage at first.

I think the problem with Ntini is that his qualities were kind of intangible and his poor away record hurts him. I don't think of him that highly but he is a bit underappreciated in some quarters.

 

[honestbharani]

Ntini was basically a talentless hack. Im not sure any other quick has ever been as dependent on favourable home conditions. Loved his heart and enthusiam, as well as the fact that he really manned up and came right for RSA when the talent pool was empty, and you really have to respect a guy that takes nearly 400 wickets, with his limitations, but he is practically Siddle.

Morkel at least had a lot of talent. He underdelivered, but plenty of that is down to poor management/coaching.

I would not quite call him a talentless hack. I agree Morkel had more upside but once Ntini got the ability to straighten the ball off his angle for 2 or 3 years he was really really good. Unfortunately there were parts both before and after that phase when he was more one dimensional.

 

[honestbharani]

And stephen, sorry about not voting. I am really finding it hard to have to judge folks just off stats and rank them above one another. Once we are down to the business end, I feel I will be able to call it more easily. Will vote at that time.

 

[stephen]

And stephen, sorry about not voting. I am really finding it hard to have to judge folks just off stats and rank them above one another. Once we are down to the business end, I feel I will be able to call it more easily. Will vote at that time.

Yeah I realise it's hard with so many people nominated that nobody has ever watched. I would still like you to vote though. The more the merrier.

 

[Bolo.]

I would not quite call him a talentless hack. I agree Morkel had more upside but once Ntini got the ability to straighten the ball off his angle for 2 or 3 years he was really really good. Unfortunately there were parts both before and after that phase when he was more one dimensional.

Ya, talentless hack is a very unfair description. He was super dangerous off pitches that had lift and lateral movement, especially in his brief period. But this is a hell of a long list of preconditions. Morkel was at least good on most pitches

 

[stephen]

Ya, talentless hack is a very unfair description. He was super dangerous off pitches that had lift and lateral movement, especially in his brief period. But this is a hell of a long list of preconditions. Morkel was at least good on most pitches

Ntini made the most of limited resources, Morkel squandered a lot of natural ability.

 

[stephen]

Group G and H Results

Group G

Sydney Barnes
Dennis Lillee
Courtney Walsh
John Snow
Bruce Reid
Jack Cowie
Kagiso Rabada
Trent Boult

Group H

Wasim Akram
Fred Trueman
Bob Willis
Pat Cummins
Jeff Thompson
Jason Gillespie
Kapil Dev
Merv Hughes

Here are the full results from the two groups, with the average ranking of the player next to them:

Group G	
	
Sydney Barnes	1.222222222
Dennis Lillee	1.777777778
Courtney Walsh	3.555555556
John Snow	4.333333333
Bruce Reid	6.333333333
Jack Cowie	7.111111111
Kagiso Rabada	7.444444444
Trent Boult	8
Josh Hazlewood	9
Craig McDermott	9.444444444
Frank Foster	10.77777778
Bill Voce	11
Amar Singh	11.66666667
Trevor Goddard	13.33333333
	
Group H	
	
Wasim Akram	1.4
Fred Trueman	1.6
Bob Willis	4.4
Pat Cummins	4.6
Jeff Thompson	4.8
Jason Gillespie	5.5
Kapil Dev	6.4
Merv Hughes	8.2
Peter Heine	9.4
Javagal Srinath	10.5
Geoff Arnold	10.8
Richard Collinge	11.4
Ben Hilfenhaus	12

 

[stephen]

Group G was probably the toughest round of the lot, and it didn't help that it was the one round with the extra bowler in it. Ouch. Very sad to see Hazlewood and McDermott knocked off. Voce probably unlucky as well. Merv Hughes lucky to be in Group H, since I personally don't think he was as good as McDermott (and they were contemporaries).

But that's how the format works.

 

[stephen]

Of the 105 nominated fast bowlers, here are ranks 105 to 65, with their group stages ranking:

105	Trevor Goddard	13.33333333
104	Bob Woolmer	12.875
103	Eddie Barlow	12.33333333
102	Michael Kasprowicz	12.125
101	Arthur Fielder	12
100	Graham Dilley	12
99	Ben Hilfenhaus	12
98	Mohammad Abbas	11.83333333
97	Tony Gray	11.75
96	Peter Lever	11.66666667
95	Amar Singh	11.66666667
94	Richard Collinge	11.4
93	Dick Motz	11.375
92	Patrick Patterson	11.33333333
91	Peter Siddle	11.125
90	Bill Voce	11
89	Geoff Arnold	10.8
88	Jasprit Bumrah	10.77777778
87	Frank Foster	10.77777778
86	John Lever	10.58333333
85	Peter Loader	10.5
84	Javagal Srinath	10.5
83	Ernie Toshack	10.33333333
82	Geoff Lawson	10.33333333
81	Chris Old	10.33333333
80	Bruce Taylor	10.11111111
79	Mohammad Nissar	10
78	Rodney Hogg	9.777777778
77	Kemar Roach	9.75
76	Mohammed Shami	9.75
75	Makhaya Ntini	9.666666667
74	Andrew Flintoff	9.5
73	Craig McDermott	9.444444444
72	Charlie Griffith	9.416666667
71	Peter Heine	9.4
70	Paul Reiffel	9.125
69	Gubby Allen	9.111111111
68	Billy Barnes	9
67	Josh Hazlewood	9
66	Tom Richardson	8.5
65	Ryan Harris	8.333333333

 

[stephen]

Round of 64 Results - Group I and II

These players progress to the round of 32:

Group I

Malcolm Marshall
Alan Davidson
Andy Roberts
Shaun Pollock

Group II

Curtly Ambrose
Allan Donald
George Lohmann
Harold Larwood

Here are the full results:

Group I:

Malcolm Marshall	1
Alan Davidson	2.846153846
Andy Roberts	3
Shaun Pollock	3.538461538
Frank Tyson	5
Neil Wagner	6.461538462
Graham McKenzie	6.461538462
Ted McDonald	7.692307692
	
Group II	
	
Curtly Ambrose	1.076923077
Allan Donald	2.076923077
George Lohmann	3.461538462
Harold Larwood	4.230769231
James Anderson	4.692307692
Vernon Philander	5.923076923
Mitchell Johnson	6.692307692
Ken Farnes	7.846153846

 

[stephen]

Larwood just scraping through ahead of Anderson was probably the tightest race to progress.

Wagner and McKenzie scored exactly the same average rank, which is I believe the first time that's happened in this competition.

One person put Ambrose at number 2, which means he just missed out on the number 1 vote from everyone. Marshall unsurprisingly dominated his field.

 

[stephen]

Round of 64 Results - Group III and IV

These players progress to the round of 32:

Group III

Richard Hadlee
Ray Lindwall
Maurice Tate
Shane Bond

Group IV

Glenn McGrath
Dale Steyn
Courtney Walsh
Wes Hall

Here are the full results:

Richard Hadlee	1
Ray Lindwall	2
Maurice Tate	3.666666667
Shane Bond	5.222222222
Ian Botham	5.333333333
Jeff Thompson	5.444444444
Colin Croft	5.555555556
Merv Hughes	7.777777778
	
Glenn McGrath	1.111111111
Dale Steyn	2.111111111
Courtney Walsh	3
Wes Hall	4.777777778
Ian Bishop	5.111111111
Kapil Dev	5.333333333
Jack Cowie	6.555555556
Wayne Daniel	7.333333333

 

[stephen]

Ok so group III was ridiculous.

Bond, Botham, Thompson and Croft were separated by one ranking point each. Remembering that lower is better, Bond scored a total of 47, Botham 48, Thompson 49 and Croft 50. That is quite unlikely and will probably never happen again. Honestly, those bowlers are very hard to compare. Croft and Bond both had short careers, Botham and Thompson had distinguished careers but both were flawed in one way or another. Crazy round of voting.

 

[ataraxia]

Interesting that Bond got into the next round; this means he'll be far ahead of Wagner, Cowie, and Boult in the rankings.

 

[trundler]

It's weird how people would rate say Davidson over Akram in their lists but in a 1 v 1 comparison the latter will have overwhelming support

 

[stephen]

It's weird how people would rate say Davidson over Akram in their lists but in a 1 v 1 comparison the latter will have overwhelming support

Yeah part of the fun of this exercise is to try and remove a bit of the 1v1 comparisons and rank players a little bit more democratically. The further the exercise develops though, the more accurate it is.