Rank These 21st Century Pacers

[OverratedSanity]

Rabada massively underrated here. Guy has a sub 23 average with nearly 200 wickets and he is under 25. He is very arguably no. 2 after Steyn.

I was going to like this post and vehemently agree with it saying it'd be stupid to not have him in the top 5 but then I noticed I myself had him below Broad and Johnson in my list for some silly reason. It's definitely easy to forget that he only has like 20 fewer wickets than philander.

 

[stephen]

Australia's lineup was a complete joke. I'd expect you as an Australian fan to remember how dreadful they were. Several orders of magnitude worse than the one in 2010 which itself wasn't good.

They still had Warner and Smith, and had Voges who was still in some decent form. The only substantial difference between that side and the current Australian side batting- wise has been the emergence of Labuschagne. Any side with Warner and Smith in it has half a batting lineup in Australia and with Voges and Burns you had at a minimum four test quality batsmen.

2010 had a much better side on paper but Ponting was well past his best, Watson was not making hay, North was a 1 or 100 player which left the bulk of the run making to Hussey, Clarke and Haddin.

But the real problem Australia had in that series was the bowling. Xavier frigging Doherty was first choice spinner FFS. England's bowling was much better - Tremlett in particular was the chief destroyer but Anderson, Swann, Finn and Bresnan all chipped in.

The main difference between SA 2017 and England 2010 was that Philander won the two games that SA won, while Cook won it for England. You honestly just need to look at the MotS awards which went to Cook and Philander respectively. Equally as fair though is to say that Philander had a much more helpful set of pitches than Anderson (though that Melbourne green top was a disaster).

 

[morgieb]

They still had Warner and Smith, and had Voges who was still in some decent form. The only substantial difference between that side and the current Australian side batting- wise has been the emergence of Labuschagne. Any side with Warner and Smith in it has half a batting lineup in Australia and with Voges and Burns you had at a minimum four test quality batsmen.

2010 had a much better side on paper but Ponting was well past his best, Watson was not making hay, North was a 1 or 100 player which left the bulk of the run making to Hussey, Clarke and Haddin.

But the real problem Australia had in that series was the bowling. Xavier frigging Doherty was first choice spinner FFS. England's bowling was much better - Tremlett in particular was the chief destroyer but Anderson, Swann, Finn and Bresnan all chipped in.

The main difference between SA 2017 and England 2010 was that Philander won the two games that SA won, while Cook won it for England. You honestly just need to look at the MotS awards which went to Cook and Philander respectively. Equally as fair though is to say that Philander had a much more helpful set of pitches than Anderson (though that Melbourne green top was a disaster).

Didn't he get dropped during that series?

 

[Flem274*]

time to start swinging.

longevity is massively overrated on this forum. chris martin had longevity, but you'd be on drugs to pick him over bond or harris.

it's a nice thing to have sure and a credit to the bowler, but you can have a long career for a multitude of reasons. these reasons are often outside your control as well.

assuming even sides barring the opening bowlers, my team containing ryan harris and shane bond (or shoiab if you prefer) will beat the team with broad and anderson in it every single time. they're on another level.

the only thing that matters is effectiveness, and successful sides are maintained through reserve depth rather than pure longevity. even the likes of chris martin and jimmy anderson get injured no matter how long they play (chris martin made a career from being the only fit bowler), and what sustains a side is quality depth.

is it better to be effective and play for ages? yes, which is why dale steyn and glenn mcgrath are the best quick bowlers of my lifetime. but when you have to choose between players lacking in one or the other to varying degrees, you choose maximum effectiveness every single time.

if australia and england reunited into one nation and had harris, anderson, broad, johnson etc available then fitness pending ryan harris is the first name on the bowling card every time with no hesitation.

edit - to delve straight into some hard truths and throw some fire, neil wagner is ten times the bowler of the green top bullies some of you are ranking above him. anyone with the tendency to boo hooooo the ball won't swing for me, the pitch isn't fair and it's hot waaahhhhhhhhhhhh has no business ranking above the motorway specialist (who uses the evil kookaburra no less).

 

[Teja.]

Barely any mentions of Morkel in this thread is interesting. I remember some people arguing Morkel>Broad at the time of his retirement.

Wait I thought we were just rating the bowlers in the OP where Morkel is not mentioned.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Here's a question: if you took a ramdom 20 year old fast bowler and guaranteed them they would play 100 tests no matter what, what average would they end up with?

 

[Prince EWS]

Wait I thought we were just rating the bowlers in the OP where Morkel is not mentioned.

Yeah same.

 

[Pup Clarke]

How about ranking them on each type of surface? e.g your top 3 bowlers for those specific conditions (in chronological order)
Omitting Asif

England - Anderson, Philander, Harris
Green Top - Steyn, Anderson, Philander (really can't omit Bond too)
Australia - Johnson, Harris, Bond
Subcontinent - Steyn, Rabada, Cummins
Road - Cummins, Wagner, Rabada
Misc :Magic Spells (irrespective of conditions) - Broad, Steyn, Johnson

I mean, thats just off the top of my head. So many intangibles obvs

 

[OverratedSanity]

time to start swinging.

longevity is massively overrated on this forum. chris martin had longevity, but you'd be on drugs to pick him over bond or harris.

it's a nice thing to have sure and a credit to the bowler, but you can have a long career for a multitude of reasons. these reasons are often outside your control as well.

assuming even sides barring the opening bowlers, my team containing ryan harris and shane bond (or shoiab if you prefer) will beat the team with broad and anderson in it every single time. they're on another level.

the only thing that matters is effectiveness, and successful sides are maintained through reserve depth rather than pure longevity. even the likes of chris martin and jimmy anderson get injured no matter how long they play (chris martin made a career from being the only fit bowler), and what sustains a side is quality depth.

is it better to be effective and play for ages? yes, which is why dale steyn and glenn mcgrath are the best quick bowlers of my lifetime. but when you have to choose between players lacking in one or the other to varying degrees, you choose maximum effectiveness every single time.

if australia and england reunited into one nation and had harris, anderson, broad, johnson etc available then fitness pending ryan harris is the first name on the bowling card every time with no hesitation.

edit - to delve straight into some hard truths and throw some fire, neil wagner is ten times the bowler of the green top bullies some of you are ranking above him. anyone with the tendency to boo hooooo the ball won't swing for me, the pitch isn't fair and it's hot waaahhhhhhhhhhhh has no business ranking above the motorway specialist (who uses the evil kookaburra no less).

The entire issue with longevity vs supposed "quality" is that people compare the average quality over player A's 15 year career with the average quality over player B's 2 year career. Instead, you should compare player A's 2 year peak vs player B's two year career.

There's really no basis for saying Harris >Anderson because anderson has multiple 27 match runs similar or better than what Harris managed.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wait I thought we were just rating the bowlers in the OP where Morkel is not mentioned.

I guess so. He's the strangest omission from harsh's 12 for sure.

 

[Teja.]

I guess so. He's the strangest omission from harsh's 12 for sure.

I guess. Zaheer, Shami, Southee, Boult, Siddle, Lee, Ntini, Akthar off the top of my head. I'm probably missing half a dozen names who also would be in if it was an exhaustive 21st century thing.

McG/Pollock could possibly count as 21st century as well.

 

[Teja.]

time to start swinging.

longevity is massively overrated on this forum. chris martin had longevity, but you'd be on drugs to pick him over bond or harris.

it's a nice thing to have sure and a credit to the bowler, but you can have a long career for a multitude of reasons. these reasons are often outside your control as well.

assuming even sides barring the opening bowlers, my team containing ryan harris and shane bond (or shoiab if you prefer) will beat the team with broad and anderson in it every single time. they're on another level.

the only thing that matters is effectiveness, and successful sides are maintained through reserve depth rather than pure longevity. even the likes of chris martin and jimmy anderson get injured no matter how long they play (chris martin made a career from being the only fit bowler), and what sustains a side is quality depth.

is it better to be effective and play for ages? yes, which is why dale steyn and glenn mcgrath are the best quick bowlers of my lifetime. but when you have to choose between players lacking in one or the other to varying degrees, you choose maximum effectiveness every single time.

if australia and england reunited into one nation and had harris, anderson, broad, johnson etc available then fitness pending ryan harris is the first name on the bowling card every time with no hesitation.

edit - to delve straight into some hard truths and throw some fire, neil wagner is ten times the bowler of the green top bullies some of you are ranking above him. anyone with the tendency to boo hooooo the ball won't swing for me, the pitch isn't fair and it's hot waaahhhhhhhhhhhh has no business ranking above the motorway specialist (who uses the evil kookaburra no less).

I'm not contesting your broader point at all if your criteria for rating a bowler as the best is choosing them in a XI tbh. I'm not going to pick Broad over Bond in a XI to play.

The default criteria for me for who is a greater bowler is the far more convoluted question is the comparative value they would add over their career to the average test side.

We're not disagreeing at all. We're just answering different questions.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not contesting your broader point at all if your criteria for rating a bowler as the best is choosing them in a XI tbh. I'm not going to pick Broad over Bond in a XI to play.

The default criteria for me for who is a greater bowler is the far more convoluted question is the comparative value they would add over their career to the average test side.

We're not disagreeing at all. We're just answering different questions.

why are you so reasonable to discuss cricket with ffs?

 

[Shri]

I am just glad that Line and Length wasn't a member here when england and india played tests in india. He'd ****ing hate me with me calling him clouderson all the time.

 

[harsh.ag]

I guess so. He's the strangest omission from harsh's 12 for sure.

Stuart Clark I thought I would/should get most grief over, probably deservedly.

I guess. Zaheer, Shami, Southee, Boult, Siddle, Lee, Ntini, Akthar off the top of my head. I'm probably missing half a dozen names who also would be in if it was an exhaustive 21st century thing.

McG/Pollock could possibly count as 21st century as well.

Lee-Ntini-Akhtar debuted in the 20th century.

Made the thread on a whim, really.

 

[Flem274*]

The entire issue with longevity vs supposed "quality" is that people compare the average quality over player A's 15 year career with the average quality over player B's 2 year career. Instead, you should compare player A's 2 year peak vs player B's two year career.

There's really no basis for saying Harris >Anderson because anderson has multiple 27 match runs similar or better than what Harris managed.

this is just a really long way of saying you want to lose games of cricket outside england

 

[stephen]

Didn't he get dropped during that series?

He had form going into the series. Got dropped after two poor tests.

 

[DriveClub]

He had form going into the series. Got dropped after two poor tests.

Who did Callum Ferguson replace in the 2nd test, I thought he replaced Voges...

 

[morgieb]

Who did Callum Ferguson replace in the 2nd test, I thought he replaced Voges...

Mitch Marsh.

 

[Line and Length]

I am just glad that Line and Length wasn't a member here when england and india played tests in india. He'd ****ing hate me with me calling him clouderson all the time.

Hate is a harsh word. I don't hate people though I might disagree with their views/opinions - sometimes over-zealously.