Rank These 21st Century Pacers

[TheJediBrah]

Hate is a harsh word

yes a lot of people do hate Harsh but as a mod that comes with the territory

 

[Shri]

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

For future reference, when I do it, I am mostly trying to windup gimh, marcuss and furball. Sometimes sledger but he hasn't taken the bait yet.

 

[andruid]

Makes me shed a tear thinking how much a Lost opportunity Mohammed Amir was :sad:

 

[ankitj]

Amir returned and has been just ok. Asif was the real lost opportunity. Had more control and guile than Amir.

 

[andruid]

Amir returned and has been just ok. Asif was the real lost opportunity. Had more control and guile than Amir.

True, but imagine if Amir had spent those 6 or so years honing his skillset instead of rotting in jail.

 

[ankitj]

True, but imagine if Amir had spent those 6 or so years honing his skillset instead of rotting in jail.

That's hypothetical. I think Asif's case is more straightforward. He was destined to average sub 25 and take 300+ wickets

 

[Daemon]

True, but imagine if Amir had spent those 6 or so years honing his skillset instead of rotting in jail.

I think it was 6 months they served.

Asif and Butt were still doing well after they came back to the domestic scene last I checked.

 

[smash84]

Amir returned and has been just ok. Asif was the real lost opportunity. Had more control and guile than Amir.

This

 

[weldone]

1. Dale Steyn
2. Vernon Philander
3. James Anderson
4. Kagiso Rabada
5. Mitchell Johnson
6. Stuart Broad
7. Pat Cummins
8. Mohd Asif
9. Ryan Harris
10. Neil Wagner
11. Jasprit Bumrah
12. Shane Bond

That sounds about right, although Rabada, Cummins and Bumrah will keep moving up or down through the list in the coming years.

 

[Howe_zat]

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).

Even taking the assumption that 'Harris' best is better than Anderson's best, and the only thing Anderson has is playing more tests' as completely correct - which I don't think it is - this kind of argument still doesn't hold water. To take this thinking to its logical outcome, you may as well just rank the best performances, not best players, and someone who played one test, took 10/0 and then disappeared forever would be the best bowler of all time.

Clearly you do value longevity to some extent, or you wouldn't especially care for Ryan Harris and his best test figures of 7/117. Everyone has the line somewhere of course but I feel like a lot of people tend to place that line in a position that just happens to exclude the players they don't like, and I can certainly see it happening in this thread.

 

[Flem274*]

no, you are dragging 'logical outcomes' to the extreme that paints your opinion as best.

in a real world situation where you are presented with ryan harris and james anderson for a test series and you can only select one, the correct choice is ryan harris unless the series is in england (which makes it even).

 

[JOJOXI]

I do have sympathy for Anderson, I really do rate him - am I picking him over Steyn no chance but you look at someone like a Philander who has nothing more then a decent record in Australia and Bangladesh and a poor record in India and Sri Lanka. From the start of Philander's career to the end of it, Anderson averages less then 1.5 runs more away from home (and that is with Philander bowling in England helping his away stats) and has a far superior record in Asia - averages over 10 runs per wicket less then Philander in the region over that time period. This isn't so much arguing Anderson over Philander although I would probably put him above Philander but more that it seems weird there is such a vast difference in opinion on the two for many. Yes this time period also cherrypicks one of the better parts of Anderson's career but that is an 88 match run of games much longer then the Test careers of many on this list.

I think longevitiy matters but with the context that someone playing 17 years for England is going to play more Tests then someone playing 17 years for New Zealand or West Indies - the fact England play more Tests shouldn't be used against a Kiwi or West Indian bowler. However, it is definetly much more then just playing more Tests per year when comparing to a bowler with a 20/30 match Test career. That isn't to say I don't think a bowler can be better then Anderson with a much shorter career but for me the onus is on them to be substantially 'better'

This would be my order for these bowlers rating more recent bowlers on their career to date not the likes of Cummins or Rabada's fault that they haven't had a full career yet but if they were to retire tomorrow my list might change and trying to be unbiased but of course being based in the UK and following West Indies and England Tests more closely - keep up to date with most other Tests but highlights/scorecards not quite the same might skew things.

1) Dale Steyn
2) Pat Cummins
3) Kagiso Rabada
4) James Anderson
5) Vernon Philander
6) Ryan Harris
7) Stuart Broad
8) Mohammad Asif
9) Mitchell Johnson
10)Neil Wagner


I didn't actually ask and only thought of this after making this list but I presumed this was a Test-only list, Shane Bond probably gets not only into this top 10 but really high in it if we are including Limited Overs stuff but Bond has a small sample size in Test format only played 4 more Tests then Bumrah and only 2 in Asia. Would personally like Bumrah to bowl in a few more Tests before rating him but I'm probably putting him somewhere in lower midtable if I was pushed to position him. Steyn an ATG, Cummins I think will be regarded as that sooner then later if he stays fit. Rabada's series recently v England I think has slightly hurt my perception of him but it was just one series and I fancy Rabada's chances of being seen as an ATG given he has just turned 25.

 

[TheJediBrah]

no, you are dragging 'logical outcomes' to the extreme that paints your opinion as best.

in a real world situation where you are presented with ryan harris and james anderson for a test series and you can only select one, the correct choice is ryan harris unless the series is in england (which makes it even).

Can't really argue with this, it's just a fact. But there's clearly not going to be an objective answer as to who is "better".

On balance, Harris who played Test cricket was much better than Anderson who played Test cricket. However if Harris played since he was the same age as Anderson he'd have much worse stats than he ended up with. He benefited from only playing in his peak. Anderson had a better career.

These are also facts. But who was the "better" bowler is subjective.

 

[honestbharani]

But who had the better career is not subjective, right? And that is what a lot of the ATG discussions ultimately boil down to, coz at least there is a level of objectivity to it, which, even if not complete, makes it a more apples to apples discussion.

 

[ankitj]

This is why longevity matters. Else you have lot of flash in the pan cricketers finishing with ATG stats because of just when they got picked to play. A short career indicates a lack of ability to sustain good performances for long.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But who had the better career is not subjective, right?

I literally just said this:

Anderson had a better career.
These are also facts.

So no I don't think it is subjective

Hard to have a better career than 600 wickets. It's not like Harris won a bunch of World Cups and Ashes series either, which I would give "career points" to. He mostly lost Ashes series and didn't even play in a World Cup from what I recall.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is why longevity matters. Else you have lot of flash in the pan cricketers finishing with ATG stats because of just when they got picked to play. A short career indicates a lack of ability to sustain good performances for long.

This is not necessarily true at all. Plenty of Aus cricketers of the 90s and 00s having short/non-existant careers is the result of being blocked by an ATG team.

Stuart MacGill is a great example. While his career wasn't necessarily "short" chronologically, but he would probably have taken 500+ wickets and be talked about as an ATG at any other time period.

For Ryan Harris it is true though. He was a late bloomer and was made of glass, and it's perfectly reasonable to hold that against him. It would be weird not to take it into consideration. Flem's question about who you would pick between Anderson and Harris in a hypothetical series where both are fit is still a good one, but should not be regarded as a definitive measure of who was "better".

 

[_00_deathscar]

Of course longevity is important - it's why Jimmy Anderson, who no one really loves on this forum, is objectively better than Mitchell Johnson.

Now, if you could pick a player only from a very specific point in time, sure - but that's not the question.

 

[Bolo.]

no, you are dragging 'logical outcomes' to the extreme that paints your opinion as best.

in a real world situation where you are presented with ryan harris and james anderson for a test series and you can only select one, the correct choice is ryan harris unless the series is in england (which makes it even).

If you actually commited to what you are saying instead of applying it selectively, Bumrah would be topping your list instead of sitting near the bottom.

And in the real world, you would be presented with a choice between playing a firing Harris in 20% of matches, and a busted knees/medium pace etc. version in the rest.

Not that this is uniquely a Harris/Anderson issue. Steyn aside, this list is basically a juggling act between quality in average performance and longevity, with the bowlers who perfomed the best per match having had the shortest careers. Ranking them is not so much an exercise in rating quality as it is in prioritising quality relative to longevity.

 

[Howe_zat]

no, you are dragging 'logical outcomes' to the extreme that paints your opinion as best.

in a real world situation where you are presented with ryan harris and james anderson for a test series and you can only select one, the correct choice is ryan harris unless the series is in england (which makes it even).

In a real world situation where you are presented with both Harris and Anderson for a test series and can only pick one, well... that's not a real world situation at all, is it?

The closet we might get to this is picking players at one stage in their careers, that happens to overlap at one time. In that case, you take form, fitness and conditions into the equation as well as the rest of the team, so it's guesswork, but I'll have a go. There are times when I could very justifiably have picked Harris over Anderson - such as in 2013 for the return series in Australia, or a little while after. I probably would have picked Harris to tour the UAE in 2012, but I'd have been wrong because Anderson was great on that tour. Most of the rest of the time, like when early Anderson was cementing his place against NZ in 2008 while Harris was in grade cricket, or for most of the last five years when Harris was retired, I'd definately pick Anderson and it's not close.

In the case of these two specifically, for the majority of their careers, Anderson has been a better bowler than Harris and that's especially when I look at their stats, not when I ignore them. If you want to treat Harris' 27 test run as evidence of superiority then why not one of several equal or better 27 test runs of Anderson's? The 27 tests where Harris played Tests are the best thing he ever did so why compare that to a 150-test career and expect them to be equivalent? Anderson has in the course of his career had some pretty shoddy tours, he's also had series winning tours to Australia, South Africa and India that are at least as good if not better than anything Harris did.

In general, it's nonsense to take a bowler's career average as the full story of how good they were at any point in time and I think you know that.