Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

[Engle]

1. Has anyone noticed that of the top 10 bowlers selected, most of them are from 1970's onwards ?

2. Marshall may be argued to be a better bowler than Barnes in absolute terms, but relatively speaking Barnes stood out further amongst his peers than Marshall did of his.

 

[TheJediBrah]

2. Marshall may be argued to be a better bowler than Barnes in absolute terms, but relatively speaking Barnes stood out further amongst his peers than Marshall did of his.

If I understood the stats just posted, discounting minnows, Barnes didn't actually stand out further among his peers than Marshall

 

[stephen]

Ambrose is top 5. Very different bowler to Marshall and it's hard to split them. Marshall edges ahead for me though because he did more with the ball than Ambrose.

If rather face Marshall though. I'd be afraid of being killed by Ambrose if I wasn't good enough to nick one first ball.

 

[stephen]

1. Has anyone noticed that of the top 10 bowlers selected, most of them are from 1970's onwards ?

2. Marshall may be argued to be a better bowler than Barnes in absolute terms, but relatively speaking Barnes stood out further amongst his peers than Marshall did of his.

Modern (post-70s) fast bowlers have a few advantages over older ones. Lower over rate requirements, more professionalism and better sports science has done wonders for the pace and durability of pace bowlers. This has lead to longer and more productive careers for the fastest bowlers. Pre-WWII the pitches and playing conditions were more suited to slightly slower bowlers who did a bit with the ball.

Having said that, Lindwall, Truman, Miller and Davidson are often talked about as being top 20 material, even with recency bias.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It’s actually quite comical to see Trueman in the Top 10 of some posters. Not because he shouldn’t be there, but considering he played over 70 per cent of his Tests in England and actually did, unlike Lillee, deliberately snub tours of the Sub Continent it’s strange to see him there.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Ambrose is top 5. Very different bowler to Marshall and it's hard to split them. Marshall edges ahead for me though because he did more with the ball than Ambrose.

If rather face Marshall though. I'd be afraid of being killed by Ambrose if I wasn't good enough to nick one first ball.

More likely to be killed by Marshall tbh. Had a head-hunting bouncer.

 

[Uppercut]

Often lesser batsman could not even edge a catch. Hence was born the classic Sydney Barnes story, of the occasion when two tailenders played, missed and, once in a while snicked, without managing to be dismissed.
Barnes stalked away at the end of the over grumbling: “They aren’t batting well enough to get out.”

We don't talk enough about how much more difficult bowling was before the invention of stumps.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not forgetting boundary ropes where batsman could run 15 while the ball was being retrieved from a pond.

 

[Bolo.]

Why can't Ambrose be the best fast bowler of time - he was mean, he was fast, and he dominated batsmen, was dubbed as the most difficult fast bowler Or bowler to face by most batsmen of his era - a huge adding to his stats is the fact that barring Courtney Walsh there were not many bowlers he had to make pressure from the other end, no good spinner -- as West Indies during his time also had started to get weakened he didn't have too many big scores to defend either which also adds up to the pressure upon the batsman, given all that i think Ambrose was in incredibly better position than most perhaps only other great bowler that can be compared in this regard (playing in a weaker side) could be Richard hadlee.

He is just a little too similar to Mcgrath for me, who was more effective. The difference between them is tiny, but clear to me in a way that does not apply to someone like Marshall, who I rate ahead of Mcgrath, but could much more easily rank behind Ambrose.

Anyway, pretty much nobody rates him far from the top of the list and nobody is much better than him (leaving aside the Barnes question which we cant really answer).

 

[Anil]

marshall
ambrose
garner
hadlee
khan
akram
lillee
mcgrath
donald
steyn

 

[subshakerz]

My top 10:

1. Marshall - all the tools, all the skills, near flawless record, plus near universal recognition as the best pacer of his time (mid to late 80s). Leading the greatest pace attack in history, he averaged 6 wickets a test at his peak!

2. McGrath - unbelievable consistency in a tough era for pacers. Perhaps the most intelligent pace bowler of all time in identifying weaknesses. Only loses out to Marshall for lack of pace which was an added asset for Marshall

3. Hadlee - A near complete bowler and tremendous matchwinner. The only possible blot on his record would be a sub-optimal performance in his only series in the West Indies at their peak. Very close between him and McGrath

4. Ambrose - No bowler was as capable of routine destruction as Ambrose from 90 - 94. Hardly ever bowled a poor ball, but compared to McGrath and Hadlee, Ambrose was a bit more one-dimensional and lacked their tactical intelligence, which meant his latter years he was not quite as penetrative.

5. Imran Khan - Imran achieved arguably the greatest peak of any pacer ever in the mid-80s. Mighty performances everywhere and especially against the West Indies. Would have ranked higher but his latter years as more of a part-time bowler weakened his record a bit.

6. Dale Steyn - A modern day wonder who produced matchwinning performances in virtually every series he played for his peak. However, compared to others, I felt Dale Steyn was more capable of off-color performances and being dominated.

7. Dennis Lillee - Great overall record but points taken away for being unproven in the subcontinent and West Indies, but deserves a high rank for universal peer recognition of his time.

8. Wasim Akram - In the 90s, he was recognized as the best pacer along with Ambrose, and his reputation has only grew with time. Perhaps the most skilled swing bowler of all but lacked penetration in his early and latter years which made his record suffer compared to others.

9. Allan Donald - Fast, deadly, but lacking in global impact performances, but the best bowler of the late 90s for sure.

10. Fred Trueman - England's greatest pacer ever.

 

[Slifer]

Ambrose is top 5. Very different bowler to Marshall and it's hard to split them. Marshall edges ahead for me though because he did more with the ball than Ambrose.

If rather face Marshall though. I'd be afraid of being killed by Ambrose if I wasn't good enough to nick one first ball.

Personally , I'd rather race Ambrose than Marshall. Marshall around the wicket....enough said !!

 

[Gob]

Personally , I'd rather race Ambrose than Marshall. Marshall around the wicket....enough said !!

I'd personally race both of them as opposite to Imran Tahir

 

[stephen]

More likely to be killed by Marshall tbh. Had a head-hunting bouncer.

Yeah but Marshall will have me bowled first ball. Ambrose will beat the edge and then bounce me.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I believe you. What insane fizz off the deck here. Top-order batsmen caught halfway through their strokes.

 

[Jack1]

Very interesting context. Maybe this Barnes guy wasn't as good as everyone assumes based on stats. The first minnow basher

Overall he took 7 wickets per game and averaged 16.43 in 27 tests. When you bear in mind only 4 players in test history with over 50 wickets average less with the ball and only 5 bowlers in total have averaged over 6 wickets per game then it puts it more into context especially when 27 tests is a good number of games. Barnes did have amazing stats vs SA, but he averaged 21.58 against Australia with over 5 wickets per game. Only 20 bowlers in test history average with 50+ wickets average over 5 wickets per game - he was bashing Australia too mate.

On an off topic note I did notice Murali on 6.02 per game compared to Warne with 4.88 - never checked that before all things considered kinda turns the screw somewhat on Warne when Murali averaged 22.73 compared to 25.42 for Warne, who played in a much stronger team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

On an off topic note I did notice Murali on 6.02 per game compared to Warne with 4.88 - never checked that before all things considered kinda turns the screw somewhat on Warne when Murali averaged 22.73 compared to 25.42 for Warne, who played in a much stronger team.

?
of course Murali is going to take way more wickets per match than Warne, he bowled like half his teams overs and had no competition for wickets lol. I'm surprised it's not more.

oh always up for turning "Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers" into Warne v Murali

 

[Migara]

Overall he took 7 wickets per game and averaged 16.43 in 27 tests.

We pointed that out this is due to him manhandling / arse raping or what ever adjective you want - the south africans who were woeful minnows.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I thought the purpose of the Barnes stats was to compare them to his peers at the time rather than guessing how bad the opposition were. Someone who can be bothered with such things would need to compare stats of other bowlers of the era against the same opposition.

 

[Jayro]

I wonder if a player,playing for a very strong unit of bowling with having huge scores to defend if they also had a very strong batting line up also, would benefit from all the pressure it would wreak on the opposition - take from example of someone like Richard Hadlee was playing in a champion team like late- ninties Aussies what average would he have, could it be still lower which could bring him at par with someone like Marshall?