Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Top order wicket Myth

Akram first 13 years ( adjusted to 179 innings)

Batsmen 1 to 5
Ambrose 227 wickets
Akram 219 wickets

Batsmen 6-7
Ambrose 66 wickets
Akram 65 wickets

Batsmen 8-11
Ambrose 112 wickets
Akram 162 wickets

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

if we are going down this road, there is also the famous Pak home umpiring that gave his LBW counts a double booster shot.

Actually.. He lost more LBWs to Umpire's Misjudgment than most bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

Well nothing wrong at all with Wasim as a top 10 or higher bowler I reckon. Personally he’s up around there for me, not quite top tier, but will make most of my All Time XI’s for his batting and the variety to the bowling he brings.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Actually.. He lost more LBWs to Umpire's Misjudgment than most bowlers.

You know that for sure, don't you?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Actually.. He lost more LBWs to Umpire's Misjudgment than most bowlers.

haha riiiiiiight

Top order wicket Myth

Akram first 13 years ( adjusted to 179 innings)

Batsmen 1 to 5
Ambrose 227 wickets
Akram 219 wickets

Batsmen 6-7
Ambrose 66 wickets
Akram 65 wickets

Batsmen 8-11
Ambrose 112 wickets
Akram 162 wickets

This indicates that Akram signficantly more tail-enders out, I would say that's potentially a mark against him

 

[Daemon]

Top order wicket Myth

Akram first 13 years ( adjusted to 179 innings)

Batsmen 1 to 5
Ambrose 227 wickets
Akram 219 wickets

Batsmen 6-7
Ambrose 66 wickets
Akram 65 wickets

Batsmen 8-11
Ambrose 112 wickets
Akram 162 wickets

Not sure this proves what you set out to prove...

 

[Slifer]

You mean Ambrose peak 13 years vs Akram's Whole career?

No I mean the actual 100 odd tests that Akram played where he took wickets at a much higher average than Ambrose, a worse SR and less WPM. Not this projected/adjusted fantasy stuff...

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

haha riiiiiiight

This indicates that Akram signficantly more tail-enders out, I would say that's potentially a mark against him

WHAT?
Taking more wickets is a good thing AFIK

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Not sure this proves what you set out to prove...

What i can see is,
Both are equally good in dismissing top order, while Ambrose is less efficient against tail enders.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

No I mean the actual 100 odd tests that Akram played where he took wickets at a much higher average than Ambrose, a worse SR and less WPM. Not this projected/adjusted fantasy stuff...

This is cherry picking.
How can you compare 13 year career to 19 year career? Obviously longer career numbers suffer from this.

Also, WPI gives you a clearer picture, not that conveniently selected WPM.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Akram vs Ambrose

Myth - Akram feast on tail enders

Fact - Akram and Ambrose are about equal in getting top order, Akram significantly better against tail enders. ( first 13 years)

Myth - Ambrose's WPM is better than Akram's
Fact - even after playing 18 long years Akram's WPI is still better than Ambrose's.

 

[trundler]

Percentages can be deceptive in this regard because it could just mean one bowler is better at getting tailenders out provided he has a higher WPM as the tailend wickets are in addition to the top order wickets and hence ruin the raw percentage. Dunno if that's the case here but it's a valid argument.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Percentages can be deceptive in this regard because it could just mean one bowler is better at getting tailenders out provided he has a higher WPM as the tailend wickets are in addition to the top order wickets and hence ruin the raw percentage. Dunno if that's the case here but it's a valid argument.

Exactly,That is the case here. ( when comparing first 13 years )

 

[NotMcKenzie]

It hasn't necessarily been demonstrated, though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Exactly,That is the case here. ( when comparing first 13 years )

No it's not, because you "adjusted to 179 innings" whatever that means. Unless Wasim took wickets at a significantly better average than Ambrose in that period then all it demonstrates is he got worse batsmen out on average than Ambrose. It would indicate the opposite of what you want it to

 

[Prince EWS]

No it's not, because you "adjusted to 179 innings" whatever that means. Unless Wasim took wickets at a significantly better average than Ambrose in that period then all it demonstrates is he got worse batsmen out on average than Ambrose. It would indicate the opposite of what you want it to

This.

 

[Victor Ian]

Forget the rest of what PFK has stated, but I think there might be something to using WPI instead of WPM. Yeah/Nah?

 

[Prince EWS]

Forget the rest of what PFK has stated, but I think there might be something to using WPI instead of WPM. Yeah/Nah?

Strike rate is clearly a better metric for what people are trying to measure here, but that leaves them with one less stat to manipulate when it suits them so you end up with this sort of nonsense.

If you wanted to show that someone shouldered a heavier load then "percentage of overs" would be the stat to use for that, but so few people care about it that cricinfo doesn't even supply it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There are always better metrics than WPM. I don't rate it as anything ever. It's essentially meaningless as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Starfighter]

Forget the rest of what PFK has stated, but I think there might be something to using WPI instead of WPM. Yeah/Nah?

Nah. Really not a fan of WPM, and if anything WPI would be even more prone to things like tactical variation and team composition.

And those 'adjusted' figures mean nothing. I know it's acceptable to statistically massage data to fit agendas the days, but it doesn't make it any less dishonest.

That said I've been round this rodeo before with that poster and I ain't doing it again. None of his slicing and dicing has a shred of validity.