Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Curtly fear no Wasim. Though actually, Wasim got Ambrose out 8 times whilst Ambrose only got Wasim out 3 times. Clearly Wasim is better.

Akram thrashes McGrath.
There is no way McGrath can revenge Akram in the same manner.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I always knew Aaqib Javed was awesome.

Spot on.
Top order 42.6%
Middle order 31.5%
Tail just 25.9%

Goat?

 

[CricAddict]

Akram thrashes McGrath.
There is no way McGrath can revenge Akram in the same manner.

Duh. One was an all-rounder while the other was not.

 

[Coronis]

Simply more fuel for the 'Wasim feasts on tailenders' narrative. More points for Ambrose.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Nah, both blokes bowling in the same conditions, clear who is the better bowler.

 

[Victor Ian]

View attachment 28337

This just shows Wasim is the more peaceful bowler.

I think I've done this before.

 

[Bolo.]

Dont make it complicated. WPI is the real thing.

You: take a portion of a player's career, which will vary depending on which player I want to big up. Adjust it by Y. Or F(J1). Or maybe 肆. Or all 3. Compare to a completed career. Take stats A,B,C,D, and Q and pick a winner

Me: it is worth looking at the shortcomings of E compared to Q.

You: dont overcomplicate things.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim (and Waqar) were two of the best bowlers for blowing away tailend batsmen. Why exactly is that a bad thing? That is a particular skill that should be given credit.

It doesn't mean Wasim was a poor new ball bowler by ay definition.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You: take a portion of a player's career, which will vary depending on which player I want to big up. Adjust it by Y. Or F(J1). Or maybe 肆. Or all 3. Compare to a completed career. Take stats A,B,C,D, and Q and pick a winner

Me: it is worth looking at the shortcomings of E compared to Q.

You: dont overcomplicate things.

If a pace bowler takes 450 wickets at 16 from 70 tests in a span of 10 years, i will rate him as the best ever irrespective of what happens in the future. Because it is a reasonable longevity for a pace bowler. He might finish his career with 650 wickets at 28.. I dont care.

 

[Zinzan]

My 10 in order at this point of time

1) Marshall
2) Hadlee
3) Ambrose
4) Steyn
5) McGrath
6) Lillee
7) Akram
8) Imran
9) Donald
10) Trueman

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

A finished career is a finished career. Nothing holy about it. Dont give credit for not playing longer.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Akram thrashes McGrath.
There is no way McGrath can revenge Akram in the same manner.

Wasim shouldve averaged so much more with the bat than he did. Such a good looking hitter of the ball. Didnt have Imran's application or he couldve gone down as one of the great all rounder.

 

[honestbharani]

Wasim shouldve averaged so much more with the bat than he did. Such a good looking hitter of the ball. Didnt have Imran's application or he couldve gone down as one of the great all rounder.

Funny how you can almost say the same about his bowling too. He averaged 23 and picked up more than 400 wickets and yet it feels like he underachieved with the ball if you have actually seen him bowl.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Funny how you can almost say the same about his bowling too. He averaged 23 and picked up more than 400 wickets and yet it feels like he underachieved with the ball if you have actually seen him bowl.

With those kind of stats, no other bowler would have been labeled as an underachiever.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wasim (and Waqar) were two of the best bowlers for blowing away tailend batsmen. Why exactly is that a bad thing? That is a particular skill that should be given credit.

Oh that's easy. Because in this context, or any when you're comparing bowlers with similar stats, if one has a much higher percentage of tail end wickets it inevitably means that they are not as good at getting out proper batsmen, which is more valuable. It could also mean that they just bowled a lot more against tail enders, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were better at it.

In a vacuum though it's a great skill, and if you're comparing 2 bowlers identical in every way except one is way better at dismissing the tail then yeah definitely a deciding factor. But that ain't the case here

 

[Gob]

Regardless of the stats, always felt Wasim was comfortably superior to Waqar. Just had more ways of getting wickets

 

[TheJediBrah]

I thought we were doing Akram v Ambrose

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Oh that's easy. Because in this context, or any when you're comparing bowlers with similar stats, if one has a much higher percentage of tail end wickets it inevitably means that they are not as good at getting out proper batsmen, which is more valuable. It could also mean that they just bowled a lot more against tail enders, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were better at it.

In a vacuum though it's a great skill, and if you're comparing 2 bowlers identical in every way except one is way better at dismissing the tail then yeah definitely a deciding factor. But that ain't the case here

Thats because Ambrose career was short.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

and we are not sure yet.. Ambrose can start playing again.. And damage stats to finish his career with an average above 30.
Then we can compare him to someone like Chris Cairns.. Who knows

 

[Prince EWS]

Thats because Ambrose career was short.

Unlike....

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Unlike....

Akram