Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

[Victor Ian]

That's a bit unfair. Curtly was about 25 on test debut. He probably had to wait to get his chance due to the riches of bowling talent in his team.

So it is not right that he has to play beyond his retirement to have the same career length. We should imagine how a debut 5 years earlier would have affected his stats. He would have had time to master his craft so that his best years were even more menacing.

 

[Prince EWS]

Akram

oh.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That's a bit unfair. Curtly was about 25 on test debut. He probably had to wait to get his chance due to the riches of bowling talent in his team.

So it is not right that he has to play beyond his retirement to have the same career length. We should imagine how a debut 5 years earlier would have affected his stats. He would have had time to master his craft so that his best years were even more menacing.

Winston Davis played 15 tests or so.. In the said period.

 

[Jack1]

Winston Davis played 15 tests or so.. In the said period.

Winston Davis played 15 tests or so.. In the said period.

Ok

 

[Coronis]

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

Hey if Ambrose makes a comeback after 21 years away from tests and is still capable of taking wickets, he’ll only rise up my list.

 

[Gob]

I thought we were doing Akram v Ambrose

Oh Curtly was way better. Way way better

 

[Gob]

That's a bit unfair. Curtly was about 25 on test debut. He probably had to wait to get his chance due to the riches of bowling talent in his team.

From what I've heard, he wasn't in to cricket until he was well in to his teens. He preferred basketball but his mom was a cricket fanatic and basically made him take up cricket and his rise from there was meteoric

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hey if Ambrose makes a comeback after 21 years away from tests and is still capable of taking wickets, he’ll only rise up my list.

We are minority here.

 

[Victor Ian]

From what I've heard, he wasn't in to cricket until he was well in to his teens. He preferred basketball but his mom was a cricket fanatic and basically made him take up cricket and his rise from there was meteoric

Id never heard this one. It's pretty remarkable, if true.

 

[Slifer]

From what I've heard, he wasn't in to cricket until he was well in to his teens. He preferred basketball but his mom was a cricket fanatic and basically made him take up cricket and his rise from there was meteoric

True story

 

[Slifer]

Id never heard this one. It's pretty remarkable, if true.

 

[Gob]

Id never heard this one. It's pretty remarkable, if true.

Around 2 min 30 seconds mark

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

From what I've heard, he wasn't in to cricket until he was well in to his teens. He preferred basketball but his mom was a cricket fanatic and basically made him take up cricket and his rise from there was meteoric

Donald was stopped by external issues.
Cant say that about Ambrose.

 

[Gob]

Donald was stopped by external issues.
Cant say that about Ambrose.

What's the point?

At the end Ambrose ended up with 400 plus wickets which is more than enough to tick the longevity box from which ever angle you chose to look at

 

[Bolo.]

I only thought so far as 'Wickets-per-Match would be easier for teams that get to bowl twice more often'.
Then pews reminded me of strike rate, so no need to explore this any further.

Wickets/Run per match are interesting, but I think the regular stats tell the most reliable story.

Big fan of SR, but you need something beyond SR to seperate a Hadlee (who bowled a ton of donkey overs and saw his SR suffer as a result) from a Philander (who was reluctant to bowl other than at the most opportune moments).

WPI, WPM, % of team overs, % of middle order wickets. All different strengths and limitations

Hey if Ambrose makes a comeback after 21 years away from tests and is still capable of taking wickets, he’ll only rise up my list.

5 fer on comeback? Still an inferior bowler to Traicos.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

What's the point?

At the end Ambrose ended up with 400 plus wickets which is more than enough to tick the longevity box from which ever angle you chose to look at

Yes. He played enough. 13 years. Thats a pretty good career for a pacer.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Oh Curtly was way better. Way way better

Why?

 

[Gob]

Why?

More memorable spells with the red ball (name Wasim's great spells when he ran through top orders. Not a dig I just can't remember many) and better stats over all

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

More memorable spells with the red ball (name Wasim's great spells when he ran through top orders. Not a dig I just can't remember many) and better stats over all

Ambrose has more match winning performances.
In Akram's defense, played fewer matches in his prime, and destruction god Waqar being the partner is not going to help either. Not to mention garbage fielding.
Still its super scary Ambrose.

Akram has better stats, only that his longevity ruined it.

Ambrose vs Akram.. Bit like Tyson vs Ali.. I think

 

[smash84]

Akram has more man of the match awards I think (not sure how many due to his batting though), but Ambrose had better ability to run through sides.

Which is why Imran > Akram as the greatest pak fast bowler, because he had that ability to run through sides.