Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

[kyear2]

Top 10

Malcolm Marshall
Dale Steyn
Glenn McGrath
Richard Hadlee
Curtly Ambrose

Fred Trueman
Denis Lillee
Alan Donald
Wasim Akram
Joel Garner

 

[ankitj]

Lack of Imran Khan stands out

 

[Line and Length]

Lack of Imran Khan stands out

Who should he replace in kyear2's list?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Better than any of the bottom 5

 

[Noumenon]

Who should he replace in kyear2's list?

Fred Trueman probably. TBH, can think of a dozen bowlers who could replace him. I mean, how does Trueman get rated ahead of someone like Shaun Pollock who played longer, in more varied conditions, and multiple formats.

 

[ankitj]

Fred Trueman probably. TBH, can think of a dozen bowlers who could replace him. I mean, how does Trueman get rated ahead of someone like Shaun Pollock who played longer, in more varied conditions, and multiple formats.

Trueman stood out quite significantly among his peers. First to take 300 wickets which may not seem like a big landmark now but it was back then.

 

[The Sean]

John Snow was as good a fast bowler as any England have produced, and certainly superior to Anderson and Broad. But 200 wickets in 49 Tests isn't going to get him in this discussion. Had he been around in an era of Central Contracts and only played international cricket without what he considered to be the daily grind of County Cricket, and had he not had run ins with authority, he would have been in the 100 Tests and over 400 wickets bracket. (Yes I know it's the proverbial aunty with balls argument, but just saying he was a great bowler who doesn't get mentioned).

Yeah, widely regarded as England's best fast bowler since Trueman, isn't he? Everyone who saw him or faced him rated him really, really highly.

I've always found Snow to be an interesting one because, as Burgey says, he seems to have been rated exceptionally highly by the men he played with and against, or who saw him close at hand, but frequently overlooked by those who came before or since. Ian Chappell, among many others, has always rated him among the very best, and my dad who is of that same era tells me what a great bowler he was. The problem I guess for those who didn't get to see him in action is that while 200 Test wickets at 26 is a perfectly good record, it's not particularly special enough to make him leap off the historical pages.

The run-ins with authority certainly can't have helped either - meaning that the powers-that-be who so often control the narrative of who we should celebrate and who we shouldn't probably haven't given Snow the profile he deserved.

I remember as well in Tom Graveney's Top Ten cricket book (possibly the book I quote most often on this!), he selected the top ten post war fast bowlers (from 1945-1982, which was when the book was published) - he picked three Englishmen in his top ten, but none of them were John Snow.

 

[Noumenon]

Trueman stood out quite significantly among his peers. First to take 300 wickets which may not seem like a big landmark now but it was back then.

Yes, standing out among peers is quite something but not really the metric to use when comparing across eras. Being the first to 300 wickets is nice but again, not really a useful metric at all when you are comparing across eras. I bothered to look at his stats and he has pedestrian numbers in WI. I try to imagine Anderson in that era who only ever played in 2-3 countries but mostly at home. He'd be claimed as the best ever....erroneously.

Pollock played multiple formats, played in Windies and the subcontinent with outstanding numbers. Doesn't seem fair to ignore all of that because Trueman was first to 300.

 

[Noumenon]

In fact, Trueman's number seem inflated on account of bullying the amateur teams of his era. Average against AUS and in AUS aren't ATG type either.

 

[Victor Ian]

You just don't like it because it's true, man.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yes, standing out among peers is quite something but not really the metric to use when comparing across eras. Being the first to 300 wickets is nice but again, not really a useful metric at all when you are comparing across eras. I bothered to look at his stats and he has pedestrian numbers in WI. I try to imagine Anderson in that era who only ever played in 2-3 countries but mostly at home. He'd be claimed as the best ever....erroneously.

Pollock played multiple formats, played in Windies and the subcontinent with outstanding numbers. Doesn't seem fair to ignore all of that because Trueman was first to 300.

I mean, how well a player played in comparison to their peers is one of the most important metrics when comparing across eras, surely? And if you're not making any adjustment for era and just taking raw numbers, then Trueman took his Test wickets at a way quicker strike rate than Pollock (one of the best in history) and at a better average.

I really like Pollock, but your arguments for him over Trueman are 'played in more countries, took more career wickets' which is basically to say, he played at a different point in history, not he was a better bowler.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've always found Snow to be an interesting one because, as Burgey says, he seems to have been rated exceptionally highly by the men he played with and against, or who saw him close at hand, but frequently overlooked by those who came before or since. Ian Chappell, among many others, has always rated him among the very best, and my dad who is of that same era tells me what a great bowler he was. The problem I guess for those who didn't get to see him in action is that while 200 Test wickets at 26 is a perfectly good record, it's not particularly special enough to make him leap off the historical pages.

The run-ins with authority certainly can't have helped either - meaning that the powers-that-be who so often control the narrative of who we should celebrate and who we shouldn't probably haven't given Snow the profile he deserved.

I remember as well in Tom Graveney's Top Ten cricket book (possibly the book I quote most often on this!), he selected the top ten post war fast bowlers (from 1945-1982, which was when the book was published) - he picked three Englishmen in his top ten, but none of them were John Snow.

Establishment twits like Graveney are not going to pick Snow and are one of the reasons why he didn’t play more. Captain Mike Denness wanted him for the 74/75 Ashes but was overruled by the toffee nosed idiots who were put in charge. The wickets in that series were perfect for him and instead we took decent fast medium bowlers, but no real pace. It was another couple of years before Willis bowled with genuine pace.

 

[Calm_profit]

My Top 10
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Imran Khan
Richard Hadlee
Dale Steyn
Curtly Ambrose
Alan Donald
Wasim Akram
Dennis Lillee
Joel Garner

 

[miscer]

Marshall Ambrose McG Hadlee Lillee Imran Khan Steyn Akram Garner Donald

 

[Victor Ian]

Why Imran Khan? Surely the context of this thread means either Imran or Khan suffice.

 

[Starfighter]

Establishment twits like Graveney are not going to pick Snow and are one of the reasons why he didn’t play more. Captain Mike Denness wanted him for the 74/75 Ashes but was overruled by the toffee nosed idiots who were put in charge. The wickets in that series were perfect for him and instead we took decent fast medium bowlers, but no real pace. It was another couple of years before Willis bowled with genuine pace.

Snow and Swanton have both written that it was Bedser who was responsible for his omission. I always found it somewhat amazing that a former professional (even one from Surrey) could become such as stuck up establishment **** as Bedser did, though of course he wasn't going to weasel his way into influence any other way. I suppose being a business type contributed. I have seen Allen blamed elsewhere, another character whose stature, like Bradman's here, enabled them to do plenty of damage.

 

[Slifer]

Shane Warne Names His Top 10 Fast Bowlers From All Time; No Indian Player In The List

Former Australian legendary spinner Shane Warne on Wednesday named his top 10 fast bowlers of all time. Warne, who picked 1001 international wickets in his 15 years of international cricket, has named 10 speedsters from a different era on his Twitter handle. Warne mentioned that there is no...

www.google.com

Interesting...Also on quite a few other sites, some observers seem bothered that he didn't mention a single Indian. Duh, no Indian fast bowler would come anywhere close to top ten. Maybe Bumrah in the near future .

 

[honestbharani]

Duh, no Indian fast bowler would come anywhere close to top ten. Maybe Bumrah in the near future .

Lol yeah... its not like we had bags of fast bowlers to choose from. Our media as **** as the rest but you just notice it more coz there is so many more of us out there..

 

[Slifer]

Lol yeah... its not like we had bags of fast bowlers to choose from. Our media as **** as the rest but you just notice it more coz there is so many more of us out there..

I also found it curious that he included Jeff Thompson. Anderson isn't top ten but probably got included because Warne knows who his audience is....

 

[kyear2]

I also found it curious that he included Jeff Thompson. Anderson isn't top ten but probably got included because Warne knows who his audience is....

In somewhat fairness to him, he did name a sure top 7 and said the others were tricky.

Think the 7 were

Lillee
Akram
Marshall
McGrath
Ambrose
Steyn
Hadlee

Though none of us would have that exact top 7, hard to argue with the list. And he did say it wasn't in order. ??‍