CW's Ranking of Pace Bowlers (Tests)

[The Sean]

Do we massively underrate James Anderson because of his longevity - that is, is there an assumption that his achievements are disproportionately due to a long career and spamming Tests as opposed to quality?

In a run of 11.5 years from June 2010 to December 2021, he took 478 wickets at 23.7 (22 at home, 27 away, 20 neutral).

In seven-and-a-half years from July 2014 to December 2021 he took 275 wickets at 21.24 (20 at home, 24 away, 16 neutral).

It may well just be me, but I feel like he deserves a lot more credit. I've not voted for either of them here as it would have been a wasted vote due to the Roberts/Pollock dominance of this round's voting, but I reckon I'd have both Walsh and Jimmy ahead of both Pollock and Roberts.

Just one guy's opinion, obviously.

 

[The Sean]

Pollock is the only bowler in history who averaged under 25 after 50 tests.

Should that be 20? A lot of blokes have averaged sub-25.

 

[The Sean]

A note on Fred Spofforth, too. I'd have him clearly ahead of any of the blokes we're talking about now, but as with the batting list I'm avoiding picking anyone who played all or most of their career in the 19th century. This may be a bit harsh on him if the likes of Lohmann and Turner still get considered for the medium-pacers list (Spofforth wasn't genuinely fast for the most part, but he was quicker than them so probably doesn't qualify).

It might mean that Fred gets left somewhat in limbo at the end of it all, so I wanted to give him a mention.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Do we massively underrate James Anderson because of his longevity - that is, is there an assumption that his achievements are disproportionately due to a long career and spamming Tests as opposed to quality?

In a run of 11.5 years from June 2010 to December 2021, he took 478 wickets at 23.7 (22 at home, 27 away, 20 neutral).

In seven-and-a-half years from July 2014 to December 2021 he took 275 wickets at 21.24 (20 at home, 24 away, 16 neutral).

It may well just be me, but I feel like he deserves a lot more credit. I've not voted for either of them here as it would have been a wasted vote due to the Roberts/Pollock dominance of this round's voting, but I reckon I'd have both Walsh and Jimmy ahead of both Pollock and Roberts.

Just one guy's opinion, obviously.

There's no doubt he's been a fantastic bowler in the 2010s, but what's his WPM in both those instances? He's had a few series where he's averaged low but not actually gotten that many wickets - Australia being a prime example. Obviously better than averaging high and also not getting many wickets, but Ollie Robinson and Mark Wood had better Ashes just now than Jimmy Anderson did - one or two spells aside he didn't really threaten as much. But Anderson averaged 20 or something obscene while the latter 2 averaged mid to late 20s.

I think in part it's because other players could have done it too - they just weren't allowed to cos of the circumstances (i.e., they don't test spam). Walsh being such an example. So while it is a great feat, it's not unprecedented in any way. He's been a good bowler, one of the top ones of the 2010s overall due to his longevity and consistency (and the fact that some of the best bowlers of the 2010s started breaking through mid to late 2010s) but he's not a top 15 or whatever bowler by any means despite his body of work.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Larwood wasnt 100 percent in 1930 series.

Broken toe nail?

 

[_00_deathscar]

Pollock is the only bowler in history who averaged under 25 after 50 tests.

That can't be right?

 

[trundler]

Yeah under 20, my bad. 19.86.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Broken toe nail?

In addition to his other fitness worries Larwood was, throughout this summer(1930) also troubled by dental problems.

 

[HookShot]

Do we massively underrate James Anderson because of his longevity - that is, is there an assumption that his achievements are disproportionately due to a long career and spamming Tests as opposed to quality?

In a run of 11.5 years from June 2010 to December 2021, he took 478 wickets at 23.7 (22 at home, 27 away, 20 neutral).

In seven-and-a-half years from July 2014 to December 2021 he took 275 wickets at 21.24 (20 at home, 24 away, 16 neutral).

It may well just be me, but I feel like he deserves a lot more credit. I've not voted for either of them here as it would have been a wasted vote due to the Roberts/Pollock dominance of this round's voting, but I reckon I'd have both Walsh and Jimmy ahead of both Pollock and Roberts.

Just one guy's opinion, obviously.

If we were comparing Anderson to a brute force bowler like Patrick Patterson then I would be inclined to agree.

But Roberts was high IQ like Anderson, and the prime reason that he retired early was because of a re-occuring knee injury.

The way Roberts gets rid of Ian Chappell in this video is brilliant;

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Do we massively underrate James Anderson because of his longevity - that is, is there an assumption that his achievements are disproportionately due to a long career and spamming Tests as opposed to quality?

In a run of 11.5 years from June 2010 to December 2021, he took 478 wickets at 23.7 (22 at home, 27 away, 20 neutral).

In seven-and-a-half years from July 2014 to December 2021 he took 275 wickets at 21.24 (20 at home, 24 away, 16 neutral).

It may well just be me, but I feel like he deserves a lot more credit. I've not voted for either of them here as it would have been a wasted vote due to the Roberts/Pollock dominance of this round's voting, but I reckon I'd have both Walsh and Jimmy ahead of both Pollock and Roberts.

Just one guy's opinion, obviously.

Definitely wouldn't put him ahead of any of Walsh/Pollock/Roberts, but you're right that he's underrated. He should probably make the top 20 or 25.

 

[The Sean]

There's no doubt he's been a fantastic bowler in the 2010s, but what's his WPM in both those instances? He's had a few series where he's averaged low but not actually gotten that many wickets - Australia being a prime example. Obviously better than averaging high and also not getting many wickets, but Ollie Robinson and Mark Wood had better Ashes just now than Jimmy Anderson did - one or two spells aside he didn't really threaten as much. But Anderson averaged 20 or something obscene while the latter 2 averaged mid to late 20s.

I think in part it's because other players could have done it too - they just weren't allowed to cos of the circumstances (i.e., they don't test spam). Walsh being such an example. So while it is a great feat, it's not unprecedented in any way. He's been a good bowler, one of the top ones of the 2010s overall due to his longevity and consistency (and the fact that some of the best bowlers of the 2010s started breaking through mid to late 2010s) but he's not a top 15 or whatever bowler by any means despite his body of work.

Yeah that's fair - his WPM isn't exceptionally high over those long stretches, just nudging 4. But I suppose that's not much different to the likes of Ambrose or Pollock.

I'd have Walsh ahead of Anderson too, for that matter, so I agree with you there. And I'm not necessarily advocating for him to be in the top 15 - but I don't really see the justification that everyone else seems to that Andy Roberts for example is a clear level ahead of him.

 

[The Sean]

If we were comparing Anderson to a brute force bowler like Patrick Patterson then I would be inclined to agree.

But Roberts was high IQ like Anderson, and the prime reason that he retired early was because of a re-occuring knee injury.

The way Roberts gets rid of Ian Chappell in this video is brilliant;

That's great bowling by a great bowler, sure. You could find similar things for Anderson or plenty of other bowlers too. I don't know what trying to compare him to Patrick Patterson vs high-IQ bowlers has to do with my post though.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

"Harold Larwood died on 22 July 1995, aged 90... Bradman did not wait for the media to ring him to comment on Larwood's passing. He pre-empted a rush of calls by phoning two major newspapers to read out a one-line statement, 'Harold Larwood will live in history as one of the greatest bowlers of all time.'

It was an honest assessment, and supreme praise from the greatest ever batsman and cricketer, who rarely spoke in superlatives, mainly because he had attained the highest standards in the game."

Perry, R. (2021). Bradman vs Bodyline. p 328

 

[Bolo.]

Larwood wasnt 100 percent in 1930 series.In addition to his other fitness worries Larwood was, throughout this summer, also troubled by dental problems.He bowled Australia out in the 1st match in 1928.Then got tired and wasn’t close to 100 percent after that.As wisden itself has wrote.The 1932-33 series would be the one where he really was 100 percent.
And he finished with 33 wickets in 4.5 tests
.And never played for England again after the age of 28,at his peak.His impact is unmatched.Undoubtedly larwood made the most impact among any fast bowler before 70s.
His fc stats tops almost everyone in the list.Larwood created a terror that was probably never matched.Not even by Tyson,Thommo or Johnson.
The bodyline is probably the most famous thing in cricket and larwood was one of its 3 main characters alongside bradman and jardine.His bowling average of 28 is great given bedser bowling average till bradmans retirement was 33 overall and 46 against Australia.

When you talk about a bowler being fit for only 1 series in his career, this starts to sound more like him being a liability than a justification for his underperformance. And this wasnt confined to matches he played in... between injuries and not getting selected, he missed most of England's games during his career.

And his issues were not confined to Bradman as suggested. He took 14 wickets in 6 matches against other teams (at an excellent average admittedly), but when your spearhead is going at sub 2.5 WPM vs (mostly) minnow level bats, its not pretty.

No problem with calling him an ATG, but 78 wickets is not enough to get you into the upper echelons of test greats. Even more so when it comes with asterisks like missing tests and averaging 28.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

When you talk about a bowler being fit for only 1 series in his career, this starts to sound more like him being a liability than a justification for his underperformance. And this wasnt confined to matches he played in... between injuries and not getting selected, he missed most of England's games during his career.

And his issues were not confined to Bradman as suggested. He took 14 wickets in 6 matches against other teams (at an excellent average admittedly), but when your spearhead is going at sub 2.5 WPM vs (mostly) minnow level bats, its not pretty.

No problem with calling him an ATG, but 78 wickets is not enough to get you into the upper echelons of test greats. Even more so when it comes with asterisks like missing tests and averaging 28.

Larwood spearheaded 3 wins in Australia.Not many have done that.In a single sentence Larwood is to fast bowling that Grace is to be batting.Arguably the most important fast bowler of them all.
Larwood didn’t bowl a single over against nz.He got injured against sa in 3rd match.He bowled really nicely in the flat deck in 1st match against sa but didn’t get to bowl more than 12 over in 1st and 2nd matches,2nd innings.Both ended in a draw.His bowling average was 20 against them,just didn’t get more opportunities against them to bowl.For example bill bowes (Larwood contemporary)took 68 wkts at 22 .That doesn’t mean anything.
Even bowes agreed Larwood to be the greatest and the fastest fast bowler of all time.It’s just Larwood was unlucky,not beating up minnows and bowling much to them,being thrown out from internationals at his peak.His fc stats are better than trueman ,the game didn’t change that drastically in that time period.Just that Larwood was unlucky.

 

[Bolo.]

Larwood spearheaded 3 wins in Australia.Not many have done that.In a single sentence Larwood is to fast bowling that Grace is to be batting.Arguably the most important fast bowler of them all.
Larwood didn’t bowl a single over against nz.He got injured against sa in 3rd match.He bowled really nicely in the flat deck in 1st match against sa but didn’t get to bowl more than 12 over in 1st and 2nd matches,2nd innings.Both ended in a draw.His bowling average was 20 against them,just didn’t get more opportunities against them to bowl.For example bill bowes (Larwood contemporary)took 68 wkts at 22 .That doesn’t mean anything.
Even bowes agreed Larwood to be the greatest and the fastest fast bowler of all time.It’s just Larwood was unlucky,not beating up minnows and bowling much to them,being thrown out from internationals at his peak.His fc stats are better than trueman ,the game didn’t change that drastically in that time period.Just that Larwood was unlucky.

The guy who took 70+ wickets does not belong in a conversation with guys we are currently discussing who took 400+ and 500+ wickets at significantly better bowling averages than him. Bradman nowithstanding, the average quality of lineups he faced was probably not too different to Walsh, let alone Pollock.

Better to compare him to Procter. His 40+ wickets are a whole lot closer. Larwood averaged almost twice what Procter did at test level at an insanely higher SR and lower WPM, playing against comparably good players of pace. He obviously had a much better test career than larwood. And yet nobody (bar possibly PFK) will be voting for Procter until this list is much deeper.

The suggestion that a player could be unlucky enough to run into a mediocre 21 test career over a theoretically possible 46? (only counting to his last one played) is statistically nonsensical. Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree with you. He was very, very unlucky, and a much better bowler than his tests results suggest.

But, luck or not, his results show he is not a top tier test bowler, regardless of how good he was.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Mike Procter

Pollock is overrated.
Walsh, Rabada, Cummins, Bedser.. Etc better than Pollock.

 

[gftw]

Pollock - 8
Walsh - 1
Larwood - 2
Roberts - 7
Proctor - 1

The List
1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Glenn Mcgrath
3. Richard Hadlee
4. Curtly Ambrose
5. Dale Steyn
6. Imran Khan
7. Dennis Lillee
8. Fred Trueman
9. Wasim Akram
10. Allan Donald
11. Joel Garner
12. Ray Lindwall
13. Michael Holding
14. Waqar Younis
15. Alan Davidson
16. Shaun Pollock

The vote for the #17 test pace bowler of all-time begins now.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Walsh

 

[ankitj]

Courtney Walsh