• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW's Ranking of Pace Bowlers (Tests)

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wait, people think Neil Wagner is a better test bowler than Jason Gillespie and Jeff Thomson?

The world's first collective traumatic brain injury. Congrats guys
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do you blokes actually watch cricket or not? This is monumentally embarrassing.

Chaminda Vaas (who frankly was cod ordinary himself) was a better bowler than Wagner, and unless I'm reading the list incorrectly, he hasn't got a Guernsey yet either.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Imagine suggesting to any batsman who's ever played test cricket that they'd rather face Jeff Thomson than Neil Wagner. They'd die laughing.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
I'd rather face Glenn Mcgrath than Brett Lee. Doesnt make Lee a better bowler than Mcgrath.
Sill argument. Wagner only looks good because of the era. Put him on 2000's and he wouldn't even play grade. Put him in any other era and he would be only half as effective, which would see him dropped. I mean, Southee is also a **** **** but his figures look decent since pitches started to aid bowlers.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd rather face Glenn Mcgrath than Brett Lee. Doesnt make Lee a better bowler than Mcgrath.
Would you? Why? Thomson is a miles better bowler than Wagner ffs. He took apart a Windies side with Greenidge, Fredericks, Richards, Lloyd and Rowe in it, as well as the Poms in 74/75. The bloke was a force of nature. I love Wagner, #runsinhardbowlsallday but he isn't a patch on Thommo as a bowler, let alone Gillespie who is better than them both.

This is why I don't often pop into these discussions. It just depresses me. I don't know if it's cognitive deficit or a simple lack of understanding about the game of cricket in particular.

Either way, standards need to lift.
 

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Sill argument. Wagner only looks good because of the era. Put him on 2000's and he wouldn't even play grade. Put him in any other era and he would be only half as effective, which would see him dropped. I mean, Southee is also a **** **** but his figures look decent since pitches started to aid bowlers.
???

A workhorse who bowls long spells and gets lots of wickets. Great bowler. Wagner is probably the 2nd best change seamer behind Garner and the 3rd best left armer behind Wasim and Davidson.

Likewise Southee has a great record in the subcontinent and is probably as good around as Anderson.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
???

A workhorse who bowls long spells and gets lots of wickets. Great bowler. Wagner is probably the 2nd best change seamer behind Garner and the 3rd best left armer behind Wasim and Davidson.

Likewise Southee has a great record in the subcontinent and is probably as good around as Anderson.
Nup. I know I belittle the annoying douche a bit too much, but he is not in the same universe as garner. He is no where near those that you have mentioned.
 

Xix2565

International Regular
Sill argument. Wagner only looks good because of the era. Put him on 2000's and he wouldn't even play grade. Put him in any other era and he would be only half as effective, which would see him dropped. I mean, Southee is also a **** **** but his figures look decent since pitches started to aid bowlers.
Extremely silly to say this considering we've had bowling friendly eras before and the 2000's were really a batting paradise era with the kinds of pitches around then. Might as well denigrate the older bowlers because they never got to bowl during a really flat era like the 2000s and so their records are all inflated.

And Wagner's record as a 1st/2nd change bowler is close to Garner, Marshall and Walsh so to pretend like he's not worth rating is bizarre.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
Extremely silly to say this considering we've had bowling friendly eras before and the 2000's were really a batting paradise era with the kinds of pitches around then. Might as well denigrate the older bowlers because they never got to bowl during a really flat era like the 2000s and so their records are all inflated.

And Wagner's record as a 1st/2nd change bowler is close to Garner, Marshall and Walsh so to pretend like he's not worth rating is bizarre.
It's context. You can believe bowling now is not like batting in to naughties. My point is Wagner has similar numbers due to era. Vbowl him alongside garner, Wasim, etc and everyone would say 'sorry mate - you aren't good enough'. I'm not pretending he's not worth rating. Im serious. It's like Crowe is a better batsman than half the 50 club pretenders of recent.
 

Xix2565

International Regular
I mean what you say about Wagner applies just as much to anyone else with a good record as a bowler. So this just boils down to feelings of nostalgia that older bowlers were better just because.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
And this is one more reason I wish that we can keep the voting going. So many quality pacers like Thomson, Gillespie, Shami and workhorses like Zaheer, Srinath, Vaas, Gough etc. are yet to be picked.
 

Top