• 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.

New Zealand fast bowlers who are 'definitely' better than Kapil Dev

About New Zealand fast bowlers who are 'definitely' better than Kapil Dev

  • Fuller Pilch was right

    Votes: 10 35.7%

  • Fuller Pilch was wrong

    Votes: 18 64.3%
  • Total voters
    28
Gob

Gob

International Coach
Fuller pilch concedes that there are 8 fast bowlers from NZ who are definitely, certainly, beyond any doubt what so ever, are better than Kapil Dev (Hadlee, Cowie, Bond, Wagner, Southee, Boult, B Taylor, Jamieson). These guys are not up to discussion. He also reckons that (Collinge, Nash, Motz, Cairns, possibly Doull) are touch and go. I was like bruh that can't be right but he was adamant.

What do you guys think?
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Flem274* said:
now that i've voted i will take a look at the bowlers.

hmmm no that's not right, it's missing frank cameron.
Click to expand...
And maybe Tony MacGibbon if he'd played in a stronger era.

Shame Dayle Hadlee suffered bad back injuries. Prior to those he was faster and better than his illustrious younger brother who struggled for his first few years in international cricket.
 
Last edited:
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Cairns is an interesting one. Probably more talent with the ball but he never really found the right consistency. Maybe his wallet did though
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
This thread has certainly not gone as I've planned it to so far. Need Indian bruhs to wake up and come hard
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Interesting. Comparing players can involve a number of criteria. (all purely in Tests)

If judged purely on bowling averages, Dev does rank below the 8 bowlers mentioned. The top 3 of those being discussed are Jamieson (19.66), Cowie (21.53) and Bond (22.09). It is notable that these three have the fewest wickets of the group.

However, looking at the CW members voting on the Top 40 fast bowlers, only Hadlee (3) is ranked in the Top 10. Dev is ranked next at 31 while Wagner (37) and Southee (40) are the only others rated.

Other factors worth considering are volume of wickets and strike rate. The former is indicative of a player's longevity and contributions over time. The leading three wicket takers here are Dev (431), Hadlee (431) and Southee (347), A bowler's strike rate is indicative of their potential to take a wicket in a spell. Here Bond (38.76), Jamieson (43.92) and Cowie (45.07). Interestingly this coincides with the top three averages and the 3 players with the fewest Tests.

In conclusion, I would judge a player's ability over a full and reasonably long career and would tend to be dismissive of those who played in fewer that 20 Tests. From that perspective, and the criteria I have listed, I would rank the fast bowlers as:

Hadlee >>>> Wagner > Dev > Southee = Boult > Taylor

If pushed I would rate Bond > Jamieson > Cowie and place that trio somewhere around Dev.
 
Chrish

Chrish

International Debutant
Line and Length said:
Interesting. Comparing players can involve a number of criteria. (all purely in Tests)

If judged purely on bowling averages, Dev does rank below the 8 bowlers mentioned. The top 3 of those being discussed are Jamieson (19.66), Cowie (21.53) and Bond (22.09). It is notable that these three have the fewest wickets of the group.

However, looking at the CW members voting on the Top 40 fast bowlers, only Hadlee (3) is ranked in the Top 10. Dev is ranked next at 31 while Wagner (37) and Southee (40) are the only others rated.

Other factors worth considering are volume of wickets and strike rate. The former is indicative of a player's longevity and contributions over time. The leading three wicket takers here are Dev (431), Hadlee (431) and Southee (347), A bowler's strike rate is indicative of their potential to take a wicket in a spell. Here Bond (38.76), Jamieson (43.92) and Cowie (45.07). Interestingly this coincides with the top three averages and the 3 players with the fewest Tests.

In conclusion, I would judge a player's ability over a full and reasonably long career and would tend to be dismissive of those who played in fewer that 20 Tests. From that perspective, and the criteria I have listed, I would rank the fast bowlers as:

Hadlee >>>> Wagner > Dev > Southee = Boult > Taylor

If pushed I would rate Bond > Jamieson > Cowie and place that trio somewhere around Dev.
Click to expand...
For someone who has been watching sport since 60s, you sure do rely a lot on stats..
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
For the longevity bros, we have our differences obv, but Cowie not really in the Bond bracket imo.

NZ of his era played a lot of games that were "New Zealanders v Australians" and "New Zealanders vs England XI" that were pretty much unofficial tests because those teams didn't rate us for official games, especially Australia (fair enough tbh). Those teams were bloody good, and Cowie has taken the wicket of Bradman among others.

I worked out once Cowie took roughly 200 @ 22 in those matches against the highest quality opposition of his time, very close to tests rather than A games and tour matches are today.

Now if you want to favour a Wagner or Southee ahead of him on test longevity then alright I suppose, but I think it's very clear even with a longevity perspective that Cowie is not in the same category as Bond or KJ. He had a full red ball career against excellent opposition despite WWII.
 
Chrish

Chrish

International Debutant
Line and Length said:
I use stats as a support for my opinions. Remove the stats and my opinions remain unchanged.
Click to expand...
Stats can be pulled by anyone. I would expect some genuine insight regarding particular player from someone who has actually seen them in action.
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Chrish said:
Stats can be pulled by anyone. I would expect someone genuine insight regarding particular player from someone who has actually seen them in action.
Click to expand...
Having seen quite a bit of the players mentioned, I rank Hadlee way ahead of the rest. I've been impressed by Wagner and Bond but have always admired the way Dev virtually carried the Idian pace attack for so long.

There are sporting journalists who have had the opportunity to see far more cricket live than I have yet they quite frequently use stats to illustrate points.

Instead of picking at others' posts, how about posting some opinions relevant to the topic in hand.
 
Chrish

Chrish

International Debutant
Line and Length said:
Instead of picking at others' posts, how about posting some opinions relevant to the topic in hand.
Click to expand...
It’s not just this thread. You claim to have seen players from as far back as Trueman; yet all of your posts just talk about numbers from stats guru.

I find it bit weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top