Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

[Bolo.]

I have watched few ball to ball coverages where he played. No where close to skilled as Bumrah. Even guys like Asif are way more skilled than Bishop.

That doesn't say he wasn't effective. Neither I woukd say Bumrah is better bowler than Bishop. But he had very few modes of operation. Wasim and Bumrah are a delight to watch in the ways they bring in dismissing a batsman.

Just like Wasim was way more skilled than Ambrose, still Ambrose was a better bowler. Bumrah vs Bishop I will wait till Bumrah retires to decide who is better.

This statement doesn't mean much. Pretty much everyone who watched Asif thinks he is top of the tree (or close to) in skills if we exclude pace.

Pre injury Bishop had an extra 20kms or so of pace though, and that is a very useful skill to have.

 

[Burgey]

And bounce. Which makes a massive and not very pleasant difference when you're batting.

 

[peterhrt]

Too much weight is sometimes attached to fast bowlers' records in India during the twentieth century. It was generally a happy hunting ground for them and they were expected to do well.

14 visiting bowlers took 30 or more wickets in India during this time. Only three were spinners, two of whom appeared before 1970.

Just three of the quicks played in India before 1970. Five returned averages under twenty and seven recorded a ten-wicket match haul.

 

[Archer6K]

Too much weight is sometimes attached to fast bowlers' records in India during the twentieth century. It was generally a happy hunting ground for them and they were expected to do well.

14 visiting bowlers took 30 or more wickets in India during this time. Only three were spinners, two of whom appeared before 1970.

Just three of the quicks played in India before 1970. Five returned averages under twenty and seven recorded a ten-wicket match haul.

What’s your top ten?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

What’s your top ten?

Same as mine iirc.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Same as mine iirc.

Is it also in reverse order (conveniently also alphabetical)?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Is it also in reverse order order (conveniently also alphabetical)?

I think we can assume 100% definitely yes.

 

[kyear2]

You watched highlights, us from the WI watched him live ball by ball. Bishop could and did bowl yorkers and slower balls etc. Just say you don't what the hell you're talking about and move on. Also, he didnt become ordinary because he lost pace, he became less effective because he was freaking injured and I'm constant pain.

There's a list of posters that really shouldn't be responded to.

Bishop had a killer yorker and did have a slower ball, and tbh not even sure how being able to bowl a yorker falls under bowler skill.

For the second comment, he didn't lose his pace, he had to change his action (twice?) and was never close to being the same, not to add as you put it, in constant pain.

 

[Slifer]

There's a list of posters that really shouldn't be responded to.

Bishop had a killer yorker and did have a slower ball, and tbh not even sure how being able to bowl a yorker falls under bowler skill.

For the second comment, he didn't lose his pace, he had to change his action (twice?) and was never close to being the same, not to add as you put it, in constant pain.

See this is what I'm talking about, someone who actually knew about Ian. Especially the part where he had to change his action twice. Quite frankly by the 2nd time, he was done.

I have to respond to certain posters because I assume most wouldn't have seen Bishop beyond highlights. Therefore most of them, would likely base their assessments purely on stats , said highlights and the bs spewed by said uninformed posters. Also, I respond for the younger posters who only know Bishop the commentator and not the bowler who would've been top 10 were it not for his back.

There are only a handful of West Indian posters on this forum we can't just sit idly by and let our greats be disparaged. And yes it's disparaging whenever posters imply our bowlers had no or very little skill.

 

[peterhrt]

What’s your top ten?

There's virtually nothing to separate the top dozen or so fast bowlers. So it comes down to subjective factors: where you come from, how old you are, what you have seen and read, how you interpret stats, conditions, etc.

21 fast or fast-medium bowlers have 200 or more Test wickets at averages under 25. Then there are those who never had that opportunity. Writing in the early 1970s having watched half a century of cricket, Ian Peebles wrote that Larwood was the greatest fast bowler, Ted McDonald the greatest who could bowl fast. A few years earlier, Cardus and Strudwick said Tom Richardson from the 19th century was the best. Who mentions McDonald and Richardson now?

Short-pitched bowling used to be frowned upon, reverse swing associated with illegal ball tampering. Now both are essential parts of the game.

 

[BazBall21]

Too much weight is sometimes attached to fast bowlers' records in India during the twentieth century. It was generally a happy hunting ground for them and they were expected to do well.

14 visiting bowlers took 30 or more wickets in India during this time. Only three were spinners, two of whom appeared before 1970.

Just three of the quicks played in India before 1970. Five returned averages under twenty and seven recorded a ten-wicket match haul.

Very true.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

There's virtually nothing to separate the top dozen or so fast bowlers. So it comes down to subjective factors: where you come from, how old you are, what you have seen and read, how you interpret stats, conditions, etc.

21 fast or fast-medium bowlers have 200 or more Test wickets at averages under 25. Then there are those who never had that opportunity. Writing in the early 1970s having watched half a century of cricket, Ian Peebles wrote that Larwood was the greatest fast bowler, Ted McDonald the greatest who could bowl fast. A few years earlier, Cardus and Strudwick said Tom Richardson from the 19th century was the best. Who mentions McDonald and Richardson now?

Short-pitched bowing used to be frowned upon, reverse swing associated with illegal ball tampering. Now both are essential parts of the game.

Absolutely top quality like always.

 

[Salamuddin]

See this is what I'm talking about, someone who actually knew about Ian. Especially the part where he had to change his action twice. Quite frankly by the 2nd time, he was done.

I have to respond to certain posters because I assume most wouldn't have seen Bishop beyond highlights. Therefore most of them, would likely base their assessments purely on stats , said highlights and the bs spewed by said uninformed posters. Also, I respond for the younger posters who only know Bishop the commentator and not the bowler who would've been top 10 were it not for his back.

There are only a handful of West Indian posters on this forum we can't just sit idly by and let our greats be disparaged. And yes it's disparaging whenever posters imply our bowlers had no or very little skill.

Bishop was a hell of a bowler no doubt. Never seen anyone scare David Boon the way he did in Perth 1993. Pity about the injury.

windies v Australia in the 1980s and 1990s - that was real cricket

 

[Jumno]

Marshall
McGrath
Lillee
Imran
Donald
Hadlee
Ambrose
Wasim
Trueman
Lindwall

 

[Burgey]

There's a list of posters that really shouldn't be responded to.

Bishop had a killer yorker and did have a slower ball, and tbh not even sure how being able to bowl a yorker falls under bowler skill.

For the second comment, he didn't lose his pace, he had to change his action (twice?) and was never close to being the same, not to add as you put it, in constant pain.

Yeah even by the time he toured here in 92/93, his action was more chest-on than it had been earlier in his career. I remember him hitting Langer (on dayboo) in the scone in the great Adelaide test in that series. Fmd he was a scary unit.

 

[Ali TT]

Too young to have seen him live but all the footage I've watched puts Marshall at #1 for me. Not just his pace but people struggled to read his action - a terrifying combination really, as poor Andy Lloyd discovered to his cost.

 

[kyear2]

Too young to have seen him live but all the footage I've watched puts Marshall at #1 for me. Not just his pace but people struggled to read his action - a terrifying combination really, as poor Andy Lloyd discovered to his cost.

Yeah people think it's just the stats, but it was everything he was able to do with the ball.
He was one of one.

 

[smash84]

There's a list of posters that really shouldn't be responded to.

The irony

 

[kyear2]

The irony

Haven't made a derogatory comment to you in years, even been deferential.

But again, if it were up to you all, some names could only be spoken in glowing terms. That's not how this works, and the fact that you'll can't see or get over that is disappointing.

But I'll still take the high ground.

 

[smash84]

Haven't made a derogatory comment to you in years, even been deferential.

But again, if it were up to you all, some names could only be spoken in glowing terms. That's not how this works, and the fact that you'll can't see or get over that is disappointing.

But I'll still take the high ground.

It's really tough to get you to answer a simple question. That is probably my biggest problem with you.