Best ever medium pacer?

[Lillian Thomson]

Take your point, but I've also seen Shane Warne bowl a bouncer - doesn't mean he was a fast medium bowler.

I once saw Phil Edmonds warned in a Test Match for bowling two consecutive bouncers during the time when the one bouncer per over rule was in place.

 

[Richard]

Sorry Gelman.

Interesting that you made the effort to change the pasag to Gelman in there. Even I almost never do that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Have seen both crank it up to 130kph on quite a few occasions. Can't classify that as medium pace.

I think you can. Bowling predominantly in the mid 120s and relying on a lot on change of pace and variations is indeed medium pace IMO, regardless of whether you can bowl a quicker ball at 132 or not. I've seen Damien Martyn fire one down at 134 and Marlon Samuels's quicker ball has touched 130 on occassions as well, as an off spinner. It's not about what your fastest ball is, but what speed you normally bowl at and what tools you rely on.

 

[Manee]

I think speed guns add deception to what can be classified as medium pace. Remember that the important speed is the one in which it reaches the batsman and how long it takes to do so. James Hopes, for example, is most certainly a medium pace bowler, regardless of clocking 130kph. Gilchrist can stand up to him comfortably and batsmen can always move their feet in time to play a shot easily. Irfan Pathan is another example, he has clocked 140kph since his comeback, but anyone who says that he is anything more than medium pace is kidding themselves. Dhoni can stand up easily and I can't remember the last time a batsman played him with anything less than plenty of time.

 

[neville cardus]

Yeah, because that's the only time Tait has ever bowled.

So?

 

[neville cardus]

Not sure I agree with Vaas, Pollock, maybe even Dev being comfortably better than Fazal.

That's interesting. I would have thought such a view pathetically iconoclastic, bordering on unholdable, before coming by you and Bhupinder. Why do you feel that way?

Botham was more fast than medium most of his career wasn't he?

Aye. That's why I qualified the list at the end of my post.

 

[neville cardus]

one of my favourite ever players, as you say, extremely underated, a very clever bowler, and very handy with the bat as well, the exact kind of player england could do with in their one day side really.

I was most excited about his arrival on the South African domestic scene. Alas, he failed dismally.

 

[neville cardus]

Fazal was better than all not bolded.

Your blinkered arrogance annoys me; so, too, does your dearth of knowledge about cricket. If you are going to make such pig-headed, revisionist declarations, I would highly suggest that you back them up.

So let's start with the first man on my list. What had Fazal that Boyle did not?

 

[neville cardus]

Interesting that you made the effort to change the pasag to Gelman in there. Even I almost never do that.

Them trolls are a fascinating lot.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Your blinkered arrogance annoys me; so, too, does your dearth of knowledge about cricket. If you are going to make such pig-headed, revisionist declarations, I would highly suggest that you back them up.

So let's start with the first man on my list. What had Fazal that Boyle did not?

Neville,I'm not arguing that Fazal was miles ahead of them but that he was not lesser than any of those based on the fact that I mentioned in one of my previous posts in this thread.If Boyle had to play on flattest tracks of subcontinent for a significant part of his career,I doubt he would've achieved even half of what he did.He played on too bowling friendly wickets to be considered better than Fazal Mahmood.BTW averaging 20 in tests playing before turn of the 20th century means you were just a fine bowler,nothing more than that.

Out of all those bowlers barring Barnes & perhaps Spofforth would struggle to make my top 25

 

[nightprowler10]

That's interesting. I would have thought such a view pathetically iconoclastic, bordering on unholdable, before coming by you and Bhupinder. Why do you feel that way?

Not sure why that is so, as Fazal's first class career speaks for itself. Not many average as low as he did in FC in 100+ matches on Pakistani wickets. For the record, I didn't call Fazal better than those players I mentioned, just that I didn't feel they were comfortably better than him. The way I see it, Fazal made the most of the chances he got on the international level. Even if we ignore the fact that he played with a lot less consistency than the ones I mentioned, his record is quite impressive considering the different conditions he strove in. He absolutely dominated many strong teams of that era. I don't quite see how it is so unbelievable that he was as good as, if not better than, the likes of Pollock, Vaas, or Dev.

 

[neville cardus]

Neville,I'm not arguing that Fazal was miles ahead of them but that he was not lesser

Really? You said something completely at odds with that in the relevant post.

than any of those based on the fact that I mentioned in one of my previous posts in this thread.

And I am not suggesting that you were suggesting what you claim you were not suggesting; I am merely responding to the explicit contention that "Fazal was better than all not bolded", as ought to have been obvious from the fact that it was the only part of your post that I quoted.

If Boyle had to play on flattest tracks of subcontinent for a significant part of his career,I doubt he would've achieved even half of what he did.He played on too bowling friendly wickets to be considered better than Fazal Mahmood.BTW averaging 20 in tests playing before turn of the 20th century means you were just a fine bowler,nothing more than that.

A touch more research might show you that, by Boyle's time, the standard of wickets was on the up. He was not merely a sticky-track bully who knew nothing of the shirt front; he played at the Oval both in 1880 and 1884.

Out of all those bowlers barring Barnes & perhaps Spofforth would struggle to make my top 25

That is hardly surprising, given that medium-pace bowling is so notoriously unpenetrative, but what's wrong with Bedser and Tate?

 

[neville cardus]

Not sure why that is so, as Fazal's first class career speaks for itself. Not many average as low as he did in FC in 100+ matches on Pakistani wickets. For the record, I didn't call Fazal better than those players I mentioned, just that I didn't feel they were comfortably better than him. The way I see it, Fazal made the most of the chances he got on the international level. Even if we ignore the fact that he played with a lot less consistency than the ones I mentioned, his record is quite impressive considering the different conditions he strove in. He absolutely dominated many strong teams of that era. I don't quite see how it is so unbelievable that he was as good as, if not better than, the likes of Pollock, Vaas, or Dev.

We have to keep in mind that cricket in Pakistan was not of the same standard in the 'fifties as it is now, which might account for his extraordinarily low first-class average. Also, were pitches in that corner of the globe really as flat and well-prepared then as they are now?

As regards his Test average, it really isn't anything special when you compare it to those of his contemporaries. Batting had waned somewhat in the wake of Bradman's retirement, and bowling figures were very often of the kind that would render one great today.

 

[Engle]

Fazal Mahmood, the exceptionally talented Pakistani fast bowler and captain who engineered some of his country's famous Test match triumphs, has died, aged 78. He was often compared with Alec Bedser, who said of him: "If cricket was played as much in those days as now, Fazal would have taken a thousand wickets."

Fazal was a thinking, right-arm bowler, who used his great height and long arms tellingly, and was a master of nagging, persistent length. He was the scourge of batsmen on a matting wicket, but could be equally dangerous on grass, with his varied swing and a judicious mix of leg-cutters and break-backs. Denis Compton found him "unplayable on his day", while the Australian Neil Harvey believed he could make the ball "talk".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,1496998,00.html

 

[BhupinderSingh]

That is hardly surprising, given that medium-pace bowling is so notorious unpenetrative, but what's wrong with Bedser and Tate?

Bedser would make it but Tate won't.Ofcourse,Tate was a great bowler but I there have been atleast 25 better bowlers than him.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

We have to keep in mind that cricket in Pakistan was not of the same standard in the 'fifties as it is now, which might account for his extraordinarily low first-class average. Also, were pitches in that corner of the globe really as flat and well-prepared then as they are now?

He played cricket outside of Pakistan too,didn't he?

As regards his Test average, it really isn't anything special when you compare it to those of his contemporaries. Batting had waned somewhat in the wake of Bradman's retirement, and bowling figures were very often of the kind that would render one great today.

His test average is special when you consider he had to play on the flattest tracks of the world for most of his career.And wickets have always been flat in Pakistan,from what I've heard from longtime cricket foloowers atleast.

 

[Manee]

I feel that any debate would be easier if we could wholly define what makes a bowler the best before each thread. This is extremely important in comparing eras.

 

[Engle]

Some of Fazal's victims :
Hunte(6), Sobers(5), Harvey(5), Kanhai(4), Compton(3), Graveney(2), Hutton(2), May(2),Dexter(2), 1 each for Cowdrey,Weekes,BSutcliffe.

Not bad a list and his 12 for 99 at the Oval outshining the likes of Statham/Tyson is impressive indeed

 

[Richard]

I feel that any debate would be easier if we could wholly define what makes a bowler the best before each thread. This is extremely important in comparing eras.

And, what's more, what makes a bloody bowler medium, medium-fast, fast-medium and fast. 'Specially as we have no reliable timings before 1998.

Far too many people just look and go "ah, wicketkeeper up to the stumps - medium-pacer!" Any good wicketkeeper - even in this day and age - can and will stand-up to medium-fast bowlers. FFS, Gilchrist stands-up to Clark and Bracken, who are at the very least bordering on fast-medium! I've seen him stand-up to McGrath and Gillespie!!!

 

[Manee]

And, what's more, what makes a bloody bowler medium, medium-fast, fast-medium and fast. 'Specially as we have no reliable timings before 1998.

Adding to my earlier post...

I think speed guns add deception to what can be classified as medium pace. Remember that the important speed is the one in which it reaches the batsman and how long it takes to do so. James Hopes, for example, is most certainly a medium pace bowler, regardless of clocking 130kph. Gilchrist can stand up to him comfortably and batsmen can always move their feet in time to play a shot easily. Irfan Pathan is another example, he has clocked 140kph since his comeback, but anyone who says that he is anything more than medium pace is kidding themselves. Dhoni can stand up easily and I can't remember the last time a batsman played him with anything less than plenty of time.

I think that there are five distinct categories of bowlers, if we are to go by my eye interpretations of carry and batsman reaction rather than release speed.

Medium: Chris Harris, Robin Singh, Brian Strang, Darren Maddy, me ()
Medium fast: Collingwood, Ian Harvey, Scott Styris, Dimitri Mascharanas
Medium fast II (fast medium in speed gun, but medium fast by all else): Irfan Pathan, James Hopes, Bracken etc
Fast medium: Mcgrath, Hadlee, Pollock, Waqar, Wasim
Fast: Lee, Steyn, Imran Khan, Lillee, Thompson, Holding