Best fast bowler in the world ATM?

[Anil]

India didnt have a true world class pace man

India did....Kapil....

 

[Swervy]

India did....Kapil....

Kapil Dev will never be considered one of the all time great pace bowlers...and the reason being is..that he wasnt one of the all time greats..he was a very good bowler

 

[Craig]

You seriously are off your rocker if you include Fleming, Vaas and Srinath but omit McGrath, Pollock, Gillespie, heck even Gough.

If Fleming was so good, how come the selectors didn't pick him very often?

Injuries, and the fact the selectors were in love with Brett Lee even when he bowled poorly (2001 Ashes) and the fact he fell victim to Australia's "quest for pace".

 

[Richard]

Nice sneaky edit in of Gough BTW

Can't believe I forgot him in the first place. :duh:

 

[marc71178]

Injuries, and the fact the selectors were in love with Brett Lee even when he bowled poorly (2001 Ashes) and the fact he fell victim to Australia's "quest for pace".

"Quest for pace" - Glenn McGrath hardly falls into that category, yet he was always picked ahead of the "great" Fleming.

 

[Craig]

What do you have against Fleming? And since when did anybody make him out as great? Just a good bowler, like you seem to think Flintoff is.

 

[marc71178]

I don't, but Richard included him in a list of Great bowlers in the 90s yet ignored McGrath, Pollock and Gillespie.

I'm questioning how he can be in there, when he wasn't a regular for the Aussies really.

 

[Swervy]

I don't, but Richard included him in a list of Great bowlers in the 90s yet ignored McGrath, Pollock and Gillespie.

I'm questioning how he can be in there, when he wasn't a regular for the Aussies really.

the simple fact of the matter is that Fleming just doesnt come close to those 3 bowlers...as good a player as he was mind

 

[Swervy]

IMO Vaas is far closer to greatship than Bond.
Even though they were part of one team, all the West Indies lot aren't an anomaly in the pattern. And India didn't have one - the '80s was Kapil Dev's good time.
In the '70s, meanwhile, we had Lillee, Hadlee, Holding, Garner and Roberts, Thomson (debatable I know - obviously he wasn't as good as the aforementioned, but still IMO better than plenty of today), Imran late on, Willis and Snow.
And in the '90s we had Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Gough, Fleming, Chaminda and Srinath to an extent, and to an even lesser one Allott and Nash.
Cricket is a cyclical game, it seems.

But how many of those players from the 70's actually played at the same time. Excluding the West Indies, at any one time back then there were no more than only a few great fast bowlers going at any one time...Lillee and Thomson,John Snow at the turn of the decade,Hadlee was not considered amongst the elite in the 70's (he developed in the 80's to be one of the very best of all time)..so I think the fact that we do have Pollock,McGrath (hopefully),Gillespie,Shoaib,Ntini,Bond,Vaas etc....suggests we are doing not too bad for fast bowlers.

We are also in a time of great spin bowlers(they do not include Giles and Croft by the way)...it all comes down to the pitches,I dont think the skill levels are much different on the whole that they have ever been

 

[PY]

so I think the fact that we do have Pollock,McGrath (hopefully),Gillespie,Shoaib,Ntini,Bond,Vaas etc....suggests we are doing not too bad for fast bowlers.

To compare those lot with "Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Gough, Fleming, Chaminda and Srinath to an extent, and to an even lesser one Allott and Nash" is IMO an insult to the guys from the 90s. Plus Pollock and McGrath could well be categorised as 90s people.

 

[Swervy]

To compare those lot with "Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Gough, Fleming, Chaminda and Srinath to an extent, and to an even lesser one Allott and Nash" is IMO an insult to the guys from the 90s. Plus Pollock and McGrath could well be categorised as 90s people.

I am not entirely sure what you mean.....I would put Pollock ,McGrath and Gillespie,and if he stays consistant Shoaib up there with Donald,Walsh etc.

Gough on his day was as good as those..but generally i would put him just a bit below them.

Srinath,Vaas,Fleming are just a bit lower down in my pecking order

 

[tooextracool]

In Sri Lanka? Where he had that horrific accident? And In India? Where he averaged 30 (however much people protested that he "deserved more" - did he have catches dropped off good balls?)
If Gillespie can bowl in subcontinent conditions it proves, rather than that he can bowl in conditions that aren't to his liking, that there are no conditions that aren't to his liking.
The best bowlers are suited to all conditions.

australian tour of india 2001
Name Mat O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
GD McGrath 3 136.2 60 261 17 15.35 4-18 - - 48.1 1.91
JN Gillespie 3 126.3 31 394 13 30.30 3-45 - - 58.3 3.11
CR Miller 1 55 7 201 6 33.50 3-41 - - 55.0 3.65
ME Waugh 3 36 6 106 3 35.33 3-40 - - 72.0 2.94
SK Warne 3 152.1 31 505 10 50.50 4-47 - - 91.3 3.31
MS Kasprowicz 1 48 8 178 2 89.00 2-39 - - 144.0 3.70
DW Fleming 1 30 4 99 1 99.00 1-55

Name O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
RT Ponting 5 1 13 1 13.00 1-13 - - 30.0 2.60
DS Lehmann 10 3 18 1 18.00 1-6 - - 60.0 1.80
SCG MacGill 127.4 24 412 15 27.46 5-66 1 - 51.0 3.22
GD McGrath 120.5 34 344 12 28.66 5-66 1 - 60.4 2.84
SR Waugh 20 6 41 1 41.00 1-19 - - 120.0 2.05
CR Miller 121 31 329 8 41.12 3-82 - - 90.7 2.71
DW Fleming 70.1 13 180 4 45.00 2-38 - - 105.2 2.56
GR Robertson 38 6 102 1 102.00 1-46 - - 228.0 2.68
ME Waugh 8 0 32 0 - - - - - 4.00

yes very special figures for fleming in the sub continent. flemiing was always a great one day bowler because he had good yorkers and could reverse the ball.

Fleming, Chaminda and Javagal could do things McGrath, Pollock and Gillespie can't.

im sorry vaas can do things while mcgrath,pollock etc cant?yes the same vaas who averages 108.50 in england, the same srinath who averages 50.70 in australia.to me srinath was a great bowler only towards the end of his career while mcgrath and pollock were great throughout. vaas and fleming should'nt even be considered in this league because neither are anything special.

 

[tooextracool]

the 2nd statistic btw is australias tour of pakistan 98

 

[Richard]

But how many of those players from the 70's actually played at the same time. Excluding the West Indies, at any one time back then there were no more than only a few great fast bowlers going at any one time...Lillee and Thomson,John Snow at the turn of the decade,Hadlee was not considered amongst the elite in the 70's (he developed in the 80's to be one of the very best of all time)..so I think the fact that we do have Pollock,McGrath (hopefully),Gillespie,Shoaib,Ntini,Bond,Vaas etc....suggests we are doing not too bad for fast bowlers.

Ntini and Bond can no way be classed as anything close to even Thomson IMO. Yet, at any rate.
Like I say, it's not really fair to exclude West Indies because it's not like they are anomalies in a trend - quite the reverse.
ATM we have very, very few good bowlers (in the Walker, Gilmour, Croft, Daniel, Arnold, etc. mould).
The number of authentic bowlers with averages under 30 in Test-cricket are very small.

We are also in a time of great spin bowlers(they do not include Giles and Croft by the way)...it all comes down to the pitches,I dont think the skill levels are much different on the whole that they have ever been

Warne, Murali, Mushtaq earlier.
Yes, more than there have ever been at one time (previous best was O'Reilly and Grimmett) but still - not really enough to compensate for the dearth of seamers.
Kumble is even better than a routine fingerspinner but still, we all know he's no special use overseas.

 

[Richard]

I don't, but Richard included him in a list of Great bowlers in the 90s yet ignored McGrath, Pollock and Gillespie.

I'm questioning how he can be in there, when he wasn't a regular for the Aussies really.

I never said he was great; I just said he could do things Pollock, McGrath and Gillespie can't.

 

[Richard]

im sorry vaas can do things while mcgrath,pollock etc cant?yes the same vaas who averages 108.50 in england, the same srinath who averages 50.70 in australia.to me srinath was a great bowler only towards the end of his career while mcgrath and pollock were great throughout. vaas and fleming should'nt even be considered in this league because neither are anything special.

Vaas and Fleming can do stuff plenty can't, believe me, whatever their records suggest.
They are\were just very inconsistent. If both had benefited from poor strokes with the regularity that McGrath and Pollock had, their records would be stunning. Instead, when they bowled without penetration they were exposed, like Vaas in England (and quite a few other series).

 

[Swervy]

Vaas and Fleming can do stuff plenty can't, believe me, whatever their records suggest.
They are\were just very inconsistent. If both had benefited from poor strokes with the regularity that McGrath and Pollock had, their records would be stunning. Instead, when they bowled without penetration they were exposed, like Vaas in England (and quite a few other series).

so are you saying that the only difference between Pollock or McGrath and Fleming/Vaas is that the first two have benefitted from bad shot selection by batsman...give me a break

 

[biased indian]

Shoaib Akhtar

hope he has a bad series aganist us

 

[tooextracool]

Vaas and Fleming can do stuff plenty can't, believe me, whatever their records suggest.
They are\were just very inconsistent. If both had benefited from poor strokes with the regularity that McGrath and Pollock had, their records would be stunning. Instead, when they bowled without penetration they were exposed, like Vaas in England (and quite a few other series).

its all abt creating pressure(something that u do not believe in). mcgrath and pollock maybe one dimensional but they bowl with such accuracy that they induce a batsman to play a false shot.vaas and fleming were inconsistent with their line and length and only bowl 3-4 good balls per over hence the batsman can wait for the bad ball.(as is the case with stuart macgill)

 

[PY]

I am not entirely sure what you mean.....I would put Pollock ,McGrath and Gillespie,and if he stays consistant Shoaib up there with Donald,Walsh etc.

Gough on his day was as good as those..but generally i would put him just a bit below them.

Srinath,Vaas,Fleming are just a bit lower down in my pecking order

Pollock and McGrath aside (who were part of the 90s crowd anyway) there hasn't been a new world-class consistent bowler who has notched up loads of wickets at a low average.

Ntini, Shoaib et al aren't even close to being mentioned in that bracket yet IMO. They aren't consistent and they don't take wickets cheaply.