Best fast bowler in the world ATM?

[Swervy]

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.

have a look at Shoaibs test figures in the last 2 years...bowling ave of 14.56 with a strike rate of 29...now I have yet to be entirely convinced by him ..but there is no way anyone can say he doesnt take wickets cheaply

 

[PY]

He's only taken 38 wickets off the sub-continent at an average of over 30. That does not speak world-class to me.

Of his last ten Tests which you have done your figures on, he has played 3 out of Asia and 5 in his home country of Pakistan.

It also includes 4 Tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

Plus it includes a spell of 6/11 in which New Zealand imploded for 73.

No doubt he is improving but to say he is in the same bracket as Allan Donald, Waqar Younis and Akram etc etc is a tad ambitious.

 

[Choora]

It shouldn't really matters as to where the bowler is taking wickets, i mean you can't give credit to a bowler for taking wickets in Aus and discredit him for taking wickets at Sharjah.

BTW Akhter's ave outside Pak is 27, and i think the way he ahs been playing, its only going to move into one direction!

 

[ajaagarkarajaaja]

If you guys are talking about bowlers on CURRENT form (i.e not on the base of lats 2-3 years) then i think we should consider Ajit Agarkar too , on the basis of his once in a life time performance agianst Australia on thier own back yard.

Certainly among the Non-dodgy pacers, Ajit tood out along with Pollock and Vaas.

 

[Richard]

There has been no dodgy actions that have not been dealt with in recent years.
Chucking is a massively overblown problem IMO.

 

[Richard]

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)

So you're seriously saying that Chaminda is inaccurate?
Have you watched him bowl much? He's up there with the best going around. The inconsistency is in his ability to be penetrative.
His case shows to some extent that bowlers don't "induce" false shots, the batsman play them.
McGrath and Pollock won't threaten competant batsmen on non-seaming, consistent-in-bounce wickets. Chaminda can. However, Pollock and McGrath, while no more capable, have managed to on many more occasions exploit conditions which are more favourable to seam-bowling.
And on the flat wickets they have benefited from poor strokes, Vaas has not.
Fleming is slightly different but he is certainly way more accurate than MacGill or Lee.

 

[Richard]

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

So why has Chaminda had so many series where he has had a massively high average?
Answer: because he has bowled poorly (not waywardly, but without penetration) and his figures have demonstrated that.
He has also on plenty of occasions bowled far better than McGrath and Pollock and reaped the rewards. Sadly, they have reaped the rewards for of times nothing bowling.

 

[marc71178]

If you guys are talking about bowlers on CURRENT form (i.e not on the base of lats 2-3 years) then i think we should consider Ajit Agarkar too , on the basis of his once in a life time performance agianst Australia on thier own back yard.

Except it wasn't really that once in a life time if I remember rightly he did well on the last tour of Australia as well (with the ball!)

 

[marc71178]

McGrath and Pollock won't threaten competant batsmen on non-seaming, consistent-in-bounce wickets.

So how come they posess oustanding records then?

And on the flat wickets they have benefited from poor strokes, Vaas has not.

And why do you think they have poor shots played against them? Could it because they've frustrated the batsman by the pressure of not scoring runs?

Fleming is slightly different but he is certainly way more accurate than MacGill or Lee.

Can anyone else explain the relevance of MacGill and Lee in this?

 

[marc71178]

He has also on plenty of occasions bowled far better than McGrath and Pollock and reaped the rewards. Sadly, they have reaped the rewards for of times nothing bowling.

If he's really bowled a lot better than those 2 on plenty of occasions, his career record suggests that there's been a hell of a lot of times when he's bowled utter tripe.

 

[Tom Halsey]

He has the ability to bowl well, and also can bowl utter tripe.

Therefore, way too inconsistent IMO.

 

[Tom Halsey]

So how come they posess oustanding records then?

Beyond me.

And why do you think they have poor shots played against them? Could it because they've frustrated the batsman by the pressure of not scoring runs?

Very true.

Can anyone else explain the relevance of MacGill and Lee in this?

They can bowl just as badly as Fleming, and, at times, (although rarely) they can bowl just as well as Fleming.

 

[Armadillo]

I agree, Fleming could occasionally bowl great spells but he also had the tendency stray

 

[Craig]

Shoaib Akhtar

hope he has a bad series aganist us

Well a few a years back, there was every chance of it happening, but not now if he stay's fit.

 

[Craig]

If you guys are talking about bowlers on CURRENT form (i.e not on the base of lats 2-3 years) then i think we should consider Ajit Agarkar too , on the basis of his once in a life time performance agianst Australia on thier own back yard.

Certainly among the Non-dodgy pacers, Ajit tood out along with Pollock and Vaas.

Ah no.

If he bucked up his accuracy he would be so much better.

 

[Arjun]

Ntini and Akhtar may not be the most reliable, like Pollock and McGrath, but they still make things happen.

Ajit tood out along with Pollock and Vaas

And Sachin also stood out, looking a great bowler in that match.

Even Brad Williams has had good Test and ODI figures, especially the ODI average of 22, with 2 5-wicket hauls. Definitely one of the best fast bowlers today, especially with Agarkar in this list.

Don't forget Brett Lee- a little more pace, or here, a lot more pace, can do a lot of damage, even to a team with 7 batsmen!

 

[tooextracool]

So you're seriously saying that Chaminda is inaccurate?
Have you watched him bowl much? He's up there with the best going around. The inconsistency is in his ability to be penetrative.
His case shows to some extent that bowlers don't "induce" false shots, the batsman play them.

you urself say that he is not penetrative.yet u rate him as one of the best bowlers around?? his case doesnt show anything but he is useless outside the sub continent.

McGrath and Pollock won't threaten competant batsmen on non-seaming, consistent-in-bounce wickets. Chaminda can. However, Pollock and McGrath, while no more capable, have managed to on many more occasions exploit conditions which are more favourable to seam-bowling.
And on the flat wickets they have benefited from poor strokes, Vaas has not. [/B]

u base ur reasoning on pure chance?u think that 2 bowlers with more than 750 wickets combined have had the benefit of poor shots against them???once again u make foolish comments about players who you know nothing about. vaas will threaten people on non seaming,consistent bounce wickets doesnt explain why he averages 44 in the vb series 2002 and 108.50 in england. u know that ur argument is baseless and chaminda vaas is no more than an ordinary bowler. his case doesnt show anything but he is useless outside the sub continent.

 

[Richard]

So how come they posess oustanding records then?

I've said that so many times, you know the answer, so why bother asking. Just because you find it inconceivable, you are not going to gain anything by asking the same question over and over again.

And why do you think they have poor shots played against them? Could it because they've frustrated the batsman by the pressure of not scoring runs?

And why, then, have these batsmen not been frustrated into poor strokes by Vaas' accuracy creating pressure? Because sometimes, in fact more often than not, the batsmen don't feel obliged to create pressure for needless reasons.

Can anyone else explain the relevance of MacGill and Lee in this?

I wasn't the one who mentioned them first:

Originally posted by tooextracool
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)

I was objecting to Fleming's accuracy being spoken of in these low terms, and using another example of a wayward bowler to add to the comparison. Fleming isn't as accurate as Vaas, he's not the sort who can be perceived to be using accuracy to take wickets, he's not famed for his accuracy, but he's not wayward by any streatch of the imagination, certainly not wayward enough to "wait for the bad ball".

If he's really bowled a lot better than those 2 on plenty of occasions, his career record suggests that there's been a hell of a lot of times when he's bowled utter tripe.

His career record suggests right.
McGrath and Pollock's career records suggest wrong.

 

[Richard]

you urself say that he is not penetrative.yet u rate him as one of the best bowlers around??

No, I say that at times he's incredibly penetrative, at times totally unpenetrative. And I say that if he was his penetrative self more often, then he would be one of the best bowlers around.

his case doesnt show anything but he is useless outside the sub continent.

You seriously think someone who can bowl cutters and reverse-swing can't bowl basic seam and conventional-swing? Even if Chaminda hadn't shown on plenty of occasions that he can do that, that really would be a very silly assumption - seam and conventional swing are incredibly easy to bowl relative to cut and reverse-swing.

u base ur reasoning on pure chance?

No.

u think that 2 bowlers with more than 750 wickets combined have had the benefit of poor shots against them???

Yes, believe it or not - and I've actually heard or seen an account of just about every wicket those two have taken in the last 3 years.

once again u make foolish comments about players who you know nothing about.

No, it seems I know far more about all three than you.

vaas will threaten people on non seaming,consistent bounce wickets doesnt explain why he averages 44 in the vb series 2002 and 108.50 in england.

Two very odd examples, there - one in the one-day game, in fact, which plays no part in this present discussion.
Vaas averaged 108.50 in the 2002 series, meanwhile, for reasons I've already discussed - it was one of his bad series.

u know that ur argument is baseless and chaminda vaas is no more than an ordinary bowler.

No, I don't. I know I have a convincing case, having studied the matter, instead of making assumptions based on statistics.

his case doesnt show anything but he is useless outside the sub continent.

You've mentioned that. And I've mentioned how insane such an assumption would be for a bowler of his type.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And why, then, have these batsmen not been frustrated into poor strokes by Vaas' accuracy creating pressure?

Because Vaas doesn't create as much pressure.

Just look at the RPO's in question.