Greatest Fast Bowler Ever

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well if we are going to talk about bowlers way back in the day what about George Lohmann, who played tests between 1886 and 1896 and who has possibly the greatest record of any bowler ever?

Tests: 18
Wickets: 112
Average: 10.75
Economy Rate: 1.88
Strike Rate: 34.10
5WI: 9
10WM: 5
BBI: 9-28
BBM: 15-45


And if that wasn't enough, his first class statistics are even more astonishing.

Matches: 293
Wickets: 1841 (I kid you not)
Average: 13.73
Economy Rate: 2.11
Strike Rate: 38.90
5WI: 176 (yeah...)
10WM: 57
BBI: 9-28


Certainly puts Spofforth and Turner and the other bowlers from his period to shame, and has easily the best average of any bowler with over 100 test wickets. However, limiting it to bowlers after the war, I'd go for Marshall and McGrath.


edit: oh, here's some more for you. These are Lohmann's figures from a series against South Africa in 1896 at the age of 31.

Across the three tests he picked up figures of 7/38 & 8/7 in the first test, 9/28 & 3/43 in the second and a comparitively poor 7/42 & 1/45 in the third.

He did this in 103.4 overs, finishing with 35 wickets at an average of 5.8, with an economy rate of 1.96 and a strike rate of 17.77.

A pretty good three test series, no?

 

[SJS]

Well if we are going to talk about bowlers way back in the day what about George Lohmann, who played tests between 1886 and 1896 and who has possibly the greatest record of any bowler ever?

Tests: 18
Wickets: 112
Average: 10.75
Economy Rate: 1.88
Strike Rate: 34.10
5WI: 9
10WM: 5
BBI: 9-28
BBM: 15-45


And if that wasn't enough, his first class statistics are even more astonishing.

Matches: 293
Wickets: 1841 (I kid you not)
Average: 13.73
Economy Rate: 2.11
Strike Rate: 38.90
5WI: 176 (yeah...)
10WM: 57
BBI: 9-28


Certainly puts Spofforth and Turner and the other bowlers from his period to shame, and has easily the best average of any bowler with over 100 test wickets. However, limiting it to bowlers after the war, I'd go for Marshall and McGrath.


edit: oh, here's some more for you. These are Lohmann's figures from a series against South Africa in 1896 at the age of 31.

Across the three tests he picked up figures of 7/38 & 8/7 in the first test, 9/28 & 3/43 in the second and a comparitively poor 7/42 & 1/45 in the third.

He did this in 103.4 overs, finishing with 35 wickets at an average of 5.8, with an economy rate of 1.96 and a strike rate of 17.77.

A pretty good three test series, no?

Its very important to note that the wickets in the early years were pretty bad (for batsmen that is).

Thats why WG's batting average ,which is in the 30's has to be seen in context of the times and is like an average in the 50's today. The wickets deflated a batsman's (relative) performance.

By the same token, WG's bowling average is a bit 'too good' (again relatively speaking). I think the same criteria can safely be applied to all cricketers of those years and the performances taken with some discount.

 

[marc71178]

We in ALFTA gave all these "greats" from pre-war days a grouping - SMs.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Ignorant though I may be, could you enlighten me on that acronym Marc?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Its very important to note that the wickets in the early years were pretty bad (for batsmen that is).

Thats why WG's batting average ,which is in the 30's has to be seen in context of the times and is like an average in the 50's today. The wickets deflated a batsman's (relative) performance.

By the same token, WG's bowling average is a bit 'too good' (again relatively speaking). I think the same criteria can safely be applied to all cricketers of those years and the performances taken with some discount.

Wickets were very poor all the way up to WW1 though. If Spofforth is going to be counted, may as well throw in Lohmann.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Ignorant though I may be, could you enlighten me on that acronym Marc?

Statistical Muppets.

 

[honestbharani]

what does Muppets mean? I have heard that term before, and am still unsure of its meaning.

 

[SJS]

Wickets were very poor all the way up to WW1 though. If Spofforth is going to be counted, may as well throw in Lohmann.

I am doing a detailed study of the three eras Pre 1st world war, between wars and post 2nd world war. There are huge differences.

Just a small but very revealing statistics

Pre 1st WW
Tests played : 134
600 plus innings : NIL
Innings below 75 : 24 (1 per 5.6 tests)

Between Wars
Tests played : 140
600 plus innings : 11 (1 per 12.7 tests)
Inns below 75 : 5 (1 per 28 tests - from 5.6 in earlier period)

After WW 2
Tests played : 1446
600 plus inings : 85 (1 per 17 tests)
Inns below 75 : 34 (1 per 42.5 tests - up from 5.6 and 28)

 

[vic_orthdox]

I would much prefer a mouthy aussie bowling at me than a 6ft 7in west indian who didn't talk so much, there's something more psychologically imposing about that sort of character IMO, because it's not all about mouth. The best batsmen aren't imposed by talk.

that's part of the aura that i was talking about, whether it be that west indian silence, or someone giving u lip, the both have that presence which makes statistical compararison useless.

while not quite up there with the best, but certainly deserving of a mention, would be allan donald? he made the south african attack something to be feared throughout the early 90s

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I am doing a detailed study of the three eras Pre 1st world war, between wars and post 2nd world war. There are huge differences.

Just a small but very revealing statistics

Pre 1st WW
Tests played : 134
600 plus innings : NIL
Innings below 75 : 24 (1 per 5.6 tests)

Between Wars
Tests played : 140
600 plus innings : 11 (1 per 12.7 tests)
Inns below 75 : 5 (1 per 28 tests - from 5.6 in earlier period)

After WW 2
Tests played : 1446
600 plus inings : 85 (1 per 17 tests)
Inns below 75 : 34 (1 per 42.5 tests - up from 5.6 and 28)

Aknowledged. That's why I said up until the first World War. Lots of moves were made to improve pitches around that period, although for some time standards were not as high as they are now. I have heard it said by those who were there for example that the wicket which Laker took his 19 wickets on was truly shocking, with footmarks so deep the batsmens feet were not visible to the umpire most of the time.

 

[SJS]

Aknowledged. That's why I said up until the first World War. Lots of moves were made to improve pitches around that period, although for some time standards were not as high as they are now. I have heard it said by those who were there for example that the wicket which Laker took his 19 wickets on was truly shocking, with footmarks so deep the batsmens feet were not visible to the umpire most of the time.

That seems too much

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That seems too much

The name of the person who said that slips my mind at the moment, but he did the cricket commentary on ABC radio in Australia for a very long time, and retired some time in the 80s. Someone else might know who he is.

He also said that after the match some people including Bradman (who was there for some unstated reason) went out to look at the pitch, and he declared it to be the worst he had ever seen for test cricket.

If this is the case though, one has to wonder at the amazing performances with the bat from Richardson and Sheppard, and how Benaud ended up with figures of 2-123 from 47 overs.

 

[SJS]

The name of the person who said that slips my mind at the moment, but he did the cricket commentary on ABC radio in Australia for a very long time, and retired some time in the 80s. Someone else might know who he is.

He also said that after the match some people including Bradman (who was there for some unstated reason) went out to look at the pitch, and he declared it to be the worst he had ever seen for test cricket.

I suppose he was exaggerating just to highlight the condition of the wicket. I have a recording (video) of the 19 wickets. I must go back and have a look at them again.

 

[Top_Cat]

The name of the person who said that slips my mind at the moment, but he did the cricket commentary on ABC radio in Australia for a very long time, and retired some time in the 80s. Someone else might know who he is.

He also said that after the match some people including Bradman (who was there for some unstated reason) went out to look at the pitch, and he declared it to be the worst he had ever seen for test cricket.

If this is the case though, one has to wonder at the amazing performances with the bat from Richardson and Sheppard, and how Benaud ended up with figures of 2-123 from 47 overs.

From what I've read of the match, the deck was a road for the duration of the English innings but it rained heavily afterwards and then dried really quickly. From there it fell to pieces and the ball started to grip and pop. You'd imagine that wear and tear would be accelerated quite a bit when that happens.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

From what I've read of the match, the deck was a road for the duration of the English innings but it rained heavily afterwards and then dried really quickly. From there it fell to pieces and the ball started to grip and pop. You'd imagine that wear and tear would be accelerated quite a bit when that happens.

True, but that would be pretty much standard fare at the time I should think, certainly nothing Bradman wouldn't have seen plenty of times during his playing career. With uncovered pitches any wicket that got rained on much would become more difficult to bat on. For Bradman to say it was the worst test wicket he had seen would require a bit more than that, I should think.

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh yeah I agree with you entirely but I was just saying that the 'amazing contributions' of Richardson and Sheppard as well as Benaud's relative lack of success were mainly due to the fact that they batted before it rained. Once it rained, the deck was a minefield which I'm sure Benaud would have done rather well on. Why? Any bowler who bowled accurately would have rippe dapart the other side (maybe not as much as Laker!) and Benaud was a very accurate bowler.

 

[royGilchrist]

Well said! Anyone who considers the likes of Garner, Holding, Marshall, Walsh and Ambrose to be 'tame', really needs to check the history books.

Add Roberts, Croft, Bishop and Clarke to that list too and minus Walsh perhaps. Man those WI lineups (70s/80s) of which I have seen some myself, were 10 times more intimidating than anything after it, and perhaps the most intimidating ever (in those days aussies boasted quite a fearsome fast bowling group as well but not even close to the Windies of those days).

I thought they were being called 'tame' in a tongue in cheek manner, by our buddy here, but seems like I was wrong, he was serious!

Would Eddie care to comment?

 

[priestfan]

the greatest ever fast bowler

Interesting views Shounak.
I agree with you on the state of fast bowling in this present day travesty of the game. Cricket for the sake of sponsors has been reduced to a mere mockery. It is no longer a purist's retreat. The rules have been savagely slaughtered and pitches deadened. Cricket was never about the number of runs scored. It was more a matter of a contest between the batsman and the bowler and yes the field at the bowler's command. The elements would join in and in the end only the better man would prevail. The great Harsha Bhogle is hereby requested to write somewhere on fast bowling.
Anyway....I think Andy Roberts on accounts of versatility, stamina, intelligence and his own inimitable brand of agression is the greatest ever. Only marginally so since the great Lillee is not far behind.
Lillee was a true warrior. He was not just a stage act or a modern day yuppy trying to strut his stuff all over the place. His aggression was an expression of his skill and was made doubly manifest in his temperament. He put his money where his mouth was.. more often than not the mouth in the whole affair happened to belong to a batsman on the receiving end of a lillee short pitched treat.

Fast bowling is about character. The post Roberts pacemen in the west indies line up had the luxury of having equally fierce fellow assassins to finish the job. Roberts was for a time somewhat alone. It was his firepower that instilled in the impressionable youth of the islands to have the courage and the heart requisite for the defining battles.
Lillee was complete in his own right. But I would rate Roberts above him.
Then comes Imran Khan followed by Holding and Marshall.

Fast bowling is about stamina, strength, killer instinct, character and intelligence.
Wasim Akram for all his left handed glory was slighted by Richie Richardson and a very indifferent south african line up. On more than one occasion his lack of killer instinct and way too many extras cost the side dearly.
Walsh, Ambrose, Mcgrath are all very good but they are not truly great in my opinion.
Ask the master batsmen. Those who faced the lot of them and they will tell you that lillee, roberts and imran were amongst the top three. Gavaskar, Chappel, Vishy, Viv all know how it was to face these men.
The great fast bowler is rarely hampered by the state of the wicket. They can perform on all tracks. Hadlee in my opinion was more an exploiter of conditions than a true fast man. True, he had to concede some pace so that he could bear the attack for longer periods but then again his accuracy and swing really came into effect when the conditions favoured him.

Waqar was good but that is about it. He should have concentrated more on fitness. Unlike Imran the pakistanis seem to think success should come to them of right. They sit there after a token run in the gym and big themselves up beyond the whole truth. Shoaib is fast but I see very little variety in his bowling. It is only a matter of time before Master Sachin catches up with him and buries him hastily in the space of six deliveries.

This brings us to the Sachin affair. He is a true master but one wonders how he might have fared against Wasim and Wakar at test level had the relations between india and pakistan been conducive to regular cricket. In the days of Sachin bowling was on its decline. I think what keeps me from rating him above Gavaskar is the fact that Gavaskar played some quality bowling in his time. Sachin's records have come courtesy of the trundling legion of seamers and wanna bes that die at his blade day in and day out. Another thing that I have always found harder to accept is Sachin's knack to throw away his wicket. I expect a longer innings from him that would breathe life back into this corpse that was once the beautiful game of cricket.

So once again Roberts, Lillee and Imran. The others bring the rear guard.

Priestfan

 

[priestfan]

Michael Holding

Michael Holding was above the game. Marshall may not be the best in terms of versatility but he had that shooter and that bouncer. For him alone they should have invented the two ball over. He was that good. I do not mean to offend anyone but Roberts is my personal favourite and Lillee is a close second. Holding and Imran .. damn it I cant decide.

 

[luckyeddie]

Michael Holding was above the game. Marshall may not be the best in terms of versatility but he had that shooter and that bouncer. For him alone they should have invented the two ball over. He was that good. I do not mean to offend anyone but Roberts is my personal favourite and Lillee is a close second. Holding and Imran .. damn it I cant decide.

Welcome to Cricket Web - you are perfectly entitled to your own opinions, and to voice them here.

A couple of questions not exactly related to cricket....

1. Vienna as in Austria?
2. Priestfan as in Rob Holford etc?