Rank These 21st Century Pacers

[TheJediBrah]

I am starting to think we should call him Dukerson

Dukey Clouderson

 

[honestbharani]

Cloudy Dukerson?

 

[Line and Length]

Steyn
Bond
Cummins
Asif
Philander
Anderson
Bumrah
Rabada
Harris
Wagner

Broad's form in the 3rd Test warrants a top 10 spot ... and where's Steyn? He and Cummins are well ahead of the rest IMO

 

[Howe_zat]

I really wouldn't expect anyone to change their opinion of the last 20 years because of two games at home against a pretty ropey batting lineup. Broad's done better than this before.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Broad's form in the 3rd Test warrants a top 10 spot ... and where's Steyn? He and Cummins are well ahead of the rest IMO

Well he's better than Wagner, and always has been. Don't think either are top 10 though

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It took Broad 60 tests to reach the 200 wicket mark, while it only took Wagner 46.

In fact Wagner is the fastest left arm seamer to 200 (Mitch Johnson 49, Starc 50, Akram 51, Boult 52).

 

[Daemon]

Broad's far better than Wagner. For all the talk about Anderson's away record, Wagner's away record consists almost entirely of beating up on Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, though his trollish bowling was pretty fantastic in Australia. Was crap in India, UAE and England. Very small sample sizes of course.

 

[srbhkshk]

TIL pacer averaging 28.4 bowling half his career in England is far better than pacer averaging 26.6

 

[trundler]

Broad's far better than Wagner. For all the talk about Anderson's away record, Wagner's away record consists almost entirely of beating up on Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, though his trollish bowling was pretty fantastic in Australia. Was crap in India, UAE and England. Very small sample sizes of course.

Wasn't crap in UAE at all.

 

[vcs]

Wagner is good and has proved a lot of doubters (including myself) wrong in recent years but there's still the nagging doubt over how long his methods can continue to work. 500 vs. 200 odd wickets is a massive difference. Broad used to be something of an enforcer earlier in his career too but his memorable destructive spells have unsurprisingly come when he's pitched it up and got it to move both ways. Again it comes down to the fundamental question of how highly you rate longevity and number of wickets taken, for me, it's a pretty big deal.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Broad's form in the 3rd Test warrants a top 10 spot ... and where's Steyn? He and Cummins are well ahead of the rest IMO

At the top of the list?

 

[Flem274*]

Wagner is good and has proved a lot of doubters (including myself) wrong in recent years but there's still the nagging doubt over how long his methods can continue to work. 500 vs. 200 odd wickets is a massive difference. Broad used to be something of an enforcer earlier in his career too but his memorable destructive spells have unsurprisingly come when he's pitched it up and got it to move both ways. Again it comes down to the fundamental question of how highly you rate longevity and number of wickets taken, for me, it's a pretty big deal.

he's evolved over 7 years and roughly 50 tests. that's probably the average career length for a quick.

he can and does bowl length when required, he's just worked out the exploit and will ride it until it someone consistently denies him.

plus obligatory broad only has 500 wickets already because he spams tests for the right country. may as well name 30 english blokes the best ever if we're going down this route.

longevity is quickly becoming a stupid measure. you lot blindly apply longevity without taking into consideration opportunity. if longevity is so important, the big 3 may as well power **** each other off as the rest of the countries can leave you to a sport with the global appeal of rugby league.

 

[vcs]

The point about England spamming more Tests than NZ is a fair one in general but I'm not sure it completely applies in this case because Broad got into the side when he was very young, whereas Wagner only got in at 26. It's a shame your lot play so little Test cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Imo the English spamming tests point is a decent one. Not quite fair to pull down Anderson and Broad because their longevity is across almost a decade and a half, but they definitely benefit from their aggregates being much more impressive to look at than contemporaries who are just as good but simply play less.

As an aside, I think guys like Pietersen benefit immensely from that when it comes to people assessing their careers. He played essentially 8 years of cricket but because England play so much he managed to amass the pure aggregate numbers of a 12-13 year veteran. He had dreadful longevity but because he decided to play for England he has 100 tests almost all of them played in his prime. Even Cook's reputation benefits greatly from being one of the top runscorers in history but if he'd played for almost any other country he'd probably have played around 100 tests instead of the 160 he managed. Casuals mention his longevity all the time when in reality he played only about as long as Sehwag did who absolutely does not have the longevity argument on his side.

 

[vcs]

Broad and Anderson play a lot of Tests but their fitness also seems to be very good, in order to be able to do that. Got to give some credit to ECB as well for realizing their best format and retiring them early from limited overs formats.

 

[vcs]

Imo the English spamming tests point is a decent one. Not quite fair to pull down Anderson and Broad because their longevity is across almost a decade and a half, but they definitely benefit from their aggregates being much more impressive to look at than contemporaries who are just as good but simply play less.

As an aside, I think guys like Pietersen benefit immensely from that when it comes to people assessing their careers. He played essentially 8 years of cricket but because England play so much he managed to amass the pure aggregate numbers of a 12-13 year veteran. He had dreadful longevity but because he decided to play for England he has 100 tests almost all of them played in his prime. Even Cook's reputation benefits greatly from being one of the top runscorers in history but if he'd played for almost any other country he'd probably have played around 100 tests instead of the 160 he managed. Casuals mention his longevity all the time when in reality he played only about as long as Sehwag did who absolutely does not have the longevity argument on his side.

It's definitely true for batsmen, for pace bowlers it seems a bit harsher to hold it against them because they break down so much and very few quicks have managed to last long enough to cross that 500 mark.

 

[Pothas]

I also doubt Cook would have retired at such a young age if he had played for a side that played fewer matches.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Imo the English spamming tests point is a decent one. Not quite fair to pull down Anderson and Broad because their longevity is across almost a decade and a half, but they definitely benefit from their aggregates being much more impressive to look at than contemporaries who are just as good but simply play less.

As an aside, I think guys like Pietersen benefit immensely from that when it comes to people assessing their careers. He played essentially 8 years of cricket but because England play so much he managed to amass the pure aggregate numbers of a 12-13 year veteran. He had dreadful longevity but because he decided to play for England he has 100 tests almost all of them played in his prime. Even Cook's reputation benefits greatly from being one of the top runscorers in history but if he'd played for almost any other country he'd probably have played around 100 tests instead of the 160 he managed. Casuals mention his longevity all the time when in reality he played only about as long as Sehwag did who absolutely does not have the longevity argument on his side.

KP could have definitely played on another 4-5 years if not for limiting circumstances

 

[stephen]

Sir Patrick Cummins' name is now censored he's that good.

 

[Smudge]

The point about England spamming more Tests than NZ is a fair one in general but I'm not sure it completely applies in this case because Broad got into the side when he was very young, whereas Wagner only got in at 26. It's a shame your lot play so little Test cricket.

He "only got in at 26" because he only became eligible two months before his first test.