Ranking the candidates for best fast/pace bowler ever: The Rankings thread

[Engle]

Spectacular performances, upsets, stories, innovations etc...these are the reasons why people follow sports.
Such performances are immortalized, memorized and discussed for ages to come.

 

[Slifer]

Sub out Waqar for imran. Marginally better.

It's really tough to argue against the records of the top 3 in any way, except maybe to say that they aren't Steyn, who comes with a grocery list of unique problems.

With Ambrose though a number of problems are coming in. He was consistently good, but too consistently not effective. Garner might just have the best record of all of them considering he was a change bowler, and I love his consistency, just not sure we saw enough of him.

Just about everything about Donalds record tells me he is a far better bowler than Ambrose, but there is just something about a bowler you can't get on top of

No bowler not even Marshall is far better than Ambrose.

 

[Starfighter]

Just about everything about Donalds record tells me he is a far better bowler than Ambrose, but there is just something about a bowler you can't get on top of

I digress. Little about Donald's record tells me that he's a better bowler than Ambrose.

 

[Bolo]

No bowler not even Marshall is far better than Ambrose.

I'm not suggesting anyone is far ahead of Ambrose, but a number of bowlers have notably better numbers.

I digress. Little about Donald's record tells me that he's a better bowler than Ambrose.

SR and WPM. Always big factors, especially because other numbers like home away and average are so tight. Donalds 4/100 off the same number of overs should win you more matches than curtleys 3/70 in theory, it just often didn't feel like this was the case when watching them a lot of the time

 

[Starfighter]

SR and WPM. Always big factors, especially because other numbers like home away and average are so tight.

Their gap between WPMs is not as dramatic as some, little more significant than their gap in average, and I've explained why I think strike rate is a rubbish measure on here before.

Donalds 4/100 off the same number of overs should win you more matches than curtleys 3/70 in theory, it just often didn't feel like this was the case when watching them a lot of the time

Perhaps it felt that way because Donald's innings was in fact not any more match winning.

 

[Bolo]

Their gap between WPMs is not as dramatic as some, little more significant than their gap in average, and I've explained why I think strike rate is a rubbish measure on here before.

Perhaps it felt that way because Donald's innings was in fact not any more match winning.

The gap is big in context. Excluding the one man armies (Hadlee), Donald is up with the best of the greats while Ambrose is down with the worst. There distribution more so. I might be making this up, but it felt like Ambrose took 3 in half his matches. Not enough from your premier bowler. Donald was all over the place, but he seemed to do a bit more of the work more often.

SR is meaningful as I've explained.its not a substitute for WPM but striking faster means one less over bowled by boje or hooper. The difference in their SRs means giving away about as many runs as the difference in their averages, but Hooper bowling means you are less likely to get wickets, so the problem compounds ad infinitum. Plus Al the general problems. Bats get set, ball gets old, bowled get tired...

More wickets will almost be better. The average bowler other than curtly probably spends 8 runs more per wicket, or worse still is the possibility that you fail to take them at all.

One thing about Ambrose specifically is it really felt like he was building pressure like no other, except maybe Mcgrath. Gave nothing away.

Donald gave it away a lot on individual deliveries. Didn't really matter. It was always fighting to survive, not for runs. No amount of boundaries got you set against his random if he was on form, but the way he sprayed it everywhere for a spell at a time on occasion was problematic.

 

[Bolo]

Where does Ambrose stand amoung the bowlers who used the fewest tricks? Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh to some extent. Be tall, fast and get bounce. Other than length and going hulk, did any of these guys actively try to get the ball to talk?

 

[Slifer]

Where does Ambrose stand amoung the bowlers who used the fewest tricks? Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh to some extent. Be tall, fast and get bounce. Other than length and going hulk, did any of these guys actively try to get the ball to talk?

Does it really matter?? They found success all over the world and are all in the top 25 of all time. But for the sake of ur question, they were all capable of cutters, Yorkers, line and length, and of course short nasty stuff. Interesting that each had far fewer tricks than say a Wasim but (except for Walsh) they are statistically ahead. Sometimes it's not just about tricks. And trust me they all could make the ball talk. See Holding Oval '76, completely took a flat wicket out of the equation.

 

[vcs]

Holding was magical, wish I'd been around to watch him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Their gap between WPMs is not as dramatic as some, little more significant than their gap in average, and I've explained why I think strike rate is a rubbish measure on here before.

Perhaps it felt that way because Donald's innings was in fact not any more match winning.

WPM is a garbage stat as well. Depends far too heavily on the strength of the rest of the attack.

(I'm getting deja vu)

 

[Starfighter]

WPM is a garbage stat as well. Depends far too heavily on the strength of the rest of the attack.

(I'm getting deja vu)

Yeah, I seem to remember that we went over that one not too long ago

 

[Bolo]

Does it really matter?? They found success all over the world and are all in the top 25 of all time. But for the sake of ur question, they were all capable of cutters, Yorkers, line and length, and of course short nasty stuff. Interesting that each had far fewer tricks than say a Wasim but (except for Walsh) they are statistically ahead. Sometimes it's not just about tricks. And trust me they all could make the ball talk. See Holding Oval '76, completely took a flat wicket out of the equation.

You don't need a bag of tricks. Doing one thing perfectly on repeat is usually more successful. Wasim gets a ton of air play for his bag of tricks. Mcgrath always gets talked about as being on repeat mode. But he had a lot of tricks. I'm wondering who genuinely had the fewest. I haven't seen much of them, but I can't remember having seen any of them move the ball at all, except for the tiniest hint of nibble and some minor swing that I'm not sure was intentional. Everything I've seen they are focused purely on line and length or hostility. I've never seen a bowler not try to move the ball for more than a ball or two at a time. Movement gets wickets.

Ambrose is the only one I really remember live. He hardly moved the ball at all, and didn't really seem to be trying to. If you can move the ball without the effort costing something else, you do it. Not doing so consistently indicates a limitation of some sort. So we're any of these guys more limited than the others, or have I just watched strange clips?

 

[trundler]

You don't need a bag of tricks. Doing one thing perfectly on repeat is usually more successful. Wasim gets a ton of air play for his bag of tricks. Mcgrath always gets talked about as being on repeat mode. But he had a lot of tricks. I'm wondering who genuinely had the fewest. I haven't seen much of them, but I can't remember having seen any of them move the ball at all, except for the tiniest hint of nibble and some minor swing that I'm not sure was intentional. Everything I've seen they are focused purely on line and length or hostility. I've never seen a bowler not try to move the ball for more than a ball or two at a time. Movement gets wickets.

Ambrose is the only one I really remember live. He hardly moved the ball at all, and didn't really seem to be trying to. If you can move the ball without the effort costing something else, you do it. Not doing so consistently indicates a limitation of some sort. So we're any of these guys more limited than the others, or have I just watched strange clips?

Didn't Ambrose rely on seam movement alongside bounce as his main weapon?

 

[Starfighter]

You don't need a bag of tricks. Doing one thing perfectly on repeat is usually more successful. Wasim gets a ton of air play for his bag of tricks. Mcgrath always gets talked about as being on repeat mode. But he had a lot of tricks. I'm wondering who genuinely had the fewest. I haven't seen much of them, but I can't remember having seen any of them move the ball at all, except for the tiniest hint of nibble and some minor swing that I'm not sure was intentional. Everything I've seen they are focused purely on line and length or hostility. I've never seen a bowler not try to move the ball for more than a ball or two at a time. Movement gets wickets.

Ambrose is the only one I really remember live. He hardly moved the ball at all, and didn't really seem to be trying to. If you can move the ball without the effort costing something else, you do it. Not doing so consistently indicates a limitation of some sort. So we're any of these guys more limited than the others, or have I just watched strange clips?

McGrath didn't have any more tricks than Ambrose except for reverse swing. And Ambrose really jagged the ball about at times.

 

[harsh.ag]

It probably requires a great deal of cricketing sense not to move the ball too much even though you can/the conditions allow for it.

 

[Bolo]

It's a long time ago. Maybe I'm only remembering passages of play with an older ball or something when seam wasn't possible. What I remember was mostly no movement at all, and not really getting the impression he was trying to get it moving. Small amounts of seam as well, but often not enough to even take an edge. A hint of swing once or twice. So very little and barely causing a threat. Still more that what I remember from the other quicks from the time though. Not much reason to trust
My sample or memory. Could have all been boomerang masters.

Small amounts of deviation worked for macgrath. There's some distance between the pitch and bat, and he's just hoping for a nibble off the deck to catch the edge. He wasn't a massive swinger of the ball, but he had a habit of going some way past the edge anyway when he went this route

Philander bowls pretty full. He needs a fair bit of seam movement to take an edge. Also seems to move it a touch too much when bowling swing. He's too slow for swing. Mcgrath a bit too short I suppose.

Pollock enjoyed some good Jag when he was feeling fiesty. He would bowl back of a length at the body or just above the stumps, with the odd ball at the top of off. He'd Wobble the seam on release without trying to control it. It could kick in either direction or just get a bit more lift. It was nasty for the bats. They couldn't trust it enough to pull, and couldn't get under it. So they would have some version of defending themselves with the bat, trying to get the bat out the way and just getting hit. Really nasty stuff. Not peak Johnson bad, but worse than Donald, who was better at working bats over than anyone else since. Needed a new ball some life in the wicket, him as a genuine fast etc to maximize nastiness, so he ended.up being boring and bowling at the top of off for most of his career.

 

[akilana]

Their gap between WPMs is not as dramatic as some, little more significant than their gap in average, and I've explained why I think strike rate is a rubbish measure on here before.

Perhaps it felt that way because Donald's innings was in fact not any more match winning.

Average is a rubbish measure too.

 

[Slifer]

Ok so then U think Graeme swann is greater than murali since averages dont matter. Average is the starting point for any discussion in cricket be it batting, bowling whatever.

 

[a massive zebra]

Ambrose is the only one I really remember live. He hardly moved the ball at all, and didn't really seem to be trying to. If you can move the ball without the effort costing something else, you do it. Not doing so consistently indicates a limitation of some sort. So we're any of these guys more limited than the others, or have I just watched strange clips?

It's a long time ago. Maybe I'm only remembering passages of play with an older ball or something when seam wasn't possible. What I remember was mostly no movement at all, and not really getting the impression he was trying to get it moving. Small amounts of seam as well, but often not enough to even take an edge. A hint of swing once or twice. So very little and barely causing a threat. Still more that what I remember from the other quicks from the time though. Not much reason to trust
My sample or memory. Could have all been boomerang masters.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with this.

My memory of Ambrose is pretty much the complete opposite: A very slightly short of a length stock delivery; an ability to hit the seam ball after ball; unbeatable precision in line; the stock-ball being an off-cutter; the unplayable legcutter always just round the corner; the steepling bounce one would expect of a 6ft 7ins giant. This amazing accuracy, seam movement and bounce meant he almost never needed to swing the ball, although very occasionally he would outswing it on the rare occasion he pitched the ball up. All these assets combined to make Ambrose a truly frightening prospect to face.

Indeed, a brief perusal of any of the many highlights packages on youtube will show he took plenty of wickets with balls that jagged back or moved away significantly.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Average is a rubbish measure too.

One could argue all statistical measures are flawed to some degree.