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

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Nope. Steve Smith and Kohli too.

Steve Smith almost there.. In a slightly lesser league.
Kohli touched 50 avg recently.. iirc.

 

[Slifer]

I'd say kohli and Steve Smith. And Rabada is pretty close as well. Steve Smith is just a beast in tests. And kohli a beast at everything pretty much. Relative to Steyn though , yeah they all pale in comparison.

I'm as patriotic about my west Indians as they come but steyn is better than Ambrose, not by much but a smidgen. Up there with MM and McGrath as well.

 

[trundler]

Yeah Steyn below Ambrose is a slight Steyn surprise especially considering the forum voted him ahead in a poll recently. As is the case with all elite bowlers, the difference is marginal.

 

[Bolo]

They have all been performing like ATGs, but I like to give it a lot of time before calling it. Rabada in particular has only been at the top for 3 years. A lot more time is needed to put him at the top levels.

 

[trundler]

Steyn being the only out and out ATG pacer is worth looking into. Has it do with white ball cricket, conditions and all the usual suspects?

 

[Slifer]

Good question but between the emergence of Steyn and retirement of the likes of akram and co, McGrath was pretty much the only atg for a while. Maybe bowlers were just too slow to adapting to the new era of cricket: flatter wickets, drs, bat technology, smaller grounds etc.

 

[Bolo]

Steyn being the only out and out ATG pacer is worth looking into. Has it do with white ball cricket, conditions and all the usual suspects?

It might have played a role. There are a bunch of factors at play though. ATG quicks are very rare. We got spoiled for a while, but it wasn't normal.

Bowlers play very little FC cricket, and almost none away. They tour more countries, with shorter tours, both tests and warmups, so they never get used to foreign conditions.

Batting friendly pitches + good bats have cut the wheat from the chaff- in another era someone like ntini might have ended up looking like Walsh.

ATG bowlers have mostly come from a few countries. WI have been dire. Aus conditions/selection policies have not been condusive to the development of quicks. Pak have had problems with fixing and playing in the UAE, particularly when pitches were ridiculous featherbeds. Nobody else consistently produces greats, except RSA. Not to say anyone else couldn't have managed anyway, but it stacks the deck a bit.

 

[trundler]

It might have played a role. There are a bunch of factors at play though. ATG quicks are very rare. We got spoiled for a while, but it wasn't normal.

Bowlers play very little FC cricket, and almost none away. They tour more countries, with shorter tours, both tests and warmups, so they never get used to foreign conditions.

Batting friendly pitches + good bats have cut the wheat from the chaff- in another era someone like ntini might have ended up looking like Walsh.

ATG bowlers have mostly come from a few countries. WI have been dire. Aus conditions/selection policies have not been condusive to the development of quicks. Pak have had problems with fixing and playing in the UAE, particularly when pitches were ridiculous featherbeds. Nobody else consistently produces greats, except RSA. Not to say anyone else couldn't have managed anyway, but it stacks the deck a bit.

Fast bowling really boomed in the 80s following Lillee and the quartet. The trend continued through the 90s and we've had a drought since that generation of quicks retired one by own. Before all that, there was Trueman in the 60s, Hall on a slightly lower level and I do not know of anyone else. Maybe Adcock. Lindwall before them. I guess we were fortunate that so many greats came within a generation of one another but I suspect something to do with how the game is run now has changed. Lack of FC cricket is a good shout. T20 bowling is the polar opposite of Test match bowling after all.

 

[AndrewB]

Adcock was 50s/early 60s, like Davidson, Statham and Trueman. Across the 60s, there were Peter Pollock, Wes Hall, Graham McKenzie, Charlie Griffith and Sobers, and John Snow in the late 60s.

 

[Bolo]

Fast bowling really boomed in the 80s following Lillee and the quartet. The trend continued through the 90s and we've had a drought since that generation of quicks retired one by own. Before all that, there was Trueman in the 60s, Hall on a slightly lower level and I do not know of anyone else. Maybe Adcock. Lindwall before them. I guess we were fortunate that so many greats came within a generation of one another but I suspect something to do with how the game is run now has changed. Lack of FC cricket is a good shout. T20 bowling is the polar opposite of Test match bowling after all.

The post Lillee ATG boom was exceptional in terms of numbers, but you can see why it looked exceptional and to some extent why it was likely to fall away. Nearly half the greats were WI. Their mismanagement plus the rise of mercenary cricket has killed them. 3 from Pak- I think Imran had a big role in inspiring and development. RSA have had 3- bit of luck involved, but they have been consistently producing them since the 50s, they just weren't visible due to not getting to play. Hadlee and Mcgrath from the rest of the world.

 

[Slifer]

Maybe it's left to be seen but in Gabriel it Roach the wi do look like they're are slowly recovering some of their thunder. Of course the pitches play a huge role in that.

 

[Bolo]

Adcock was 50s/early 60s, like Davidson, Statham and Trueman. Across the 60s, there were Peter Pollock, Wes Hall, Graham McKenzie, Charlie Griffith and Sobers, and John Snow in the late 60s.

Not sure I think much of that 60s on group if we are talking ATGs. RSA had Procter, le Roux and van Der bijl in the late 60s to 80s. Late 70s to 2003 was exceptional, but there have always been one or two greats kicking around.

 

[stephen]

Cummins could get there. Starc has moments of greatness but lacks the consistency. I'd have said that Hazlewood too was on track for greatness two years ago but he's really been off the boil since 2016.

What Australia is good at is producing ATVG quick bowlers - Gillespie, Johnson, Harris, Starc and a few others who were very good for a short time like Siddle and Hilfenhaus.

Pakistan had the potential to have a couple of ATG quicks in Asif and Amir but they destroyed their careers by fixing. But they're really the only subcontinental team who seems capable of producing an ATG.

New Zealand have descent fast bowling stocks but there's no Bond or Hadlee. Still, a great can come from there every now and then.

England finds it hard to produce quicks that are seam bowlers, which limits their ability to produce ATG bowlers. Swing bowling is as condition dependent as finger spin. So bowlers like Anderson are ridiculously good in friendly conditions but ordinary away.

SA seem to have a great fast bowling pipeline. Their nadir since readmission was the Nel era and he wasn't bad at all.

Sadly the West Indies don't seem to produce the pitches that support fast bowling any more. I'd love for them to have a couple of ATG bowlers come along, but it seems less and less likely since the retirement of Walsh.

 

[Adders]

What Australia is good at is producing ATVG quick bowlers - Gillespie, Johnson, Harris, Starc and a few others who were very good for a short time like Siddle and Hilfenhaus.

I honestly belief that Harris was a level above those others named, But for such a late start and injuries curtailing his career Harris was genuinely ATG level but you just can't rate him as such on a 27 test career.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Not sure I think much of that 60s on group if we are talking ATGs. RSA had Procter, le Roux and van Der bijl in the late 60s to 80s. Late 70s to 2003 was exceptional, but there have always been one or two greats kicking around.

Procter, le Roux, Van Der Bijl, Rice.. All in a 10yrs age difference. So, there was a possibility of this attack. 2nd greatest ever.. Probably.

 

[Dendarii]

SA seem to have a great fast bowling pipeline. Their nadir since readmission was the Nel era and he wasn't bad at all.

I'm not really sure there was a "Nel era". He was usually the third seamer behind Pollock and Ntini, and then Steyn and Morkel took over. Although he's definitely the weakest of the South African quicks who have taken over 100 wickets.

 

[Dendarii]

Procter, le Roux, Van Der Bijl, Rice.. All in a 10yrs age difference. So, there was a possibility of this attack. 2nd greatest ever.. Probably.

Better than Steyn, Philander, Rabada, and Morkel?

 

[trundler]

Was thinking about how Murali could have taken 40 or so in 4 matches against minnows but not Warne. This has led me to conclusion that there are 3 types of players in this regard. The first would be those who always keep the intensity up eg Bradman who massively owned SA, India and England alike. Then there are the big match players. Guys who can summon their best in adverse circumstances eg Warne as said above, Miller and perhaps Richards. The third would be the downhill skiers and chokers. Guys who can't take the heat. Graveny as the impact study showed is a good example.

I figure this has to do with the individual's mental approach to cricket. Some are 'ruthless' in their pursuit of runs and wickets, some thrive on competition. Others are pussies.

 

[Borges]

Truly great players (ATVGs) are those like Bradman who always perform at an exalted level; the rest are just ordinary ATGs.

It is debatable if Warne falls into the category of 'guys who can summon their best in adverse circumstances'.
His bowling became worse than normal if the batsmen didn't allow him to get on top early in his spell. (India, West Indies with Lara.)

 

[trundler]

Truly great players (ATVGs) are those like Bradman who always perform at an exalted level; the rest are just ordinary ATGs.

It is debatable if Warne falls into the category of 'guys who can summon their best in adverse circumstances'.
His bowling became worse than normal if the batsmen didn't allow him to get on top early in his spell. (India, West Indies with Lara.)

Sure the examples are debatable but what do you think of the basic premise? Forgot to add a side note that Bradman fits into the first 2 categories as he is, of course, one of a kind.