World's Greatest Pace Bowler/Seamer (in Tests)

[The Sean]

Maybe I'm being one-eyed, but I can't help but think that if Flintoff wasn't a batsman as well, he'd be topping everyone's lists. At his best he is simply unplayable, yet he sees himself as a batting all-rounder, and has never given his bowling as much attention as it deserves.

That’s a fair comment mate, and I think you’re right – but that’s also what comes with the territory of being an all rounder. Even when you look at the legends, one half of their game invariably suffered (albeit only relatively speaking) if the other half was naturally, or became, stronger.

Sobers, for example, was always a great batsman who was also a good, Test-class bowler, but it wasn’t often he won matches purely with the ball. Keith Miller came into cricket as a brilliant batsman who could bowl fast – but his development as a great fast bowler and his importance to the team in the role inevitably took the edge of his batting (and several points off his batting average). Even Imran, who was probably as genuine an all-rounder as there has ever been, was rarely a matchwinner with both simultaneously. Barring a couple of instances, his peak batting and bowling periods didn’t often coincide in the same series.

Botham was a slightly different beast – for the first few years of his career he combined match-winning batting and bowling performances as well as anyone in the history of the game, but as his career went on BOTH disciplines declined to the point that over the second half of his career he rarely produced great performances in either of them.

Freddie might well have it in him to be a more consistently outstanding fast bowler than he is now, but if it came at the expense of his batting, might it make him a lesser cricketer? Others even greater than him have tried and failed to juggle both equally.

 

[Goughy]

Maybe I'm being one-eyed, but I can't help but think that if Flintoff wasn't a batsman as well, he'd be topping everyone's lists. At his best he is simply unplayable, yet he sees himself as a batting all-rounder, and has never given his bowling as much attention as it deserves.

Maybe because his ankle hurts like a mother and always will, as I highlighted in my 1-800 thread.

Take it from me, if fast bowling hurts (as it does for a number of guys) its hard to get enthused to do it and if there is something else to fall back on then it is obvious that this will be his preference. Its hard to describe the pain a number of unlucky fast bowlers go though.

The fact that Flintoff cant be relied on to bowl enough overs means he cant realistically be #1.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not sure if he'd be that much better TBH. It's not like he bowls too few overs due to his batting.

I'm thinking more along the lines of training and development here mate.

That’s a fair comment mate, and I think you’re right – but that’s also what comes with the territory of being an all rounder. Even when you look at the legends, one half of their game invariably suffered (albeit only relatively speaking) if the other half was naturally, or became, stronger.

Sobers, for example, was always a great batsman who was also a good, Test-class bowler, but it wasn’t often he won matches purely with the ball. Keith Miller came into cricket as a brilliant batsman who could bowl fast – but his development as a great fast bowler and his importance to the team in the role inevitably took the edge of his batting (and several points off his batting average). Even Imran, who was probably as genuine an all-rounder as there has ever been, was rarely a matchwinner with both simultaneously. Barring a couple of instances, his peak batting and bowling periods didn’t often coincide in the same series.

Botham was a slightly different beast – for the first few years of his career he combined match-winning batting and bowling performances as well as anyone in the history of the game, but as his career went on BOTH disciplines declined to the point that over the second half of his career he rarely produced great performances in either of them.

Freddie might well have it in him to be a more consistently outstanding fast bowler than he is now, but if it came at the expense of his batting, might it make him a lesser cricketer? Others even greater than him have tried and failed to juggle both equally.

Fair point, and I certainly wouldn't desire for him to be a lesser batsman; it would be to the detriment of the team if that were the case.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think it has to be Ntini for reasons that others have mentioned already. He has had a brilliant year, and has improved greatly throughout his career, especially with his accuracy. Sure, he may not be the most versatile bowler, but out of the current lot he'd be the one most likely to get you a 5-fer. And hes not like Harmison, where he can only get it up once in a blue moon in conditions tailor-made for him.

Also Bond>>>Jones. Hes proven whenever hes been fit that he can do a phenomenal job. Simon Jones has had one good series. I can see Bond continuing his trend of 5 matches followed by an injury ad nauseum, and he'd probably still make more of an impact than Simon Jones, of whom we're still not sure how the injury is going to affect how he bowls in the future.

 

[oz_fan]

At the moment I think Ntini would have to be number one. After that it is hard to choose a clear second because currently fast bowlers are either injured regularly (Bond, Jones), only starting out their career (Clark, Asif), etc.

 

[Stumped]

mcgrath, lillee, ambrose, spothif

 

[Richard]

^^^ Were thinking today, it seems...

And incidentally Marshall would be a better inclusion in those than Lillee.

 

[Beleg]

In my mind, Bond and Akhtar are pretty clearly the two best bowlers in the world at the moment. The fact that they don't play nearly enough doesn't matter because whenever they play, their impact is clearly visible and, most importantly, they haven't retired yet.

After that, Pollock, Ntini, Clarke, Asif, Nel, Lee and Flintoff are all very good bowlers, if I had to pick one of them, I'd probably go with Pollock. Sreesanth, Malinga and Steyn are good prospects as well.

 

[Richard]

When I first saw Lasith Malinga I thought "puh, he won't last 2 minutes - if he doesn't put his shoulder out he'll go for 4-an-over virtually every game".

And yet so far, he hasn't...

Bond hasn't really played enough IMO to be classed at the top, I've said it several times. He's played 12 games for 50 wickets at 27.32, usually doing well at home where pitches have often been green-tops (both against Ind in 2002\03 were, and so was Christchurch 2006\07 - not so sure about Auckland 2005\06) and being wholly ineffective in Aus and SL when he did go there.

In other words, the only time he's had success has been against subcontinental tourists on home green-tops and against WI on flat pitches. Not best-in-World material for mine.

Damn fantastic ODI bowler, though, and equally - don't doubt that I think he has the potential in Tests.

 

[adharcric]

Really, it has to be Ntini by default. He is obviously a world-class quick but the others are either too new (Asif, Clark) or too inconsistent (Flintoff, Akhtar, Bond).
Pollock is still an intelligent bowler but he doesn't have the striking ability you would expect of a world-class seamer. Should be interesting to see who emerges in the next year or so.

SS, can you believe it? An Indian pace bowler was mentioned FIVE times in a thread for the world's greatest pace bowler. Isn't that ridiculous?

 

[Richard]

Sreesanth genuinely looks like he has it in him to be the best Indian seamer of the modern era.

But he has a bit to do yet to even put himself into third-place (behind, obviously, Kapil and Java).

But putting him up amongst the World's best is a bit premature yet. It was only this series that he established his credentials as a truly Test-class bowler - while Munaf Patel, who I'd always rated higher until then, rapidly regressed.

 

[age_master]

Its between Ntini and Flintoff for me, Pollock would be the other bloke who is up there.

 

[adharcric]

Sreesanth genuinely looks like he has it in him to be the best Indian seamer of the modern era.

But he has a bit to do yet to even put himself into third-place (behind, obviously, Kapil and Java).

But putting him up amongst the World's best is a bit premature yet. It was only this series that he established his credentials as a truly Test-class bowler - while Munaf Patel, who I'd always rated higher until then, rapidly regressed.

Completely agree.

 

[Richard]

Its between Ntini and Flintoff for me, Pollock would be the other bloke who is up there.

He would?

 

[DCC_legend]

i really like asif when he played against england he looked a good bowler, not complete but he has a definite future in the game. Thats if he stays away from all the drugs and the like. The scandal cant have done his reputation that much good.

How come stuart clark is only in the oz test squad now? where was he in past years?

EDIT:I like sreesanth aswell he looks a good bowler. hes got the rite attitude and agression which, i think will help him.

 

[Richard]

Behind the likes of Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie, Michael Kasprowicz, Andy Bichel, Brett Lee and Shaun Tait.

For which there are sound reasons for all, even if only 1 may end-up a better Test bowler.

Unfortunately, Clark was 25 before he even started making a mark in First-Class cricket, and by then there were others ahead of him in the pecking-order.

Even though he's mostly been excellent since 2000\01, I don't think anyone could really have anticipated quite how brilliantly he'd bowl in his first 2 Test-series'.

EDIT: doesn't it seem hilarious now that Scott Muller was playing 2 Tests while Clark was having a season off with his First-Class bowling-average of 200-odd!

 

[Richard]

i really like asif when he played against england he looked a good bowler, not complete but he has a definite future in the game.

If Asif didn't look the complete bowler in that Test I'd like to know who did where.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, Clark's first class record is fairly good, particularly given he played in Australia most of the time, but it's certainly not great, and was obviously worse than it is not before he got picked. He simply had a lot of bowlers to get past to find his place in the team and his performances weren't always consistent enough to put his name in lights.

Even when he had a good season at domestic level, he was never someone who ran through sides or topped the wicket taking or anything, which is usually the sort of bowler who gets noticed by the media and selectors.

It's a similar sort of case to Darren Lehmann or Mike Hussey.

 

[Jono]

He would?

Whilst I agree Pollock has been fairly mediocre for a while, didn't it come out that he was carrying an injury for much of his tour of Australia and Australia and NZ's tour of SA?

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, he would. Bowling average of 16, batting average of 37, now that he is unhurt and IMO back to the best.

We'll find out against Pakistan.