• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What Is your Criteria For Rating best fast Bowler ?

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
There have been numerous arguments, threads about who the best pace bowler is and all of us have different ways of looking, so I would like to ask here, what all things you consider and how much in your rating of a fast bowler.

Here are the few criteria (Obviously lifted from SJS' thread on Fast bowlers) :-

1. Stats (a. Avg b. Strike Rate c.Economy Rate)
2. Action
3. Speed
4. Accuracy
5. Variety
6. Skill Level
7. Stamina
8. Aggression
9. Peer Rating
10. Other (Performance in the subcontinent, non-helpful conditions etc)

I would like you all to give a rating on a scale of 1 to 10, obviously 10 being the highest rating and lowest.

Go on, Rate your best fast bowlers.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
There have been numerous arguments, threads about who the best pace bowler is and all of us have different ways of looking, so I would like to ask here, what all things you consider and how much in your rating of a fast bowler.

Here are the few criteria (Obviously lifted from SJS' thread on Fast bowlers) :-

1. Stats (a. Avg b. Strike Rate c.Economy Rate)
2. Action
3. Speed
4. Accuracy
5. Variety
6. Skill Level
7. Stamina
8. Aggression
9. Peer Rating
10. Other (Performance in the subcontinent, non-helpful conditions etc)

I would like you all to give a rating on a scale of 1 to 10, obviously 10 being the highest rating and lowest.

Go on, Rate your best fast bowlers.
Once a player's career is over, I judge them purely on what they've done - not what their attributes suggest they might have done if they had their time again.

Sanz said:
2. Action
3. Speed
4. Accuracy
5. Variety
6. Skill Level
7. Stamina
8. Aggression
All those criteria are very important in judging the potential of a fast bowler who is still playing - what he might achieve if he is given an extended run in a Test team - but they have no impact on how I would judge a retired player's career in the grand scheme of Test cricket.

In depth statistical analysis (and no, I don't just mean career averages - I mean examining the bowler's performances over his career with relevant sources to provide possible explanations to any inconsistencies) along with, to a much smaller extent, the opinions of others at the time the player played the game is the way to go IMO.

I'm not saying we should base it all on one almighty formula or just look at the career averages as there are possible explanations for many players having blips on their record book and these should be considered, but I judge a bowler on what he achieved.
 
Last edited:

JBH001

International Regular
1. Stats: 10
2. Action: 0
3. Speed: 0
4. Accuracy: 0
5. Variety: 0
6. Skill Level: 0
7. Stamina: 0
8. Aggression: 0
9. Peer Rating: 0
10. Other: 0






























Sorry, could not resist! ;) :D
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Once a player's career is over, I judge them purely on what they've done - not what their attributes suggest they might have done if they had their time again.
I don't think I am asking anyone to judge on the basis of what they could have done. It is definitely on the basis of what they achieved.

And that achievement isn't limited to no. of wickets. IMO all great ones achieved enough to earn 'Great' tag attached to them. So what makes you pick one ahead of others.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
And that achievement isn't limited to no. of wickets. IMO all great ones achieved enough to earn 'Great' tag attached to them. So what makes you pick one ahead of others.
I don't really think achieving greater pace and accuracy than the next guy is of any use if he took more wickets at a better average against better opposition in harder conditions, though. It doesn't really matter if Lillee was faster and looked more penetrative than Hadlee for example if Hadlee performed better (marginally as it was) over his career, AFAIC.

While all great bowlers obviously ticked most if not all of the boxes, I think some of them had better careers than others, and that opinion doesn't derive from how accurate they were or how much stamina they had. That's just me, though, and I can certainly see the other side to some extent.
 

pasag

RTDAS
1. Stats - 0
2. Action - 0
3. Speed - 0
4. Accuracy - 0
5. Variety - 0
6. Skill Level - 0
7. Stamina - 0
8. Aggression - 0
9. Peer Rating - 0
10. Other (size of 'tache) - 10

:p
 

FRAZ

International Captain
1. Stats: 6
2. Action: 7
3. Speed: 9.7987
4. Accuracy: 7
5. Variety: 8
6. Skill Level: 8
7. Stamina: 8
8. Aggression: 10
9. Peer Rating: Who is she?
10. Other: Has a world record of the fastest ball in the history !
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
1. Stats - 8 - I think there must be a certain overall record that a fast bowler must maintain to be considered among the elite. Past that it becomes almost irrelevant for me. I am not going to say bowler a>bowler b because he is 1 point better in average and SR.

2. Action - 7 - I really do not place much importance on this. Some bowlers actions help them have a longer career/helps fool batsmen, what have you. But if you have just a plain action and take wickets then it's not much of a talking point. However, it does seem that the best have had very good actions: Lindwall/Lillee/Holding, etc.

3. Speed - 7 - Speed is important but it does not define success. When all else is lost it can be handy to be able to blast balls at batsmen but it does not define what is best.

4. Accuracy - 8 - Is one of the most important aspects to bowling. For it makes the form of a bowler less relevant. If a bowler can keep it in the right areas he will at the least be asking questions of the batsmen. At best, he can put it where he wants and strategically doop the batsman into taking a shot.

5. Variety - 9 - At test level, you simply cannot survive without variety. Players at this level become accustomed fast and you will end up having a short career if you have few weapons in your arsenal.

6. Skill Level - 8 - The ability to bowl different kinds of deliveries is usually a trait of the very best. Not only does it help in variation of deliveries, but it will help in the variation of pitches.

7. Stamina - 8 - A fast bowler without stamina is like a Ferrari without much fuel. Fast bowlers need to be able to bowl long spells if needed and if you can have the kind of energy to bowl your last ball like your first then you are a very dangerous and unforgiving bowler.

8. Aggression - 9 - Aggression can be the difference between the batsmen getting a hold of the match and slowly taking your team apart or your bowlers always keeping them on the back-foot. Whilst it is okay for a bowler to be defensive when the batsmen are going strong, the ability to trouble even this batsman with more than just accuracy is a match-winning trait for mine.

9. Peer Rating - 9- it really depends how unianimous this rating is. For guys like Lillee, I think it proves more than whatever their career record leaves wanting. When you have so many people, including your contemporaries, hail you the best, I think it's beyond Statsguru.

10. Other - 9 - I think this is also another trait that sets apart the best. You have a bowler that will take wickets when the pitch doesn't aid them or the situation is dire - things of this nature - then you have a very special fast bowler.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Once a player's career is over, I judge them purely on what they've done - not what their attributes suggest they might have done if they had their time again.

All those criteria are very important in judging the potential of a fast bowler who is still playing - what he might achieve if he is given an extended run in a Test team - but they have no impact on how I would judge a retired player's career in the grand scheme of Test cricket.

In depth statistical analysis (and no, I don't just mean career averages - I mean examining the bowler's performances over his career with relevant sources to provide possible explanations to any inconsistencies) along with, to a much smaller extent, the opinions of others at the time the player played the game is the way to go IMO.

I'm not saying we should base it all on one almighty formula or just look at the career averages as there are possible explanations for many players having blips on their record book and these should be considered, but I judge a bowler on what he achieved.
Pretty much agree with all of that really.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Would add "longevity" as an admirable trait as well.
Absolutely, but be careful of that. 70 and 120 Tests are both "longevity" for me (at least, in the last 50 years or so - you can knock it down to 40 and 60 going back another 20, then down further back into the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s), and both count pretty much equally.

70 Tests of good performance and 120 Tests of equal performance is not enormously different.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
In depth statistical analysis (and no, I don't just mean career averages - I mean examining the bowler's performances over his career with relevant sources to provide possible explanations to any inconsistencies) along with, to a much smaller extent, the opinions of others at the time the player played the game is the way to go IMO.

I'm not saying we should base it all on one almighty formula or just look at the career averages as there are possible explanations for many players having blips on their record book and these should be considered, but I judge a bowler on what he achieved.
AWTA
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
1. He has to be fast.

2. He has to be the best.

Edit: 3. They have to be a bowler.
 
Last edited:

Debris

International 12th Man
A few more missing for me.

Consistency - can't have huge swings between best and worst

Intelligence - ability to sum up a batsman and how to get him out

Toughness - how do they recover when things go badly

Leadership - do they make others bowlers and fielders play better

Intimidation - does he freak out the batsman

and probably many more I have missed.



Oh, and how many buttons are undone on his shirt.
 

Top