Best Fast Bowler of the last 20 years

[zaremba]

The idea of cherry-picking the best part of someone's career to rate them is just ridiculous. You look at the whole career or nothing.

One thing you can learn here is the glory of statistical purification. Try thinking along the following lines: "for all but 22 balls in the 1988 England v West Indies series, Ambrose went completely wicketless." You'll soon get the hang of it...

 

[Richard]

The idea of cherry-picking the best part of someone's career to rate them is just ridiculous. You look at the whole career or nothing.

No, it's ridiculous to pretend a player is the same all career. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in taking Waqar Younis' career as one thing. Because it wasn't. 1990/91 to 1994/95 he was probably the best bowler the game has ever seen. 1995/96 to 2000/01 he was no more than a good bowler.

Cricketers change over a lengthy career. You have to analyse on a piece-by-piece basis, not try to pretend all remained the same, because it never, ever does.

Most players take a few Tests to find their feet; more than not have a few bad games toward the end. If someone has been excellent to good for a lengthy period which forms the plateau of their career, I am completely happy to take precisely zero notice of the bit at the start and end where they were not very good, because most players have such a thing.

And some players have two, or even more, distinctly different phases. Waqar Younis and Shaun Pollock are two of the best examples. Phase one and phase two were drastically different. Give me one good reason to treat them as the same thing?

 

[Richard]

One thing you can learn here is the glory of statistical purification. Try thinking along the following lines: "for all but 22 balls in the 1988 England v West Indies series, Ambrose went completely wicketless." You'll soon get the hang of it...

I really don't know why you continue to make implications like this. You know full well that I have absolutely zero sympathy for such an idea.

If you're joking (which the PH34R) suggests you might be), try to only joke with established posters. Comments like that are liable to be taken as deadly-serious by those who are not regulars on the forum, and thus people will think you're making derogatory comments aimed at me when you're not. Which doesn't help my reputation or yours.

 

[zaremba]

Richard I'm sorry but your pronouncement that Ambrose only "came good" in 1990 is not just wrong, it's truly bizarre.

 

[zaremba]

I really don't know why you continue to make implications like this. You know full well that I have absolutely zero sympathy for such an idea.

If you're joking (which the PH34R) suggests you might be), try to only joke with established posters. Comments like that are liable to be taken as deadly-serious by those who are not regulars on the forum, and thus people will think you're making derogatory comments aimed at me when you're not. Which doesn't help my reputation or yours.

There's a fine line between derogatory and leg-pulling. And it's an enjoyable line to try to walk. I don't mean any offence as I think you know. And frankly you must know that you put yourself out there to have your leg pulled Richard, so you shouldn't be surprised when that happens. As for my reputation and yours, well we'll post what we post and our reputations will take care of themselves.

 

[Richard]

Richard I'm sorry but your pronouncement that Ambrose only "came good" in 1990 is not just wrong, it's truly bizarre.

The 1990 series against England was the start of the time when Ambrose became someone who stepped onto the park and conquered all he encountered. Weak or strong.

Perhaps "come good" is not the most accurate term. There's no disputing, though, that before that he lacked something and was not, quite, the bowler that we saw between 1990 and 2000.

 

[Debris]

No, it's ridiculous to pretend a player is the same all career. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in taking Waqar Younis' career as one thing. Because it wasn't. 1990/91 to 1994/95 he was probably the best bowler the game has ever seen. 1995/96 to 2000/01 he was no more than a good bowler.

Cricketers change over a lengthy career. You have to analyse on a piece-by-piece basis, not try to pretend all remained the same, because it never, ever does.

Most players take a few Tests to find their feet; more than not have a few bad games toward the end. If someone has been excellent to good for a lengthy period which forms the plateau of their career, I am completely happy to take precisely zero notice of the bit at the start and end where they were not very good, because most players have such a thing.

And some players have two, or even more, distinctly different phases. Waqar Younis and Shaun Pollock are two of the best examples. Phase one and phase two were drastically different. Give me one good reason to treat them as the same thing?

Maybe because batsmen worked them out and this is why they faded. Or that lack of motivation after a while counts against a bowler.

A great bowler adjusts to setbacks and is great in every phase of his career. Dennis Lillee is a prime example, great both pre and post injury. Losing pace did not make him fade. He found other ways to get batsmen out.

 

[Richard]

There's a fine line between derogatory and leg-pulling. And it's an enjoyable line to try to walk. I don't mean any offence as I think you know. And frankly you must know that you put yourself out there to have your leg pulled Richard, so you shouldn't be surprised when that happens.

I know you don't mean any offence, and I know when you're indulging in a bit of leg-pulling. Trouble is, this being a public forum, our posts are open to a wide amount of interpretation, and plenty of others may not. There are, after all, many new and non-regular posters, who can very easily get the wrong end of the stick. There are also a few posters, as I'm sure you're aware, who are only too happy to take any opportunity to believe, for want of a better phrase, that I'm widely held in ridicule. This, clearly, is wrong, but posts like yours above can help people who want to get this impression to get it.

As for my reputation and yours, well we'll post what we post and our reputations will take care of themselves.

As I say though - it is not just what we post but what others post that impacts upon this. We can control our own controllables only. We do not, entirely, take care of our own reputations.

 

[nightprowler10]

Much as I love Wasim, its tough to go past Ambrose.

 

[Richard]

Maybe because batsmen worked them out and this is why they faded. Or that lack of motivation after a while counts against a bowler.

A batsman cannot work a bowler out. The bowler has the ball and thus controls the game, so he can work a batsman out, but a bowler cannot be worked-out. If his performances decline, it's because of a drop in his own standards (or occasionally because he was simply fortunate to get the success ITFP, though this is exceptionally unusual for a period of success of any significant length). This may be due to lack of motivation, it may be due to decline in physical capability... the reason is not important. All that matters is that it happens.

And once it's happened, you're mad if you treat the stuff before and after it has happened as one and the same. Because they simply aren't.

A great bowler adjusts to setbacks and is great in every phase of his career. Dennis Lillee is a prime example, great both pre and post injury. Losing pace did not make him fade. He found other ways to get batsmen out.

No seam-bowler (and precious few spin-bowlers) can be great for more than perhaps 10-12 years. It is simply beyond the human body's capability. When someone's career happens is not entirely within his own control, and thus some may be able to make more use of this maximum window than others.

In any case, of what importance is this? That the best bowlers are good in every phase of their careers does not change the fact that no players are exactly the same throughout their career, and to pretend that everyone is one thing just because some are such a thing is pure folly.

 

[zaremba]

A batsman cannot work a bowler out. The bowler has the ball and thus controls the game, so he can work a batsman out, but a bowler cannot be worked-out. If his performances decline, it's because of a drop in his own standards (or occasionally because he was simply fortunate to get the success ITFP, though this is exceptionally unusual for a period of success of any significant length).

Two examples that I think (with respect, and without leg-pulling) prove your point wrong.

1. Viv Richards. If you saw the effect he had on bowlers, and I know you will have, you'd have to admit that he wrested control from them. He hit them off their line, off their length, and out of the attack. The fact that the bowler has the ball in his hand doesn't begin to tell the whole story. It doesn't cater for what someone (I think it was John Arlott) once referred to as "intimidatory batting".

2. Ajantha Mendis. Do you think he will continue to enjoy the success that he has enjoyed at the start of his career throughout his career? I know from previous posts that you don't. However you can't write off his phenomenal record, across all forms of the game, on luck or statistical anomaly. The fact is that he's different, and he will be worked out by batsmen.

No bowler can be great for more than perhaps 10-12 years..

Murali? (edit - I've seen your edit, fair enough)
SF Barnes? (he wasn't a wristspinner btw )

 

[Richard]

Two examples that I think (with respect, and without leg-pulling) prove your point wrong.

1. Viv Richards. If you saw the effect he had on bowlers, and I know you will have, you'd have to admit that he wrested control from them. He hit them off their line, off their length, and out of the attack. The fact that the bowler has the ball in his hand doesn't begin to tell the whole story. It doesn't cater for what someone (I think it was John Arlott) once referred to as "intimidatory batting".

2. Ajantha Mendis. Do you think he will continue to enjoy the success that he has enjoyed at the start of his career throughout his career? I know from previous posts that you don't. However you can't write off his phenomenal record, across all forms of the game, on luck or statistical anomaly. The fact is that he's different, and he will be worked out by batsmen.

While I highly doubt Mendis' phenomenal early success will continue, I also highly doubt he'll become unsuccessful. People "worked-out" Anil Kumble after his first year or so too - but he remained an excellent bowler. I assume the same will happen with Mendis. What I meant was no amount of working-out can drastically reduce a good bowler's effectiveness. And almost always, it's spinners rather than seamers who tend to have an amount of working-out happening.

As for Richards, I don't think he worked bowlers out. He, well, as you said, intimidated them. To bowl at someone like he, it often put you off. It wasn't that bowlers were bowling exactly as they bowled at others and he was smashing it - it was that the threat of him smashing it put bowlers off and they were incapable of bowling the deliveries that dismissed lesser players. Richards added to his excellence with his aura.

Richards, too, was an extreme rarity. Precious few have ever come remotely close to him for intimidation of the bowler. Richards cannot be used to prove any general trait, because he was a freak.

SF Barnes? (he wasn't a wristspinner btw )

One thing's for certain about Barnes - even if he wasn't a wristspinner, he broke many rules of bowling. Longevity was certainly one such.

 

[Debris]

A batsman cannot work a bowler out. The bowler has the ball and thus controls the game, so he can work a batsman out, but a bowler cannot be worked-out. If his performances decline, it's because of a drop in his own standards (or occasionally because he was simply fortunate to get the success ITFP, though this is exceptionally unusual for a period of success of any significant length). This may be due to lack of motivation, it may be due to decline in physical capability... the reason is not important. All that matters is that it happens.

And once it's happened, you're mad if you treat the stuff before and after it has happened as one and the same. Because they simply aren't.

No seam-bowler (and precious few spin-bowlers) can be great for more than perhaps 10-12 years. It is simply beyond the human body's capability. When someone's career happens is not entirely within his own control.

In any case, of what importance is this? That the best bowlers are good in every phase of their careers does not change the fact that no players are exactly the same throughout their career, and to pretend that everyone is one thing just because some are such a thing is pure folly.

I don't really care why they faded, the fact is that they did. And as far as I am concerned it affects their standing as a bowler when compared to someone who did not. Longetivity counts for something. If your action or body makes you injury-prone and reduces your career, so sorry this counts against you.

And as has been pointed out above, the idea that batsmen can't counter a bowler is wrong (particularly with so much video of bowlers available). They can get some idea of what a bowler is and is not capable of over time or just get used to how they bowl. Bowlers continually have to improve or change to maintain thier level of effectiveness. They won't become hopeless usually, just slightly less good.

 

[Uppercut]

Quite possibly the Pollock of the first half of his career deserves to be alongside Ambrose and McGrath TBH. But Donald, well, I just feel he's a cut above all the rest. Ambrose and McGrath both had their limitations - they were bowlers whose movement came off the pitch. Donald could move it off the pitch and through the air. And he could move it lots and move it little. Often, it seemed he could choose when to bowl the big outswinger and the small outswinger. And so on.

Donald, hum. What goes against him for me, in comparison to McGrath in particular, is that he bowled pace in 1990s South Africa, possibly the best possible time and place in history to bowl fast. I'm trying to pick out how much of what you say was Donald's unique ability- there's no doubt that he had it in abundance- and how much was the conditions he played in. To take an example, you wouldn't say that Makhaya Ntini is a swing bowler. In fact, you've previously said he isn't, and he uses swing no more or less than McGrath did. But only last week, he bowled a startling inswinger to Ponting that pegged his off-stump when he was offering no stroke.

I don't doubt Donald's ability, but he had something to work with more often than most. What amazes me about McGrath is that he bowled at one of the worst possible times and places to bowl pace- Australia, '93-'07. Ever since the turn of the millennium- or September 2001, if you prefer- there's been not one fast bowler who has gotten on top of batsmen consistently for any length of time, bar McGrath. From September 2001 until his retirement, he took 197 wickets (non-minnow) at an average of 22.

Has a fast bowler ever risen so highly above his contemporaries? Is there any other bowler in history who has had to face more flat pitches and more batsmen averaging over 50 than McGrath, and come out of it with a record like that? There sure aren't many.

And you can say you don't doubt that Donald or Ambrose would have surely done just as well, but you're merely speculating. Just as when I say I think Hayden would still have averaged over 40 in the nineties, I'll find people like you who disagree. McGrath is the bowler who dominated when no other fast bowler in the world could, and that's an indisputable fact. So when i'm picking a side, any side, i find it impossible to look past him.

 

[Richard]

I don't really care why they faded, the fact is that they did. And as far as I am concerned it affects their standing as a bowler when compared to someone who did not. Longetivity counts for something. If your action or body makes you injury-prone and reduces your career, so sorry this counts against you.

Of course longevity counts for something. The point, though, is that not all can achieve this. For those who cannot, and who make a sudden, distinct change, there is no point whatsoever pretending that this did not happen and judging them as if their career had been one relatively samey thing as others' sometimes comes close to doing.

I cannot understand why anyone would insist that Waqar Younis of 1990/91-1994/95 was not a completely and totally different bowler to Waqar Younis 1995/96-2000/01. It makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

And as has been pointed out above, the idea that batsmen can't counter a bowler is wrong (particularly with so much video of bowlers available).

Who suggested a batsman cannot counter a bowler? What I said is that they cannot work them out - they cannot do what a bowler (or bowlers) sometimes does to a batsman, and turn a king to a pauper.

They can get some idea of what a bowler is and is not capable of over time or just get used to how they bowl. Bowlers continually have to improve or change to maintain thier level of effectiveness. They won't become hopeless usually, just slightly less good.

A bowler becoming slightly less good happens to almost every single career. I am not talking about this; I am talking about when there is one distinct point where a large sea-change happens.

When such a thing happens, there is absolutely no point in pretending it did not.

 

[Richard]

Donald, hum. What goes against him for me, in comparison to McGrath in particular, is that he bowled pace in 1990s South Africa, possibly the best possible time and place in history to bowl fast. I'm trying to pick out how much of what you say was Donald's unique ability- there's no doubt that he had it in abundance- and how much was the conditions he played in. To take an example, you wouldn't say that Makhaya Ntini is a swing bowler. In fact, you've previously said he isn't, and he uses swing no more or less than McGrath did. But only last week, he bowled a startling inswinger to Ponting that pegged his off-stump when he was offering no stroke.

I don't doubt Donald's ability, but he had something to work with more often than most. What amazes me about McGrath is that he bowled at one of the worst possible times and places to bowl pace- Australia, '93-'07. Ever since the turn of the millennium- or September 2001, if you prefer- there's been not one fast bowler who has gotten on top of batsmen consistently for any length of time, bar McGrath. From September 2001 until his retirement, he took 197 wickets (non-minnow) at an average of 22.

Has a fast bowler ever risen so highly above his contemporaries? Is there any other bowler in history who has had to face more flat pitches and more batsmen averaging over 50 than McGrath, and come out of it with a record like that? There sure aren't many.

And you can say you don't doubt that Donald or Ambrose would have surely done just as well, but you're merely speculating. Just as when I say I think Hayden would still have averaged over 40 in the nineties, I'll find people like you who disagree. McGrath is the bowler who dominated when no other fast bowler in the world could, and that's an indisputable fact. So when i'm picking a side, any side, i find it impossible to look past him.

This is a perfectly fair observation, and for this reason, I don't begrudge someone who rates McGrath as the best seam-bowler of the last two decades nor even in history. I, however, am happy enough with my knowedge of Donald to be absolutely certain - not speculative, certain - that he would have achieved as much if not more than McGrath did. It really is a simple agree\disagree matter. I'll put my view accross, and if someone doesn't agree, I won't try to emphasise why I think they're wrong, because I don't neccessarily think they are.

(I won't get into why I don't actually think McGrath of 2001-2004 was an especially good bowler on flat pitches Because we are all agreed that he was such a thing 2004/05-2006/07, and 1994/95-2000/01 when he needed to be, and I don't need the hassle of that again, when it's been about 4 years since I last had it)

FTR, though, Australia 1994/95-2000/01 was most certainly not a seam-unfriendly place. Oho, no, not at all. The 'Gabba, The WACA and The MCG all tended to offer plenty to the seamer, and The SCG generally did in the second half of the game as the pitch fell to pieces. Only Adelaide Oval (Bellerive was not used very often) was truly a seamer's graveyard in the first half of McGrath's career.

 

[grant28]

If you're going to consider Fraser and Harmison in that line of then surely you should have Caddick and Gough!

I've voted for Ambrose but sort of regret it as really and truly I am undecided.

 

[Richard]

If you're going to consider Fraser and Harmison in that line of then surely you should have Caddick and Gough!

Harmison is only in as an irrelevant option (kinda like Vijay Dahiya is in an Engineer-vs-Kirmani poll) but it's true that if Fraser is there (on merit) then Gough should be, and this has already been mentioned.

Caddick, though, I'm less sure. Fraser > Caddick any day. At the end of the day, Caddick was a magnificent bowler, but in Tests only for 2 years. For the rest of his time - and there was a fair bit of it - he was a big disappointment.

Another one who should be in if Matthew Hoggard is, however, is Chaminda Vaas, probably my favourite bowler ever.

 

[Uppercut]

Another one who should be in if Matthew Hoggard is, however, is Chaminda Vaas, probably my favourite bowler ever.

Really? Favourite ever? Why's that?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It hard to imagine any reason why anyone other than Ambrose, McGrath, Donald and maybe Akram are in the poll.