Best Fast Bowler of the last 20 years

[subshakerz]

I find it hard to go past Akram. He's not statistically the best, but if you ask any major batsman from the 90s onwards who was the best pacer they faced, they would say Akram. I know that is the opinion of Michael Slater, Michael Atherton, Lara and many others.

 

[Richard]

Really? Favourite ever? Why's that?

He just sports almost everything I think a bowler should be. He bowls seam, he swings the new ball in and out, he cuts it away, he swings the old ball in, he can turn the most unresponsive surface into a minefield, and he can cash-in on a good ball and a nice green pitch to about the best extent you could ask for.

The fact that he has no great height and no great speed, yet can still when bowling well bowl as economically and penetratively as anyone simply endears me to him even more. The fact that he is generally either absolutely brilliant or totally hopeless (not all that often anything in between) is in a way endearing and in a way unspeakably frustrating. But I've long since gotten used to it.

 

[Richard]

I find it hard to go past Akram. He's not statistically the best, but if you ask any major batsman from the 90s onwards who was the best pacer they faced, they would say Akram. I know that is the opinion of Michael Slater, Michael Atherton, Lara and many others.

There's no doubt that when Wasim slipped himself - as he did with plentiful regularity - he troubled just about any batsmen more than all bowlers of his own generation and most of any generation. Not only was this due to his remarkable skills with swing and his speed out of the hand, but his ability to "hide" the ball - to stop batsmen seeing it until later than they did with most bowlers. Courtney Walsh also had this ability, but his skills with swing were not a patch on Wasim's, so thus he was inferior.

However, Wasim also lacked fitness to a fairly unacceptable extent, causing an occasional lack of stamina, and had an occasional propensity to bowl stacks of no-balls and spray it all over the place. Very occasionally, he appeared to inexplicably lack focus and motivation. This counts against him in my book, and thus he's neither Pakistan's best Test bowler ever nor, in my view, quite as good as Donald, though you could make a case for him being better than Ambrose and McGrath, and the Pollock of his first half of career.

If Wasim had eliminated the rough edges from his game he'd almost certainly have been the best of his generation and maybe even have challenged for the best ever. But he was not able to do this.

 

[Debris]

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.

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.

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.

I agreed that there was two totally different stages for Waqar Younis' career. My argument is that you cannot just ignore the bad part when you consider him. Younis had that large sea-change and that is why I rate him less highly than some others (and his poor record in Australia, incidentally). Other bowlers performed at the high level throughout their career.

And batsmen can turn bowlers from kings to paupers. Are you saying that no batsman can dominate a good bowler over their careers? Pretty much all bowlers have a batsman that they have enormous difficulties with, I would suggest. Same as some batsmen are bunnies for certain bowlers.

 

[adharcric]

Tough to separate McGrath and Ambrose while Donald is right up there as well. I'll go with McGrath for doing all that on unfriendly pitches.

 

[Pratters]

Good points you make regarding Wasim Akram, Rich. Akram was the favorite to take the highest wickets record from Kapil but the degradation in the end meant that he didn't come close. Walsh's massive improvement in bowling meant that he ultimately took the record from Kapil Dev.

 

[stephen]

McGrath for me. No other fast bowler got near his accomplishments after 2000 in the most batsman friendly era of the game's history. Ambrose second best for me.

I don't rate Donald particularly highly in the eschelon of greats. In Tugga's autobiography he pointed out mental weakness in Donald, which the Aussies exploited.

 

[ret]

went with Donald mainly because I have seen Indians play him badly than other pace bowlers they have played. whenever he was bowling, I would be like a wkt would fall lol .... otherwise Ambrose would be my pick, followed by Akram

Sad to see no Srinath in the option list. In an era when spinners dominated in India, he would still make an impression and provide valuable early break through

 

[Furball]

I agreed that there was two totally different stages for Waqar Younis' career. My argument is that you cannot just ignore the bad part when you consider him. Younis had that large sea-change and that is why I rate him less highly than some others (and his poor record in Australia, incidentally). Other bowlers performed at the high level throughout their career.

And batsmen can turn bowlers from kings to paupers. Are you saying that no batsman can dominate a good bowler over their careers? Pretty much all bowlers have a batsman that they have enormous difficulties with, I would suggest. Same as some batsmen are bunnies for certain bowlers.

Richard isn't disregarding Waqar's later years, merely ranking the Waqar of 1990-95 against his peers.

I voted McGrath. IMO, he's easily the greatest fast bowler of the last 20 years.

 

[bagapath]

ambrose's record against india is nothing to be proud of. donald was not great against australia. akram had his lows against england and south africa. mcgrath was more successful against more opponents for a longer time than the other three greats. that clinches it for me.

all the rest were a shade below these four.

 

[Evermind]

Why is Hahahahaharmison in there?

Tough choice between McGrath, Ambrose and Donald for mine. Went with Donald because of personal preference. But there's very little between the 3 of them.

 

[Debris]

Richard isn't disregarding Waqar's later years, merely ranking the Waqar of 1990-95 against his peers.

I voted McGrath. IMO, he's easily the greatest fast bowler of the last 20 years.

I might give this some consideration if the question was who was the best bowler between 1990 and 1995.

It was not.

 

[Sanz]

For me it is just hard to even look past Wasim Akram, with all due respect to others in the poll. On his day he could be as explosive as Ambrose, as fast as anyone and I dont think there was anyone more skilled.

Akram, fairly easily for me.

 

[Evermind]

Yeah, Akram and Donald for me were the more exciting, the more explosive of the top 4. Ambrose and McGrath were tighter, more disciplined, but also a little more boring - especially in the case of the latter.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Curtly Ambrose - Best pace bowler that I've ever seen.

Seen his spell of bowling of 7/1 against Australia in Australia on youtube. What a champion.

 

[SJS]

Define fast

 

[Goughy]

Its clearly either Ambrose or McGrath.

Donald and Akram should not enter the equation. Waqar could be thrown in as a wild card.

 

[Manee]

Its clearly either Ambrose or McGrath.

Donald and Akram should not enter the equation. Waqar could be thrown in as a wild card.

Out of interest, why should Donald not enter the equation, in your opinion?

 

[Ikki]

I find it hard to go past Akram. He's not statistically the best, but if you ask any major batsman from the 90s onwards who was the best pacer they faced, they would say Akram. I know that is the opinion of Michael Slater, Michael Atherton, Lara and many others.

Why does your logic here fall flat and turn the opposite way here?

 

[Ikki]

ambrose's record against india is nothing to be proud of. donald was not great against australia. akram had his lows against england and south africa. mcgrath was more successful against more opponents for a longer time than the other three greats. that clinches it for me.

all the rest were a shade below these four.

McGrath wasn't good against S.Africa in Australia. Averages 30 and SR of 80 IIRC.