Best Fast Bowler of the last 20 years

[stephen]

Bruce Reid was similar as well, though clearly he was several classes below Bishop.

Because he was Australian instead of West Indian?

 

[Richard]

Last 20 years I make that from 1988 onwards. So why o why is Marshall not on the list?

I guess because the idea is bowlers who played entire or the vast majority of their careers within said period. Marshall's glory years were '83 to '89. While the impression I've always got is that '90, '90/91 and '91 saw him as someone who left everyone who saw him bowl in no doubt about how superlative he had once been but could no longer quite summon the magnificence of his prime.

On that note, if Marshall is to be excluded, so should be Steyn. As I mentioned when I posted about him, his career has barely begun yet.

 

[Richard]

Because he was Australian instead of West Indian?

Eh? I'm talking about how good he was, not which team he played for.

 

[stephen]

Eh? I'm talking about how good he was, not which team he played for.

Well for me Bruce Reid was the classiest bowler in his side when he was fit. And given that was in a side with McDermott I'd have to say that he was in the same class as Bishop, though was able to play even less often.

I definately don't think that there is "classes" of difference between the two bowlers.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Bruce Reid was similar as well, though clearly he was several classes below Bishop.

This clearly a case of being clearly unable to see clearly.

I saw them both play (something I know you didn't). This far from the truth. They were both very good, dangerous bowlers of a similar level. If Bishop was better, it was by a tincy bit, but even that I'm not conceding.

Pause while I check statsguru.

Well expected that I would probably be statistically wrong, BUT
avg, SR and ER all very very very similar.

 

[Richard]

Well for me Bruce Reid was the classiest bowler in his side when he was fit. And given that was in a side with McDermott I'd have to say that he was in the same class as Bishop, though was able to play even less often.

I definately don't think that there is "classes" of difference between the two bowlers.

Bishop, if his back had been in better shape, could very easily have been challenging for the title of best seam-bowler in history. There is absolutely no way Reid was ever going to do that. Had he been stronger of the body, he'd probably have been comfortably in the "very good Test bowler" category. A bit like Craig McDermott, in fact.

I don't, personally, think Reid was much if at all better than McDermott. Had Reid "only" had the injury troubles McDermott did, I reckon they'd have ended-up with very similar records.

 

[Richard]

This clearly a case of being clearly unable to see clearly.

I saw them both play (something I know you didn't). This far from the truth. They were both very good, dangerous bowlers of a similar level. If Bishop was better, it was by a tincy bit, but even that I'm not conceding.

Pause while I check statsguru.

Well expected that I would probably be statistically wrong, BUT
avg, SR and ER all very very very similar.

Truth is career averages are completely meaningless in these two's cases. Bishop until his last phase (1997/98) was consistently brilliant... when able to step on the park.

Reid in actual fact was a truly deadly bowler for a sum-total of 9 Tests, between 1990/91 and 1992/93 when he was able to get on the park. Before then he was first ineffective (1985/86-1986/87), then usefully promising (1987/88-1988/89). I don't need to have watched their careers ball-by-ball to know that. I can read, I can look at highlights footage, and I can look at match figures.

As I say, Bishop was potentially one of the best there's ever been. Reid was potentially a very good Test bowler. There is no way Reid was ever going to be as good as Bishop, nor was he ever.

 

[Pratters]

Bishop, if his back had been in better shape, could very easily have been challenging for the title of best seam-bowler in history.

I wiouldn't say easily but yes, Bishop for a period looked like he could end up as an all time great bowler.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Truth is career averages are completely meaningless in these two's cases. Bishop until his last phase (1997/98) was consistently brilliant... when able to step on the park.

Reid in actual fact was a truly deadly bowler for a sum-total of 9 Tests, between 1990/91 and 1992/93 when he was able to get on the park. Before then he was first ineffective (1985/86-1986/87), then usefully promising (1987/88-1988/89). I don't need to have watched their careers ball-by-ball to know that. I can read, I can look at highlights footage, and I can look at match figures.

As I say, Bishop was potentially one of the best there's ever been. Reid was potentially a very good Test bowler. There is no way Reid was ever going to be as good as Bishop, nor was he ever.

Highlights are the most misleading thing in the world, generally only show the good stuff.

Sorry that whole argument was really really poor, though I do find amusing how when you do make a crazy statement, its the classic digging deeper and deeper trying to get out thing.

Try admitting your wrong and moving on. I do it all the time and believe it or not, it actually feels good. You'll probably get a tingly feeling the first time you do it too.

Anyways cheers and goodnight

 

[Richard]

Highlights are the most misleading thing in the world, generally only show the good stuff.

I know that, I've said this plenty of times. Hence, you can compare the best of Reid and the best of Bishop, and look at the figures and prose to work-out when they happened and what happened at other times.

Sorry that whole argument was really really poor, though I do find amusing how when you do make a crazy statement, its the classic digging deeper and deeper trying to get out thing.

Nice try. Much as some like holes to be there, they're not very often, and you can't dig a hole deeper if it's not there. It's a nice image to conjure up for yourself though.

Try admitting your wrong and moving on. I do it all the time and believe it or not, it actually feels good. You'll probably get a tingly feeling the first time you do it too.

I don't do admitting I'm wrong if I'm not wrong, so no, I'm not going to be trying it.

 

[Richard]

I wiouldn't say easily but yes, Bishop for a period looked like he could end up as an all time great bowler.

Well, in the sense that doing that is never remotely easy, no, certainly, but I mean "there's a very good chance he could've been doing".

 

[stephen]

Truth is career averages are completely meaningless in these two's cases. Bishop until his last phase (1997/98) was consistently brilliant... when able to step on the park.

Reid in actual fact was a truly deadly bowler for a sum-total of 9 Tests, between 1990/91 and 1992/93 when he was able to get on the park. Before then he was first ineffective (1985/86-1986/87), then usefully promising (1987/88-1988/89). I don't need to have watched their careers ball-by-ball to know that. I can read, I can look at highlights footage, and I can look at match figures.

As I say, Bishop was potentially one of the best there's ever been. Reid was potentially a very good Test bowler. There is no way Reid was ever going to be as good as Bishop, nor was he ever.

So basically what you are saying is that Bishop was consistantly less good than Reid after the 85/86 and 86/87 seasons.

Fact is that both bowlers had rough trots for around 13 tests. Bishops at the end of his career and Reid at the beginning. However, Reid was much better after this, and if he wasn't hampered with injury and kept on going with the same form that he was in from the 87/88 season onwards for a full career, he would have been considered quite possibly in the top 2-3 quicks Australia has ever produced.

There really is nothing to separate them, except that Bishop played around 15 more tests than Reid did. You can say that you saw both and Bishop looked the better bowler, or you could even say that he was a better bowler because he played more tests, but any statistical analysis that you pull out against Reid can be countered by a similar disection of statistics.

Side by side:
Cricinfo Statsguru - BA Reid - Test matches - Bowling analysis
Cricinfo Statsguru - IR Bishop - Test matches - Bowling analysis

 

[Richard]

Reid was truly outstanding for just 9 Tests. Bishop was truly outstanding for 30-odd Tests.

Simple as.

Also, Bishop when outstanding was far, far more outstanding than Reid. Figures hint at this; a quick look at the two of them bowling makes it patently obvious.

I honestly am struggling to believe anyone is contending that Bruce Reid could've been a 350-wickets-at-22 merchant had fitness been kind to him (which precious few dispute Bishop could've been). It is simply not remotely possible. Reid was a fine bowler, but that's it.

 

[bagapath]

bruce reid took 65 test wickets post 1988. so he obviously doesnt figure in the "best bowler of the last 20 years" short list.

 

[Ikki]

Sure it would. You'd think it wouldn't, but it does. Probability often does not quite work out exactly as common sense would tell you.

I could do a lot of calculations to prove that to you, but instead, show yourself. Take every match McGrath played, and divide them into 14 different groups at random. Then, find a bowling average of each group. Find out which one is the highest, and I can almost guarantee it will be higher than the 30-odd he averages at home to South Africa.

The problem is that the division of the tests are not equal and are not subsequent to each other. McGrath played 9 tests over a decade against an opponent and clearly did not do well. To assume that the division in opponents just happens to devalue McGrath's record coincidentally every time he plays S.Africa is nonsensical IMO.

 

[haroon510]

Voted for akram.. just think that akram had more skills than both ambrose and McGrath..although, he wasn't as succesfull as those two..

 

[Debris]

Who said anything about ignoring anything? I mentioned quite clearly that the former Waqar fits in one place and the latter one in another. There is no "only one part counts" - the point is simply that there were two stages to his career which need to be ranked in different places.

You cannot pretend the two were the same thing and try to rate Waqar on his whole career as the same thing.

It's pretty much impossible, at least for a seamer. Lara managed it with Murali (and pretty well no-one else did) for instance, but against a seamer he has complete control over just about any batsman if he's good enough.

A bowler who is among the best you'll see will never be able to be made completely ineffective by any batsman. Even Viv Richards.

Of course I can combine the two parts. It is the only way that makes sense. One you start leaving out parts of people's career when judging them, where do you stop. Can I suggest that Jim Laker is the best bowler ever because between 26 and 31 July he picked up 19 wickets at the remarkable average of 4.74? He wasn't as good before or after this but what does that matter. People would laugh if I suggested it but it is the same reasoning taken to extremes.

As for dominating a seam bowler, Desmond Haynes scored 584 runs at 64.5 against Pakistan with Waqar Younis in the side (between 1990 and 1995 actually) while being dismissed by Waqar Younis only once. Complete domination.

 

[Sanz]

Voted for akram.. just think that akram had more skills than both ambrose and McGrath..although, he wasn't as succesfull as those two..

What do you mean "He wasn't as successful as those two" ?

 

[bagapath]

Voted for akram.. just think that akram had more skills than both ambrose and McGrath..although, he wasn't as succesfull as those two..

haroon... akram was as much a champion as any other great fast bowler in the history of the game... i have consistently voted for mcgrath whenever they were pitted against each other. i have also chosen marshall, hadlee, imran, lillee and ambrose ahead of him on other occasions. but i dont think he was inferior to them in any which way. i think he could win a match on his own on his day as much as any of them. my preference of others over him has been merely statistical.. splitting hair to be more precise... in terms of class, commitment, endurance, skill, energy, style and numbers he is right up there with the very best ever. you can rank him below others but please dont say he wasnt successful in comparison with anyone else. he ticked every box.

 

[Bracken]

Reid was truly outstanding for just 9 Tests. Bishop was truly outstanding for 30-odd Tests.

Simple as.

Also, Bishop when outstanding was far, far more outstanding than Reid. Figures hint at this; a quick look at the two of them bowling makes it patently obvious.

I honestly am struggling to believe anyone is contending that Bruce Reid could've been a 350-wickets-at-22 merchant had fitness been kind to him (which precious few dispute Bishop could've been). It is simply not remotely possible. Reid was a fine bowler, but that's it.

Ugh. You know, it is this kind of "I'm the font of all knowledge" arrogance that makes so many people look forward to busting your balls around here. Acting like you can authoritatively conclude that it is "simply not remotely possible", based on nothing match reports, highlight packages and your own inflated opinion of your analytical ability really is the height of douchebaggery.

Reid had almost the same level of control over line and length as McGrath did. He delivered from much the same height, with the added benefit of a more troubling angle to the right-hander and prodigious, consistent, very late swing back in. When fit, he was definitely sharper than McGrath, and had a similarly uncomplicated bowling ideology. Given McGrath's success, to suggest that it is beyond the realms of possibility for Reid to have had similar success is just asinine.

Here's a few things that those match reports won't tell you: Bruce Reid didn't play a single test match at anything even CLOSE to real fitness. Even those few matches where he was, as you put it, a "truly deadly bowler", he looked like a cripple after the day's play. With Bruce Reid, "fitness" was a rather fluid concept.

From what I saw of Reid (and I actually SAW Reid's career, right from his grade and state career through to his test career- not to mention his pretty handy post-test indoor cricket career), his best test appearances- as good as they were- were a LONG way away from being the efforts of a fully fit Bruce Reid. Before someone stole his spine and replaced it with a stale breadstick, he was a good yard or two quicker, he got more bounce, and he was able to bowl longer spells. I have little doubt that in a hypothetical world where injuries don't exist, Bruce Reid would have been rated amongst the very, very best the world has seen. He was THAT good.

Let me reiterate that: Reid NEVER played a test match at anything even close to full fitness. Not one. If he was "deadly" when he was only reasonably fit, it is entirely possible (likely, in my opinion) that he would have been a world-beater if actually fit.

And, I might add, his best was FAR better than Craig McDermott's best. Again, I saw much of McDermott's first-class and test career, and I certainly don't underrate him. But Reid was easily a couple of classes above him. Very few people who watched the two in their peaks would suggest otherwise. It's not an exaggeration to say that McGrath was closer to Gillespie than Reid was to McDermott.

I have little doubt that injury robbed Bishop of being placed amongst the fast bowling greats. Frankly, I have less doubt that injury robbed Reid of the same.

But of course, it's a debatable point. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it would be "impossible" to think otherwise. That would make me sound like a bit of a prick.

Look, I'm sure you're pretty harmless. Sure, you can come across as a bit of a know-it-all, you have a major issue with admitting your mistakes, and someone needs to steal your f-ing hyphen key. But I have no doubt that you're a nice enough guy, and I don't think you deserve half the crap you get around here. But the idea that you are such an authority that you can dismiss another guy's opinion as "impossible" based on little more than a few scorecards is just ridiculous.

Think about this: All of the scorecards and commentary in the world can't settle the argument of exactly what type of bowler Barnes was. If that doesn't demonstrate the limitations of an opinion formed without actually seeing the players, nothing will.