Best Fast Bowler of the last 20 years

[Pratters]

Who do you think it was?

 

[Fusion]

Ambrose, Akram, McGrath in that order for me.

 

[Pratters]

Ambrose just ahead of McGrath for me. Ambrose was tigher as an economy rate of 2.3 against 2.5 of McGrath shows. However, although they had overlapping careers, McGrath bowled in a far more aggressive age in terms of batting than Ambrose. On the other hand, McGrath had the advantage of bowling in a better team compared to Ambrose.

 

[Manee]

Initial cut down results in these names (ask me to elaborate on any on the omissions, if you wish to know)...

McGrath - terrifyingly accurate + success in modern era
Ambrose - terrifyingly accurate + superior record to Mcgrath
Akram - worldwide success, superb skill
Donald - superb all round package, most astounding period of sustained form
Younis - best strike rate of a bowler with over 200 Test wickets

You know what, I cannot cut it down from that list, sorry for the cop out, but I think it is an injustice to separate between the bowlers (at least, I do now).

 

[Richard]

Ambrose just ahead of McGrath for me. Ambrose was tigher as an economy rate of 2.3 against 2.5 of McGrath shows. However, although they had overlapping careers, McGrath bowled in a far more aggressive age in terms of batting than Ambrose. On the other hand, McGrath had the advantage of bowling in a better team compared to Ambrose.

Not always. Ambrose had Bishop, Walsh, Winston Benjamin and Kenneth Benjamin in the team with him of times, sometimes many times. McGrath had McDermott, Reiffel and Warne for a year; he had Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne nearly a decade later; he had Fleming and others. But there were times when he was a one\two-man band.

BTW, Donald for me, obvs.

 

[Pratters]

Not always. Ambrose had Bishop, Walsh, Winston Benjamin and Kenneth Benjamin in the team with him of times, sometimes many times. McGrath had McDermott, Reiffel and Warne for a year; he had Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne nearly a decade later; he had Fleming and others. But there were times when he was a one\two-man band.

Still McGrath had the better bowling side and the better team working for him. Ambrose had MANY West Indian fast bowlers during his career which just shows the instability of the Windies bowling attack.

 

[Manee]

It comes down to a question of what part of fast bowling does one rate the most important. Is it the accuracy, the skill or the striking ability or a mixture of two or more of the three. If I were to go into more detail, I do suspect that Ambrose may not have had success on the flat pitches of the modern era. I have no doubt that he'd have been economical, but would he have struck at under 60, I'm not too sure. I have always had a soft spot for Mcgrath as 'the best' though it is hard to qualify such a judgement with statistics - the fact is that he got the best batsmen out with regularity and displayed genuine skill with seam movement and swing, later on in his career. Waqar is a statistical anomaly, some might say, for the superb strike rate but I guess he showed the value of quick yorkers in Test cricket (where has that gone, btw?) but I simply don't rate him too highly because of the extremely high economy rate and weakness in Australia. Akram was 'that good' but didn't statistically dominate as my the rest did.

I'm calling a tie between Donald and Mcgrath, as slightly less of a cop out than before.

 

[Richard]

Incidentally, might rank 'em something like...
1 Waqar Younis circa 1990/91-1994/95
2 Donald
3 Ambrose = McGrath
4 Pollock circa 1995/96-2001
5 Bishop
6 Wasim Akram
7 Walsh
8 Gillespie
9 PS de Villiers

McDermott
Hughes
Reiffel
Fraser
Waqar Younis circa 1995/96-2000/01
Flintoff circa 2003/04-onwards
Pollock circa 2001/02-2007/08
Shoaib Akhtar

Hoggard
Steyn (barely been in the game 5 minutes, so doesn't have a remotely full rating yet)



Harmison (presume he's the irrelevant option)

BTW, Gough and several others > Hoggard

 

[Pratters]

Can't believe I forgot Gough. I just wrote Harmison as I couldn't think of any other name and knew it would get a comment from you at least.

 

[Richard]

Still McGrath had the better bowling side and the better team working for him. Ambrose had MANY West Indian fast bowlers during his career which just shows the instability of the Windies bowling attack.

For the last 3 years of his career, yes. Between 1990 (when he came good) and 1997, though, he'd usually had a constant backup of a mixture of the excellent and the good, with only the occasional poor.

I'd not argue that Ambrose over his career probably was a team-mate to more poor-quality bowling than McGrath was - just pointing-out that Ambrose had quality fellows for a fair amount of his career as well.

 

[Pratters]

I'd not argue that Ambrose over his career probably was a team-mate to more poor-quality bowling than McGrath was - just pointing-out that Ambrose had quality fellows for a fair amount of his career as well.

Which is inferior to what McGrath had over all. Also, McGrath had the stronger team working for him.

 

[bunny]

Hey Richard,
I very much like your ranking.

Can you elaborate on why you ranked Pollock circa 96-01 less than Ambrose/McGrath and Donald (in entirety) over Ambrose/McGrath? (Probably you can just point me to a thread if you have already discussed this)

Incidentally, might rank 'em something like...
1 Waqar Younis circa 1990/91-1994/95
2 Donald
3 Ambrose = McGrath
4 Pollock circa 1995/96-2001
5 Bishop
6 Wasim Akram
7 Walsh
8 Gillespie
9 PS de Villiers

McDermott
Hughes
Reiffel
Fraser
Waqar Younis circa 1995/96-2000/01
Flintoff circa 2003/04-onwards
Pollock circa 2001/02-2007/08
Shoaib Akhtar

Hoggard
Steyn (barely been in the game 5 minutes, so doesn't have a remotely full rating yet)



Harmison (presume he's the irrelevant option)

BTW, Gough and several others > Hoggard

 

[zaremba]

Between 1990 (when he came good)

Are we talking about the same Curtly Ambrose that took 22 wickets @ 20 in England in 1988 and 26 wickets @ 21 in Australia in 1988/89?

You write a lot of stimulating stuff Richard but just occasionally your statistical theories descend into the realms of the plain barmy.

 

[Richard]

Hey Richard,
I very much like your ranking.

Can you elaborate on why you ranked Pollock circa 96-01 less than Ambrose/McGrath and Donald (in entirety) over Ambrose/McGrath? (Probably you can just point me to a thread if you have already discussed this)

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.

 

[Richard]

Are we talking about the same Curtly Ambrose that took 22 wickets @ 20 in England in 1988 and 26 wickets @ 21 in Australia in 1988/89?

Yes. Both those sides were at that time were at the lowest ebb they've ever been, in a quite shambolic state. I've never seen so much as 1 ball from either series, so Ambrose may have bowled exceptionally at those sides anyway.

However, against the vastly superior batting of the Indians and Pakistanis (in the Caribbean, no less), Ambrose came-up short. This makes me think it was England and Australia's inadequacies more than Ambrose bowling especially well.

As I say though - I straightaway say this is no more than a presumption. If someone who saw Ambrose in those two series' would convey that he was outstanding with ball in them, I'd quite happily revise.

One thing's for certain - England were a worthy opposition in 1990 and Ambrose was outstanding. As of 1990, he had irrefutably arrived.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are we talking about the same Curtly Ambrose that took 22 wickets @ 20 in England in 1988 and 26 wickets @ 21 in Australia in 1988/89?

You write a lot of stimulating stuff Richard but just occasionally your statistical theories descend into the realms of the plain barmy.

"Stimulating" as in "wanky" one assumes.

Ambrose tho for me. Did everything McGrath did, but quicker.

 

[Richard]

Ambrose's speeds at comparable stages of his career to McGrath were actually roughly similar. In their mid-20s, both were genuinely fast. In their mid-30s, both were medium-fast.

 

[zaremba]

Yes. Both those sides were at that time were at the lowest ebb they've ever been, in a quite shambolic state. I've never seen so much as 1 ball from either series, so Ambrose may have bowled exceptionally at those sides anyway.

England and Australia's poor performance against the West Indies was in large part due to the quality of the fast bowling arrayed against them. Ambrose at the forefront.

England's batting line-up that summer included Gooch, Lamb, Gower, Broad and Gatting, all whom whom were pretty decent players of pace.

Australia's batsmen included Marsh, Taylor, Boon, Jones, Border, S Waugh.

If someone who saw Ambrose in those two series' would convey that he was outstanding with ball in them, I'd quite happily revise.

Wisden on the 1988 series:

Marshall had long stood tall in international company, but of those who came in support, only Courtney Walsh could be counted as an established Test bowler. It did not take long for Curtly Ambrose, a tall Antiguan who shot to prominence only a few months earlier in the West Indies season, to demonstrate that he was a ready-made replacement for Garner. The height of his delivery, the bounce he could generate, and his direct method made him a constant menace and earned him 22 wickets.

Wisden on the 1988/89 series:

As in England, earlier in 1988, Ambrose's bowling was a telling factor, his lift when he dug the ball in - and sometimes when he didn't - being extremely difficult for batsmen to counter... Ambrose's advance compensated for something of a decline in Marshall's effectiveness, although at Melbourne Marshall became the ninth bowler to take 300 Test wickets.

 

[Debris]

Picked McGrath over Ambrose just because I seem to remember a couple of series where Ambrose was lethargic and not that good. I am struggling to think of 2 consecutive tests where McGrath was bad. Ambrose was the more lethal at his best.

I may be a bit biased against Donald only because I can remember the Australian batsmen getting on top of him quite a few times and I tend to rate overseas bowlers a bit on how they perform against Australia.

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.

 

[Richard]

England and Australia's poor performance against the West Indies was in large part due to the quality of the fast bowling arrayed against them. Ambrose at the forefront.

England's batting line-up that summer included Gooch, Lamb, Gower, Broad and Gatting, all whom whom were pretty decent players of pace.

Australia's batsmen included Marsh, Taylor, Boon, Jones, Border, S Waugh.

England (1986-1989) and Australia (1984-1988/89) performed abysmally against virtually all opposition (except each-other, obviously), being constantly thrashed. It wasn't just West Indies who beat them. Those two periods were the worst in England and Australia Test history.

Australia's batting might look good at first glance BTW, but that series was Marsh's first on the way down, Taylor was poor in his debut and 2nd Tests, Boon started poorly as an opener before doing well when moved to three (at the same time the games became dead-rubbers), Jones was doing his usual dead-rubber trick, and Stephen Waugh was still 4 years from becoming a good Test batsman. Only Border was a truly excellent batsman in that series. Though said lineup would go from terrible to superlative within a few months when the team reached England.

Wisden on the 1988 series:

Marshall had long stood tall in international company, but of those who came in support, only Courtney Walsh could be counted as an established Test bowler. It did not take long for Curtly Ambrose, a tall Antiguan who shot to prominence only a few months earlier in the West Indies season, to demonstrate that he was a ready-made replacement for Garner. The height of his delivery, the bounce he could generate, and his direct method made him a constant menace and earned him 22 wickets.

Wisden on the 1988/89 series:

As in England, earlier in 1988, Ambrose's bowling was a telling factor, his lift when he dug the ball in - and sometimes when he didn't - being extremely difficult for batsmen to counter... Ambrose's advance compensated for something of a decline in Marshall's effectiveness, although at Melbourne Marshall became the ninth bowler to take 300 Test wickets.

I see. Well I do hope that someday I can find some footage from both series'. And also, maybe, from the Pakistan series in 1988 and India one in 1989.