CW All Time XI Fast Bowlers

[ankitj]

Marshall and Barnes.

 

[Himannv]

Would have liked to have picked Hadlee and Trueman here. Went with Marshall and Trueman in the end.

 

[fredfertang]

Thinking I should have added Waqar and Larwood, too late now?

Should be there - I'd certainly vote for one of them and would give serious consideration to the other

 

[smash84]

'Feiry' Fred Trueman and Joel 'Big Bird' Garner. Fred because he has the best bowling action I've seen and could tear through teams on his day, for example his spells of 5/0 and 6/4. Couple that with his persona and you can hardly go wrong. Garner because he's equal to Ambrose but a little bit taller, therefore cooler. He will be the perfect partner to Trueman.

Trueman was such a gun.....so under rated generally

 

[Riggins]

Voted for three accidentally before reading to only vote for two. My bad.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Trueman was such a gun.....so under rated generally

A lot of people I've known who saw his career reckon he was very over rated - his own self publicity was a sight to behold.

With no Larwood option the list should be void - (and Tom Richardson should be there as well, plus Andy Roberts who the Windies players of the 70s and 80s generally reckon the best of their bunch).

I went for Lillee and Barnes.

 

[Jager]

A lot of people I've known who saw his career reckon he was very over rated - his own self publicity was a sight to behold.

With no Larwood option the list should be void - (and Tom Richardson should be there as well, plus Andy Roberts who the Windies players of the 70s and 80s generally reckon the best of their bunch).

I went for Lillee and Barnes.

Interesting. Personally I think Lillee is placed slightly higher than perhaps he deserves, seeing as he only took 28 wickets outside of England and Australia. I think that makes it harder for someone to place him above say Curtly, Garne, Marshall or McGrath, seeing as they were more or less tried, tested and proven in all conditions. 6 wickets in 4 games in Asia and he didn't manage a wicket in the West Indies when he played there (only 1 time). He averaged just over 30 against Pakistan from 12 games and approximately 28 against the West Indies. He undoubtedly brought a presence to the field though, and ran through England, India and New Zealand frequently.

Maybe I just dislike him because of the Miandad incident and his sweatband, though.

 

[Jacknife]

Marshall and Fred for me.

 

[Rowann75]

Ambrose and Lindwall for me, will pair with Lindwall's partner in crime, Miller to form an amazing attack.

 

[NUFAN]

I went Marshall and Trueman. Fred and Ambrose are two bowlers who I have a very similar opinion of and if I were making my ideal side I would include all 3 of them with Warne as the spinner.

I think I'm leaning towards a world XI consisting of: 1 Hobbs 2 Hutton 3 Bradman 4 Lara 5 Richards 6 Sobers 7 Gilchrist 8 Warne 9 Marshall 10 Trueman 11 Ambrose.

 

[kyear2]

This one is still very close, surprisingly Barnes is hanging in there with Mcgrath who is very highly regarded here.

Not that high on Barnes basically for the reason that no one can say with certainty what he actually bowled. Fantastic bolwer though no matter what he did bowl.

Final surge guys, this thread had the fewest votes of any of the other.

 

[Dan]

Interesting. Personally I think Lillee is placed slightly higher than perhaps he deserves, seeing as he only took 28 wickets outside of England and Australia. I think that makes it harder for someone to place him above say Curtly, Garne, Marshall or McGrath, seeing as they were more or less tried, tested and proven in all conditions. 6 wickets in 4 games in Asia and he didn't manage a wicket in the West Indies when he played there (only 1 time). He averaged just over 30 against Pakistan from 12 games and approximately 28 against the West Indies. He undoubtedly brought a presence to the field though, and ran through England, India and New Zealand frequently.

Maybe I just dislike him because of the Miandad incident and his sweatband, though.

Took 23 wickets @ 28.39 in the West Indies during 5 WSC games. Pretty confident had he played more outside of Australia/England he would have adapted, IMO.

 

[Jager]

Took 23 wickets @ 28.39 in the West Indies during 5 WSC games. Pretty confident had he played more outside of Australia/England he would have adapted, IMO.

That's not a bad record, obviously nothing special though. I only rate him slightly less of course, seeing as he wasn't given an extended period to demonstrate his adaptability, but one has to wonder.

 

[silentstriker]

Marshall and McGrath - forcing us to choose a spinner if we don't think they would add something over a third all time great fast bowler is a travesty tbf. Let us decide the composition.

 

[watson]

This one is still very close, surprisingly Barnes is hanging in there with Mcgrath who is very highly regarded here.

Not that high on Barnes basically for the reason that no one can say with certainty what he actually bowled. Fantastic bolwer though no matter what he did bowl.

Final surge guys, this thread had the fewest votes of any of the other.

Bradman sums Barnes and O'Reilly up thus (from 'Bradman's Best Ashes Teams p 425);

From all accounts, they were similar in style. Barnes was faster, but he didn't have the googly. They were both aggressive and could deliver perhaps the hardest of all deliveries to keep out - the very quick leg break. O'Reilly was relentless ans unforgiving if you managed to strike him to the boundary. Reports suggest Barnes was in some ways similar in character. He may have had more variety in his delveries than O'Reilly. Barnes bowled fast off breaks, out-swingers and in-swingers. Like O'Reilly, he would have been more than a handful for the best batsmen of any era.

My gut feeling is that if we bracket O'Reilly as a spin bowler then Barnes should be as well.

Also, when Bradman chose his ATG team he lined Barnes up against O'Reilly and in the end selected O'Reilly as his front line spinner. He didn't pontificate Barnes against Trueman, for example.

 

[weeman27bob]

Marshall and McGrath - forcing us to choose a spinner if we don't think they would add something over a third all time great fast bowler is a travesty tbf. Let us decide the composition.

Out of interest, why wouldn't you want a spinner?

 

[zaremba]

Bradman sums Barnes and O'Reilly up thus (from 'Bradman's Best Ashes Teams p 425);



My gut feeling is that if we bracket O'Reilly as a spin bowler then Barnes should be as well.

Also, when Bradman chose his ATG team he lined Barnes up against O'Reilly and in the end selected O'Reilly as his front line spinner. He didn't pontificate Barnes against Trueman, for example.

There are a few threads here dedicated to SF Barnes, including one specifically on what type of bowler he was. I don't know how to link to that thread.

 

[ankitj]

Marshall and McGrath - forcing us to choose a spinner if we don't think they would add something over a third all time great fast bowler is a travesty tbf. Let us decide the composition.

Good reason to do an open format XI

 

[silentstriker]

Out of interest, why wouldn't you want a spinner?

No spinner in history has a record as good as the best fast bowlers. Even the best two spinners in history both struggled against the best spin players of their own time. I don't see them running through any all time XIs. The fast bowlers have many less holes. I'd trust them a lot more to be consistent.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Spinners don't generally have as stellar a record as fast bowlers because they work on a different MO. It's more cat and mouse, set up and foreplay than pace bowling. Not to say quick bowling can't be cerebral, but spinners lack the physical intimidatory factor that pace has. (I assume you're talking in terms of strike rate?)

Besides, variety at those rarified levels can only be a good thing for any side.