Best English fast bowler since Botham/Willis?

[BeeGee]

Someone voted for Caddick, that's what you get for not having a joke option I guess......

I voted Caddick for a laugh because there was no Sidebum option. And yet it's interesting that Caddick's average is virtually identical to Anderson's... but everyone loves Jimmy...

 

[grecian]

I voted Caddick for a laugh because there was no Sidebum option. And yet it's interesting that Caddick's average is virtually identical to Anderson's... but everyone loves Jimmy...

Different era, different pitches. If your going averages you'd go with Gough from that era.

The second innings thing with Caddick convinces me he would have been dreck in this era.

 

[morgieb]

He doesn't get anything like the credit he deserves on CW - I've never understood why not

Richard + how he ended his career.

 

[morgieb]

Despite being meh until around 2010, probably Anderson.

 

[fredfertang]

Richard + how he ended his career.

Dickinson's ghost casts a long shadow even now

 

[Jarquis]

New Zealand 08 was the series IMO

 

[Furball]

Despite being meh until around 2010, probably Anderson.

Try 2008.

 

[Furball]

Richard + how he ended his career.

I just never rated Harmison, Dicko has nothing to do with it.

Being a soft **** during the 06/07 Ashes tour on top of being totally pish in South Africa in 04/05 sealed it for me. Could never take to him for that.

 

[GIMH]

One of the great spells

I totally just realised how easy it is to post youtube vids on this new vbulletin btw

 

[grecian]

I'm probably more on Harmi's side than most, if you're talking brief peaks, then he'd be up there, but like others here a lot of his career he just wasn't that good.

I'd probably go

Jimmeh
Gough
Fraser
Flintoff
Harmison
Hoggy
Caddick
Cork
Jones
Tremlett
Sidebottom
Headley

The last four suffering because of lack of longevity.

 

[Esperance]

doesnt anderson have the worst economy rate for a world cup england bowler?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I suppose it must be the Burnley Express, but he's only marginally better than Glen Chapple, who has to be the most criminally under selected quick in history - in addition I'm always amazed how quickly folk have forgotten how good Steve Harmison was in the early to mid noughties

**** off. Chapple is a ****.

Anyway, Neil Foster for me. A wonderful bowler whose regular injury problems meant that his record fails to show his true quality.

 

[grecian]

**** off. Chapple is a ****.

Anyway, Neil Foster for me. A wonderful bowler whose regular injury problems meant that his record fails to show his true quality.

Foster's career over-lapped with those two though, but yeah, could have been a great but for injury. Common theme here.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

I suppose it must be the Burnley Express, but he's only marginally better than Glen Chapple, who has to be the most criminally under selected quick in history - in addition I'm always amazed how quickly folk have forgotten how good Steve Harmison was in the early to mid noughties

No.

Would have been Fraser without the hip injury that ruined his career, still had a good one despite it but lost at least a yard after it.

I loved Gus but wasn't he very reliant on conditions? If the ball didn't move off the deck he didn't look all that threatening.

The first post on Fraser is true. The second is not.

The injury (which would probably have resolved itself quickly had he not been made to play in aa meaningless ODI on the 1991 tour) robbed him of his extra nip and bounce. This was the difference between him being a bowler who was good in the right conditions but not hard to play on a flat pitch and, as he was before the injury, solid in all condition and very difficult if conditions gave him any help.

I recall him bowling against a strong Indian batting line up in 1990 on some very flat pitches and they still found him a challenge.

Jones had the potential. He bowled well in his 1st Test - but was injured during it. In 2005 he had a very good one and a half matches before being injured at Trent Bridge. Not really enough to go on.

Foster always looked promising but I never thought that promise was at all fulfilled. Not sure he had the heart required either. He was definetly one who looked easy to play if conditions were against him.

I always thought Dominic Cork would have been a great support seamer - the sort of role that Hoggard had - but not an attack spearhead.

 

[Hurricane]

Flintoff bowled like a fast bowler - and cricinfo lists him as Right arm Fast.

Anderson is listed as fast medium and uses swing and movement to get his wickets.

Therefore if the thread title had said who is the best seamer since Botham and Willis you would vote for Anderson. But in terms of thinking like a fast bowler and bowling with menace it was Flintoff.

I think I am just being a contrarian here - but that is how I voted in the poll.

 

[grecian]

Flintoff bowled like a fast bowler - and cricinfo lists him as Right arm Fast.

Anderson is listed as fast medium and uses swing and movement to get his wickets.

Therefore if the thread title and had said who is the best seamer since Botham and Willis you would vote for Anderson. But in terms of thinking like a fast bowler and blowing with menace it was Flintoff.

I think I am just being a contrarian here - but that is how I voted in the poll.

Yeah, but the poll is for "quick", it's all very confusing.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Anderson is generally in the 86-88mph range - non English bowlers in that range (and often below) are frequently rated 'fast'. English bowlers who are frequently over 90mph might get classified 'fast', but not always.

 

[jimbags]

The stats are in Andersons favour already and he''s nowhere near finished. No contest

 

[GIMH]

If Jones and Tremlett weren't made of glass we'd clearly have dominated cricket for at least 50 years

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Pretty surprised that I was the first vote for Gough. Dat action.