I'm not writing him off, but I think if he'd reached 100 games then I'd definitely rate him as the undisputed best ODI bowler of all-time. It's just a minimum criteria really, and I still consider him a fantastic bowler.
1) He's a good swing bowler, not a fast bowler, which is what the thread question is asking.
And you don't have any problems with Sydney Barnes being in the list?
Never seen him bowl to know how quick he was so not fussed tbh
I don't know about that Fiery..Voce I mean Test career of 17 years minus the war years 27 tests and 98 @ 27 odd is not bad for a left arm fast bowler. Proved a perfect foil for both Larwood and Bedser
I do. As portly fly-halves go, he's up there, but a fast bowler....?
Right
I trust your judgement mate
) Barnes was in NO way a seam-bowler, he was a fast wristspinner. Better than all these bowlers on this list? Virtually beyond question. Seam-bowler? No (though he did send down the occasional seam-up ball as a variation).
Feel sorry for him because he had no votes?
Same as youWhat are you doing up at this hour, Fiery?
It's only 12.30 and I'm still digesting
I did. ta....hope you had a good one too
The point is it doesn't matter whether someone's fast, fast-medium, medium-fast or medium. A seamer is a seamer. The pace he bowls his stock-ball at is simply one of many variables contained within seam-bowling (like whether his stock-ball is the outswinger or the inswinger). The term "fast bowler" is a poor one, because it implies that "fast bowlers" are totally different from "medium-fast bowlers", when they're not, they're usually the exact same thing who just happen to bowl at 6 or 7 mph slower. The difference between a fast bowler and a medium-fast bowler is no more than the difference between an outswing and inswing bowler, or an "off" spinner and a "leg" spinner. The term is a poor one as it refers to the stock-ball only.
Statham was always the straighter man than Trueman, hence I've always rated him best. As for Bedser, I don't really think he had a better Test career than Trueman, though it should be noted that he begun his Test career at almost 28 having lost years to the war, had a brilliant first series, did little of note for the next 3 years, and having just turned 31 became a phenomenon, taking 140 wickets at just 17.82 in his next 24 Tests against Test-class teams over 6 years before being pensioned-off prematurely at just 37 years of age. Though it should be noted that this 24-Test period contained just a single overseas series (in which he took 30 wickets at 16.06). But obviously, Trueman did more, and what he could have done had he not missed so many games is mind-blowing.
Well played.I do. As portly fly-halves go, he's up there, but a fast bowler....?
Suspect the Barnes in the list is SF (Sydney) Barnes, personally. Better judges than I rate him as the best bowler of all-time, but I think it would be a bit of a stretch to call him a fast bowler as such.
As far as genuine quicks go I'd probably have to go with the late, great Frederick Sewards. The Typhoon might've run him close had he had a longer test career, but Fred took over 1500 more first class wickets at a lower average than Tyson, so it's maybe reasonable to summise Tyson's test average may've gone up had he played for longer.
Which is what I said.
