Best Fast Bowler of the last 20 years

[bagapath]

McGrath wasn't good against S.Africa in Australia. Averages 30 and SR of 80 IIRC.

he was not flawless. but his low point was better than ambrose against india and donald in australia. thats why i wrote "mcgrath was more successful against more opponents for a longer time than the other three greats".

 

[Uppercut]

McGrath wasn't good against S.Africa in Australia. Averages 30 and SR of 80 IIRC.

Hahaha, the dissection of player's careers by opponent is getting ridiculous. You're almost at the stage of "yes, but on the third friday of the month when Australia played a South African side containing Darly Cullinan at 4 in New South Wales, McGrath's record when you take out tail-enders is merely good rather than excellent."

 

[G.I.Joe]

There's no doubt that when Wasim slipped himself - as he did with plentiful regularity - he troubled just about any batsmen more than all bowlers of his own generation and most of any generation. Not only was this due to his remarkable skills with swing and his speed out of the hand, but his ability to "hide" the ball - to stop batsmen seeing it until later than they did with most bowlers. Courtney Walsh also had this ability, but his skills with swing were not a patch on Wasim's, so thus he was inferior.

However, Wasim also lacked fitness to a fairly unacceptable extent, causing an occasional lack of stamina, and had an occasional propensity to bowl stacks of no-balls and spray it all over the place. Very occasionally, he appeared to inexplicably lack focus and motivation. This counts against him in my book, and thus he's neither Pakistan's best Test bowler ever nor, in my view, quite as good as Donald, though you could make a case for him being better than Ambrose and McGrath, and the Pollock of his first half of career.

If Wasim had eliminated the rough edges from his game he'd almost certainly have been the best of his generation and maybe even have challenged for the best ever. But he was not able to do this.

Diabetes.

 

[fredfertang]

At his peak I'd say Waqar was the best I've seen - in terms of consistency McGrath, Ambrose and Donald were all superb but for me this isn't about a whole career so Waqar it is

 

[Ikki]

Hahaha, the dissection of player's careers by opponent is getting ridiculous. You're almost at the stage of "yes, but on the third friday of the month when Australia played a South African side containing Darly Cullinan at 4 in New South Wales, McGrath's record when you take out tail-enders is merely good rather than excellent."

I don't agree. How are 9 tests at home against S.Africa that ridiculous? Is it anymore ridiculous than looking at Ponting's record in India or Murali's in Australia?

Look at the people he is being compared to and their records being seen as lesser. Wasim Akram's record is as universally good as McGrath's TBH. Like McGrath, he really only is poor against one team at home (England in Pakistan). Much like McGrath's lesser record of S.Africa in Australia.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't agree. Look at the people he is being compared to and their records being seen as lesser. Wasim Akram's record is as universally good as McGrath's TBH. Like McGrath, he really only is poor against one team at home (England in Pakistan). Much like McGrath's lesser record of S.Africa in Australia.

Well if you divide someone's record into 14 bitesize chunks there'll always be variance. The fine details of just how much variance there is is not the measure of how good a bowler is.

 

[Ikki]

Well if you divide someone's record into 14 bitesize chunks there'll always be variance. The fine details of just how much variance there is is not the measure of how good a bowler is.

If the variance is that random, it wouldn't occur against the same opponent that regularly, would it?

And if it were as you say, then McGrath's record, as well as the others are still as complete as each other. I voted for McGrath, but the reason I vote for him over the others has little to do with the fact that his record is overall very slightly better. It has more to do with the fact that he lasted so long, at such a high standard when pitches also got harder to bowl on.

 

[gwo]

Hahaha, the dissection of player's careers by opponent is getting ridiculous. You're almost at the stage of "yes, but on the third friday of the month when Australia played a South African side containing Darly Cullinan at 4 in New South Wales, McGrath's record when you take out tail-enders is merely good rather than excellent."

My goodness. Sensibility.

Averages lose the "averageness" to it when you disect them left right and centre. Simple as that. The lower the sample size the higher variance it is.

Career (large sample size) statistics don't lie. Stats in sets of years can. Stats in sets of 5 matches can.

 

[Matt79]

Ambrose. Although I'm appalled at Siddle's exclusion from the poll.

 

[stephen]

If a bowlers worst record is an average of thirty in a country against a country then you know that he's a pretty damned good bowler.

 

[nightprowler10]

Diabetes.

You know what, I had completely forgotten about that. There's not much between Ambrose and Akram for me, but the way he battled through diabetes, loss of eyesight, and other medical problems not just fitness ones and still ended as one of the greats puts him slightly ahead.

 

[gwo]

Crap. Voted for McGrath.

Should have had M. Johnson up there.

 

[Richard]

I don't rate Donald particularly highly in the eschelon of greats. In Tugga's autobiography he pointed out mental weakness in Donald, which the Aussies exploited.

I could point-out mental weakness in Stephen Waugh too - wouldn't mean they existed.

A lot of Donald's mental frailties were in the Australians' own imagination. It helped them to play him better, but it didn't actually exist.

 

[Richard]

Diabetes.

You know what, I had completely forgotten about that.

I'd forgotten that as well TBH. It certainly excuses him - in terms of, there's no way you can question his attitude - for some of his shortcomings.

However, it disadvantaged him as much as Ian Bishop's weak back disadvantaged him. Sadly for Wasim, his diabetes made him a lesser bowler, even if only slightly so. He deserves huge credit for fighting through it, but it did sometimes downgrade his skill, usually only for a short time.

 

[Richard]

I agreed that there was two totally different stages for Waqar Younis' career. My argument is that you cannot just ignore the bad part when you consider him. Younis had that large sea-change and that is why I rate him less highly than some others (and his poor record in Australia, incidentally). Other bowlers performed at the high level throughout their career.

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.

And batsmen can turn bowlers from kings to paupers. Are you saying that no batsman can dominate a good bowler over their careers? Pretty much all bowlers have a batsman that they have enormous difficulties with, I would suggest. Same as some batsmen are bunnies for certain bowlers.

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.

 

[nightprowler10]

Not so sure about that tbh. I don't pretend to know what went on with these guys personally but back problems can be caused through carelessness or due to a bowling action that is strenuous on one's back whereas the type of diabetes Wasim had is genetic I believe so impossible to prevent.

Its a disadvantage either way, but one could be prevented and the other not so much as far as I know.

 

[Uppercut]

If the variance is that random, it wouldn't occur against the same opponent that regularly, would it?

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.

 

[funnygirl]

Akram .Blinded by bias.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

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

Also I see names inferior to Lee, Bond and possibly more

(haven't read every post, more just skimmed, so sorry if either of those points has already been mentioned)

approx equally best - Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Akram

top liners just not the best - Waqar, Walsh, Pollock

not as good but ahead of the curve or had their devastating days - Gillespie, Donald, Bishop, Lee, Bond, Gough, Shoib

Warriors worthy of a mention - McDermott, Hughes, Vaas, Srinath, Ntini,

 

[Richard]

Not so sure about that tbh. I don't pretend to know what went on with these guys personally but back problems can be caused through carelessness or due to a bowling action that is strenuous on one's back whereas the type of diabetes Wasim had is genetic I believe so impossible to prevent.

Its a disadvantage either way, but one could be prevented and the other not so much as far as I know.

UIMM, Bishop's back problems were simply inherant. I've read of him restructuring his bowling-action, but the problems persisted. His back was naturally weak.

About the only way to prevent his back problems would've been not to bowl - or to bowl in a way that made bowling pretty pointless (ie, bowling spin for instance - a style neither had any aptitude to).

Some bowlers - Shane Bond and Andrew Flintoff for instance - have indeed caused many of their own problems with questionable actions which they've never tried to correct. Dennis Lillee was another one, though he was able to change. But I don't think Bishop was one - he tried many things, but his back just could not stand-up to bowling regardless.

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