Best Fast Bowler of the last 20 years

[Uppercut]

The problem is that the division of the tests are not equal and are not subsequent to each other. McGrath played 9 tests over a decade against an opponent and clearly did not do well. To assume that the division in opponents just happens to devalue McGrath's record coincidentally every time he plays S.Africa is nonsensical IMO.

Recommendation for ikki.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ugh. You know, it is this kind of "I'm the font of all knowledge" arrogance that makes so many people look forward to busting your balls around here. Acting like you can authoritatively conclude that it is "simply not remotely possible", based on nothing match reports, highlight packages and your own inflated opinion of your analytical ability really is the height of douchebaggery.

I've just won a £20 bet. I bet that somewhere on the Internet there would be a paragraph that's starts with "Ugh" and ends with "douchebaggery."

 

[Evilhoopler]

Really it depends on the judging criteria. For sheer pace Akhtar. For line and length and consistency Mcgrath. Best overall would have to be Akram though.

 

[stephen]

Ugh. You know, it is this kind of "I'm the font of all knowledge" arrogance that makes so many people look forward to busting your balls around here. Acting like you can authoritatively conclude that it is "simply not remotely possible", based on nothing match reports, highlight packages and your own inflated opinion of your analytical ability really is the height of douchebaggery.

Reid had almost the same level of control over line and length as McGrath did. He delivered from much the same height, with the added benefit of a more troubling angle to the right-hander and prodigious, consistent, very late swing back in. When fit, he was definitely sharper than McGrath, and had a similarly uncomplicated bowling ideology. Given McGrath's success, to suggest that it is beyond the realms of possibility for Reid to have had similar success is just asinine.

Here's a few things that those match reports won't tell you: Bruce Reid didn't play a single test match at anything even CLOSE to real fitness. Even those few matches where he was, as you put it, a "truly deadly bowler", he looked like a cripple after the day's play. With Bruce Reid, "fitness" was a rather fluid concept.

From what I saw of Reid (and I actually SAW Reid's career, right from his grade and state career through to his test career- not to mention his pretty handy post-test indoor cricket career), his best test appearances- as good as they were- were a LONG way away from being the efforts of a fully fit Bruce Reid. Before someone stole his spine and replaced it with a stale breadstick, he was a good yard or two quicker, he got more bounce, and he was able to bowl longer spells. I have little doubt that in a hypothetical world where injuries don't exist, Bruce Reid would have been rated amongst the very, very best the world has seen. He was THAT good.

Let me reiterate that: Reid NEVER played a test match at anything even close to full fitness. Not one. If he was "deadly" when he was only reasonably fit, it is entirely possible (likely, in my opinion) that he would have been a world-beater if actually fit.

And, I might add, his best was FAR better than Craig McDermott's best. Again, I saw much of McDermott's first-class and test career, and I certainly don't underrate him. But Reid was easily a couple of classes above him. Very few people who watched the two in their peaks would suggest otherwise. It's not an exaggeration to say that McGrath was closer to Gillespie than Reid was to McDermott.

I have little doubt that injury robbed Bishop of being placed amongst the fast bowling greats. Frankly, I have less doubt that injury robbed Reid of the same.

But of course, it's a debatable point. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it would be "impossible" to think otherwise. That would make me sound like a bit of a prick.

Look, I'm sure you're pretty harmless. Sure, you can come across as a bit of a know-it-all, you have a major issue with admitting your mistakes, and someone needs to steal your f-ing hyphen key. But I have no doubt that you're a nice enough guy, and I don't think you deserve half the crap you get around here. But the idea that you are such an authority that you can dismiss another guy's opinion as "impossible" based on little more than a few scorecards is just ridiculous.

Think about this: All of the scorecards and commentary in the world can't settle the argument of exactly what type of bowler Barnes was. If that doesn't demonstrate the limitations of an opinion formed without actually seeing the players, nothing will.

I agree.

The ACB didn't help Reid at all by buying economy airfares everywhere, which place severe pressure on his back.

Reid could have been a Great in the same league as Wasim Akram if his back hadn't been completely crippled. From memory, Tugga considered him the spearhead of the attack even when they were playing in Australia with McDermott in the same team. That is how good his fellow players rated him.

Having seen him, I also rated him very highly (though I was very young at the time) and was certainly more excited when he was bowling than when any other Aussie was. And I'm a die hard QLDer and loved McDermott.

 

[bagapath]

I agree.

The ACB didn't help Reid at all by buying economy airfares everywhere, which place severe pressure on his back.

Reid could have been a Great in the same league as Wasim Akram if his back hadn't been completely crippled. From memory, Tugga considered him the spearhead of the attack even when they were playing in Australia with McDermott in the same team. That is how good his fellow players rated him.

Having seen him, I also rated him very highly (though I was very young at the time) and was certainly more excited when he was bowling than when any other Aussie was. And I'm a die hard QLDer and loved McDermott.

reid was, IMO, the third best aussie fast bowler of the last 40 years - better than mcdermott, gillespie, hughes, lee, thomson, alderman, lawson and anyone else other than lillee and mcgrath. his accuracy, bounce and ability to think out a batsman made him a very handy bowler indeed. but for the fitness issues which cut his career short he would have been a much more remembered figure in test cricket history.

 

[Ikki]

Recommendation for ikki.

I don't get your post. Probability of him doing worse facing S.Africa? If you wouldn't mind, create a simple scenario based on probability so I can understand what you're saying.

The fact that at some point players will have a poor showing is not being debated. But the fact that it occured against the same opponent over several years of Test cricket makes things much less random than you wish to make them appear.

 

[Evermind]

I've just won a £20 bet. I bet that somewhere on the Internet there would be a paragraph that's starts with "Ugh" and ends with "douchebaggery."

You shoulda bet another 20 on it being addressed to Richard.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't get your post. Probability of him doing worse facing S.Africa? If you wouldn't mind, create a simple scenario based on probability so I can understand what you're saying.

The fact that at some point players will have a poor showing is not being debated. But the fact that it occured against the same opponent over several years of Test cricket makes things much less random than you wish to make them appear.

Sure. Look at the 121 matches McGrath played. 9 were at home to South Africa, which is the record in question. Divide those matches into, say, 9 groups of 9 and 5 groups of 8. Take the overall bowling average of each group of matches and see which one is the highest.

I can't guarantee it, but chances are one of those groups will have a good proportion of poor-ish figures. That's what we mean we say "variance". Let's not forget, McGrath only averaged a respectable 31 at home to South Africa. It's hardly stinking up the joint.

 

[Ikki]

Sure. Look at the 121 matches McGrath played. 9 were at home to South Africa, which is the record in question. Divide those matches into, say, 9 groups of 9 and 5 groups of 8. Take the overall bowling average of each group of matches and see which one is the highest.

I'm sorry, you've lost me. Divide the 9 matches into 9? As in, judge each test by itself? Would you mind doing this calculation yourself so I can see what you mean?

It's not like McGrath was ineffective for 1-2 tests and that puts the rest of his record down. He usually averaged 30+ in every test against S.Africa at home.

I can't guarantee it, but chances are one of those groups will have a good proportion of poor-ish figures. That's what we mean we say "variance". Let's not forget, McGrath only averaged a respectable 31 at home to South Africa. It's hardly stinking up the joint.

He averaged 31 and had an SR of 80 in 9 matches against S.Africa. He also averaged 33 and had an SR of 73 in 8 matches against New Zealand.

For a fast bowler, especially of this calibre, that's pretty bad. When people revel in McGrath's universally good record, it seems to slip their mind. Wasim, for example, has a worse record against England at home where he averages 56 and strikes at 148, but that's for 4 matches. He has a fine record everywhere else (of course, I am not counting his 2 tests in S.Africa as I don't think that's a sufficient sample). Another favour, do this analysis you have for McGrath and do it for Wasim.

 

[nightprowler10]

He said 9 groups of 9. So we're talking 81 Tests here and then 5 groups of 8, so that's the other 40.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ugh. You know, it is this kind of "I'm the font of all knowledge" arrogance that makes so many people look forward to busting your balls around here. Acting like you can authoritatively conclude that it is "simply not remotely possible", based on nothing match reports, highlight packages and your own inflated opinion of your analytical ability really is the height of douchebaggery.

Reid had almost the same level of control over line and length as McGrath did. He delivered from much the same height, with the added benefit of a more troubling angle to the right-hander and prodigious, consistent, very late swing back in. When fit, he was definitely sharper than McGrath, and had a similarly uncomplicated bowling ideology. Given McGrath's success, to suggest that it is beyond the realms of possibility for Reid to have had similar success is just asinine.

Here's a few things that those match reports won't tell you: Bruce Reid didn't play a single test match at anything even CLOSE to real fitness. Even those few matches where he was, as you put it, a "truly deadly bowler", he looked like a cripple after the day's play. With Bruce Reid, "fitness" was a rather fluid concept.

From what I saw of Reid (and I actually SAW Reid's career, right from his grade and state career through to his test career- not to mention his pretty handy post-test indoor cricket career), his best test appearances- as good as they were- were a LONG way away from being the efforts of a fully fit Bruce Reid. Before someone stole his spine and replaced it with a stale breadstick, he was a good yard or two quicker, he got more bounce, and he was able to bowl longer spells. I have little doubt that in a hypothetical world where injuries don't exist, Bruce Reid would have been rated amongst the very, very best the world has seen. He was THAT good.

Let me reiterate that: Reid NEVER played a test match at anything even close to full fitness. Not one. If he was "deadly" when he was only reasonably fit, it is entirely possible (likely, in my opinion) that he would have been a world-beater if actually fit.

And, I might add, his best was FAR better than Craig McDermott's best. Again, I saw much of McDermott's first-class and test career, and I certainly don't underrate him. But Reid was easily a couple of classes above him. Very few people who watched the two in their peaks would suggest otherwise. It's not an exaggeration to say that McGrath was closer to Gillespie than Reid was to McDermott.

I have little doubt that injury robbed Bishop of being placed amongst the fast bowling greats. Frankly, I have less doubt that injury robbed Reid of the same.

But of course, it's a debatable point. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it would be "impossible" to think otherwise. That would make me sound like a bit of a prick.

Look, I'm sure you're pretty harmless. Sure, you can come across as a bit of a know-it-all, you have a major issue with admitting your mistakes, and someone needs to steal your f-ing hyphen key. But I have no doubt that you're a nice enough guy, and I don't think you deserve half the crap you get around here. But the idea that you are such an authority that you can dismiss another guy's opinion as "impossible" based on little more than a few scorecards is just ridiculous.

Think about this: All of the scorecards and commentary in the world can't settle the argument of exactly what type of bowler Barnes was. If that doesn't demonstrate the limitations of an opinion formed without actually seeing the players, nothing will.

Spot. Breece Rude was a sensational bowler, one of the saddest examples of 'might have been' one can think of. Pretty much broke down after every solid bowling effort. From memory, after taking 11 against India in Melbourne, broke down the next day, didn't he?

 

[Uppercut]

I would, but it would take a long time and I can't be bothered, so I recommended you a book about it instead.

 

[Ikki]

He said 9 groups of 9. So we're talking 81 Tests here and then 5 groups of 8, so that's the other 40.

Uh uh, that's what I thought, I just didn't think it made sense. And how do we divide the 9 tests? By date? By average?

McGrath didn't play all his tests one after another. He played them over 7 series worth.

 

[Uppercut]

Uh uh, that's what I thought, I just didn't think it made sense. And how do we divide the 9 tests? By date? By average?

McGrath didn't play all his tests one after another. He played them over 7 series worth.

Divide the 121 tests randomly into 14 equally-sized (or as close as you can) groups. And take an average of his bowling in each group.

 

[Ikki]

Divide the 121 tests randomly into 14 equally-sized (or as close as you can) groups. And take an average of his bowling in each group.

It's unlikely to matter if in one of those periods he was worse than the others, because it wouldn't contain all his tests against S.Africa.

Depending on how you group them also, you could come up with completely different conclusions. I feel you're being very vague.

 

[Uppercut]

It's unlikely to matter if in one of those periods he was worse than the others, because it wouldn't contain all his tests against S.Africa.

You're missing the point by so much.

 

[Ikki]

You're missing the point by so much.

I know simple probability, but I fail to see your point, and you're not being clear about it either.

You originally said this:

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.

Whether that one group is higher than what he averages at home to S.Africa is irrelevant. He may play the same teams in another group and improve against one team and continue to be bad against another team. If he continues to be bad against the same team in different groups, that's an undeniable trend.

 

[Uppercut]

Whether that one group is higher than what he averages at home to S.Africa is irrelevant. He may play the same teams in another group and improve against one team and continue to be bad against another team. If he continues to be bad against the same team in different groups, that's an undeniable trend.

The point is that there is no trend.

When you divide a player's career into 14 parts, one or two will always have poor figures in comparison to the others. You do it by who they were playing in a particular country, but you could do it by time of the year or position of Neptune with respect to the earth and there would still always, always, always be one part with poor figures. Agreed? Good.

Now, you nail McGrath being average at home to South Africa as a trend. Why don't you use McGrath being less-good-than-usual in the 8 matches he played starting in the second week of the third full moon of the year to discredit his career?

 

[Ikki]

The point is that there is no trend.

When you divide a player's career into 14 parts, one or two will always have poor figures in comparison to the others. You do it by who they were playing in a particular country, but you could do it by time of the year or position of Neptune with respect to the earth and there would still always, always, always be one part with poor figures. Agreed? Good.

Now, you nail McGrath being average at home to South Africa as a trend. Why don't you use McGrath being less-good-than-usual in the 8 matches he played starting in the second week of the third full moon of the year to discredit his career?

No, not agreed. Because of precisely the example you use in the bold. Looking at S.Africa is not a random matter. There is a reason that relates entirely to McGrath's own cricketing acumen. His ability to counter the S.Africans is part of his job and relates entirely to his success or lack of it. It is not random that he fails against them and to imply that he does so throws out the question of trend in the career of every player. It in fact means that not only did McGrath have no weakness, but neither did every other player he is being compared to here.

It's an insult to one's intelligence to imply that the reason that Kallis fails against Australia, as an example, is completely random. Or that Murali getting tonked by the Indians in India is simply trivial like judging his performances on the 13th of every month.

 

[Uppercut]

No, not agreed. Because of precisely the example you use in the bold. Looking at S.Africa is not a random matter. There is a reason that relates entirely to McGrath's own cricketing acumen. His ability to counter the S.Africans is part of his job and relates entirely to his success or lack of it. It is not random that he fails against them and to imply that he does so throws out the question of trend in the career of every player.

It's an insult to one's intelligence to imply that the reason that Kallis fails against Australia, as an example, is completely random. Or that Murali getting tonked by the Indians in India is simply trivial like judging his performances on the 13th of every month.

It just means that a higher proportion of his off-days or unlucky spells came against one team in one country than against another. Having your bad days distributed evenly across different countries and oppositions doesn't make you a better player. Unless you care to hypothesise as to why McGrath averaged "only" 31 at home to a team he utterly owned away.