• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah that’s a fair comment. Snow was bouncing blokes in the early 70s but Lillee and Thommo really kicked off the pace dominant era (temporally if not causally).
 

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
It was noticeable when I was putting together the list for the top 3 fast bowlers in the rankings each year - in the early 70s there were often 7 or more spinners in the top 10.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Like disco, the 70's was one of the most glittering eras of the game - fast bowlers, spinners, all-rounders, batsmen, captains, keepers. Perhaps only batsmen-keepers were missing.
 

bagapath

International Captain
If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...

Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc
 

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...

Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc
Interesting concept of eras.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...

Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc
No. Call me up when he has significantly better average than Cummins and Haze.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Just like your posts.
No one is disagreeing with your logic

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!
 

Mr Miyagi

Banned
No one is disagreeing with your logic

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!
Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement? :ph34r:

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know. :ph34r:
 
Last edited:

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement? :ph34r:

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know. :ph34r:
Details please ;)
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No one is disagreeing with your logic

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!
Just like your posts.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement? :ph34r:

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement? :ph34r:

Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.
Just like your posts
 

Top