Ranking the candidates for best fast bowler ever - ~20 contenders

[Prince EWS]

Oh wait I just realised it's just a list based on the formula. Ignore me. How'd Lillee end up that low though?

Haha it seems that whenever I add a new feature to make it more accurate I get results that line up more with general CW opinions, with the exception of Lillee who it seems to rate lower and lower every time.

I think a big thing with Lillee is World Series Cricket. Evaluating him only based on Test cricket not only takes away a bit of longevity but also ignores some awesome bowling against some of the best batting lineups of all time. I think a decent chunk of his legacy and reputation comes from that, and only evaluating his Test career skews things against him in that way. I certainly think he was a better bowler than my algo does, even if I do think he was a little over-rated compared to someone like Marshall.

 

[trundler]

Trueman being that low comes as a bit of a shock too. Fantastic strike rate, especially considering the era. Perhaps his ER is too high, but that's how bowlers of his ilk roll (Steyn, Waqar, Donald).

 

[trundler]

A #1 nomination should get you 15 points, 10 for top 5, 5 for top 10, 3 for top 20, and 1 for being in the bottom 5. Or a better system along those lines.

 

[Prince EWS]

A #1 nomination should get you 15 points, 10 for top 5, 5 for top 10, 3 for top 20, and 1 for being in the bottom 5. Or a better system along those lines.

We should use whatever he already used when we did the batsmen IMO, to keep the game consistent.

 

[trundler]

I swear, fast bowling discussions are the best on this site. So many awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping, and wonderful figures pop up. One thinks of Khan leaping smoothly like a tiger, Holding running in effortlessly to make the batsman **** himself, Marshall and Lindwall bowling bouncers that suddenly leap at the batter's throat like a cobra, McGrath and Hadlee's minimalist wizardry, Trueman, Steyn and Lillee's majestic and frightening outswingers (coupled with their meanness of course), Tyson, Thomson, Larwood, Waqar and Donald, breaking stumps and bones. You think of stumps being routed from the ground. You think of battered wills and bruised bodies. There's no better sight in any sport than high-quality pace bowling.

 

[trundler]

Should use whatever he already used when we did the batsmen IMO, to keep the game consistent.

Ah, that's fair but I wasn't around for that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ah, that's fair but I wasn't around for that.

I didn't participate in that either, but as awesome as we both are I don't think that should really affect how it's done.

 

[Bolo]

I just straight up posted the algorithm ranking as I said; it's not a personal opinion.

Interestingly though, Anderson comes out with a better standardised average even ignoring longevity:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rmR0F6hmKyJEiX9AdbRJyxqnl8WU_sZvK5SbDe109OA/edit#gid=0

(Steyn and Philander have swapped places since I updated that public list, but it seems like I've got Lindwall in the wrong place somehow in my vote, so I'll go edit that).


I think the biggest weakness of it at the moment is that while it's now reasonably good at determining how good pitches are for bowling in general, it doesn't differentiate spin from pace. So maybe it's the case that Anderson's bowled a lot of overs in conditions it has decided aren't great for bowling because the spinners are getting carted... but that's probably true for Donald as well, if so.

Lillee ranking below Vettori leaves a bit of a hmm...

Basically the same number of wickets, and much better standardized average for Lillee. Vettori is essentially being rewarded for taking fewer WPM because longevity counts instead.

I guess you are always going to get oddities like Lillee's ranking unless you complicate things with a ton of variables. Lillee was a statistical great because of his WPM and to a lesser extent his SR, and he loses out because they don't make it into this algo.

 

[trundler]

My list revised:
Marshall-McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose
Barnes
Lillee-Holding
Trueman


Lindwall
Donald
Garner
Khan
Wasim
Davidson
Waqar
Roberts

Bedser
Pollock
Adcock
Larwood
Tyson
Walsh

Philander









Anderson

 

[trundler]

Corridor bowlers:
McGrath>Hadlee>Ambrose>Garner>Pollock
Swing bowlers:
Barnes>Wasim>Davidson>>>>>>>>Anderson
Outswing bowlers:
Steyn>Lillee>Trueman>Lindwall
Tearaways:
Holding>Donald>Waqar>Larwood>Tyson

Trying to fit some of them into categories.

 

[Bolo]

Corridor bowlers:
McGrath>Hadlee>Ambrose>Garner>Pollock
Swing bowlers:
Barnes>Wasim>Davidson>>>>>>>>Anderson
Outswing bowlers:
Steyn>Lillee>Trueman>Lindwall
Tearaways:
Holding>Donald>Waqar>Larwood>Tyson

Trying to fit some of them into categories.

Hard to confine greats to a single category. Most of these guys fit multiple categories. Steyn for example, who I think
was in some ways one of the most limited of the greats in terms of range of skillset, perfectly fits every one of these categories depending on time in career and age of the ball.

 

[trundler]

Hard to confine greats to a single category. Most of these guys fit multiple categories. Steyn for example, who I think
was in some ways one of the most limited of the greats in terms of range of skillset, perfectly fits every one of these categories depending on time in career and age of the ball.

Yeah, Lillee was a tearaway early on as well whilst Hadlee swung it well. I was just trying to fit them into the category most associated with them. Donald and Holding were pretty versatile but I think of batsmen ****ting themselves when facing them so I grouped them as tearaways. Waqar too.

 

[fredfertang]

1.Larwood
2.Waqar
3.Marshall
4.Hadlee
5.Steyn
6.Garner
7.Ambrose
8.Lindwall
9.Trueman
10.Lillee
11.Bedser
12.Tyson
13.Holding
14.Barnes
15.McGrath
16.Philander
17.Imran
18.Donald
19.Roberts
20.Davidson
21.Adcock
22.Anderson
23.Pollock
24.Walsh
25.Wasim

 

[trundler]

McGrath at 15 is simply blasphemous. No way.

 

[Bolo]

Yeah, Lillee was a tearaway early on as well whilst Hadlee swung it well. I was just trying to fit them into the category most associated with them. Donald and Holding were pretty versatile but I think of batsmen ****ting themselves when facing them so I grouped them as tearaways. Waqar too.

If you are putting them is a single category the categories are fine, except I'd probably object to Barnes.

The channel bowlers are the best in general here. Pinpoint accuracy is more of an additional skillset than the others.

 

[trundler]

If you are putting them is a single category the categories are fine, except I'd probably object to Barnes.

The channel bowlers are the best in general here. Pinpoint accuracy is more of an additional skillset than the others.

Barnes is clearly the best of the medium pacers. I decided to group him with the swing bowlers as he is one of the earliest exponents of the art (after probably Hirst) and the first to master it like he did (maybe I'm wrong here).

I agree with the last line, though accuracy is more so a prerequisite for a channel bowler than others.

 

[a massive zebra]

1.Larwood
2.Waqar
3.Marshall
4.Hadlee
5.Steyn
6.Garner
7.Ambrose
8.Lindwall
9.Trueman
10.Lillee
11.Bedser
12.Tyson
13.Holding
14.Barnes
15.McGrath
16.Philander
17.Imran
18.Donald
19.Roberts
20.Davidson
21.Adcock
22.Anderson
23.Pollock
24.Walsh
25.Wasim

Huh, I thought you didn't rate Steyn?

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/77012-dale-steyn-greatest-all-time.html#post3931493

 

[a massive zebra]

McGrath at 15 is simply blasphemous. No way.

Arguably no more blasphemous than Barnes at 14.

 

[trundler]

Arguably no more blasphemous than Barnes at 14.

Well, both are pretty blasphemous, especially since Bedser is ahead of both. Tyson that high is unfair too. I'll admit that Larwood has his merits at #1. Looks like Fred doesn't value longevity much.

 

[Bolo]

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn
Hadlee
Ambrose
Trueman
Donald
Barnes
Lillee
Holding
Garner
Khan
Davidson
Waqar
Lindwall
Adcock
Wasim
Pollock
Walsh
Roberts
Bedser
Philander
Tyson
Larwood
Anderson

Tricky comparing the old bowlers to the modern ones. I'd normally just leave anyone on this list pre 70s out of it- too much has changed and there isn't a reasonable way to make a comparison.