Shaun Pollock vs Fred Trueman

[PlayerComparisons]

This comparison would be closer as cricketers

 

[shortpitched713]

So the TL;DR of why 3 of my top 5 are Murali, McGrath and Steyn is simple. The flat pitch era had consequences. You can't say some batsmen who average a certain amount more than those of other eras had inflated averages, and at the same time not recognize what was special going on from some of the great bowlers of the era. These bowlers took that adversity and went beyond. They adapted, improvised, overcame. And that's why they're at the top (also Murali and McGrath have pretty extraordinary longevity too).

1. Murali - No other bowler (not even Warne), was able to combine the incisiveness of a strike bowling quick, with the volume of a stock spinner. But Murali did. Of any bowler who struggled with peak Australia, his circumstances are the most understandable. Used to vacilate between him and McGrath for top spot, but I think the challenge of carrying the team's attack is something I'm appreciating more and more.

2. McGrath - McGoat. No other pacer can compare in ability to take valuable top order wickets, and set the tone for matches. Australian dominance in the world of cricket was down to him more than any other single man. Excellent longevity for a pacer to boot.

3. Hadlee - These next 3 are very close for me, but Hadlee barely edges it for being an absolutely consistent workhorse for his team. Absolute legend, and I can't really fault anything in his record.

4. Steyn - What a gun. Aggressive as all hell, and with the skill to back it up. Always attacking the stumps, everything you want out of a spearhead.

5. Marshall - Always had an all time great attack, but always led it exceptionally consistently, and well. Him and Steyn are the 2 most skillful quicks of all time.

6. Ambrose - He has fallen a bit in my estimation, and is now for me just behind the top 5. Don't get me wrong the quality is absolutely superb throughout his career, but the volume really dipped in the latter half of it.

7. Donald - Beast, who had aggression in spades, all the tools of pace and bounce. If not for Australia record he'd be ranked in the very top group. Otherwise very good record against everyone else.

8. Imran - Greatest bowling peak of all time, by far. However, he did have stages to his career, and some of those stages involved having a role with important bowling workload where he wasn't really at his best.

9. Garner - Would be in the top 6 grouping, if not for longevity. The hardest bowler ever to hit. No 10fers is an absolutely spurious cherry picked argument. His WPM was still great, given his attack partners.

10. Warne - Warne and Lillee a little bit below Garner, but comfortably above everyone else I'd say. Warne was an absolute downhill skier, but he did do very well in challenging pitches, so he really does have that going for him.If you count intangibles, then he'd rise even further.

11. Lillee - Gaining more respect for him due to looking at his sheer volume of bowling, which I probably didn't appreciate as much before. Acquited himself well in WSC. Stats nerd backlash against him is maybe a bit overdone, but he is clear modern top 11, for mine.

For a hot take, I guess I'd put Ashwin next, but can't think of anything to say about him that hasn't been overly discussed a million times recently, so yeah.

 

[kyear2]

You whipped out yours, so I'll show mine.

Murali
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Marshall
Ambrose
Donald
Imran
Garner
Warne
Lillee
Ashwin
Pollock
Trueman
Akram

That's an especially bad list.

 

[kyear2]

for reference, my list was

Marshall
McGrath
Barnes
Hadlee
Ambrose
Steyn
Imran
Trueman
Lillee
Holding
Garner
Donald/Akram
Donald/Akram
Lindwall
Davidson
Bumrah*
Cummins*
Pollock
Walsh
Miller

Besides having Trueman a bit high, I don't hate it.

Think Donald and Akram are both ahead of Garner, but nothing else major

 

[kyear2]

1. Malcolm Marshall – The most complete paceman of them all, almost no flaws. Express, Skilled with cutters, ATG in Subcontinent or England. He is like if you combine the relentless ferocity of Dale Steyn with the mind of a Glenn McGrath. No flaws that I can notice.

2. Glenn McGrath – The bowling supercomputer, successful in any condition, could take the wickets out of the equation, was a dominant force in the most batting dominated era of the game and was the key to the dynasty, definitely the second most flawless record among the pacers. His only real flaw would be the record against South Africa at home which can also be put down to sample size.

3. Sydney Barnes – The average of 16 does the guy justice, can bowl as many as a spinner like Maurice Tate or Alec Bedser, but due to the mastery of swing bowling, he has the pluses of Warne and Murali without their negatives as he wasn't weak on day 1 and 2. Well into his 50s, he was on the same level of bowling as world class bowlers like Harold Larwood and Maurice Tate, another absurd feat.

4. Richard Hadlee – carried a country through a decade and made them unbeatable at home. The greatest touring bowler of Australia in history, won games in England, won games In India, won games at home, Amazing record, I'd have preffered if he got more tours to West Indies but whatever.

5. Curtly Ambrose – maybe controversial but I think he was one of the greatest to ever bowl in West Indies, England and Australia, other than his debut series and one series where he was unhealthy, averages 20. Sadly unproven in Asia a bit.

6. Dale Steyn – One of the most destructive pacemen of all time, really hard to play in a lot of countries and contexts, should've been more destructive outside of Asia but the stuff he did in India is elite ATG, He might go higher in the ranking one day

7. Imran Khan – Genius, performed everywhere, match winning contributions in Australia, in England, in West Indies and so forth. Great work is a little peak concentrated (1980-1986) but arguably with Barnes, it's the greatest bowling peak in history of the game so it doesn't even matter.

8. Fred Trueman – Express pace, and a genius, and the most destructive fast bowler of all time. Transcends his era in terms of SR and Wickets-Per-Match and Wickets-Per-inning, was a world class bowler from 1952 to 1964, 12 whole years and one of the first actual fast guys to maintain world class quality for that long. Destroyed good batting, won England the first series in West Indies in decades, saved the 1962-63 Ashes from being an Australian victory. Mostly downgraded by misinformation on this site. Sadly didn't play enough away.

9. Dennis Lillee – one of the first true modern fast bowlers, Exception in England, exceptional at home, very good in the West Indies and extremely high peer reputation. Sadly didn't play in Asia much, and had his struggles with the stronger batting lineups of the West Indies and Pakistan. Immense workhorse, 5+ WPM for a pacer.

10. Michael Holding – Extremely high on skill but can't put him above the two right above him due to the sheer difference in durability. One of the best ever to tour England, one of the best ever to tour Australia, one of the best ever to tour India. Also, the fastest in my top ten alongside pre 1962 Trueman and Pre Back Injury Lillee.

Not bad at all, obviously I can't rate Barnes correctly, and I'm pretty sure that at times the only averages back then that mattered was against the old enemy.

As I said earlier, Donald over Holding probably, but both possible for top 10, and think a place should be found for O'Reilly.

 

[kyear2]

My list and justification for position:

1. Marshall - high peer rating, least flawed record, had mastery of all the essential tools of a pace bowler

2. McGrath - most impressive longevity of any ATG pacer, just behind Marshall due to lack of pace and slight blemishes in SC, super high peer rating

3. Hadlee - allround top tier record, only slightly behind McGrath due to peer rating, lack of success in WI and more concentration in NZ, Eng and Aus

4. Steyn - allround impressive, most destructive when on song, only behind Hadlee due to certain inconsistency and not as impressive in Aus and Eng

5. Imran - allround impressive, record against WI and greatest peak gets him into top 5, only behind Steyn due to Steyn's decade long longevity of peak

6. Warne - allround fairly impressive but more limited in certain conditions and against top bats who dominated him unlike Imran

7. Murali - allround fairly impressive, just behind Warne because of lack of success in Aus and generally a more defensive bowler

8. Lillee - as skilled in application as almost any fast bowler aside from Marshall and successful all stages of career, but lack of success in certain regions on his CV unlike Murali

9. Ambrose - relentless accuracy but behind Lillee due to penetration issues for half of his career and somewhat low output

10. Wasim - generally successful across conditions, super high peer rating and especially Australia but behind Ambrose due to lack of concentrated success away in countries he should have done better in, not quite as destructive

Everyone is free to rank anyone anywhere they please. But at least be consistent.

If Ambrose had penetration issues, then so does Lillee, career strike rates of 52 compared to 54. And Ambrose, especially at home played on generally flatter pitches than did Lillee.

And if they had penetration issues, I don't know what Imran had. Using your preferred time lines of '74 to '88 (though for everyone bar England it's really from '76)

Imran's strike rate away from home during that period is higher than Ambrose's, 56 compared to 53.

All only until end of '88...Australia (from '76) he had a s/r of 63, England 58, India 61.

Overall the only countries where he averaged below Ambrose was at home (obviously), SL (minnow) and the WI. A batting lineup that by '88 was depleted and not what they were even 4 years earlier.

So if Ambrose had penetration issues, again, so did Lillee and way more so, Imran.

Again for reference, from '74 to '88

Home - 43.7
Away - 56.2

 

[kyear2]

Marshall
Hadlee
Mgrath
Akram
Steyn
Ambrose
Warne
Murali
Donald
Imran
Lillee
Trueman
Bumrah
Garner
Holding
Lindwall
Davidson
Pollock
Cummins
O’Reilly

I obviously have a different view of Akram than most but most people fixate on his average and not how dominant he was for so long before he tailed away.

I agree re Akram.

No one quite faced circumstances like he did. Early start, health issues at the end and most of all the atrocious catching that he had to endure.

He did have his issues though.

 

[kyear2]

So the TL;DR of why 3 of my top 5 are Murali, McGrath and Steyn is simple. The flat pitch era had consequences. You can't say some batsmen who average a certain amount more than those of other eras had inflated averages, and at the same time not recognize what was special going on from some of the great bowlers of the era. These bowlers took that adversity and went beyond. They adapted, improvised, overcame. And that's why they're at the top (also Murali and McGrath have pretty extraordinary longevity too).

1. Murali - No other bowler (not even Warne), was able to combine the incisiveness of a strike bowling quick, with the volume of a stock spinner. But Murali did. Of any bowler who struggled with peak Australia, his circumstances are the most understandable. Used to vacilate between him and McGrath for top spot, but I think the challenge of carrying the team's attack is something I'm appreciating more and more.

2. McGrath - McGoat. No other pacer can compare in ability to take valuable top order wickets, and set the tone for matches. Australian dominance in the world of cricket was down to him more than any other single man. Excellent longevity for a pacer to boot.

3. Hadlee - These next 3 are very close for me, but Hadlee barely edges it for being an absolutely consistent workhorse for his team. Absolute legend, and I can't really fault anything in his record.

4. Steyn - What a gun. Aggressive as all hell, and with the skill to back it up. Always attacking the stumps, everything you want out of a spearhead.

5. Marshall - Always had an all time great attack, but always led it exceptionally consistently, and well. Him and Steyn are the 2 most skillful quicks of all time.

6. Ambrose - He has fallen a bit in my estimation, and is now for me just behind the top 5. Don't get me wrong the quality is absolutely superb throughout his career, but the volume really dipped in the latter half of it.

7. Donald - Beast, who had aggression in spades, all the tools of pace and bounce. If not for Australia record he'd be ranked in the very top group. Otherwise very good record against everyone else.

8. Imran - Greatest bowling peak of all time, by far. However, he did have stages to his career, and some of those stages involved having a role with important bowling workload where he wasn't really at his best.

9. Garner - Would be in the top 6 grouping, if not for longevity. The hardest bowler ever to hit. No 10fers is an absolutely spurious cherry picked argument. His WPM was still great, given his attack partners.

10. Warne - Warne and Lillee a little bit below Garner, but comfortably above everyone else I'd say. Warne was an absolute downhill skier, but he did do very well in challenging pitches, so he really does have that going for him.If you count intangibles, then he'd rise even further.

11. Lillee - Gaining more respect for him due to looking at his sheer volume of bowling, which I probably didn't appreciate as much before. Acquited himself well in WSC. Stats nerd backlash against him is maybe a bit overdone, but he is clear modern top 11, for mine.

For a hot take, I guess I'd put Ashwin next, but can't think of anything to say about him that hasn't been overly discussed a million times recently, so yeah.

The argument about the flat pitch era though for Steyn is a bit disingenuous (as it is for Kallis the batsman).
The one place with distinctively non flat wickets was of course SA and that's where he did the vast majority of his damage. Of course he did stellar work in India, but that's basically it. He had good performances in other countries, but not ATG records there. He often also lacked a plan B and was taken to the wood shed more than any other great bowlers.

Murali too had tailor made conditions at home, you can't explicitly cite the flat pitch era. He was traumatized in Australia, wrecked in India and Lara took him apart in his own backyard.

Hadlee I do have top 3, but not in the GOAT debate with Marshall and McGrath and that's partially because, outside of CW, he's just not in it. His peer rating from the era supports that more than a little.

 

[subshakerz]

Everyone is free to rank anyone anywhere they please. But at least be consistent.

If Ambrose had penetration issues, then so does Lillee, career strike rates of 52 compared to 54. And Ambrose, especially at home played on generally flatter pitches than did Lillee.

And if they had penetration issues, I don't know what Imran had. Using your preferred time lines of '74 to '88 (though for everyone bar England it's really from '76)

Imran's strike rate away from home during that period is higher than Ambrose's, 56 compared to 53.

All only until end of '88...Australia (from '76) he had a s/r of 63, England 58, India 61.

Overall the only countries where he averaged below Ambrose was at home (obviously), SL (minnow) and the WI. A batting lineup that by '88 was depleted and not what they were even 4 years earlier.

So if Ambrose had penetration issues, again, so did Lillee and way more so, Imran.

Again for reference, from '74 to '88

Home - 43.7
Away - 56.2

Maybe you should learn to read because I said half of Ambrose career.

Ambrose from 95 to 2000 has a SR of 55. Away from home it's 59.

And I wasn't even referring to SR anyways. Lillee took 5WPM throughout his career. Ambrose barely reaches 4WPM and outside Aus struggled to get even that 95 onwards.

Why are you bringing Imran into everything? I don't argue Imran over Ambrose based on penetration but based on Imran being a bowler capable of more success across conditions especially SC.

 

[Johan]

Not bad at all, obviously I can't rate Barnes correctly, and I'm pretty sure that at times the only averages back then that mattered was against the old enemy.

As I said earlier, Donald over Holding probably, but both possible for top 10, and think a place should be found for O'Reilly.

I left the spinners out. Always had Lillee and Trueman high.

 

[shortpitched713]

That's an especially bad list.

I appreciate it. I wouldn't want to follow any consensus here or elsewhere without appreciating, evaluating (and researching myself for older players) for myself what I think about them.

 

[subshakerz]

I appreciate it. I wouldn't want to follow any consensus here or elsewhere without appreciating, evaluating (and researching myself for older players) for myself what I think about them.

You do you.

 

[subshakerz]

Btw why is an ATG like Trueman being compared with Pollock at all?

Trueman is a top 10 pacer.

 

[Johan]

10. Warne - Warne and Lillee a little bit below Garner, but comfortably above everyone else I'd say. Warne was an absolute downhill skier, but he did do very well in challenging pitches, so he really does have that going for him.If you count intangibles, then he'd rise even further.

Complete nonsense.

 

[subshakerz]

I left the spinners out. Always had Lillee and Trueman high.

Here is how I classify:

Top 5 pacers (Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Imran) - allround excellence across conditions and top class stats

- Warne/Murali - generally allround excellent but big limitations on match conditions and against best bats compared to best pacers

- Top pacers with gaps based on lack of success across conditions (Lillee, Ambrose, Akram, Trueman)

 

[subshakerz]

Complete nonsense.

I rate Warne very high but he absolutely had the advantage of playing mop up for the pacers. But he did enough outside that on his own that he can't be accused on being a downhill skier IMO.

I think Shorty's criteria weighs very heavily on bowlers performing with more pressure on them solo.

 

[Johan]

with or without McGrath, his average is barely impacted.

 

[Johan]

Removing the debut year as we all know he was bad at the time and McGrath wouldn't have fixed that, he hadn't debuted until 1994

Shane Warne (1993-2007 without Glenn McGrath)

36 matches, 68 innings, 183 wickets @ 25.84

zero minnows involved, he's barely impacted, on the other hand.

Glenn McGrath (1998-2004 without Shane Warne)

19 matches, 37 innings, 73 wickets @ 22.80

There's a bigger impact on McGrath without Warne than on Warne without McGrath.

 

[subshakerz]

with or without McGrath, his average is barely impacted.

His time with McGrath overlapped with when he was a poorer bowler, so yeah I think if McGrath wasn't there his average would have gone up a point or two, especially in his 98 to 2001 phase. Also especially in Australia in the 2000s, he averages 30 anyways and without McGrath it likely would be higher.

 

[subshakerz]

Removing the debut year as we all know he was bad at the time and McGrath wouldn't have fixed that, he hadn't debuted until 1994

Shane Warne (1993-2007 without Glenn McGrath)

36 matches, 68 innings, 183 wickets @ 25.84

zero minnows involved, he's barely impacted, on the other hand.

Glenn McGrath (1998-2004 without Shane Warne)

19 matches, 37 innings, 73 wickets @ 22.80

There's a bigger impact on McGrath without Warne than on Warne without McGrath.

Why do you end it in in 2004 for McGrath? Just do 1995 to 2007.