Scyld Berry 30 greatest test fast bowlers

[kyear2]

And the here today rating is actually the one I trust more, because it's less biased and more influenced by the actual currency of a bowler - getting wickets - and less about impressions. Impressions would lead one to rating Akram as being better than McGrath.

All fair points.

I'm not even trying to make the argument that Holding is better.

 

[Starfighter]

All fair points.

I'm not even trying to make the argument that Holding is better.

With respect to Hadlee you were making an argument based partly on peer ratings. I've said before I think peer ratings aren't reliable.

 

[Johan]

With respect to Hadlee you were making an argument based partly on peer ratings. I've said before I think peer ratings aren't reliable.

realised that when McGrath randomly said Anderson is a more skilled bowler than Akram.

 

[Starfighter]

Adcock picked himself.

Probably the most honest AT XI selection ever made

 

[Johan]

In 2010 the book In A League Of Their Own featured 100 all-time world teams picked by ex-players plus one by umpire Dickie Bird. The various fast bowlers featured in the following number of teams:

54 - Lillee
35 - Marshall
27 - Wasim Akram
21 - Imran Khan
20 - Hadlee
18 - Botham
14 - Lindwall
13 - Miller
10 - Holding
9 - Trueman
8 - Kapil Dev, McGrath
7 - Hall
6 - Roberts
4 - Ambrose, Garner
3 - Davidson, Donald, Larwood, McKenzie
2 - Walsh
1 - Adcock, Flintoff, Shaun Pollock, Procter, Statham

Adcock picked himself.

Holding chose Hadlee, but only selected those he had played against and excluded West Indians. Otherwise he said there would be a lot of teammates and he would be accused of bias.

had Fred been alive when the book was made, that'd be one more guaranteed Fred vote.

 

[kyear2]

realised that when McGrath randomly said Anderson is a more skilled bowler than Akram.

That's why it's seen more as a collective than fringe individual perspective.

If a cricketer almost universally isn't seen as good during their careers or even after as they are subsequently, there still is generally a reason.

Both have to make sense.

 

[subshakerz]

That's why it's seen more as a collective than fringe individual perspective.

If a cricketer almost universally isn't seen as good during their careers or even after as they are subsequently, there still is generally a reason.

Both have to make sense.

Where would you rank Hadlee based on peer rep in his era?

Seems to be behind Lillee, Marshall, Imran and Holding.

 

[subshakerz]

In 2010 the book In A League Of Their Own featured 100 all-time world teams picked by ex-players plus one by umpire Dickie Bird. The various fast bowlers featured in the following number of teams:

54 - Lillee
35 - Marshall
27 - Wasim Akram
21 - Imran Khan
20 - Hadlee
18 - Botham
14 - Lindwall
13 - Miller
10 - Holding
9 - Trueman
8 - Kapil Dev, McGrath
7 - Hall
6 - Roberts
4 - Ambrose, Garner
3 - Davidson, Donald, Larwood, McKenzie
2 - Walsh
1 - Adcock, Flintoff, Shaun Pollock, Procter, Statham

Adcock picked himself.

Holding chose Hadlee, but only selected those he had played against and excluded West Indians. Otherwise he said there would be a lot of teammates and he would be accused of bias.

Lillees insane peer rating is one reason I rate him higher than most here.

I saw Miandad of all people the other day pick him as the best bowler faced.

 

[subshakerz]

realised that when McGrath randomly said Anderson is a more skilled bowler than Akram.

Single peer rating isn't as reliable. Peer consensus is.

 

[sayon basak]

Single peer rating isn't as reliable. Peer consensus is.

What I feel like is that players nowadays do not give enough time to form an opinion about their peers. If you asked a player today about the top 5 cricketers they played with or against, they'll most likely name 5 famous players (like Virat Kohli, MS Dhoni etc.)

 

[subshakerz]

What I feel like is that players nowadays do not give enough time to form an opinion about their peers. If you asked a player today about the top 5 cricketers they played with or against, they'll most likely name 5 famous players (like Virat Kohli, MS Dhoni etc.)

Best to ask end of career. Anyways Dhoni isn't going to be a consensus best bat or cricketer unless it's ODIs.

 

[chris.hinton]

My Top 10 (Based on watching Cricket since the early 1990s)

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Allan Donald
4. Wasim Akram
5. Courtney Walsh
6. Ian Bishop
7. James Anderson
8. Dale Steyn
9. James Anderson
10. Jacques Kallis

 

[subshakerz]

My Top 10 (Based on watching Cricket since the early 1990s)

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Allan Donald
4. Wasim Akram
5. Courtney Walsh
6. Ian Bishop
7. James Anderson
8. Dale Steyn
9. James Anderson
10. Jacques Kallis

Wow you really like Anderson enough to select him twice. Can I suggest Waqar or Pollock for one of those places?

 

[subshakerz]

He wasn't though. Not in the 80's, they weren't rated that far apart.

Holding was right in the mix with Imran and Hadlee, Hadlee was likely ahead, but it wasn't tiers apart.

Holding was rated more highly than he's rated here today

I just don't see a universe where Hadlee plays for England in the 80s and is not rated higher as a result.

 

[sayon basak]

Anyways Dhoni isn't going to be a consensus best bat or cricketer unless it's ODIs.

If you don't specify the format, they'll most likely give IPL a great weight as well.

Best to ask end of career.

What I said was that they're opinion wouldn't have enough behind them (that's just the impression I got). Why would it make a change based on when you ask the question?

 

[Johan]

I just don't see a universe where Hadlee plays for England in the 80s and is not rated higher as a result.

Er, not a good idea to play for 80s England

 

[subshakerz]

If you don't specify the format, they'll most likely give IPL a great weight as well.

What I said was that they're opinion wouldn't have enough behind them (that's just the impression I got). Why would it make a change based on when you ask the question?

Because end of career you know peaks and trough and can make a better assessment.

 

[subshakerz]

Er, not a good idea to play for 80s England

Assuming the same record and not constant drops

 

[Johan]

Assuming the same record and not constant drops

You shouldn't assume the same record, he'd have to play West Indies twice as much if not more, with three full 5 match tours, a very different career structure.

 

[sayon basak]

Because end of career you know peaks and trough and can make a better assessment.

No it wouldn't make a difference, as most of their opinions would most likely be mindless. If you ask a typical modern cricketer about who is/was the best player they played with, that'd be the first time they'd think about the question. My hypothesis.