Best Fast Bowler of the last 20 years

[silentstriker]

I think there are very good reasons why someone struggles in one country. Sometimes its variance, but sometimes its not. I don't think you can automatically assume its due to random chance, and that there are no underlying factors behind it. It wasn't random chance that Ponting was piss-poor in India and owned India in Australia. It wasn't random chance that the Indian batting lineup just happened to have a couple bad days in New Zealand the last time around.

Obviously, it gets into a subjective matter in terms of which instance you attribute to just chance, vs. actually struggling against someone or a set of conditions.

Regarding McGrath, I've no idea who/why he would struggle. Since I start with the premise that he was the perfect bowler, the only possible conclusion is that it was random chance, and/or a conspiracy by the umpires against him.

 

[Ikki]

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.

You don't seem to understand, you're attributing the bad days to McGrath's own doing and unluckiness in the way that they were bunched up against the same opponent. It simply isn't so. Certain batsmen will have trouble with certain bowlers and vice-versa.. There is no randomness about it. It's a battle of ability. When one bowler has trouble against the same batsmen, especially over the number of tests in question here, that's a trend.

It's incredibly naive to say that over 12 years of cricket and 7 series that it just so happened that McGrath's bad days fell on against S.Africa. That would be a defense for every bowler. And the worse that period is the worse it was congested with their "bad days".

McGrath didn't do well because S.Africa were one of the best batting teams in the world and only behind Australia in terms of playing pace bowling. Australia and S.Africa for the most part of his career had similar pace-friendly conditions. Saying McGrath only averaged 31 is being dishonest, because he also struck at 80 which is a serious no-no for a strike-bowler who opens the innings. I also mentioned his 8 tests against New Zealand at home (avg. 33, sr 73) in case it slipped your mind.

As much as I am a McGrath fan and voted for him here, the last thing I'd do is pretend that it was simple randomness that held him back. The sample is big enough for a trend and that's what I'll take it as.

 

[Uppercut]

9 tests is most certainly not a good enough sample size. It might be if he averaged 40+ and struck at over 100, but not as things stand. Here's why.

McGrath's overall figures at home to SA are 28 wickets for 873 runs, avg 31. To get his average to say, 25, he'd need to have taken just six more wickets. 24 of those 28 wickets were batting 1-7, two others were Shaun Pollock and Nicky Boje. He never dismissed Makhaya Ntini, Mornantau Hayward, Allan Donald, Craig Matthews, Fanie De Villiers, Paul Adams, Johann Botha or Charl Langeveldt, and he dismissed Claude Henderson and Andre Nel once each. Just six more wickets against any of those guys and it's all well and good and noone takes any notice of his record.

Variance. Over the course of nine matches, you're looking for six more cheap tail-end wickets, held catches, rash shots, decisions gone his way, mistakes against his bowling as opposed to someone else's, pieces of movement off the pitch or through the air, gusts of wind taking the ball onto the edge of the bat instead of just missing it, whatever you like. That's all it takes for McGrath's record to be just as good at home to SA as it is anywhere else.

He's going to get these little pieces of luck, it's just a matter of when. Against all countries together, a quarter of his wickets were tail-enders. And they're not going to be divided evenly amongst each country+opposition combo.

 

[Richard]

Of course I can combine the two parts. It is the only way that makes sense. One you start leaving out parts of people's career when judging them

How many times? It is not a case of leaving-out parts. It's a case of splitting-up bit by bit. It makes no sense to combine two parts when they have precious little in common.

where do you stop. Can I suggest that Jim Laker is the best bowler ever because between 26 and 31 July he picked up 19 wickets at the remarkable average of 4.74? He wasn't as good before or after this but what does that matter. People would laugh if I suggested it but it is the same reasoning taken to extremes.

No it isn't. It's not really that difficult to work-out where to draw the line. Anyone who knows much about cricket knows what a substantial and insubstantial number of matches is.

As for dominating a seam bowler, Desmond Haynes scored 584 runs at 64.5 against Pakistan with Waqar Younis in the side (between 1990 and 1995 actually) while being dismissed by Waqar Younis only once. Complete domination.

Hardly. That shows Haynes had a method of playing Waqar that worked for him. Not that Waqar was worked-out.

 

[Richard]

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.

I see. Well, I won't be telling you you're wrong about all this, but it'll take a bit more to be changing my mind. I'll have another look around - some of that stuff is news to me.

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.

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.

Thanks. But I do not have an issue with admitting mistakes - others have an issue with trying to manufacture mistakes which I have not made. If I should ever make a mistake, I'll happily admit it - to do otherwise would be completely pointless.

 

[Ikki]

9 tests is most certainly not a good enough sample size. It might be if he averaged 40+ and struck at over 100, but not as things stand. Here's why.

McGrath's overall figures at home to SA are 28 wickets for 873 runs, avg 31. To get his average to say, 25, he'd need to have taken just six more wickets. 24 of those 28 wickets were batting 1-7, two others were Shaun Pollock and Nicky Boje. He never dismissed Makhaya Ntini, Mornantau Hayward, Allan Donald, Craig Matthews, Fanie De Villiers, Paul Adams, Johann Botha or Charl Langeveldt, and he dismissed Claude Henderson and Andre Nel once each. Just six more wickets against any of those guys and it's all well and good and noone takes any notice of his record.

Variance. Over the course of nine matches, you're looking for six more cheap tail-end wickets, held catches, rash shots, decisions gone his way, mistakes against his bowling as opposed to someone else's, pieces of movement off the pitch or through the air, gusts of wind taking the ball onto the edge of the bat instead of just missing it, whatever you like. That's all it takes for McGrath's record to be just as good at home to SA as it is anywhere else.

That's assuming he gets 6 wickets for 0 runs. Also, getting those 6 wickets without very few balls so that it decreases his SR. He only took 28 wickets in those 9 matches so to add 6 for him means you're giving him roughly 22% more wickets for nothing. Unlikely to happen. He also wasn't that good against the tail - although 1/3 of his wickets come from 6-and lower against S.Africa.

9 tests is more than enough.

He's going to get these little pieces of luck, it's just a matter of when. Against all countries together, a quarter of his wickets were tail-enders. And they're not going to be divided evenly amongst each country+opposition combo.

Those things go for everybody. Over more than a decade of playing Cricket, it's bound to have gone for him as well. Who knows, take out 6 wickets against another country and it would bring a record just as bad, if not worse, than this one. All bowlers have this and McGrath is not a special case to simply give him the benefit of the doubt.

For Wasim 4 more wickets take his average against England from 56 to 28. Then he really has a record as universally good as McGrath's if not better. Because that's the only legitimately bad record he has.

The reason I bring up Wasim is people tend to think one is the epitome of consistency and the other one was more up and down. Not so. There is very little to split them even in that regard.

 

[Uppercut]

Those things go for everybody. Over more than a decade of playing Cricket, it's bound to have gone for him as well. Who knows, take out 6 wickets against another country and it would bring a record just as bad, if not worse, than this one. All bowlers have this and McGrath is not a special case to simply give him the benefit of the doubt.

For Wasim 4 more wickets take his average against England from 56 to 28. Then he really has a record as universally good as McGrath's if not better. Because that's the only legitimately bad record he has.

The reason I bring up Wasim is people tend to think one is the epitome of consistency and the other one was more up and down. Not so. There is very little to split them even in that regard.

Totally agree, sir. Wasim deserves no such bother for his record in England, and very few bowlers do. It's precisely why I disagree with the excessive dissection of a player's career in an attempt to prove a point.

 

[Ikki]

Totally agree, sir. Wasim deserves no such bother for his record in England, and very few bowlers do. It's precisely why I disagree with the excessive dissection of a player's career in an attempt to prove a point.

That's great, because it means we really have little difference in opinion. What I was doing in this thread is addressing this myth that the bowlers in comparison to McGrath have poorer records where McGrath doesn't:

ambrose's record against india is nothing to be proud of. donald was not great against australia. akram had his lows against england and south africa. mcgrath was more successful against more opponents for a longer time than the other three greats. that clinches it for me.

all the rest were a shade below these four.

So I answered:

McGrath wasn't good against S.Africa in Australia. Averages 30 and SR of 80 IIRC.

to even the tables. And then you started arguing with me instead of the person who posted the above.

You're on a site where people throw Lillee out of contention for 3 bad matches - 1 series.

 

[funnygirl]

Edit

 

[Ikki]

You know thats not why they do it.

No, I don't. People rate Hadlee ahead of Lillee for the same evidence you use to discount Lillee against Marshall, when ignoring his record against New Zealand. Hadlee averages 44 against Pakistan in 3 matches and Lillee 101. Both complete failures. Just one better than the other? When the difference in reality is so small between them? Ignoring that the regard they are held in is even greater than the difference in those stats?

Compare how Sobers is treated to how Lillee is treated on this site. Sobers' overall stats have 1001 excuses and apologists - and this is over a whole career's worth of Tests, not 3 - and Lillee doesn't. Yet Sobers is put on such a pedestal for the infamy he carries and Lillee doesn't, even though he is as infamous for his skills.

Don't wish to derail the thread, just thought that needed to be said.

 

[silentstriker]

No, most people say Lillee never played enough in the subcontinent and that's a deficiency compared to his contemporaries who did and succeeded, not that three matches were indicative of his ability. I stopped arguing about Lillee because people continuously ignored what was said and created straw man arguments, which doesn't interest me.

 

[Ikki]

No, most people say Lillee never played enough in the subcontinent and that's a deficiency compared to his contemporaries who did and succeeded, not that three matches were indicative of his ability. I stopped arguing about Lillee because people continuously ignored what was said and created straw man arguments, which doesn't interest me.

If it's not about sample size or difference and merely succeeding: Hadlee didn't succeed in Pakistan and Marshall never succeeded in New Zealand - where it was ironically easier to bowl pace. There you go.

 

[Bracken]

I agree.

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

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.

The ACB could have given him a Learjet, a bed of rose petals and six nubile fluffers, and he still wouldn't have lasted long. His back was just not built for bowling.

And I'm certainly not trying to downplay McDermott's ability. He was a good bowler who was excellent on his day- but he was nowhere near Reid.

I see. Well, I won't be telling you you're wrong about all this, but it'll take a bit more to be changing my mind. I'll have another look around - some of that stuff is news to me.

Which would illustrate my point rather well, don't you think?

Thanks. But I do not have an issue with admitting mistakes - others have an issue with trying to manufacture mistakes which I have not made. If I should ever make a mistake, I'll happily admit it - to do otherwise would be completely pointless.

Well, whether or not you think that Reid had the ability to become a great fast bowler, I think it is reasonably clear that you don't possess enough knowledge on the subject to declare it "not remotely possible".

And yet you haven't admitted that mistake...

 

[Raghav]

Shane Bond

 

[silentstriker]

If it's not about sample size or difference and merely succeeding: Hadlee didn't succeed in Pakistan and Marshall never succeeded in New Zealand - where it was ironically easier to bowl pace. There you go.

Yea, and?

 

[Ikki]

Yea, and?

It means they're all unproven in one spot. Yet on this site there is this consistent: "Lillee is lacking, the others aren't."

That's what I said and you denied it.

 

[Top_Cat]

My God, it's like watching a forum version of Phoenix Wright.

 

[silentstriker]

It means they're all unproven in one spot. Yet on this site there is this consistent: "Lillee is lacking, the others aren't."

That's what I said and you denied it.

Who said others aren't lacking?

 

[Ikki]

Who said others aren't lacking?

No, most people say Lillee never played enough in the subcontinent and that's a deficiency compared to his contemporaries who did and succeeded, not that three matches were indicative of his ability. I stopped arguing about Lillee because people continuously ignored what was said and created straw man arguments, which doesn't interest me.

This post and many others either by you or other members on this site completely put Lillee out of contention because he lacks or has a deficiency. When his deficiency in terms of success everywhere is no more or less than the people who he is being compared to.

Yet what he has that the others don't have in infamy and the roles he played for his team is far more ahead than the few points difference they have on average/sr. Hadlee played many tests against Sri Lanka whilst Lillee only has one. Remove Sri Lanka and their career stats are almost identical. Yet Lillee not only had a revolution of sorts with regards to his bowling, he had the efficacy in bowling both in tandem and as a lone wolf. Marshall bowled half his career at home on some of the most pace-friendly wickets in the history of cricket, in a pace attack that no one comes close to and he regularly never needed to be the lone-wolf like Lillee. I tend to think he was still an awesome striker (probably the best) but look at his away stats as more of an idea at how he'd be overall if not for his very very good home conditions. And when you do that, there is very little between them.

Yet on this site it seems that it's always Lillee getting stick or people voting/choosing him need to explain themselves. You deny this, then we must have totally different interpretations of such arguments.

 

[Ikki]

My God, it's like watching a forum version of Phoenix Wright.

Funny thing that. Phoenix Wright, my name Ikki. And that I'm a law student.