• 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.

Rank These 21st Century Pacers

Flem274*

123/5
only india might say no and that's because ishant is an absolute warhorse and starc isn't. archer drops out for england, southee for nz, naseem for pakistan and one of roach/gabriel for the windies. south africa are in a rebuild so seize on him and sri lanka and bangers obviously say yes.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
only india might say no and that's because ishant is an absolute warhorse and starc isn't. archer drops out for england, southee for nz, naseem for pakistan and one of roach/gabriel for the windies. south africa are in a rebuild so seize on him and sri lanka and bangers obviously say yes.
We'd probably take him over shami in non Asia games
 

morgieb

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think at the very least, he'd make every side in the world's away attack. Home attacks are a different kettle of fish - I don't think I'd pick him if I were India or England at home, and even New Zealand might be dubious.
 

StephenZA

International Coach
only india might say no and that's because ishant is an absolute warhorse and starc isn't. archer drops out for england, southee for nz, naseem for pakistan and one of roach/gabriel for the windies. south africa are in a rebuild so seize on him and sri lanka and bangers obviously say yes.
SA really don't need fast bowlers, still have enough of those.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Yeah, I agree tbh. I consider Boult etc. 'greater' than him based on results but had no doubt that he was an elite quality bowler a few levels above when he was on the pitch based on watching him.

Akthar is an interesting case IMO because while he did play 46 games (178 wickets @ 25.9), he was nowhere near ready to control his abilities in his first few years of cricket which colour his stats negatively a tad bit.

In his first 13 tests which came between his debut in Nov 97 and the end of 1999, he took 34 wickets @ 40.4. He was mostly out on injury iirc for the next couple of years.

In the period between 2002-2007, for a long-ish period of 5-6 years, he was fairly consistently (for a guy who bowled 155 kph) on the park and played 30 tests for 132 wickets @ 21.9 which seperates him from the likes of Bond/Asif imo.

Shoaib was also reliably on the park at his absolute pomp for a decently lengthy two year period over the years 2002 and 2003 where he has historically absurd numbers: 72 wickets in 13 tests @ an average of 15.08 and SR of 30.4. A considerable portion of this was achieved on some incredibly flat batting friendly tracks which makes it even more remarkable. He didn't really discriminate depending on opposition either and if anything did even better against the best line-ups. He averaged 12 v. Australia and 16 v. SA against some extremely stacked batting line-ups for those sides in that period. It's up there with some of the most impressive fast bowling peaks in history and probably unparalleled considering the surfaces he was bowling on.

For that period in the mid-00s where he was both good and regularly playing test cricket, he was almost def. the consistently fastest bowler in history and somehow managed to have the best bouncer, slower ball and yorker in the world.

Even considering his entire career, despite playing 46 tests and having 178 wickets @ 25 along with a peak which blows away Thomsons etc. and being the best pacer of his 2002-2007 era after Mcgrath and ending up with a ATVG career, he has sort of unfairly been remembered by a lot of people as a flash in the pan what-could-have-been and grouped with others of a similar ilk due to the maverick dickhead personality halo he cultivated around him imo.
ESPN Cricinfo - Was Shoaib Akhtar's talent overshadowed by his sagas? - August 5th.

Who of you ****s is Karthik Krishnaswamy. :laugh:
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
He is one of the worst writers on crapinfo. An absolute wannabe. Zero originality in thoughts, words, style or anything.
 

cricketsavant

School Boy/Girl Captain
I think you are getting a bit too serious about a list posted by a single person. I am not sure it is even who he considers the best bowlers, just the most noteworthy ones. Morkel had a better career than many on this list, but there wasnt much noteworthy about his career. Consider the guys with similar averages- broad and anderson (500 club) and johnston (one of the most notewothy peaks). What exactly is there to discuss about morkel? He is a very good bowler that history will forget. Nobody is interested in diacussing Craig Mathews (pretty sure the vast majority of CW people dont remember him, despite the ridiculous repository of knowledge thatthis place is). But most of the regulars on this site remember his contemporary brett shultz, despite him being comparatively valueless in terms of career.

Love me some morkel btw, certainly not slagging on him. if not for some horrific mismanagement in his early career, I reckon he would have ended up in the andy roberts/croft level of bowlers, just below atg. but he didnt.
I saw TS' reply and indeed he is not talking about the best bowlers of the 21st century, which is fair enough. However, to claim there's nothing noteworhy about Morkel but to say he is better than many on the list is just odd. It hurts if you just stick to a point knowing you're wrong. You can simply agree Morkel is better than Bumrah and co (the guys I mentioned) and move on. No need for mental gymnastics I think.
 

Bolo.

U19 Vice-Captain
I saw TS' reply and indeed he is not talking about the best bowlers of the 21st century, which is fair enough. However, to claim there's nothing noteworhy about Morkel but to say he is better than many on the list is just odd. It hurts if you just stick to a point knowing you're wrong. You can simply agree Morkel is better than Bumrah and co (the guys I mentioned) and move on. No need for mental gymnastics I think.
Every bowler on the list has shredded sides to an extent Morkel didnt. He had a vastly better career than many of the low wicket takers. Eg. Bumrah. But this doesnt make him a better bowler. From what little we have seen of Bumrah in tests, he takes the number one slot on this list pretty comfortably. This is pretty noteworthy. Harris is like Bumrah lite in this context. As much as I disagree with it due to longevity, we saw someone rank Harris second, something we would never see with Morkel. Wagners inclusion kinda does mean Morkel should be there though- he is the most comparable guy.

This is not my list. I would have included Morkel. But there is no doubt that this liat has been better for producing conversation (its purpose) than one I would have made. Morkel (and to an even greater extent Starc) are only generating conversation because they were omitted. Had they been included, everyone would have just ranked them in the bottom x% and moved on.
 

Kirkut

State Captain
Assuming the debut of pacers here is late 1990s onwards:

P.S. : There is a lot of bias in my rankings, I'm rating them on the basis of 'fear' factor.

1. Steyn
2. Akhtar
3. Bond
4. Bumrah
5. Cummins
6. Harris
7. Broad
8. Rabada
9. Anderson
10. Philander

Broad and Anderson are far better complete bowlers compared to many in the list, they're just low in 'fear' factor.

Anderson is a legit ATG, and second to Steyn post 2000 as the best bowler in the world. Steyn is uniquely good which is why he's number one.

Bumrah's 5-7 was more lethal than Steyn's 6-8, but we'll see few years from now how good he can get. Has the ability to be as good as Steyn in the long run.

Cummins is legit best bowler in the world right now.

Akhtar is rated too high here in the ranking because when he was on song, he was crazy. He never had the longevity of Anderson.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Philander criminally underrated. The guy took a couple of hundred test wickets at 22 and was a decent bat as well. He wasn't McGrath but he was more adaptable than some of his contemporaries and managed match and series winning hauls overseas.
 

Top