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

[Bolo]

Are we allowed to tactically vote Imran to the top? Would feel like an appropriate time to have him win one of these, but I wouldn't want accusations of an unfair election.

 

[a massive zebra]

You watch that Bedser video? That's what Barnes was supposed to have bowled, or I've heard even slightly faster. Here's the grainy, muddy footage of him if you can.

That is simply not correct. I have read widely on the subject and the primary sources make it abundantly clear that Barnes span the ball both ways. Bedser was not a spinner, but a medium fast swing bowler. The only thing similar about them was their pace and their ability to swing the ball.

This is what Clem Hill, the greatest Australian left hander of Barnes time had to say after being dismissed by Barnes:

I was in first wicket down, after Bardsley had gone for 0. I got four, probably from Foster...I wanted to get away from Barnes. I played three different balls. Three balls to play in a split second - a staight 'un, an in swinger and a break back !

Then along came one which was straight half way, not more than medium pace. Then It swerved to my legs, perfect for tickling round the corner for a single. But the ruddy thing (again) broke across after pitching, quick off the ground and took my off stump!'

Consider that he could do the same thing exactly in reverse to right handers and you can now start thinking what he bowled.

Former Australian captain Charles Macartney said that at Leeds in July 1909, Barnes bowled the legendary Victor Trumper .....

with a sort of ball that a batsman sees only when he is tight (drunk). I was at the other end, I should know!

It is ...at any rate clear that Barnes executed his leg break without turning the wrist, an action which gives some notice to the batsman. Apparently Barnes manipulated the leg turn mainly by leverage of the third finger - as most leg spinners do, though most of them need to twist over the wrist.

This probably explains his maintaing the seam position as would an inswing bowler so that the ball would swing inwards in the air and still break away on pitching.

....Mentally mingle the best of Tate and Bedser; length, pace, swing, then add a tincture of O'Reilly, then maybe some adumbration will emerge or loom of Barnes in full spate.

Here is the greatest of cricketers talking about Sydney Barnes. Obviously he wouldn't have seen Barnes at his peak first hand, but as he was born just one generation later he would have spoken at length with people who did play Tests against Barnes:

Barnes and O'Reilly were the two greatest bowlers who ever lived. Each was undoubtedly the greatest of his time...

From all accounts, they were similar in style. Barnes was faster, but he didn't have the googly. They were both aggressive and could deliver perhaps the hardest of all deliveries to keep out - the very quick leg-break.

O'Reilly was reletless and unforgiving if you managed to strike him to the boundary. Reports suggest that Barnes was in some ways similar in character.

He may have had more variety in his deliveries than O'Reilly. Barnes bowled fast off-breaks (besides the leg-breaks), out swingers and in swingers. Like O'Reilly he would have been a handful for the best batsman of any era.

Plum Warner on Barnes:

Barnes, whose pace was fast-medium, brought the ball down from a great height, broke both ways, and had a deceptive flight. He possessed very strong and long fingers, and his leg-break especially came very fast off the pitch. He made full use of the width of the crease, and in this way often deceived the batsman as to the exact course his leg-break, which he cut rather than spun, was taking through the air. The Australians aver that he is the greatest bowler England has ever sent to Australia, and I fancy the South Africans would be of the same opinion, as they saw him on their matting wickets. He was a strong man, and never gave in or relaxed his efforts for a moment. With F.R. Foster at the other end we had the perfect combination: a finer pair of opening bowlers never represented England, at all events on Australian wickets. One might point out that George Lohmann's average in test matches against the old enemy is actually far superior, but it must be remembered that Barnes had to bowl against Australian batting at its strongest and best, whereas Lohmann met the Australians at period when batting was not their strongest suit. They had great bowlers - Spofforth, Palmer, Garrett, Boyle, Giffen, Turner, Ferris, Jones, Trumble, etc. - but their batsmen, as a whole, were considerably below the standard they have obtained since 1896. That Lohmann was a complete master of his art there cannot be two opinions. He took a fairly long run to the crease, his arm was high, he could turn the ball both ways, and over and over again he deceived the batsmen with his clever variation of pace, a catch and bowl, or a catch at mid-off or in the deep field, often resulting. But that he was a greater bowler than Barnes I find it hard to believe. He would be a rash man who gave his verdict for Lohmann over Barnes. They were both very great, and the wisest thing to do is to give each a First Class in any Honours School, but I doubt Lohmann would have had the same success had he played on the hard Australian wickets of 20 years later against the much more accomplished batsmen Barnes had to contend with.

 

[mr_mister]

So how do we do it? Do we email you or just post in here? Do we rank the lot or just our top X?

just post them in here. rank the entire 25 please, makes it more fair

 

[Bolo]

So how do we do it? Do we email you or just post in here? Do we rank the lot or just our top X?

It's as interesting to see how people have voted as the actual vote results.

 

[a massive zebra]

I don't agree with the inclusion of Barnes as he was not a fast bowler. Statham, Thomson or Shoaib would be more appropriate inclusions.

 

[Prince EWS]

just post them in here. rank the entire 25 please, makes it more fair

I think I'm going to let my algorithm decide my vote. I don't necessarily agree with all of its conclusions for a few reasons, but I think I want it to have a say on the final rankings more than I do my own more subjective thoughts, so here's my vote:

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

 

[Starfighter]

That is simply not correct. I have read widely on the subject and the primary sources make it abundantly clear that Barnes span the ball both ways. Bedser was not a spinner, but a medium fast swing bowler. The only thing similar about them was their pace and their ability to swing the ball.

And I was mainly discussing their pace funnily enough. Bedser did also sometimes move the ball from leg as you know. I've seen a few articles comparing Bedser, Tate and Barnes, but none of those to O'Reilly. Because even if their exact methods vary significantly they are more similar to each other in general form, pace and attack than any are to O'Reilly. They are all 'fast-medium' bowlers.

 

[cnerd123]

I think Barnes Asif Philander etc should count in this. Otherwise we're going to need to make a separate list for them, and I don't think there are enough high quality medium pacers around to discuss.


Also, FTR, real men bowl finger spin exactly because it's so ineffective and tame. Just like how real men face pace bowling head on. There is no pride in smashing a finger spin around, just like how there is no pride simply using your genetic gifts and physical ability to harrass an old unskilled man like Burgey. That's why Sehwag is probably the greatest cricketer of all time tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think Barnes Asif Philander etc should count in this. Otherwise we're going to need to make a separate list for them, and I don't think there are enough high quality medium pacers around to discuss.

Haha I see you are new to debates over what Barnes bowled.

No-one is suggesting that Philander doesn't qualify as a fast bowler for the purposes of this list. There's a long-standing debate over the theory that Barnes bowled more like O'Reilly than he did Philander though, and if that's the case he probably shouldn't be included (even though Philander is). I actually tend to agree with that theory but I don't think it's worth getting my panties in a twist over -- OP supplied a list and I ranked it.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm aware of the debates, but we've left Barnes out of the spinners discussion. So he fits into the pace discussion, otherwise you need a discussion for mixed bag medium pace trickster style of bowling, which just doesn't have enough people in it.

Asif and Philander loosely fall into it on account of being slow relative to other pace bowlers, but yea they're more pace bowlers than they are Barnes style bowlers.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm aware of the debates, but we've left Barnes out of the spinners discussion. So he fits into the pace discussion, otherwise you need a discussion for mixed bag medium pace trickster style of bowling, which just doesn't have enough people in it.

Haha yeah but you basically beat up a straw man by mentioning Philander and Asif in that case.

 

[Starfighter]

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

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think I'm going to let my algorithm decide my vote. I don't necessarily agree with all of its conclusions for a few reasons, but I think I want it to have a say on the final rankings more than I do my own more subjective thoughts, so here's my vote:

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

I know you're a longevity nut but Anderson above Donald is pretty blasphemous.

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

 

[cnerd123]

I was just going by the fact it seemed to be about 'fast bowlers' rather than 'pace bowlers', which of course opens of the field quite a bit. I mean, Barnes and Bedser were great but this doesn't really compare to the others in pace. Pollock wasn't that fast for a lot of his career but he was more a bouncy type.


Actually Philander is an interesting case. Do you really call him a 'fast' bowler when he operates in that high 120's sort of field? I think he's right where, if you eliminated the intermediate sort of categories, 'fast' ends and 'medium' begins. Asif also bowled a bit around the same pace, though he could push it up more. There simply aren't many who can operate at that pace in international cricket anymore.

So I think i would be best to keep Barnes and Bedser because there haven't really been enough medium pacers recently to form a distinct category. But exactly how you define different styles of bowling is a whole thread in itself.

Was replying to this

 

[Starfighter]

I know you're a longevity nut but Anderson above Donald is pretty blasphemous.

And Lillee, and Trueman etc etc.

 

[Prince EWS]

I know you're a longevity nut but Anderson above Donald is pretty blasphemous.

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.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I edited the post ****.

Hazelwood that high up the list is a bit of a shock too. Those Australian ****heap pitches must mean he gets a massive boost to the standardized avg.

 

[trundler]

Great to see McGrath and Steyn ahead of Barnes on Standardized Average. Really puts things into perspective. When looking at Barne's average of 16.43, people tend to forget that the premier batsmen of the age he played in average under 40.

 

[Prince EWS]

I edited the post ****.

I started replying beforehand, ****.

Hazelwood that high up the list is a bit of a shock too. Those Australian ****heap pitches must mean he gets a massive boost to the standardized avg.

Haha yeah he's on track to be rated absurdly highly on that list if he has a moderately long career and things don't change regarding how roady those pitches are how well he does on them despite that.

 

[a massive zebra]

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