• 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.

Ranking the candidates for best fast/pace bowler ever: The Rankings thread

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He may be thinking of Mal Loye trying to sweep all the fast bowlers in the ODI tri series. Surprise, surprise he got sconned.

Bit of a chicken and the egg situation with that guy. Did he try to sweep the quicks because he had brain damage or did he get brain damage because he tried to sweep the quicks? Who knows
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Amby and McGrath are so close to matching each other, that one would have to dig deeper to find separating characteristics to distinguish them.

Here's one that may be a differentiator : An average batsman may be able to throw the bat around at McGrath and connect for runs, if not disturb his rhythm. (and I'm not just talking Razzaq). But if he tried that with Amby, his wickets or his head would go flying.
Colin Miller's didn't when he belted him around a bit in 99.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Perhaps we should do a best of the chuckers like is happening in the spin bowling thread. Any raise on Charlie Griffith?
 

cnerd123

likes this
On the point of Aesthetics - I disagree that aesthetics don't matter at all.

There is a reason we'd rather watch cricket than simply follow text commentary. There is a reason we watch any sport at all. It's meant to be entertainment, and the beauty the human form is part of the whole appeal. Bowlers who have great actions or can make the ball do magical things deserve to get some credit, even if they are less effective in terms of performance than some others.

When I made my list, I definitely factored in aesthetics as a criteria. It's as important to me as peak performance, consistency, longevity and adaptability. The latter criteria all help win games of cricket, but cricket isn't all about winning and losing.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
On the point of Aesthetics - I disagree that aesthetics don't matter at all.

There is a reason we'd rather watch cricket than simply follow text commentary. There is a reason we watch any sport at all. It's meant to be entertainment, and the beauty the human form is part of the whole appeal. Bowlers who have great actions or can make the ball do magical things deserve to get some credit, even if they are less effective in terms of performance than some others.

When I made my list, I definitely factored in aesthetics as a criteria. It's as important to me as peak performance, consistency, longevity and adaptability. The latter criteria all help win games of cricket, but cricket isn't all about winning and losing.
Yes of course aesthetics come into it when deciding your favourite players and such but when deciding which players are better it shouldn’t.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yes of course aesthetics come into it when deciding your favourite players and such but when deciding which players are better it shouldn’t.
If you narrow it down to 'which players are better at winning cricket matches' then sure, but if you're going to just say 'which players are better' then I'd have to argue that players who could sell out stadiums, create a spectacle, bring in new fans and inspire future generations, are far more valuable to the sport.
 

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
If you narrow it down to 'which players are better at winning cricket matches' then sure, but if you're going to just say 'which players are better' then I'd have to argue that players who could sell out stadiums, create a spectacle, bring in new fans and inspire future generations, are far more valuable to the sport.
I'm 99% sure that this best x ever series of threads is referring to cricketing ability only.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Speaking of aesthetics, I just came across the 'battle of the best bowling action' thread. Jeez you guys had some rubbish. Shabbir Ahmed ffs?
 

Spark

Global Moderator
If you narrow it down to 'which players are better at winning cricket matches' then sure, but if you're going to just say 'which players are better' then I'd have to argue that players who could sell out stadiums, create a spectacle, bring in new fans and inspire future generations, are far more valuable to the sport.
You don't even need to go as far as the sport as a whole. Being a crowd-pleaser who inspires your team-mates and your fans directly improves the chances of your team, by getting the crowd involved.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Aesthetics matter.

Less so if you're picking an XI team

More so if you're picking a Top 10, 20....
 

Redsok

Cricket Spectator
Kallis is the 2nd best batting allrounder ever. No doubt.

But, Sobers vastly superior.

Sobers
Better batsman
Better bowler
Better fielder






Yikes boy..





That's exactly what all the noobs say who never actually watched Sobers play, but only watched some highlights and heard a bunch of old heads romanticizing Sobers.





Even if Sobers was the "better" batsman to many people.. NUMBERS don't lie. Kallis looks far superior, or the exact same.. at WORST. Depends how you want to look at it. Numbers don't care about your "personal opinion". That's just your opinion.. Numbers are Facts.



Of course, Context also matters.









But when it comes to bowling, it's not even close. Kallis was the superior bowler. The fact that you said Sobers was the "superior" bowler, completely contradicts your statement. You lose all credibility, and sound like spewing horse ****.



SOBERS WAS AN AVERAGE BOWLER. It's not just his bowling stats are so horrendous, especially that strike rate.. but he was literally just a world class batsman who could bowl. Never was a "good/great" bowler.



If Sobers was playing for a better team, or even the South Africa team that Kallis played for.. Sobers wouldn't even bowl a single bloody over. He'd be in the team purely as the best batsman.









For context..





Sobers was the same QUALITY of a bowler that Steve Smith was, before he turned into a batting God.



Sobers only bowled A LOT of spells, because that Windies team didn't have many bowling options. Not good ones. It was also a completely different era.. Even the most below average bowlers looked great, and took wickets.



And don't forget.. just because someone is bowling "different stuff".. doesn't make them an effective or great bowler. Joe Root also bowls off spin and leg spin. Doesn't mean he's a great bowler. He's a semi-decent part timer.





Tendulkar bowled medium pace, leg spin and off spin. Doesn't mean he was ever a "good" bowler. Just another world class batsman, and a part time bowler, with some good spells here and there. Mostly due to the "surprise" element. That's why part timers often roll their arm. Surprise









But if Tendulkar had lived in the Sobers era, and was doing the same things back then.. everyone would just freak out and end up calling him a GREAT bowler.. and the greatest 'All Rounder'. Pure nonsense.



Then Fast forward to 2020, and people would just romanticize and OVERRATE Tendulkar's bowling outrageously. Even the dumb youngins who never really watched him play. That's how easy it is.. Revisionist history







And to ya last point. You also mentioned, "superior fielder". That's also complete nonsense.





Kallis was also known as one of the greatest fielders and slip catchers... He did that for 2 decades. Literally the definition of an All Rounder. Not just "decent" in anything. But game changers with EVERYTHING.







Sobers was arguably the 2nd greatest batsman, post Bradman.







But Kallis..



One of the greatest batsman, with more centuries and runs than 95% of all "specialist" batsmen. One of he greatest fielders, with 2ND MOST CATCHES IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT.



And.. One of the best bowlers, especially for his first 15 years. 140kph swing bowler, and CONSISTENT.. If that South Africa team didn't have such a crazy bowling line up, then Kallis would have bowled even more.. mostly as a 1st change. But i doubt that'd have been good for his longevity, especially since Kallis also had to be the best batsman for South Africa. Especially in Test cricket





That type of bowling is superior to anything Sobers ever could do.. But oh no.. "sobers bowled so many different things at once.. he must be the better bowler.. " LOL Idiots.
 

Top