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

[Pap Finn Keighl]

i see so many different names put down as 'arguably the greatest fielder ever' it's kinda stupid. there's no realiable metric to determine who really can lay claim to that title

It means, he is among very best of the fielders. Universally accepted fact.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

also how are Keith Miller's bowling stats not good?

WPM is very low for a 37 avg batsman.

 

[a massive zebra]

It means, he is among very best of the fielders. Universally accepted fact.

I like how you selectively mention this just for Sobers, but not for Botham, Miller and Kallis.

I also like how you call Sobers a proper bowler and yet call out Kallis and Botham for their bowling stats and Imran for his batting stats. In reality, Sobers bowling stats are very comparable to Kallis' bowling, marginally inferior to Imran's batting and well below Botham's bowling.

I have no problem with calling Sobers the best all rounder ever, but you seem to have a bizarre agenda to use highly selective stats to denigrate some of the best allrounders ever in favour of a couple of players who never proved themselves at the highest level.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

The poster you replied to seems to be very keen on stats and rather biased in favour of great first class players who didn't get the opportunity to prove themselves in Tests. But if you are going by first class stats, there are a number of players who didn't get the chance to establish themselves in Tests but had as good or better first class stats than Proctor or Rice. I suspect he has never heard of them. One such example is Frank Tarrant.

And after 64 Tests (longer than the entire career of many ATG players), Botham had 3,686 runs at 37.61 with 13 centuries and 283 wickets @ 24.98 with 21 5-fors. As good as the first class stats of those players he mentioned. Also, Imran's entire career Test stats are as good as the first class stats of Proctor or Rice. So if statistics is your key driver, it doesn't make much sense to rank the latter two in Imran's class, unless you consider first class cricket to be the equal of Tests.

Procter and Rice case is different. They were accepted as world's premier allrounders when cricket standards were pretty high even in FC.

Mike Procter always been rated very low. Actually he should be rated above Barry Richards, because Procter is a more guaranteed great, consider a fall of 10% in performances in tests
Procter still a great with 27 ball avg and 33 bat avg. Kapil Botham league.
Barry a sub 50 avg batsman. Which is very good league.
Also Procter played more matches in international level.

When compare with other great bowling allrounders, only Procter ticks all the boxes.

Great in primary skill
Match winner with secondary skill.
Great fielder.

 

[mr_mister]

6th. Sydney Barnes (416 points)

Top 5 finishes: 9
Bottom 5 finishes: 0
Highest finish: 1st (2 times)
Lowest finish: 19th (1 time)


A difficult bowler to rank due to the era he played in, but indisputably one of the best ever. From everything I've read, he'd be my personal number 1. Debate raged over whether he should be included in the pace or spin category(as he used both skills in his bowling) but I think pace was the right choice. Definitely not 'quick' but I think he was likely a medium pacer. One of the first bowlers to apparently use the seam to his benefit, he also perfected swing and fast breaks to rank as the highest pre WW2 bowler on this list, in fact the highest on this list from before 1970. Also the highest ranked Englishman. Many people have talked about the magic he could produce with ball in hand so I'll delve into his stats a bit.


He has the best bowling average of any test bowler from 1900 onwards, when batsman started to actually put up a real fight against bowlers(and players such as Hobbs, Trumper and Macartney came onto the scene). Before 1900 bowling averages were very low and your test order was full of bats who averaged under 35 so I think the 1900 cut-off is an important one. Still his average of 16.5 is 6th on the all time list.

He took 189 wickets in only 27 tests, which means he averaged exactly 7 wickets per test. This is quite insane and I think the clear cut record, even better than Lohmann. He didn't even have a monopoly over the wickets like say a Hadlee, as the great Colin Blythe played in many tests alongside him. His average against top opposition Australia(featuring Trumper, Hill and McCartney) was 21, terrific but not outrageous for ATG pacemen.

However he absolutely thrived against newly formed test nation South Africa, taking 83 scalps from 7 tests at an average of 9. Now that is crazy. It includes a world record high 49 test wicket series against them, and he actually missed a test so it could have been even more. Still this record has stood for over 100 years and I can't see it ever being beaten. He is yet another former world record holder for test wickets on this list. He actually holds the record for longest reign as the king, holding the test aggregate record for 21 years from 1914-1935.

Barnes seemed a mysterious figure who always bowled with a cap on and played FC cricket right up until he was 57.

 

[mr_mister]

It means, he is among very best of the fielders. Universally accepted fact.

I just find it funny. I've seen so many players(from Hammond to Hick) called ATG slippers, it just seems that if you were reliable at holding catches you get 'arguably the best fielder ever' added to your cricinfo profile

 

[Slifer]

also how are Keith Miller's bowling stats not good?

Average yes. Wpm not so much and sr decent. And I suppose his sr was good for his era but compared to others like a trueman he pales in comparison.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I like how you selectively mention this just for Sobers, but not for Botham, Miller and Kallis.

I also like how you call Sobers a proper bowler and yet call out Kallis and Botham for their bowling stats and Imran for his batting stats. In reality, Sobers bowling stats are very comparable to Kallis' bowling, marginally inferior to Imran's batting and well below Botham's bowling.

I have no problem with calling Sobers the best all rounder ever, but you seem to have a bizarre agenda to use highly selective stats to denigrate some of the best allrounders ever in favour of a couple of players who never proved themselves at the highest level.

I think you are mistaken,
I was comparing only Sobers and Imran in the first part of the post.

I Know, Botham/Kapil/Miller bowling is on another league when compared to Sobers bowling. But for the Ultimate allrounder tag, their bowling is not enough. Because their batting avg is sub 40.
Kallis never been a Frontline bowler, WPM is very low too. Can you imagine Kallis taking 4 wickets per test at 28 for a relatively long period of 7 years?

Imran's batting was not that good when he was a great bowler. At least I think so.

Procter and Rice
Its not their fault they couldn't perform in the highest stage. Commonsense says they are most probably among the very best. at least 75% chances are there.

 

[trundler]

I think you are mistaken,
I was comparing only Sobers and Imran in the first part of the post.

I Know, Botham/Kapil/Miller bowling is on another league when compared to Sobers bowling. But for the Ultimate allrounder tag, their bowling is not enough. Because their batting avg is sub 40.
Kallis never been a Frontline bowler, WPM is very low too. Can you imagine Kallis taking 4 wickets per test at 28 for a relatively long period of 7 years?

Imran's batting was not that good when he was a great bowler. At least I think so.

Right on the last part which is why Sobers is king but you're really underrating bowling all rounders as a whole.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Bowling Bradman finished at 6th. Sad.

 

[Dendarii]

Kallis never been a Frontline bowler, WPM is very low too. Can you imagine Kallis taking 4 wickets per test at 28 for a relatively long period of 7 years?

Kallis may not have been a frontline bowler, but how many other allrounders were top order batsmen?

It is a little tricky comparing Kallis with most other allrounders as he was a batsman who bowled well rather than a bowler who batted well. So what that means is that you can't say that his bowling wasn't as good as everyone else's without also acknowledging that his batting was better.

 

[Slifer]

6th. Sydney Barnes (416 points)

Top 5 finishes: 9
Bottom 5 finishes: 0
Highest finish: 1st (2 times)
Lowest finish: 19th (1 time)


A difficult bowler to rank due to the era he played in, but indisputably one of the best ever. From everything I've read, he'd be my personal number 1. Debate raged over whether he should be included in the pace or spin category(as he used both skills in his bowling) but I think pace was the right choice. Definitely not 'quick' but I think he was likely a medium pacer. One of the first bowlers to apparently use the seam to his benefit, he also perfected swing and fast breaks to rank as the highest pre WW2 bowler on this list, in fact the highest on this list from before 1970. Also the highest ranked Englishman. Many people have talked about the magic he could produce with ball in hand so I'll delve into his stats a bit.


He has the best bowling average of any test bowler from 1900 onwards, when batsman started to actually put up a real fight against bowlers(and players such as Hobbs, Trumper and Macartney came onto the scene). Before 1900 bowling averages were very low and your test order was full of bats who averaged under 35 so I think the 1900 cut-off is an important one. Still his average of 16.5 is 6th on the all time list.

He took 189 wickets in only 27 tests, which means he averaged exactly 7 wickets per test. This is quite insane and I think the clear cut record, even better than Lohmann. He didn't even have a monopoly over the wickets like say a Hadlee, as the great Colin Blythe played in many tests alongside him. His average against top opposition Australia(featuring Trumper, Hill and McCartney) was 21, terrific but not outrageous for ATG pacemen.

However he absolutely thrived against newly formed test nation South Africa, taking 83 scalps from 7 tests at an average of 9. Now that is crazy. It includes a world record high 49 test wicket series against them, and he actually missed a test so it could have been even more. Still this record has stood for over 100 years and I can't see it ever being beaten. He is yet another former world record holder for test wickets on this list. He actually holds the record for longest reign as the king, holding the test aggregate record for 21 years from 1914-1935.

Barnes seemed a mysterious figure who always bowled with a cap on and played FC cricket right up until he was 57.

Actually, a bowler like say a Murali probably could've beaten Barnes' series record if he were ever given say 5 tests vs a team like WI, Bang or Zim and particularly at home. That's pretty much the equivalent of what Barnes did vs RSA.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Actually, a bowler like say a Murali probably could've beaten Barnes' series record if he were ever given say 5 tests vs a team like WI, Bang or Zim and particularly at home. That's pretty much the equivalent of what Barnes did vs RSA.

Murali got loads of tests against minnows though

 

[trundler]

I'm also unsure how much Barnes's wickets on the matting wickets of pre war SA are relevant today.

 

[Starfighter]

Actually, a bowler like say a Murali probably could've beaten Barnes' series record if he were ever given say 5 tests vs a team like WI, Bang or Zim and particularly at home. That's pretty much the equivalent of what Barnes did vs RSA.

Barnes did it in four tests!

 

[Starfighter]

 

[vcs]

Today I learnt that there's a Sydney Barnes Society.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Right on the last part which is why Sobers is king but you're really underrating bowling all rounders as a whole.

My top 10 cricketers

Sobers
Bradman
Grace
MIKE PROCTER
Barnes
Gavaskar
RICHARD HADLEE
Sachin
Viv
IMRAN KHAN

Akram an Almost bowling allrounder 11th

 

[mr_mister]

I'm also unsure how much Barnes's wickets on the matting wickets of pre war SA are relevant today.

Herbie Taylor scored 500 runs that series so it's not like they were impossible for batsman to succeed on

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Kallis may not have been a frontline bowler, but how many other allrounders were top order batsmen?

It is a little tricky comparing Kallis with most other allrounders as he was a batsman who bowled well rather than a bowler who batted well. So what that means is that you can't say that his bowling wasn't as good as everyone else's without also acknowledging that his batting was better.

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

But, Sobers vastly superior.

Sobers
Better batsman
Better bowler
Better fielder