Scyld Berry 30 greatest test fast bowlers

[Gob]

Hadlee at 16 arguably is

That's more like wasim's place

 

[Johan]

No Gavaskar.

That's not really necessary.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That's more like wasim's place

Irony of CW criticizing telegraph ratings.

 

[sayon basak]

I would say so too, but how do you conclude that

There are enough footages available to judge.

 

[capt_Luffy]

### Step 1: Define Metrics
- **Wicketkeeping**:
- **Byes per innings (BPI)**: Measures tidiness (lower is better).
- **Extra dismissals per innings (EDPI)**: Estimates additional dismissals due to keeping brilliance.
- **Batting**:
- **Runs per innings (RPI)**: Total run contribution per batting opportunity.
- **Batting average**: Consistency and ability to stay at the crease.
- **Strike rate (SR)**: Scoring speed, reflecting momentum-shifting ability.
- **Centuries**: Match-turning innings.
- **Weighting**: Test three scenarios (60% keeping/40% batting, 50%/50%, 40%/60%).

### Step 2: Collect Statistical Data
Based on historical Test cricket data (sourced from ESPNcricinfo, with estimates for BPI and EDPI):

- **Alan Knott (England, 1967–1981)**:
- **Tests**: 95
- **Innings fielded**: ~174 (95 Tests × ~2 innings per Test).
- **Keeping**:
- **Byes**: BPI ≈ 0.5 (exceptional tidiness).
- **Dismissals**: 250 catches + 19 stumpings = 269.
- **DPI**: 269 / 174 ≈ 1.546.
- **EDPI**: Era average DPI ≈ 1.2. Knott adds ~10% more dismissals. EDPI ≈ 0.1 × 1.2 = 0.12.
- **Batting**:
- Runs: 4,389
- Innings: 149
- RPI: 4,389 / 149 ≈ 29.46
- Average: 32.75
- Centuries: 5 (0.0336 per innings: 5 / 149)
- Strike rate: ~45 (estimated, defensive style).
- Position: Typically 6 or 7.

- **Adam Gilchrist (Australia, 1999–2008)**:
- **Tests**: 96
- **Innings fielded**: ~191 (96 Tests × ~2 innings per Test).
- **Keeping**:
- **Byes**: BPI ≈ 0.8 (very good but less tidy).
- **Dismissals**: 379 catches + 37 stumpings = 416.
- **DPI**: 416 / 191 ≈ 2.178.
- **EDPI**: Era average DPI ≈ 1.8. Gilchrist adds ~5% more dismissals. EDPI ≈ 0.05 × 1.8 = 0.09.
- **Batting**:
- Runs: 5,570
- Innings: 137
- RPI: 5,570 / 137 ≈ 40.66
- Average: 47.60
- Centuries: 17 (0.1241 per innings: 17 / 137)
- Strike rate: 81.95 (per ESPNcricinfo).
- Position: Typically 7.

**Notes**:
- Knott’s EDPI (0.12) vs. Gilchrist’s (0.09): ~3 extra dismissals per 100 innings.
- Knott’s BPI (0.5) vs. Gilchrist’s (0.8): ~0.3 runs saved per innings (~30 runs per 100 innings).
- Gilchrist’s RPI (40.66 vs. 29.46), average (47.60 vs. 32.75), centuries, and SR reflect stronger batting.

### Step 3: Build the Mathematical Model
Calculate a **Player Value Score (PVS)** combining keeping and batting, normalized for era differences and weighted by role importance.

#### Keeping Score
Combine BPI and EDPI, normalized:
- **BPI Score** (invert and scale, lower is better):
- Era average BPI ≈ 1.0.
- Knott: 1 / 0.5 = 2.0 → (2.0 / 1.0) = 2.0 (100% better).
- Gilchrist: 1 / 0.8 = 1.25 → (1.25 / 1.0) = 1.25 (25% better).
- **EDPI Score** (normalize to era DPI, scale for comparability):
- Knott: EDPI 0.12 / era DPI 1.2 ≈ 0.1 × 20 = 2.0.
- Gilchrist: EDPI 0.09 / era DPI 1.8 ≈ 0.05 × 20 = 1.0.

**Keeping Score** = (BPI Score + EDPI Score) / 2:
- Knott: (2.0 + 2.0) / 2 = 2.0
- Gilchrist: (1.25 + 1.0) / 2 = 1.125

#### Batting Score
Normalize RPI, batting average, strike rate, and centuries, with equal weighting (25% each) for batting impact:
- **RPI Score**:
- Era average RPI: Knott’s era ~22, Gilchrist’s era ~27.
- Knott: 29.46 / 22 ≈ 1.339 (33.9% above average).
- Gilchrist: 40.66 / 27 ≈ 1.506 (50.6% above average).
- **Batting Average Score**:
- Era average: Knott’s era ~25, Gilchrist’s era ~30.
- Knott: 32.75 / 25 ≈ 1.310 (31% above average).
- Gilchrist: 47.60 / 30 ≈ 1.587 (58.7% above average).
- **Strike Rate Score**:
- Era average SR: Knott’s era ~50, Gilchrist’s era ~60.
- Knott: 45 / 50 ≈ 0.9 (10% below average).
- Gilchrist: 81.95 / 60 ≈ 1.366 (36.6% above average).
- **Centuries Score**:
- Era average centuries per innings: Knott’s era ~0.02, Gilchrist’s era ~0.03.
- Knott: 0.0336 / 0.02 ≈ 1.68 (68% above average).
- Gilchrist: 0.1241 / 0.03 ≈ 4.137 (313.7% above average).

**Base Batting Score** = (RPI Score + Batting Average Score + Strike Rate Score + Centuries Score) / 4:
- Knott: (1.339 + 1.310 + 0.9 + 1.68) / 4 ≈ 1.3073
- Gilchrist: (1.506 + 1.587 + 1.366 + 4.137) / 4 ≈ 2.149

**Batting Impact Adjustment** (minimal, to fine-tune for match influence):
- Use a small multiplier based on centuries and strike_rate (10% total, 5% each):
- Century multiplier: Gilchrist 4.137 / Knott 1.68 ≈ 2.462; Knott = 1.
- Strike rate multiplier: Gilchrist 1.366 / Knott 0.9 ≈ 1.518; Knott = 1.
- Impact multiplier: (0.05 × Century Multiplier) + (0.05 × Strike Rate Multiplier) + 0.9.
- Kn فنott: (0.05 × 1) + (0.05 × 1) + 0.9 = 1.0
- Gilchrist: (0.05 × 2.462) + (0.05 × 1.518) + 0.9 ≈ 0.1231 + 0.0759 + 0.9 ≈ 1.099

**Adjusted Batting Score** = Base Batting Score × Impact Multiplier:
- Knott: 1.3073 × 1.0 ≈ 1.3073
- Gilchrist: 2.149 × 1.099 ≈ 2.3618

#### Total Player Value Score (PVS)
PVS = (W_k × Keeping Score) + (W_b × Batting Score), where W_k + W_b = 1.

Test three weighting scenarios:
1. **60% Keeping, 40% Batting**:
- Knott: (0.6 × 2.0) + (0.4 × 1.3073) ≈ 1.2 + 0.5229 = 1.7229
- Gilchrist: (0.6 × 1.125) + (0.4 × 2.3618) ≈ 0.675 + 0.9447 = 1.6197
2. **50% Keeping, 50% Batting**:
- Knott: (0.5 × 2.0) + (0.5 × 1.3073) ≈ 1.0 + 0.6537 = 1.6537
- Gilchrist: (0.5 × 1.125) + (0.5 × 2.3618) ≈ 0.5625 + 1.1809 = 1.7434
3. **40% Keeping, 60% Batting**:
- Knott: (0.4 × 2.0) + (0.6 × 1.3073) ≈ 0.8 + 0.7844 = 1.5844
- Gilchrist: (0.4 × 1.125) + (0.6 × 2.3618) ≈ 0.45 + 1.4171 = 1.8671

### Step 4: Interpret Results
- **60% Keeping/40% Batting**: Knott (1.7229) > Gilchrist (1.6197). Knott’s keeping edge prevails.
- **50% Keeping/50% Batting**: Gilchrist (1.7434) slightly > Knott (1.6537). Results are close, with Gilchrist edging out due to batting.
- **40% Keeping/60% Batting**: Gilchrist (1.8671) > Knott (1.5844).

### Step 5: Contextual Considerations
- **Keeping Impact**: Knott’s EDPI (0.12 vs. 0.09) yields ~3 extra dismissals per 100 innings. His BPI (0.5 vs. 0.8) saves ~30 runs per 100 innings. These are critical in tight Tests.
- **Batting Impact**: Gilchrist’s RPI (40.66 vs. 29.46), average (47.60 vs. 32.75), SR (81.95 vs. 45), and centuries (17 vs. 5) make him a game-changer, balanced by equal weighting with RPI and average.
- **Team Needs**: In an all-time XI with elite batsmen (e.g., Bradman) and bowlers (e.g., Warne), Knott’s keeping maximizes bowling efficiency, while Gilchrist’s batting adds depth and aggression at 7.

### Step 6: Conclusion
The model, with equal weighting for RPI, average, SR, and centuries, achieves the desired balance:
- **60% keeping**: Knott’s superior keeping (BPI 0.5, EDPI 0.12) gives him the edge.
- **50% keeping/batting**: Scores are close (Gilchrist slightly ahead), reflecting near-equal contributions.
- **60% batting**: Gilchrist’s batting (RPI 40.66, average 47.60) prevails.

**Recommendation**: For an all-time Test XI, the choice depends on team priorities:
- If prioritizing keeping (60% keeping), **Alan Knott** is the better pick at number 7 for his exceptional keeping reliability.
- If prioritizing batting or balance (50% or 60% batting), **Adam Gilchrist** is preferred for his match-turning batting.
Given the balanced 50%/50% scenario where Gilchrist edges out slightly, and considering his batting’s potential to shift games in a strong XI, Gilchrist is the marginal choice.

**Final Answer**: Pick **Adam Gilchrist** for the all-time Test XI at number 7, as his batting (RPI 40.66, average 47.60, SR 81.95, 17 centuries) slightly outweighs Knott’s keeping (BPI 0.5, EDPI 0.12) in the balanced 50%/50% weighting (1.7434 vs. 1.6537), with Knott favored at 60% keeping and Gilchrist at 60% batting.

Can you do the same for Healy and Flower?

 

[Thala_0710]

Can you do the same for Healy and Flower?

I did and Flower beat Healy pretty easily. The thing is though that BPI and EDPI which the model is using, is kind of pulled out of thin air (as in the relative difference between them). These statistics aren't available publically at least, but even accounting for it, Flower is beating Healy easily.

 

[Thala_0710]

I ran the model for all top keeper batsman and the model's top 5 were:
1. Les Ames
2. Kumar Sangakkara
3. Adam Gilchrist
4. Alan Knott
5. Denis Lindsay

 

[Johan]

Ames is overrated

 

[Thala_0710]

Ames is overrated

Why do you say so

 

[Johan]

Why do you say so

27 Ashes average, did well against West Indies, feasted in the 1938-39 South Africa series where the wickets were described as preposterously perfect and New Zealand

 

[Thala_0710]

27 Ashes average, did well against West Indies, feasted in the 1938-39 South Africa series where the wickets were described as preposterously perfect and New Zealand

A 27 ashes average isn't that bad. And he did well against everyone else. Much much better than any other wkb of his era, and was a tier A keeper on top of it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

27 Ashes average, did well against West Indies, feasted in the 1938-39 South Africa series where the wickets were described as preposterously perfect and New Zealand

Ames is a little overrated for failing to Australia, but his value is much more so of a milestone than just a player. But even as a player, his FC record is pretty Great. 102 FC Centuries, averages more than Paynter and Leyland

 

[Coronis]

A 27 ashes average isn't that bad. And he did well against everyone else. Much much better than any other wkb of his era, and was a tier A keeper on top of it.

It really is. If Gilchrist had a 27 Ashes average in his similarly high scoring era he’d be widely criticised for it. Noted batsmen Jack Russell and Ian Healy outperformed him in Ashes.

Ames is a little overrated for failing to Australia, but his value is much more so of a milestone than just a player. But even as a player, his FC record is pretty Great. 102 FC Centuries, averages more than Paynter and Leyland

Is a good example of why FC averages can’t always be taken at face value, only used as a guide. (Though importance would increase pre WWI imo)

 

[MasterBlaster24]

Tbh, I don’t think Les Ames' Ashes record is that bad at all. Yes, he had a poor series with the bat in 1932/33 (Bodyline), but that was a low-scoring series overall and tough for most batsmen. He actually did quite well in 1934 and 1938, contributing significantly with the bat in both series.

As for the 1936/37 Ashes in Australia, there’s important context — Ames had a back injury during the 1936 English summer, and then fell ill shortly after arriving in Australia,which delayed his start to the tour. He didn’t play until mid-November and clearly wasn’t in peak physical shape. That definitely impacted his returns with the bat in that series. (source: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-in-australia-1936-37-154075)

When you look at his Ashes record in context, especially considering the expectations of wicketkeeper-batsmen in that era, I’d say Ames’ overall performance was actually very solid.

 

[Coronis]

Tbh, I don’t think Les Ames' Ashes record is that bad at all. Yes, he had a poor series with the bat in 1932/33 (Bodyline), but that was a low-scoring series overall and tough for most batsmen. He actually did quite well in 1934 and 1938, contributing significantly with the bat in both series.

As for the 1936/37 Ashes in Australia, there’s important context — Ames had a back injury during the 1936 English summer, and then fell ill shortly after arriving in Australia,which delayed his start to the tour. He didn’t play until mid-November and clearly wasn’t in peak physical shape. That definitely impacted his returns with the bat in that series. (source: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-in-australia-1936-37-154075)

When you look at his Ashes record in context, especially considering the expectations of wicketkeeper-batsmen in that era, I’d say Ames’ overall performance was actually very solid.

lol. trying to excuse his Bodyline series when he scored 113 runs in 8 innings gimme a break. Larwood almost outscored him in a single innings. Oldfield outscored him despite missing a match. Hell Hedley Verity batted 5 innings and outscored him. English batsmen scored a ton of runs that series.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

lol. trying to excuse his Bodyline series when he scored 113 runs in 8 innings gimme a break. Larwood almost outscored him in a single innings. Oldfield outscored him despite missing a match. Hell Hedley Verity batted 5 innings and outscored him. English batsmen scored a ton of runs that series.

Yes, he had a poor series with the bat in 1932/33 (Bodyline).

Just to clarify, I already mentioned that Ames had a poor series with the bat during the Bodyline tour (1932/33). That was definitely his weakest Ashes performance. But aside from that, he actually did quite well in the 1934 and 1938 Ashes series. His only other dip came in 1936/37, which, as I pointed out, was largely due to injury and illness before and early in the tour.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

1. Marshall
2. McGrath
3. Hadlee
4. Steyn
5. Ambrose
6. Imran
7. Lillee
8. Wasim
9. Trueman
10. Bumrah
11. Donald
12. Waqar
13. Walsh
14. Pollock
15. Cummins
16. Lindwall
17. Davidson
18. Garner
19. Rabada
20. Holding
21. Anderson
22. Shoaib
23. Broad
24. Hazlewood
25. Philander
26. Willis
27. Gillespie
28. Larwood
29. Roberts
30. Botham

Need Adcock, Miller, Wagner, P Pollock, Fazal, Harris, Bedser, Statham, and Cowie ahead of a few of these.

Plus some 19th century bowlers if they qualify.

 

[Gob]

Need Adcock, Miller, Wagner, P Pollock, Fazal, Harris, Bedser, Statham, and Cowie ahead of a few of these.

Plus some 19th century bowlers if they qualify.

Where?

 

[kyear2]

This whole **** is very much about Kyear'l selectively applying criterias to different players in his team really.

He consider Smith an elite slip fielder hence my question.

There's no different criteria, just you seem to lack the understanding to grasp nuance, or reconcile any beliefs that differ from yours. But I see you're letting your personal dislike for me come into your posts.

As for Subz, we've had this discussion many times before.

Smith as a slip fielder is harder to rate than any player in any discipline, up there with trying to rate Wasim.

Smith has an ATG elite skill set, he takes catches no one else in today's game is getting to, and I don't mean the flying dives, it's the half chance dying balls that he has to come forward to or the sharp or low reflex ones to spin.

But he also drops catches that he shouldn't and that takes him from the elite class.

If choices are to be had, I'm taking the catcher with the higher ceiling and placing him at 3rd, where the most difficult of chances come and he's had the least amount of lapses and more than his fair share of stunners, and he'll be the first to be moved into the outfield as required, where he is brilliant. And yes, he'll be at 1st to the spinners, where he is elite.

But is he elite and overall among the very best ever? No. Too inconsistent for that. I have a top 12 list, and he doesn't appear on that.

 

[kyear2]

Exactly. Viv was great in the slips but I am waiting for Kyear to apply his logic to remove Tendulkar for Smith, Hammond or even Kallis.

As usual, he doesn't apply his logic consistently.

There is where you don't apply your logic consistently and I do.

You say you keep waiting for it, and that's because I haven't and wouldn't do it.

And I've literally alluded to that very scenario in the past. That the cumulative logic that many here use for ranking Imran 3rd, that by the same logic Kallis and Hammond should be up there as well, and the only person who's consistent with that is Coronis.

That the same way the loud minority factors in the batting to the bowling selections and elevate Imran over a McGrath or Steyn, they should also be doing so with said Hammond or Kallis over Sachin, but that would be happen. Again, it's about favorites, not consistency.

As I've literally said to you, if I utilized your theory, I would pick Hammond and make the cordon absolutely impregnable and quite literally perfect. Hammond, Sobers and Richards were all top 3 all time at each respective spot (and my equivalent to the Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Warne orgasm tail that a few here are fascinated with). But I already have a 1st rate first slip (as I do have a decent no. 8) and primary has to come first, and Sachin was better, than Hammond, the say way mind you, that McGrath is better than Imran.

So you'll keep waiting, because it's not something I'm going to do, and have ever indicated that I would.

Please note though, that I acknowledge that you don't do the entire bat deep thing, and making that exemption just for the no. 8 is not a federal crime (just not my preference), just as if someone wanted to make an exception for the 2nd slip as a specialist position, as many teams do. And as all teams do for the batting all rounder at 6.