vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Started off as an all-rounder, batting at about 7, keeper could come up to the stumps.
-
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.
The Fast Bowler's fast Bowlers
- Thread starter SJS
- Start date
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
I hesitate to post this but, SJS I would have to respectfully disagree with some of your points and add that some of the aura surrounding those five names may have the slightest hint of an ashes tinge and in some instances aided by force of personalityand bravado.
Lillee never was succesful in the Subcontinent (some may say no fault of his own, others would disagree) , and Larwood for all of his poetry in motion place on this list is questionable, as Test cricket was the greatest test and here with the exception of one series he was not exceptional.
As for Marshall not being cited by his peers, he was voted by a collection of Test cricket captains, journalists and historians to open the bolwing with Lillee for the Cricinfo exercise over the likes of Larwood and Barnes, it is not prof absolute, but it is acknowledgement my his peers. Hre are some other examples.
Ashley Mallett : Ashley Mallett on the five best fast bowlers he has seen | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Culminating with the phrase "He excelled for West Indies and for Hampshire, the county team he loved. He may well have been the greatest quick of them all. Vale Malcolm Marshall"
Mike Selvey on Malcolm Marshall | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Quote "Almost invariably the debate returns to the two figures: Lillee, the prototype modern fast bowler, and Marshall. Most would admit little more than a coat of varnish between the pair. None would quibble if the other got the nod. But Lillee had no record on the heartbreaking pitches of the subcontinent, in the days before reverse-swing made their abrasiveness into a virtue, not playing a single Test in India, and managing only three wickets in as many Tests on desperate surfaces in Pakistan in 1979-80. Marshall succeeded in Pakistan and in India. Both were complete fast bowlers. When they buried Marshall though, they interred the epitome of sustained fast-bowling excellence. He really was the best of the very best."
Greatest fast bowler of the modern era | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Wasim, Walsh, Border, Thompson all though him the greatest and they were others, Jeff Thompson on Marshall "Malcolm Marshall was the best bowler. He was not huge, released the ball late, bowled sharp, was up there, bowled pretty quick. He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did."
I am not trying to say he was the greatest, or that statistics are all that matter, but Marshall in my opinion deserves a place in that grouping and some would add Mcgrath as well, but that is an argument for another time
To me the mark of a great fast bowler is to make his team the best in the world, Barnes did it, Lindwall did it, Lillee for a brief time did it and Marshall did it ith the added distiction that Marshall and Lindwall were the spearheads to two of the greatest teams in history. Marshall never lost a series and as an opening bolwer lost 5 matches, by any criterion other than personality he is among the Greatest Ever and a worthy succesor of that title of Greatest.
Lillee never was succesful in the Subcontinent (some may say no fault of his own, others would disagree) , and Larwood for all of his poetry in motion place on this list is questionable, as Test cricket was the greatest test and here with the exception of one series he was not exceptional.
As for Marshall not being cited by his peers, he was voted by a collection of Test cricket captains, journalists and historians to open the bolwing with Lillee for the Cricinfo exercise over the likes of Larwood and Barnes, it is not prof absolute, but it is acknowledgement my his peers. Hre are some other examples.
Ashley Mallett : Ashley Mallett on the five best fast bowlers he has seen | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Culminating with the phrase "He excelled for West Indies and for Hampshire, the county team he loved. He may well have been the greatest quick of them all. Vale Malcolm Marshall"
Mike Selvey on Malcolm Marshall | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Quote "Almost invariably the debate returns to the two figures: Lillee, the prototype modern fast bowler, and Marshall. Most would admit little more than a coat of varnish between the pair. None would quibble if the other got the nod. But Lillee had no record on the heartbreaking pitches of the subcontinent, in the days before reverse-swing made their abrasiveness into a virtue, not playing a single Test in India, and managing only three wickets in as many Tests on desperate surfaces in Pakistan in 1979-80. Marshall succeeded in Pakistan and in India. Both were complete fast bowlers. When they buried Marshall though, they interred the epitome of sustained fast-bowling excellence. He really was the best of the very best."
Greatest fast bowler of the modern era | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Wasim, Walsh, Border, Thompson all though him the greatest and they were others, Jeff Thompson on Marshall "Malcolm Marshall was the best bowler. He was not huge, released the ball late, bowled sharp, was up there, bowled pretty quick. He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did."
I am not trying to say he was the greatest, or that statistics are all that matter, but Marshall in my opinion deserves a place in that grouping and some would add Mcgrath as well, but that is an argument for another time
To me the mark of a great fast bowler is to make his team the best in the world, Barnes did it, Lindwall did it, Lillee for a brief time did it and Marshall did it ith the added distiction that Marshall and Lindwall were the spearheads to two of the greatest teams in history. Marshall never lost a series and as an opening bolwer lost 5 matches, by any criterion other than personality he is among the Greatest Ever and a worthy succesor of that title of Greatest.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
There's only two fast bowlers I've seen, as a viewer, that gave the impression they could will the cricket ball to do their bidding, conditions be damned. Marshall and Akram; Marshall just had the better figures of course. Maybe it was the fast arm action that gave the illusion, not that the results contradict that opinion, but those two always seemed like wizards in a sea of journeymen.
watson
Banned
I have to agree with the sentiments of kyear2. Malcolm Marshall is universally (or near universally) agreed to be the best of the 80's fastmen from the West Indies and so his era would slot neatly between Lillee's retirement in 1983/84 and the emergence of Ambrose in 1988.
Marshall at least deserves those 4-5 years as Akram was still learning his trade during that period.
Last edited:
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
How would the stats look for Lillee and Imran if the Super Tests were included?
watson
Banned
That's Bob Simpson
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Interestingly*, when I was growing up all references I ever read in books and writings to Lillee's WSC stats credited him with 79 wickets as they included the match against a World XI in New Zealand where he took 12/89. These days it seems that those responsible for collating WSC statistics, online at least, now omit that match - to the subsequent detriment of his figures.
* One (sad, geeky) man's opinion, obvs.
* One (sad, geeky) man's opinion, obvs.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
Imran, you beauty
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It's missing a match in NZ.
IIRC, Lillee's average is basically identical taking into account those games but his SR goes to like 50 or 49. Lillee also had Tests against a World XI which improve his stats again.
I remember calculating that Lillee played about a 3rd of his games against truly awesome ATG lineups. The kinds of lineups we like making a hobby out of with our imagination lists. Very few bowlers play 1 series against such kinds of lineups. In my mind, that is the reason that Lillee is so lauded - they remember those performances - despite his Test record being relatively incomplete.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Ha ha, I knew you'd be the other person to mention that match.
smash84
The Tiger King
Sorry to derail you (and bring the thread on track) the fast bowlers were the real stars of WSC
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Besides players, who will have more of yet, there are others involved with the game and watch the protagonists from very close quarters whose views are interesting as well. One such is Frank Chester widely considered by most as the greatest umpire the game has seen.
. First a bit about the man himself.
Frank Chester (1895-1957
Chester qualified for Worcestershire in 1912. He was just 17 when he scored his maiden first class hundred against Somerste. He thus became the youngest player ever to score a century in a county match. It was a record till 1950. Dr WG Grace wowed the youngster by summoning him to congratulate him for his century at Lord's.
The Wisden of 1913 wrote of the youngster as the "youngest professional regularly engaged in first-class cricket ... Very few players in the history of cricket have shown such form at the age of seventeen and a half" He had scored 1773 runs (four hundreds) with a top score of 178 not out against Essex besides taking 81 wickets with his orthodox slow left armers. Unfortunately for him the WW1 stopped cricket after that season.
Chester volunteered at 19 and a shrapnel would in his right arm became gangrenous and he lost the limb in July 1917.
The youngster came back after the war and "turned to umpiring when he returned to England, using an artificial arm to make the necessary signals, and stood in his first first-class match in 1922, showing early promise and an uncompromising fairness" He started his international umpiring in 1924 (still in his 20's) and was on active duty for 31 long years. Sir Donald Bradman wrote of him in very glowing terms in his autobiography Farewell to Arms.
The Wisden, which had lauded the youngster of great promise in 1013, wrote of the legendary umpire on his death that he "raised umpiring to a higher level than had ever been known in the history of cricket"
When I came to know of Frank Chester's autobiography I was very keen to buy it and it is a wonderful read.
In it he deviates from the other stuff to nominate a world XI which has players from 1910 when he started watching first class cricket as a playing youngster till 1956 when the book was published. It makes a very interesting side . . .
He writes of his choice . . .
That leaves four Sutcliffe, Compton, Rhodes and Macdonald. He goes on to discuss what went through his mind and why he chose these four and not the others but that is a separate and long discussion. I will just put here what he puts as a second XI which accommodates the one's he couldn't in the first.
Coming to the question at hand, he chooses Larwood as his first choice fast bowler and the only fast bowler in the seven certainties for his first XI. Macdonald is obvious number two since he gets a nod for the first XI with Miller and Gregory for the next two spots.
No Lindwall for Mr Chester . . . although he goes on to write very well of Lindwall.
In medium pacers he has tate at number one and Bedser at number two. By the way, as a digression, amongst the leg spinners he has O'Reily as his undisputed number 1 and Grimmett at 2 - no Arthur Mailey for him.
Here is what he says of the fast bowlers of his time.
Before we come to the well known names he mentions one that many here may not be familiar with . . .
W B Burns
Harold Larwood
Ted McDonald
Lindwall and Miller
. First a bit about the man himself.
Frank Chester (1895-1957
Chester qualified for Worcestershire in 1912. He was just 17 when he scored his maiden first class hundred against Somerste. He thus became the youngest player ever to score a century in a county match. It was a record till 1950. Dr WG Grace wowed the youngster by summoning him to congratulate him for his century at Lord's.
The Wisden of 1913 wrote of the youngster as the "youngest professional regularly engaged in first-class cricket ... Very few players in the history of cricket have shown such form at the age of seventeen and a half" He had scored 1773 runs (four hundreds) with a top score of 178 not out against Essex besides taking 81 wickets with his orthodox slow left armers. Unfortunately for him the WW1 stopped cricket after that season.
Chester volunteered at 19 and a shrapnel would in his right arm became gangrenous and he lost the limb in July 1917.
The youngster came back after the war and "turned to umpiring when he returned to England, using an artificial arm to make the necessary signals, and stood in his first first-class match in 1922, showing early promise and an uncompromising fairness" He started his international umpiring in 1924 (still in his 20's) and was on active duty for 31 long years. Sir Donald Bradman wrote of him in very glowing terms in his autobiography Farewell to Arms.
Without hesitation I rank Frank Chester as the greatest umpire under whom I ever played.
In my four seasons of cricket in England, he stood for a large percentage of the matches and seldom made a mistake. On the other hand he gave some really wonderful and intricate decisions. Not only was his judgement sound, but Chester exercised a measure of control over the game which I think was desirable.
You couldn't bluff Chester. In fact, in a Test match at Leeds, Hedley Verity appealed for lbw against one of our batsmen. Chester's reply was, "Not out Hedley, and that was a very bad appeal !"
In my four seasons of cricket in England, he stood for a large percentage of the matches and seldom made a mistake. On the other hand he gave some really wonderful and intricate decisions. Not only was his judgement sound, but Chester exercised a measure of control over the game which I think was desirable.
You couldn't bluff Chester. In fact, in a Test match at Leeds, Hedley Verity appealed for lbw against one of our batsmen. Chester's reply was, "Not out Hedley, and that was a very bad appeal !"
The Wisden, which had lauded the youngster of great promise in 1013, wrote of the legendary umpire on his death that he "raised umpiring to a higher level than had ever been known in the history of cricket"
When I came to know of Frank Chester's autobiography I was very keen to buy it and it is a wonderful read.
In it he deviates from the other stuff to nominate a world XI which has players from 1910 when he started watching first class cricket as a playing youngster till 1956 when the book was published. It makes a very interesting side . . .
- Hobbs
- Sutcliffe
- Bradman
- Hammond
- Compton
- Rhodes
- Oldfield
- Tate
- Larwood
- Macdonald
- O'Reilly
He writes of his choice . . .
"During hours of study I found myself making several substitutions, but I never had a moments doubt about . . .
I elect them unhesitatingly as the seven outstanding cricketers of my time."
- Hobbs,
- Bradman,
- Hammond,
- Oldfield,
- Tate,
- Larwood and
- O'Reilly.
I elect them unhesitatingly as the seven outstanding cricketers of my time."
That leaves four Sutcliffe, Compton, Rhodes and Macdonald. He goes on to discuss what went through his mind and why he chose these four and not the others but that is a separate and long discussion. I will just put here what he puts as a second XI which accommodates the one's he couldn't in the first.
- Hutton
- Woodfull
- Jardine
- Headley
- Woolley
- Miller
- Evans
- Gregory
- Bedser
- Verity and
- Grimmett
Coming to the question at hand, he chooses Larwood as his first choice fast bowler and the only fast bowler in the seven certainties for his first XI. Macdonald is obvious number two since he gets a nod for the first XI with Miller and Gregory for the next two spots.
No Lindwall for Mr Chester . . . although he goes on to write very well of Lindwall.
In medium pacers he has tate at number one and Bedser at number two. By the way, as a digression, amongst the leg spinners he has O'Reily as his undisputed number 1 and Grimmett at 2 - no Arthur Mailey for him.
Here is what he says of the fast bowlers of his time.
Before we come to the well known names he mentions one that many here may not be familiar with . . .
W B Burns
Harold Larwood, the Nottinghamshire miner whose bodyline theory erupted the cricket world, was positively the Prince of all fast bowlers. But he was NOT the fastest. I shall surprise for that distinction a bowler whose name few of the modern generation (that was half a century ago) have heard - W B Burns, who was killed in the first world war.
For a few overs his speed was greater than anything I have ever seen but he was erratic and therefore could not make the top flight.
He was a dark, good looking fellow, and short like Larwood. Burns' only other resemblance with Larwood was a lovely long run upto the wicket. When the ball was released it whistled like the wind, but it was rarely in the same direction twice. Some batsmen were genuinely scared of him and retreated rapidly towards leg as he thundered towards them.
One morning, against Hampshire, he was hurtling them down, seemingly quicker than ever, got two wickets and was given a rest. The only batsman to have shaped upto him with some confidence was the defiant George Brown, but even he was somewhat apprehensive.
When Phil Mead joined him and Burns was called for another spell, Brown shouted to mead, PLillip, he is going on again. If he hits you he will pin you to the sightscreen. Later Brown declared. "This man shouldn't be allowed to play. He will kill someone someday."
With such speed, he could not develop accuracy and usually batsmen had to pay more attention to protecting their skins than their wickets. A wild fast bowler is much more dangerous in the physical sense than one who bowls consistently down the line.
For a few overs his speed was greater than anything I have ever seen but he was erratic and therefore could not make the top flight.
He was a dark, good looking fellow, and short like Larwood. Burns' only other resemblance with Larwood was a lovely long run upto the wicket. When the ball was released it whistled like the wind, but it was rarely in the same direction twice. Some batsmen were genuinely scared of him and retreated rapidly towards leg as he thundered towards them.
One morning, against Hampshire, he was hurtling them down, seemingly quicker than ever, got two wickets and was given a rest. The only batsman to have shaped upto him with some confidence was the defiant George Brown, but even he was somewhat apprehensive.
When Phil Mead joined him and Burns was called for another spell, Brown shouted to mead, PLillip, he is going on again. If he hits you he will pin you to the sightscreen. Later Brown declared. "This man shouldn't be allowed to play. He will kill someone someday."
With such speed, he could not develop accuracy and usually batsmen had to pay more attention to protecting their skins than their wickets. A wild fast bowler is much more dangerous in the physical sense than one who bowls consistently down the line.
Harold Larwood
Next only to Burns in speed and towering above all others in class was the amazing Larwood.
When I saw him for the first time in a match at Hove, I was thrilled as never before on a cricket field. After two overs, I said to carr, , the Notts skipper, "At last England has found a truly great fast bowler."
There was nothing to fault.
Effortless rythm in his long approach to the wicket developed into poetry in motion by the completion of the delivery. His speed almost outstripped the eye and his contol over the twin essentials of length and direction was perfect.
It was rather like releasing a thunderbolt to put him on to bowl and if his action had not been so beautifully balancedhe could not have maintained so much accuracy at such speed.
Yes, the greatest fast bowler of them all. Sufficient proof of his supremacy is the way all (subsequent) discoveries are measured against him. "Is he as good as Lol?" the experts always demand.
Harold Larwood rose from obscurity to world fame. He was one of the finest sportsmen who ever held the cricket ball, the essence of fairness, and modest of his unassailable power. Never did he attempt to stampede an umpire, or appeal without good cause. Often he apologised for an appeal that had to be turned down.
It was tragic that he became the centre of the bitterest controversy . . . and left the game he loved a silent, disillusioned, embittered man. I saw him afer the last war . . . on one of his rare visits to a county ground and he only watched the last ten minutes while waiting to meet me for dinner.
Harold told me, "I never watch cricket nowadays. I have lost interest in the game."
What a loss he himself wa to the game. I wanted to tell him that he should have gone on playing and later enriched the game, as only he could have, by becoming a coach. Of he had, I do not think England would have suffered such a shortage of fast bowlers immediately after the war. Youngsters seeing him in the nets would have striven to emulate him.
I found him a very changed man. Apart from having aged a lot, he brooded, I am sure, over his severance from the game to which he brought the highest distinction.
. . .
I believe that if the Australians had been facing anyone slower and less accurate than Larwood they would have enjpyed the experiment (of bodyline). They were shattered by his incomparable speed and accuracy and the way he ball in to the batsmen after pitching it om the leg stump. He was the one bowler in the world who with the qualities to turn the theory into complete success.
When I saw him for the first time in a match at Hove, I was thrilled as never before on a cricket field. After two overs, I said to carr, , the Notts skipper, "At last England has found a truly great fast bowler."
There was nothing to fault.
Effortless rythm in his long approach to the wicket developed into poetry in motion by the completion of the delivery. His speed almost outstripped the eye and his contol over the twin essentials of length and direction was perfect.
It was rather like releasing a thunderbolt to put him on to bowl and if his action had not been so beautifully balancedhe could not have maintained so much accuracy at such speed.
Yes, the greatest fast bowler of them all. Sufficient proof of his supremacy is the way all (subsequent) discoveries are measured against him. "Is he as good as Lol?" the experts always demand.
Harold Larwood rose from obscurity to world fame. He was one of the finest sportsmen who ever held the cricket ball, the essence of fairness, and modest of his unassailable power. Never did he attempt to stampede an umpire, or appeal without good cause. Often he apologised for an appeal that had to be turned down.
It was tragic that he became the centre of the bitterest controversy . . . and left the game he loved a silent, disillusioned, embittered man. I saw him afer the last war . . . on one of his rare visits to a county ground and he only watched the last ten minutes while waiting to meet me for dinner.
Harold told me, "I never watch cricket nowadays. I have lost interest in the game."
What a loss he himself wa to the game. I wanted to tell him that he should have gone on playing and later enriched the game, as only he could have, by becoming a coach. Of he had, I do not think England would have suffered such a shortage of fast bowlers immediately after the war. Youngsters seeing him in the nets would have striven to emulate him.
I found him a very changed man. Apart from having aged a lot, he brooded, I am sure, over his severance from the game to which he brought the highest distinction.
. . .
I believe that if the Australians had been facing anyone slower and less accurate than Larwood they would have enjpyed the experiment (of bodyline). They were shattered by his incomparable speed and accuracy and the way he ball in to the batsmen after pitching it om the leg stump. He was the one bowler in the world who with the qualities to turn the theory into complete success.
Ted McDonald
Australia's Ted macDonald was the closest approach to Larwood's all round class. He was much bigger and taller, yet his run up to the wicket had the same delightful rhythm; he had no drag and hardly scratched the surface of the wicket. His greatest asset was that he could bowl fast and accurately for much longer spells than anyone else. If required he could bowl off0spinners really well round the wicket.
Lindwall and Miller
Although Lindwall and Miller wrought havoc when they came here in 1948, I can not lodge them in quite the same class as McDonald and Gregory. They met nothing like the same batting strength as the earlier pair had to strive against and the wickets were more in their favour too.
Lindwall did not have such a high delivery as Larwood or McDonald; his actopn was inclined to round arm and probably that is why he made the ball move awat so much and so late' He was a clever bowler and always bowled well within himself. Like Larwood, he had a long drag.
While Lindwall had everything that goes to make a great bowler, including subtle changes of pace with no apparent change of action and an occasional extra quick one, Miller was more an erratic genius.
Lindwall did not have such a high delivery as Larwood or McDonald; his actopn was inclined to round arm and probably that is why he made the ball move awat so much and so late' He was a clever bowler and always bowled well within himself. Like Larwood, he had a long drag.
While Lindwall had everything that goes to make a great bowler, including subtle changes of pace with no apparent change of action and an occasional extra quick one, Miller was more an erratic genius.
- Frank Chester in his autobiography How's That (1956)
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
It was written a long time ago - published 1956 - Chester died a year later.