Who's Done the Most Damage?

[subshakerz]

This.

All day this.

Wow you get such a high when I get critiqued, honestly creepy.

 

[kyear2]

It affects avg is what we said. Not to this ridiculous level ofc. It's not like Lillee or Hadlee would have a WPM of 2.5 playing for WI would it?
It affects WPM more, but it definitely affects avg too

Yeah, after watching Bumrah's solo acts in Australia and England I'm less convinced of the disadvantage of the solo acts.

Quality always shines though and in anything resembling helpful conditions it to their advantage. Not the team's mind you, but definitely theirs.

 

[kyear2]

I only do that to the extent of checking to see if they were actually a regular frontline bowler.

Basically.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, after watching Bumrah's solo acts in Australia and England I'm less convinced of the disadvantage of the solo acts.

Quality always shines though and in anything resembling helpful conditions it to their advantage. Not the team's mind you, but definitely theirs.

That's not the argument.

 

[kyear2]

Great post.

Yes it's true, Ambrose for half his career after his shoulder injury essentially bowls below par as far as a workload is concerned.

Compare that to Lillee who was bowling way more as his career proceeded, after injury and after WSC towards the end. Almost ten overs more per match on average.

You do realise that your entire argument is based on that Lillee bowled more, so is better.

That simply makes no sense.

If you want to look at who's more "penetrative" look at strike rate.

Someone bowling much more means they had less support.

 

[subshakerz]

You do realise that your entire argument is based on that Lillee bowled more, so is better.

That simply makes no sense.

If you want to look at who's more "penetrative" look at strike rate.

Someone bowling much more means they had less support.

Yeah if you are physically fit to bowl more you get more wickets and the team benefits.

Ambrose had his WPM affected because his capacity to bowl reduced. The team was worse off.

And Lillee has a better SR regardless.

 

[kyear2]

Subsz, I see posters like Luffy with (semi-)ordered lists of 100 or even 200 cricketers and others like kyear2 with his multiple tiers and ordering within these tiers and I have no idea how they do that. Even if I had the knowledge, I would struggle with the ordering. With pace bowling, there are many variables to consider: quality, longevity, performance across conditions, different eras, lone wolf versus pack leader, diciness (patriotic umpires and/or overly dedicated ball management), etc. What weightings do we assign to those things? How do we put it all together? I have no clue. Anyway, giving it a go:

1-3: Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee

I think any ordering is acceptable. Marshall was the most proven across all conditions. McGrath had his longevity and performance during the flat pitch era. Hadlee had his longevity, quality and carrying his team.

4: Steyn

He seems a little inconsistent but was absolutely deadly as an out-and-out strike bowler. A case could be made for his joining the above three.

5: Ambrose

Hurt a bit by his reduced output over the second half of his career due to the shoulder injury. If it hadn't been for that, could have joined the others above. Not his fault, he made the best of a difficult situation.

6-9: Lillee, Imran, Holding, Donald

You can shuffle them in any order you please.

10: Trueman or Wasim or Garner or Waqar

I have not considered bowlers who are still playing like Bumrah, Cummins or Rabada, or old-timers like Barnes who by all accounts was a genius.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if I have missed somebody!

Ummm, mine isn't far removed from yours and I also agree (as I've stared multiple times that I find it hard to rank the 6 - 9 and that they can go in any order, the only difference is that I definitely include Wasim in that group and entends it to 10.

On the top end we don't differ much in order, but we do in groupings.

I think from any metric Marshall and McGrath have separated them selves from the pack, statistically, anecdotally, analytically (quality of wicket, top order wickets, performances on flat wickets etc etc), peer rated... That's the top two, that's the top two that makes every all time XI, was absolute best of their eras etc. I know you would disagree and we can agree to disagree on that one. If one is factoring in Barnes, he slots in there as well as being in the GOAT debate.

Hadlee, Steyn / Ambrose then making up that next grouping with Hadlee taking the lead.

Again, where we do agree is that Lillee, Wasim, Imran, Holding and Donald all come next and can go in any order. It's ridiculously close.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah I would have Wasim higher and Donald lower and also Ambrose above McGrath but otherwise, solid list.

I do think the fast bowlers ranking is one area where there is more of a consensus than every other discipline no?

Wasim is the single most difficult cricketer to rank.

Every advanbed metric has him outside of the elite.

But you watch him bowl or listen to to peers who played against him, and he's ridiculous.

You see the drop catches, and aware of the late career challenges and one has to rate him higher than the numbers say.

So in agreement re Wasim.

Not so much for Donald, he was a beast.