All Time Greatest Fast Bowler Ever

[RobbyRoy]

I'd probably narrow it down to Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee. A lot of the names on the list not even close, and a few missing, as has been mentioned I'm sure.

Waqar is probably my favourite, and I believe his best is as good as anything I've ever seen.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Malcolm Marshall

Not that anyone saw him play but S.F. Barnes would have to be right up there. Different times but was a freak of a bowler- 189 test wickets at 16.4.

From only 27 tests. His 7.0 wickets per test is miles ahead of second place.

 

[STFU Donnie]

McGrath?

I thought this was a discussion about fast bowlers?

 

[JackOutback]

The metrics for this debate should be as follows: minimum 300 wickets taken (to demonstrate they had longevity and weren't one summer wonders), strike rate of 50 or better (to reflect how devastating the bowler was), average of 25 or better (to reflect how much control they offered a captain).

Plug that into statsguru and you get:

I am not interested in purely subjective 'Oh but Lillee did so-and-so that's why he's better than *insert superior bowler here*' or 'Oh but so-and-so sucked in *insert country here*' type arguments, the only way to settle this is through objective, hard data. If the data does not support your favourite bowler, then too bad, he isn't worthy of consideration; unless you can put forward a superior set of metrics.

The cut off is made at 300 wickets to rule out the possibility of statistical anomalies. Can't we all agree that to take 300 test wickets you pretty much have to be a once-in-a-generation kind of fast bowler, despite whatever minor limitations and flaws you might have?

If the metrics don't allow for the inclusion of Dennis Lillee, then the metrics are wrong.

Stats don't, and never have, told the whole story.

 

[Jimthegreat]

One thing I know for sure, the greatest ever fast bowler definitely is not an Australian; if we accept that the two best Australian fast bowlers are McGrath and Lillee. This is because Ryan Harris and Mitchell Johnson lead the all-time Australian fast bowlers list when sorted by strike rate, and with all due respect to them, they are not as good as those guys who have sub-50 strike rates.

As good as Harris and Johnson are they were certainly a step or two behind Lillee and McGrath. If you were given the choice I know who you'd select.

Generally speaking now. Much depends how old many of the posters are. I saw everyone since the mid 60s. If anyone thought they saw a better Australian fast bowler than Lillee they are either young or have badly faded memories. Only McGrath gets very close. Then it's probably Ray Lindwall, who I didn't see (not that old...lol) and may even better than the position I have him in. I have Harris and Johnson with Merv Hughes and Bruce Reid. Merv who was a very underrated fast bowler. 212 wickets from 53 Tests, exactly 4 a Test, very intimidating and was outstanding at getting a wicket when it was most needed. Reid was another who could run through oppositions with swing and seam. 113 wickets from just 27 Tests at an average of 24.63. Johnson we saw at his best, brilliant, intimidating, especially later in his career, but we saw him at his worst where he couldn't keep up pressure and leaked runs. When looking at the very best fast bowler we have to take all that into account. Lillee and McGrath were highly consistent throughout their long careers.

 

[cricketnut14]

From only 27 tests. His 7.0 wickets per test is miles ahead of second place.

great numbers - but for me wickets per test don't mean alot - i'd rather compare balls per wicket.

barnes may have had no one team mates to compete against (eg. warne & mcgrath).
murali cashed in, in regards to wickets per match as he had no team mate to compete with and bowled 40% of the overs ( a bit what ashwin is doing nowadays).

 

[Hellgood]

I'm pretty young, so can't really add a lot to the conversation in regards to Lillee or Marshall but I certainly think that Steyn is the fast bowler of his generation and deserves to be considered amongst names of that ilk.

 

[HBF]

Lillee easily. Question is who is the 2nd best- probably out of S.F. Barnes & Marshall just ahead of Hadlee

Not sure how you can say that. The sport has seen so many good fast bowlers it would be impossible to pick just one.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Holding not on the list makes the list pretty silly.

Hadlee for me, of all the greats on that list or throughout cricket history they all had a pretty good bowler up the other end helping them out but Hadlee didn't.
Hadlee did it on his own, he had Ewan Chatfield and Martin Snedden as his other bowlers and let's face it they were both pretty average.
Hadlee was the complete fast bowler, could be sharp when he needed to be, he had exceptional line and length and given the right wicket was near on unplayable. I could watch this guy bowl for hours.

If you could say which bowler on their best day then I would say Jeff Thomson, that 3 year period between 1974 and when he ran into Alan Turner and busted his shoulder was the most breathtaking destructive fast bowling seen in history. Career wise Thommo does not probably belong in this list but all of them at their best he would be my number 1.

My top 5 ever

Richard Hadlee
Dennis Lillee
Malcolm Marshall
Wasim Akram
Dale Steyn

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Before the 70's one must consider Ray Lindwall, Fred Trueman, frank Tyson, Harold Larwood, Keith Miller

Then blokes who were outcasts from South Africa we did not see much of like Mike Procter, Garth Leroux,
There is many many great fast bowlers.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

i'd have Lee behind Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall, Davidson, Miller, McDermott, Alderman, Harris, Gillespie, Thomson, Johnson.

And that's just Australia

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

i'd have Lee behind Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall, Davidson, Miller, McDermott, Alderman, Harris, Gillespie, Thomson, Johnson.

And that's just Australia

Well I'd have Johnson behind Lee but Lee well behind the other you named. Going back a long way, Spofforth would probably be ahead of Lee as well - but its so hard to be sure from that far back. Lee was good, but a long way from a great, even of his era.

 

[PaddyO]

McGrath?

I thought this was a discussion about fast bowlers?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/thestands/content/story/659331.html

 

[legend166]

In a game that allows you to play for 5 days to get a result, I think strike rate is a generally overrated statistic for measuring bowlers.

 

[Kram]

Out of the ones that I've actually seen properly Ambrose mon.

 

[Damon_3388]

In a game that allows you to play for 5 days to get a result, I think strike rate is a generally overrated statistic for measuring bowlers.

I'd actually say the exact opposite.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

McGrath?

I thought this was a discussion about fast bowlers?

In which case, Holding's omission is scandalous.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

In possibly the toughest era for bowlers, too.

I was tempted to go for him. Having watched him get so much from wickets where nothing happens for anyone else.

 

[Damon_3388]

I was tempted to go for him. Having watched him get so much from wickets where nothing happens for anyone else.

I suppose the only knock on him is that he could be more economical (3.24 isn't bad, but it's not great, either), but his near-GOAT strike rate and the fact that he plays in such a batting-dominant era cancels that out. Doing it all at the pace he does while standing just 5'11" deserves some credit, too.

I think part of the reason Steyn doesn't get as much praise as he should is that he's pretty mechanical and almost boringly consistently good, and isn't really known to be much of a character, either. As I said earlier in the thread RE: Flintoff, charisma and big moments can serve to overrate a bowler, while just being the same old consistent wicket-taker without much fuss probably isn't as "sexy" to most.

 

[vicpride]

I wonder how many fast bowlers would make the list if not for injuries. Shane Bond, even Ryan Harris. So many talents played less than 30 tests.

Sent from my GT-I8730 using Tapatalk

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Not sure how you can say that. The sport has seen so many good fast bowlers it would be impossible to pick just one.

Of course it is subjective, I agree. For mine it is Lillee and it is purely because he had it all- swing, seam, accuracy, pace. He was really the perfect fast bowler. Personally I have to respect the stats and I would pick S.F. Barnes as 2nd despite never seeing him, having only read about him. Then Hadlee is 3rd in among a few quicks.

 

[footyfan1978]

In which case, Holding's omission is scandalous.

Nah, just plain ignorant and dumb to be brutally honest.

 

[HBF]

Nah, just plain ignorant and dumb to be brutally honest.

Yeah Holding was an amazing bowler. They didn't call him whispering death for nothing.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

It's interesting that modern batsmen often get dismissed when compared to players of yesteryear due to the various advantages (bigger bats, boundaries brought in, flatter pitches, etc), but the older bowlers aren't dismissed for the same reasons. McGrath and Steyn averaging 21/22 with the ball in this era is staggering.

 

[SwampCreature]

Look Glenn McGrath had some solid performances but in the end he was really reliant on his off-cutter which I think hurts him in the end.

Anyone can just pic up a ball and have batsman fishing away outside his stumps nicking off-cutters. Especially on pace-friendly Oz wickets.

Lol what a hack, taking those wickets with off-cutters. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows SFA about cricket.