Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Pace, swing, seam, you choose.

My first ten names are the fast bowlers who have the best strike rates since 1965, with a minimum of 200 wickets (not including games against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). They are listed in order of best strike rate.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

My next five are the best averaging of those remaining, minimum 200 wickets.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

First thing you'll notice is there are no Indian or English options. Willis would have just got in if I'd gone for the best 15 averages. John Snow was fairly near on average. Gough (SR52) would have got in for the best 15 SRs. Of those without enough wickets, Dean Headley (SR50) and Simon Jones (SR48) are what-ifs. Steve Finn, a maybe-will (SR49). For India, Zaheer Khan and Kapil Dev lagged a little behind, as did Botham. Fine bowlers though all these were.

Near misses included Andy Roberts, Jeff Thompson and Brett Lee.

If we set the minimum to 100 wickets, I get Vernon Philander (SR46), Shoaib Akhtar (SR46), Mohammad Asif (SR48), Colin Croft (SR49) and Ryan Harris (SR50), all in the top ten! and Ian Bishop not far off. These are/were amazing bowlers, but I think I got the legends by setting it at 200.

A mention for the great what if, Shane Bond, 63 wickets against top eight sides, with a SR of 43.

Vote for any of these in the threads, but I think the leading names are in the fifteen.

My perennial picks have been Lillee, Marshall and Hadlee. But Steyn is a phenomenon and has muscled in recently. I've gone for Malcolm Marshall as well.

There'll be a poll for an extra seamer or spinner later on. I'll have to choose between Lillee and Hadlee for that.

Some all rounders will be in the choices for the number six.

If you haven't, please vote for the keeper

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=20737

or the spinner

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=20741

Not had so many votes for spinner.

Someone voted for Ambrose and McGrath. Maybe Mike Atherton posts here...

Would have thought with more than two slots, it would be more than 2 picks?

I went for Ambrose at one.Hardest player I have ever seen to score against. He gave you literally nothing, and when he did give you a buffet ball yosu were so shocked you probably edged it or watched it fly past to the keeper. It was the bounce he extracted off full lengths, always on target. You knew you took a risk to play shots against it. He got movement, but not a lot, enough to beat an edge. And he was quick. He had the holy trinity of the pace bowler. Accuracy, pace and the ability to shape the ball. Sometimes you also have to think about what bowlers do to those around them. Ambrose kept batsman under pressure so much, I doubt there has been another bowler who bought wickets for those around him more. Walsh was never a world beater in my opinion, he really benefited from the work Ambrose put in. The Windies really died at the top of test cricket when Ambrose finally left the team, and even i the 2000's when he was on his last legs and losing his pace, he was still dead on the money with his accuracy.

McGrath gets my second choice. Again, its all about his accuracy. You tried to take him on and you lost your off stump. He had brilliant control, and more than most people you knew he could think a batsman out. He would give you a few overs, test the technique over and over again, and then he would set you up. A bit of movement in, in,in, in and then when you were getting comfortable, shape it away slightly and beat the outside edge.

He always made the best of conditions. He never got carried away. He bled every bit of gremlins from a pitch by making sure the ball was always having to be played if it bounced low. He was the annoying nemesis of England for years, but you were sad to see him go... because as a cricket lover, he was just so good.

Stump to stump, stump to stump.... proves that anyone whoever mentions a player not being "quick enough" is talking trash. MgGrath was destructive at times bowling in the late 70's

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Someone voted for Ambrose and McGrath. Maybe Mike Atherton posts here...

sussexpob wrote:Would have thought with more than two slots, it would be more than 2 picks?

There'll be a place available for another seamer or another spinner, so there's potential flexibility. You could have three main seamers and a spinner, or you could vote for (say) Botham at six and have two spinners as well as these two fast bowlers.

Out of this 15, there's a chance Imran could be in the vote for six as an all rounder. I haven't worked it out yet.

My two, Marshall and Steyn were very quick and swung the ball, which can be a deadly combination. Perhaps more than most Ambrose was someone who ran through a side in one spell, but he and McGrath as a pair are mainly seam bowlers. Perhaps a mix might be better. Or pick Hadlee, who more than most, did both. My pair covers reverse swing. Steyn actually, and I'm sure Marshell potentially. Both also have extreme pace, though MM slowed down later on, as Lillee did, and was great at fast medium.

I want some fear factor in my attack. I get that from MM, and my probable third pick, Lillee.

Actually, if someone had Holding, Garner and Marshall, they'd quite easily be the attack batters would face with the most reluctance. Obviously they were in the same side, and with Croft alongside them.

Steyn and McGrath from what i've seen.

Looks like the picks are spread out.

west indians for me

I could have picked 4 and still gone WI

I reckon Holding doesn't get as much regard now as he used to. Not sure why.

All of these bowlers, having taken 200+ wickets, probably had more than one phase to their career, and maybe don't get remembered always for their hostile, wide bottomed, scary eyed pace, because eventually they had to find another way. Some bowlers who had one phase to their shorter careers, like Akhtar and Croft, get fixed in the mind as fearsome fast men.

Bishop would have been up there, but for injury.

The "two phase career" argument is a non-starter, I am afraid. It is not quantifiable and can be countered instantly with a simple "would these guys have made a second phase" if they were playing 14 tests a year, 30 ODI's in a world cup year, and 10 T20's, as well as top level IPL for two months, and spending 8 months a year away from a place they call home? Id doubt with fitness in the 70s and 80s, they would have lasted more than a couple of years. Ill give you an example. In 1979 the Windies toured Australia and played 3 tests. They arrived in mid November and the 3rd test ended on 30th January. Nowadays three tests could be fitted into the period possibly before December even begins.

In fact, I wonder how many of these guys would have found playing more test cricket away from home. Most of them only played away tests in England, Australia and India. Some play about one series vs New Zealand or Pakistan, depending on the era. No Sri Lanka away series on dead tracks, no facing India teams with 6 world class batsman on dead tracks, no going for tours to South Africa, where since Windies have been touring, they have an utterly terrible record.

I mean you have to think most of these players I would guess played over a decade of county cricket, played a lot of cricket (like WSC) in Australia, so its pretty incomprabale in the history of the game ho familiar they were with conditions in most of the away situations they found themselves in. You could almost certainly claim all their England away games were in essence home ones. Verging on it in Australia too.

It makes it feel less impressive

A lot of these Windies players avoided bowling to some of the recognised most gifted players in the world (Graham Pollock, Barry Richards, etc) because of South Africa's exclusion. I am sure that makes their record look a lot better.

Another example, just that indicates and illustrates my point. Check the bowling averages of the Windies players on the few times that they went to New Zealand

Holding..... 7 wickets in 4 games @ 48
Marshall.. 9 wickets in 3 games @ 32
Roberts...3 wickets in 2 games @ 65

Garner was the only one who did well there. Put in unfamiliar circumstances more, would their records look as good? The least toured nation they went to brought the worst out of most, on pitches that have often favoured bowling a lot more, and against weak batting line ups.

It makes a huge difference, which is why Steyns record looks so brilliant.

You implied Ambrose was a different player at the end of his career from the start, which sounds a bit two phase.

It's possible that some of the second phases are avoided now with better medical treatment. Certainly footballers play on now with injuries that once used to end careers. It was back injury that used to lead to these pace bowlers changing their games. More recent quicks like Lee and Steyn bowling fast for so long feels unprecedented.

I've often argued it's harder now, so I'm not going to change my mind. A season of CC as an overseas pro would have had its own pressures though; months away from home, and the responsibility of the role.

I agree that the tour of England was probably less exotic then because of all the county pros. But the tour of Asia is far less of an unknown quantity now than it was then.