All-time great fast bowlers

Having looked at cricinfo stats, I am curious to know, how you class someone as all-time great FAST bowler. In my opinion the criteria should be: Average less than 25 AND strike rate less than 55 AND 250+ wickets.

Using that criteria, the following fast bowlers can be called "All-time greats": McGrath; Hadlee; Wasim Akram; Ambrose; Marshall; Waqar; Imran Khan, Lillee; Donald; Steyn; Trueman; and Garner.

Only SF Barnes does not make the list based on this criteria, although he belongs to the same category. May be cases can be made for Bob Willis (average: 25.2) and Michael Holding (249 wickets) to be included in that list. Controversial omissions are Walsh and Pollock, who I think are a level below the above mentioned. What do people say? In my opinion the above criteria should define an all-time great FAST bowler.

The word 'great' is very subjective.

Your criteria looks about right but you could miss a couple, like you mentioned, when setting a career haul.

I would think you could qualify that list as all time great fast bowlers with 250+ wickets.

Biltong wrote:I would think you could qualify that list as all time great fast bowlers with 250+ wickets.

Even if I reduce the cut-off to 200 wickets, only Holding adds to the list, whom I already mentioned in my original post. Anyone with even fewer wickets, like about 100 or 120 do not really have claim to be called "All-time-great", in my opinion.

Have a look at this, I compared the best seam bowlers with more than 200 wickets, you can see the comments of some of the posters and what they saw as most important criteria

https://www.606v2.com/t39166-seam-bowling-strike-rates-averages-etc

Lindwall I guess has a s/r over 55? He though is a great fast bowler.

Biltong wrote:
Have a look at this, I compared the best seam bowlers with more than 200 wickets, you can see the comments of some of the posters and what they saw as most important criteria

https://www.606v2.com/t39166-seam-bowling-strike-rates-averages-etc

Didn't see that thread. Most people agree that strike rate and average combined with a decent span of playing career should be criteria. Numbers were not discussed for average and strike rate, but 25 and 55 look like a good cut-off, in my opinion.

For me an all-time great bowler is someone who has got 300+ wickets at a test level. This means that guys like Walsh and Kapil Dev are all-time great bowlers whilst guys like Garner and Holding can only be placed in the next lower tier of just being a great bowler.

The Best - Dale Steyn
Alltime greatest - Alan Donald
An Alltime great - Shaun Pollock
just a great - Glen McGrath
Very good - Shane Warne
Good - Me
lucky to have been there. - Muralitharin.

Fishing again, Boycott?

What about the finest fast bowler ever produced by Leicestershire, the great Jonathan Agnew?

Stella wrote:Lindwall I guess has a s/r over 55? He though is a great fast bowler.

Nah...Strike rate of above 59 is not good for a fast bowler. Even Zaheer Khan has strike rate of 59.

sachin_federer wrote:

Stella wrote:Lindwall I guess has a s/r over 55? He though is a great fast bowler.

Nah...Strike rate of above 59 is not good for a fast bowler. Even Zaheer Khan has strike rate of 59.

But Zaheer Khan isn't/wasn't fast! He relies more on swing and seam movement to get wickets rather than on sheer pace.

gboycottnut wrote:

sachin_federer wrote:

Stella wrote:Lindwall I guess has a s/r over 55? He though is a great fast bowler.

Nah...Strike rate of above 59 is not good for a fast bowler. Even Zaheer Khan has strike rate of 59.

But Zaheer Khan isn't/wasn't fast! He relies more on swing and seam movement to get wickets rather than on sheer pace.

But I don't think we are making a distinction between fast, medium fast, fast medium, etc, in here.

sachin_federer wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

sachin_federer wrote:

Stella wrote:Lindwall I guess has a s/r over 55? He though is a great fast bowler.

Nah...Strike rate of above 59 is not good for a fast bowler. Even Zaheer Khan has strike rate of 59.

But Zaheer Khan isn't/wasn't fast! He relies more on swing and seam movement to get wickets rather than on sheer pace.

But I don't think we are making a distinction between fast, medium fast, fast medium, etc, in here.

Well there should be a distinction between fast, medium fast, fast medium etc.

You brought Zaheer up, GB

Stella wrote:You brought Zaheer up, GB

I didn't bring Zaheer up, someone else did.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:You brought Zaheer up, GB

I didn't bring Zaheer up, someone else did.

Fair enough but he was just saying that a great bowler should have a better s/rate than 59, not saying Zaheer was a fast bowler.

gboycottnut wrote:What about the finest fast bowler ever produced by Leicestershire, the great Jonathan Agnew?

Well, other than questioning whether Aggers is actually the best quick(ish) bowler ever from Leicester, there can't be many players who can match the quality of his Test wickets. If you are only going to take 4, you might as well make them good'uns - Greenidge, Viv Richards, Aravinda da Silva and Ranatunga...

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:You brought Zaheer up, GB

I didn't bring Zaheer up, someone else did.

Fair enough but he was just saying that a great bowler should have a better s/rate than 59, not saying Zaheer was a fast bowler.

But he brought up Zaheer as an example which to me means an indirect link between Zaheer and a fast bowler. Anyway to me wickets are more important than strike rate.

gboycottnut wrote:What about the finest fast bowler ever produced by Leicestershire, the great Jonathan Agnew?

One of your better post, rather than needless needling, an enjoyable post.

dummy_half wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:What about the finest fast bowler ever produced by Leicestershire, the great Jonathan Agnew?

Well, other than questioning whether Aggers is actually the best quick(ish) bowler ever from Leicester, there can't be many players who can match the quality of his Test wickets. If you are only going to take 4, you might as well make them good'uns - Greenidge, Viv Richards, Aravinda da Silva and Ranatunga...

Indeed possibly a late candidate for our HoF - exhibits (a) stellar calibre of his test wickets; (b) overall contribution to TMS (c) role in one of the most famous pieces of sporting commentary ever, the famous "leg over" incident with the late Brian Johnston

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:What about the finest fast bowler ever produced by Leicestershire, the great Jonathan Agnew?

Well, other than questioning whether Aggers is actually the best quick(ish) bowler ever from Leicester, there can't be many players who can match the quality of his Test wickets. If you are only going to take 4, you might as well make them good'uns - Greenidge, Viv Richards, Aravinda da Silva and Ranatunga...

Indeed possibly a late candidate for our HoF - exhibits (a) stellar calibre of his test wickets; (b) overall contribution to TMS (c) role in one of the most famous pieces of sporting commentary ever, the famous "leg over" incident with the late Brian Johnston

can I add a (d) - quality of bickering with Boycott on TMS. Has really brightened up this winter.

Perhaps best though we gloss over Aggers Test average and strike rate if we are pushing for his HoF induction

Using the criteria from the original post, the list is dominated by bowlers of the current, or nearly current, era. Simply because they play far more test matches than in the old days.

Harold Larwood is an all time great fast bowler as is Bill Voce.

If you are looking for an all-time great fast bowler who averages less than 25, has a strike rate of less than 55 and has taken 250+ wickets at a test match level, then surely that person is England and Yorkshire's Fred Trueman. His final overall test career for his bowling reads 307 wickets at an average of 21 with a strike rate of 49. Furthermore, unlike many of the so-called fast bowlers nowadays, Trueman has what I would call a classical and textbook action for a fast bowler.