Who is the greatest fast bowler?

[Pubuman]

Well can't really disagree with any of those bowlers on the list being among the greatest. But personally Lillie was a slightly ahead of Ambrose

[Wiljoy]

Originally Posted by The Great DonTalon

"I wonder Milo, how Bradman would have handled the likes of Lilee, Thompson, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, and even Harmison, food for thought."

HOW DARE YOU,put Harmison's name in with that bunch of fast bowlers,He would not be in my list of top 20 ENGLISH fast bowlers.

[greg]

Harmison is not fit to lace Marshall's boots.The best i have seen by a mile,adapted to any conditions and was frighteningly quick.

[Pubuman]

Harmison is pretty average compared to the greats

[Aussie-Yank]

Any list that contains an Australian Fast bowler as the greatest fast bowler, that does not have Denis lillee as the highest Australian is flawed. McGarth is certainly in the all time great fast bowlers, but never ahead of Lillee.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Any list that contains an Australian Fast bowler as the greatest fast bowler, that does not have Denis lillee as the highest Australian is flawed.

Surely, at least for post-war bowlers, Ray Lindwall or Alan Davison gets that honour.... though I'm not sure either would get it (Aussie, not world) on an "all time" basis: I don't doubt there would be some pre-war contenders.

Davidson, McGrath, Lidwall and Willis in one attack would be pretty awesome though :-)

[Aussie-Yank]

Ray Lindwall (61) (1945-59) played only 9 matches less than Dennis Lille (1970-83) (70), yet Lillee claimed 127 more wickets. Also Lillee grabed 5 wickets in an innings 23 times to Lindwall's 12 times.

Then you have Alan Davidson (44) (1953-62), who statistically had a better strike rate than Lillee (23.92 verus 20.53), and was comparable to Lillee's 5 wickets in an innings - Lillee taking 5 wickets in an innings every 3.04 matches, while Davidson struck at 3.14 matches.

But both Lindwall and Davidson both bowled on unprotected pitches, while Lillee bowled on pitches protected by covers. On this bassis Lillee's records against the other two is better and as such would rate him above the 2.

[Lemming]

I'm a little too young to have the benefit of seeing many generations of players. In my generation the best fast bowler is blatently McGrath. He's so accurate, just about hitting the top of off-stump or wider, down the corridor of uncertainty, with a good ackward length. Over the past 10-15 years he's closely followed by Pollock, Donald, Akram, Ambrose, Walsh and Younis.

By all accounts, I would point at Lillee as being the greatest fast bowler. But i've never seen the guy bowl and am going on cricket literature that I have read!

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Ray Lindwall (61) (1945-59) played only 9 matches less than Dennis Lille (1970-83) (70), yet Lillee claimed 127 more wickets. Also Lillee grabed 5 wickets in an innings 23 times to Lindwall's 12 times.

Then you have Alan Davidson (44) (1953-62), who statistically had a better strike rate than Lillee (23.92 verus 20.53), and was comparable to Lillee's 5 wickets in an innings - Lillee taking 5 wickets in an innings every 3.04 matches, while Davidson struck at 3.14 matches.

But both Lindwall and Davidson both bowled on unprotected pitches, while Lillee bowled on pitches protected by covers. On this bassis Lillee's records against the other two is better and as such would rate him above the 2.

What a very strange way to assess a bowler's worth!! You cannot compare bowlers on how many times they took five wickets in an innings. The support the bowler has (and let's face it Lindwall had Toshack, Miller and Johnston - three quality bowlers as his) is important here, and Lillee often carried the attack, with the exception of a few series from Thomson, on his own.

This is the type of flawed analysis that says Garner was no good because he never took 10 wickets in a match, and 5 wickets in an innings only 7 times. Wickets per test is one thing, but it surely must not be used to determine who is the better bowler.

Your point on unprotected pitches is a fair one, but it is always funny how this argument is never used to litter all-time teams with batsmen from the 40s and 50s. The likes of Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Lara etc always get chosen over the likes of Compton, Harvey and Weekes. Strange one that.

I for one, find it difficult to separate Lindwall, Davison, McGrath and Lillee. I feel that statistical comparison really means nothing.

[Aussie-Yank]

Milo, I agree with your point. Unfortunately I did not see Lindwall and Davidson Bowl. But I did see Lillee and McGrath bowl. So I can comment on those two from my own perceptions. So the only way I can compare Lindwall and Davidson is Statistical - but yes statistics can lie. It also depends on how strong the batting line-ups are for each country they where bowling against. In Lillee's time he was bowling against - in my opinion - the best batting lineup in the world at that time against the West Indies, and one of the strongest England batting line-up they have had over the last 30 years.

Not meaning to be little any countries batting line-up, Since McGarth has been bowling teams around the world have not been full of great batsmen. There are players wha have stood out for each team, but not a bunch of players like the West Indies and England had.

But in the end unless they where playing at the same time you will never know who was the best, only who is the best now.