Who is the best fast bowler in test cricket now?

[Don Sharma]

Steyn is streets ahead of anyone else. Bollinger had a terrific first season, but struggled generally against Pakistan on the recent tour. I am not sure if he was jaded or not. Hope he doesn't turn into a 'One season Wonder'.

[Sir john]

i think hilfenhaus is a good bowler :two_thumbs_up:

[Don Sharma]

i think hilfenhaus is a good bowler

In swinging conditions, yes. Fodder feeder, otherwise.

[Mr Eintstein]

Steyn, daylight, then Johnson, then Amir is my top three ATM. I understand the low rating of Johnson by most people. After watching him bowling poorly, you instantly forget how incredible he has been (and still can be). He's not the kind of bowler that stays out of form for long. Just watch. Amir still has to get past 100 wickets to be rated above Johnson. He has looked excellent in English conditions though.

[Karan114]

Karan - Broad is any day a better bowler than Morkel. I agree with vvslaxman on that. Dale Steyn is a big plus, no doubt. But other than that, SA has no other big pluses. As pointed out, England has various pluses. The fact that Sidebottom who can come in as their spearhead has played only a few matches should count as a plus! And that is impressive. I would want to see how this attack fares in less favourable conditions for sure. But on a flat wicket, they are not going to be as disadvantaged as the SA bowlers. Other than Steyn, there is nobody else who swings the old and the new ball (well Kallis still does that). And they have no spinners to speak of. Which attack would you prefer in such conditions?

A bowler with 92 wickets at 34 is nowhere near "any day better" than a bowler with 92 wickets at 30. I can't agree with that in the slightest so let's leave it at that. I'm afraid I completely fail to follow your logic about Sidebottom. The reason Sidebottom has played so few Tests in the last two years is because of form and injury. Why you keep referring to him as a "spearhead" I don't know. Have you seen how much the English bowlers struggled against Bangladesh and Pakistan in the last four Tests when the sun was out and they didn't have any assistance from the overhead conditions? Those two sides have one good batsman (Tamim Iqbal) between them and yet the English bowling often looked toothless. They are almost entirely dependent on Swann in those conditions. Which attack would I prefer? The attack which has actually delivered results on flat pitches rather than in hypothetical scenarios - like the one that bowled India out for 230 on a dead pitch at Nagpur and not the attack which couldn't defend 387 in a country where no one had previously chased over 276.

[thevortex]

Karan - we have to agree to disagree then. My estimation of Broad when compared to Morkel is not borne on numbers. They can be some sort of guideline. But that cannot be the bottomline. Tell me one thing. Compared to Broad, is or is not Morkel a limited bowler? And in such conditions - at least they have Swann. SA does not have that luxury. I know you will point out that they have not needed somebody like that. But I dont think it is going to work out for them in the long run. Even today, an attacking player like Sehwag would prefer SA's monochromatic attack over that of England's or for that matter Pakistan's.

[Karan114]

My estimation of Broad when compared to Morkel is not borne on numbers. They can be some sort of guideline. But that cannot be the bottomline. Tell me one thing. Compared to Broad' date=' is or is not Morkel a limited bowler?[/quote'] You can say that your estimation of a player is not based on numbers alone but ultimately they are what matter. Batsmen have to score runs no matter how they look and bowlers have to pick up wickets. Morkel picks up his wickets more cheaply than Broad so is a better bowler. Now is Broad a more talented bowler? Possibly, yes. Morkel's strength is his pace and bounce, whereas Broad, who also gets decent bounce and is no slow coach himself, has more tricks and is willing to experiment with them. But he is also very inconsistent with them. Not that Morkel isn't wayward himself at times. But ultimately it is Morkel who takes his wickets at a lesser cost and is so a better bowler. It might sound boring but it is all about results, ultimately.

[thevortex]

You can say that your estimation of a player is not based on numbers alone but ultimately they are what matter. Batsmen have to score runs no matter how they look and bowlers have to pick up wickets. Morkel picks up his wickets more cheaply than Broad so is a better bowler. Now is Broad a more talented bowler? Possibly, yes. Morkel's strength is his pace and bounce, whereas Broad, who also gets decent bounce and is no slow coach himself, has more tricks and is willing to experiment with them. But he is also very inconsistent with them. Not that Morkel isn't wayward himself at times. But ultimately it is Morkel who takes his wickets at a lesser cost and is so a better bowler. It might sound boring but it is all about results, ultimately.

OK lets play it your way then. Even going by it statistically there is not that gulf in numbers between them to support your viewpoint. We will have to take a look at and assess their bowling in and of itself. I will pick Broad over Morkel most definitely. And without even considering the batting that Broad brings in.

[Karan114]

Sorry but the numbers do support my viewpoint, Morkel's average is much better than Broad's and both have similar experience levels so the comparison can be easily made. And what does batting have to do with this discussion at all? Of course Broad is a much better batsman than Morkel, but we are assessing the potency of the attacks, not how well they bat.

[f.b.m]

Steyn, daylight, then Johnson, then Amir is my top three ATM. I understand the low rating of Johnson by most people. After watching him bowling poorly, you instantly forget how incredible he has been (and still can be). He's not the kind of bowler that stays out of form for long. Just watch.

Exactly. + He has the amazing gift of being able to pick up wickets even when bowling crap.

[f.b.m]

Also, I'm quite surprised how most people seem to rate Aamer above Asif. Agreed that Aamer has all the talent and potential in the world but his true test will come when the pitches arent so good for bowling and there has to be some sort of longevity for people to judge him as a bowler. And despite all the fear and loathing in UAE, Asif is in a different planet with his bowling and how he can outthink the batsmen (also, he mostly gets top order wickets). He is an absolute treat to watch and imo will do well even in unhelpful bowling conditions because of his bowling brain.

[thevortex]

Sorry but the numbers do support my viewpoint' date=' Morkel's average is much better than Broad's and both have similar experience levels so the comparison can be easily made. And what does batting have to do with this discussion at all? Of course Broad is a much better batsman than Morkel, but we are assessing the potency of the attacks, not how well they bat.[/quote'] 92 at 30 and 92 at 34 - there is not much to choose from, Karan. Both not very impressive. Just plain bowling wise - do you not think Broad holds far more potential than Morkel? If you think not - then lets agree to disagree.

[thevortex]

Johnson was grossly overrated. He was a bowler who had no variety. Just raw pace. At the international level, you are bound to be found out if you are limited.

[sudheer kumar]

Is there in any chance to see a bowler like Steyn in Indian team? Some Indian bowlers started their career with fast bowling and they are bowling medium pace even in suitable conditions. But these bowlers has ability to bowl around 140kph-145kph. And they are Ishanth, Munaf, RP Singh, Nehra, Agarkar.

[Fontaine]

Good point fbm, doper Asif is probably the 2nd best* bowler right now behind Steyn. The rest are pretty much in the same league depending on conditions etc. But Mitchell Johnson is a joke. He's about as up and down as Sreesanth, great when he's going, but awful when he doesn't. *dependant on results of latest urine samples.

[Fontaine]

Anyone who has actually watched Morkel and Broad play in the same test match will realize that Morkel is the much better bowler.

[VRV Singh]

I would have to agree with the general consensus of Steyn. Probably the best action for a quickie as well. Looking down the Test rankings list, there aren't many there who you would say don't have many limitations e.g. Anderson ranked fourth is only really top class in swinging conditions, M Johnson is really quite ordinary and does not have an awful lot of variety. Steyn is the most rounded of all the fast bowlers. Aamer is up and coming and has every chance of making it to the top too, but it is too soon to judge conclusively VRV Singh had the potential, but was ruined by the selectors

[sudheer kumar]

VRV Singh? He was ruined by selectors because he did not proved himself. He got chances....he did not utilized them.

[Karan114]

92 at 30 and 92 at 34 - there is not much to choose from, Karan. Both not very impressive. Just plain bowling wise - do you not think Broad holds far more potential than Morkel? If you think not - then lets agree to disagree.

I've given my view on their potential in post #128 - I do think Broad is more talented, though inconsistent. But we clearly disagree on their current ability so probably best to agree to disagree on that. :)

[thevortex]

I think ironically Morkel has broader shoulders than Broad. :) And that is a definite advantage for a fast bowler. I am always surprised by the amount of pace generated by the stringy Broad. And he does have good stamina as well. No problem, Karan. We can agree to disagree.