Who is the best fast bowler in test cricket now?

[vamos_rafa]

Karan you have been spot on in your comparision between broad and morkel. Though broad is arguably more talented than Morkel but he lacks consistency in line and length. His lines and lengths do tend to go up and down at times. On the other hand Morkel is a more consistent bowler and acts as the perfect foil to Dale Steyn. He holds one end up and more importantly does not give free runs which really does help steyn getting a lot of wickets. I am not trying to suggest that this is the only reason why Steyn gets his wickets. Coming back to the comparision between the 2 I think on flat tracks Morkel has a better chance of picking up wickets than Broad and that is more so because of the consistent line/length that he bowls and the bounce that he gets. And he did trouble some of the Indian batters when they toured here. Broad would struggle where the conditions don't suit him and that is more so because of the nature of his bowling.

[thevortex]

One thing I would agree with vamos_rafa is that Morkel is the 'hold one end up-give nothing away' kind of bowler. He does not necessarily bowl wicket taking spells. He softens batsmen up. Nothing wrong with that at all. Srinath did that day in day out for India. His length is well short of good length and he can afford that due to his height and pace. Broad on the other hand is that tiny bit more versatile. He can vary his lengths as also bowl swing and/or seam. In my opinion, these things matter.

[Lord]

^ being more versatile,Broad should be more effective as well.why dont numbers support it?

[vamos_rafa]

^ I think the part of the problem with Broad is his inconsistent line and length. He tends to err too frequently with them.

[sudheer kumar]

Morkel and Broad both are struggling to utilize the conditions. Morkel is better than Broad. Consistency is their problem.

[thevortex]

^ being more versatile' date='Broad should be more effective as well.why dont numbers support it?[/quote'] There is not much to distinguish between them as far as numbers go, Lord. But talent is one thing and execution another. I see Broad putting together his game in the past few months. If only versatility and talent alone were to determine bowling/batting spots, Carl Hooper would have topped the world!!

[renjith12]

i think, shawn tait as the best fast bowler now.

[Lord]

There is not much to distinguish between them as far as numbers go' date=' Lord. But talent is one thing and execution another.[b'] I see Broad putting together his game in the past few months. If only versatility and talent alone were to determine bowling/batting spots, Carl Hooper would have topped the world!!

thats because u have seen only in home against largely incompetent batsmen.he hasnt played in tough conditions where the batsmen have attacked him.only then will we know how he responds.right now hes bing allowed to bowl the way he wants

[thevortex]

thats because u have seen only in home against largely incompetent batsmen.he hasnt played in tough conditions where the batsmen have attacked him.only then will we know how he responds.right now hes bing allowed to bowl the way he wants

And yes we can talk about only the here and now. What do you make of Australia? What would you say if he does well against them? Would you still say that he has not proven himself?

[Lord]

And yes we can talk about only the here and now. What do you make of Australia? What would you say if he does well against them? Would you still say that he has not proven himself?

in the Ashes,for sure if he does well,his stock will go up.but then if its in the conditions like Sydney last year where Asif took 6,it wont mean much as we already know he can bowl well in helpful conditions

[sudheer kumar]

thats because u have seen only in home against largely incompetent batsmen.he hasnt played in tough conditions where the batsmen have attacked him.only then will we know how he responds.right now hes bing allowed to bowl the way he wants

I agree with you Lord. If batsmen attack him he bowls like ordinary bowler.

[The Outsider]

I highlighted a part of the statement which is absolutely nonsensical. In a 4 bowler attack, every single bowler is absolutely vital. Or does that escape your attention in some way?

No it's not. I don't care about how some hypothetical bowling attack would look like. That part is best left for Pakis and their AAG and G.AAND attacks. Pakistan as a nation puts forth a team and a bowling attack - I am discussing that and it sucks. You can keep on playing book cricket with hypothetical bowling attacks.

Your averaging out 40 and 24 and getting it to 29 was nothing if not simplistic. Just the fact that an entire Test match was played out with 40 runs per wicket should tell you something. It may not have been the flattest of tracks. But it will be absolutely simplistic to claim that they were bowler friendly tracks.

If averaging 40/wicket is borderline batting friendly, 24/wicket is decidedly bowling friendly which was the result in 2 out of 3 matches.

And you keep changing your numbers, Outsider. Or did that too escape your attention. You started with 15 Tests and now the count is down to 9. What is it going to be further down?

I am not changing any numbers, just giving in to your fancies of playing book cricket rather than the actual attack on the field. But what I did above was to show that even with the orgasmic best attack with 4 out of 4, they have managed to take 20 wickets in only 45% of the matches that all these 4 maharathis have played.

We will see how crazy these notions are, Outsider. Notions are just that - notions. They dont necessarily have to have something backing them up. Problem is - when you get into the statistical mindset too much you start looking for numbers to back up your theory. The fact is any bloody theory can be bolstered by a preferred set of numbers. That is life. Live with it. I am not for such selective statistical gimmickry. If you want such, you wont get it from me.

Statistical gimmickry? Asking how many times the best bowling attack in the world has managed to take 20 wickets in recent times is statistical gimmickry? Please tell me another way to measure the strength of a bowling attack besides it's efficiency in taking 20 wickets in your book cricket?

By the way - the results do not point to the contrary. You have to ask Ponting what he thinks of Aamer. You have to go back and find out exactly how many matches India fielded 5 bowlers. And the English attack definitely has had the better of Australia too in recent times. You are saying that too does not count.

Every time we have fielded 5 bowlers we have sucked. That's proof enough. And let's wait for this second best bowling attack to play in Australia. Anyone can take wickets in these conditions.

By the way, who is to say that Munaf would not have picked up a fiver?! :). And did you not notice that the Australian bowling lineup was nowhere close to being this successful against the same lineup?

Yeah sure. In your book cricket, why stop at a 5 fer, Munaf would have taken 20 wickets on his own beating Laker.

[Fontaine]

One thing I would agree with vamos_rafa is that Morkel is the 'hold one end up-give nothing away' kind of bowler. He does not necessarily bowl wicket taking spells. He softens batsmen up. Nothing wrong with that at all. Srinath did that day in day out for India. His length is well short of good length and he can afford that due to his height and pace. Broad on the other hand is that tiny bit more versatile. He can vary his lengths as also bowl swing and/or seam. In my opinion, these things matter.

Morne says you're wrong: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/46538.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmin1=4;wicketsval1=wickets Morne has bowled more spells where he's taken 4+ wickets in an innings compared to Broad. As a matter of fact, Morne has taken 4+ wickets almost twice as often in an innings than Broad even though Broad has played in more test innings. Morne says you need to get over your man love for Broad and come back to the real world. :winky:

[thevortex]

No it's not. I don't care about how some hypothetical bowling attack would look like. That part is best left for Pakis and their AAG and G.AAND attacks. Pakistan as a nation puts forth a team and a bowling attack - I am discussing that and it sucks. You can keep on playing book cricket with hypothetical bowling attacks.

Read your statement again. Do you think 3 bowlers makes a full attack? If so I will have to call into question your cricketing logic! And what was that about those abbreviations? Plus you will have to keep your distaste towards the nation separate from an assessment of their cricket team. If that is not possible, any discussion with you on this subject is not possible.

If averaging 40/wicket is borderline batting friendly, 24/wicket is decidedly bowling friendly which was the result in 2 out of 3 matches.

Again - make up your mind. What is the point you want to make? That Pakistan bowled well or did not bowl well? Whose case are you building by discounting that 40/wicket match? :)

I am not changing any numbers, just giving in to your fancies of playing book cricket rather than the actual attack on the field. But what I did above was to show that even with the orgasmic best attack with 4 out of 4, they have managed to take 20 wickets in only 45% of the matches that all these 4 maharathis have played.

Nope. You have gone on changing your numbers. Dont try to twist this one around. Just accept and move on. And I wish cricket is as simple as those percentages you tout. But it is not. Do you not care what surfaces these were placed on and any other match detail?

Statistical gimmickry? Asking how many times the best bowling attack in the world has managed to take 20 wickets in recent times is statistical gimmickry? Please tell me another way to measure the strength of a bowling attack besides it's efficiency in taking 20 wickets in your book cricket?

You are mixing up my points. This was my response to your slinging mud on the Pakistan attack arbitrarily. Not about them taking wickets or otherwise. Please read the original post again.

Every time we have fielded 5 bowlers we have sucked. That's proof enough. And let's wait for this second best bowling attack to play in Australia. Anyone can take wickets in these conditions.

Really? And whither went your statistical nous now? Why dont you cook up a percentage of matches we have played with 5 bowlers versus the ones we played with 4? Want to see what that statistic looks like? And yes, I am also waiting to see this attack in Australia.

Yeah sure. In your book cricket, why stop at a 5 fer, Munaf would have taken 20 wickets on his own beating Laker.

You should have more respect for cricket than to arbitrarily dismiss any possibility. Is that not the beauty of statistics and probability too? :) Subjects that seem to be so close to your heart.

[thevortex]

Morne says you're wrong: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/46538.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings;wicketsmin1=4;wicketsval1=wickets Morne has bowled more spells where he's taken 4+ wickets in an innings compared to Broad. As a matter of fact, Morne has taken 4+ wickets almost twice as often in an innings than Broad even though Broad has played in more test innings. Morne says you need to get over your man love for Broad and come back to the real world. :winky:

Nice one, Fontaine. :) There is no love lost between Broad and me. I do not particularly enjoy his abrasive character. But I will say this much - he is far more talented than Morkel. As for the statistics - I must say that I am surprised. And I am curious to see them both back in action in a few months. Lets compare notes then.

[Fontaine]

Nice one, Fontaine. :) There is no love lost between Broad and me. I do not particularly enjoy his abrasive character. But I will say this much - he is far more talented than Morkel. As for the statistics - I must say that I am surprised. And I am curious to see them both back in action in a few months. Lets compare notes then.

Let's not. :--D I've already seen both play in two series in England and SA. I've seen enough to know that Morkel will remain the better test bowler just like he's proven so far.

[f.b.m]

bümp Shaun Pollock on commentary is explaining the different wrist positions that Steyn uses for the in and the out swingers. I've been saying this for some time. Anyway, the whole notion of 'completeness' and 'versatility' is setting off on the wrong foot to begin with. If someone just bowls one delivery for their entire career and gets a load of wickets, he can still be a great or the greatest bowler. And Dale Steyn doesnt need an inswinger or anything else to get the wickets that he does.

[vvvslaxman]

Steyn followed by Zaheer.

[ravishingravi]

bümp Shaun Pollock on commentary is explaining the different wrist positions that Steyn uses for the in and the out swingers. I've been saying this for some time. Anyway, the whole notion of 'completeness' and 'versatility' is setting off on the wrong foot to begin with. If someone just bowls one delivery for their entire career and gets a load of wickets, he can still be a great or the greatest bowler. And Dale Steyn doesnt need an inswinger or anything else to get the wickets that he does.

You are right there. But on extremely flat tracks like in UAE, there was some dimension missing. In India he still had an SG ball. Best bowler in the world still.

[thevortex]

bümp Shaun Pollock on commentary is explaining the different wrist positions that Steyn uses for the in and the out swingers. I've been saying this for some time. Anyway, the whole notion of 'completeness' and 'versatility' is setting off on the wrong foot to begin with. If someone just bowls one delivery for their entire career and gets a load of wickets, he can still be a great or the greatest bowler. And Dale Steyn doesnt need an inswinger or anything else to get the wickets that he does.

'Great', sure. 'Greatest; - perhaps not. Versatility ensures that even if you come to a point where you lose outright pace, you still can hold your own. Without versatility your effectiveness drops the moment you drop in sheer pace. Or even if you dont get a conducive surface. I did see evidence of one or two inswingers in this match from Steyn. But then as a bowler, anything can happen especially when the ball becomes older. I will wait to see if he can summon this with more control before saying that he has mastered the inswinger as well. For sure he becomes a venomous wicket taking machine if he adds that to his repertoire.