Fast bowlers October 5, 2009

Seven for two

One spot's a no-brainer. So who will the other two be?
  shares 29

Fast bowling has been New Zealand's strength, but at the same time, the number of years their fast men have lost to injuries has been a big source of frustration. After Richard Hadlee, almost every New Zealand pace bowler has had to deal with recurring injuries. Before him, in the sixties, Gary Bartlett, arguably the fastest New Zealand had produced until then, was a cautionary tale of a fast bowler lost to injury. Dick Motz, around the same time, went around bowling with a displaced vertebra without knowing of the condition. The pattern Bartlett set still holds: demanding action , recurring injuries, frustrated followers, and insinuations that the injuries are in the mind and not the body. Bartlett managed only 10 Tests, and doesn't make it to the shortlist: nor do Geoff Allott, Dion Nash and Simon Doull.

Regardless, the men who make it cut across eras, character types and kinds of fast bowling. There is the all-round mastery of Hadlee, the earnestness of Ewen Chatfield and Chris Martin, the swing of Danny Morrison and Motz, the pace of Shane Bond, the left-arm accuracy of Richard Collinge, and the pre-war mastery of Jack Cowie.

Cowie takes us back to the question Stewie Dempster posed in the openers' section: He didn't get enough opportunities to play in his day, but was rated very highly among his contemporaries for what he achieved when he did. This decision becomes more difficult than the one with the openers, because Hadlee inevitably is sure to take one place, which leaves seven others to fight for the remaining two.

The contenders

Jack Cowie "Had he been an Australian, he might have been termed a wonder of the age," said the Wisden of 1938, a year after Cowie took 114 wickets at less than 20 on the tour to England. Nicknamed "Bull" for his strong will, he played in all of New Zealand's Tests during his time - nine - and was considered second only to Hadlee in terms of skill.

Dick Motz Before he learnt of the 18-month-old injury that would end his career, Motz became the first New Zealander to take over 100 Test wickets. Not express, but extremely accurate with his outwingers, Motz hardly ever bowled rank bad spells.

Richard Collinge Collinge's height - 6'5" - and his left-arm angle made him a tricky customer. He ended as New Zealand's highest wicket-taker - with 116 - and was part of New Zealand teams that achieved the country's first wins against Australia and England.

Richard Hadlee The greatest New Zealand cricketer ever, and one of the most complete fast bowlers of all time, Hadlee was one in a quartet of the greatest allrounders in world cricket. A smart, committed cricketer, from being a young tearaway he went on to become a model fast bowler. He was the first man to reach 400 wickets, and in just 80 Tests at that.

Ewen Chatfield Everybody loved Chatfield. Tall, unkempt hair, long sideburns, moustache - he was the perfect, untiring, unyielding foil to Hadlee in New Zealand's best period for fast bowling. He took 123 wickets in Tests, and was responsible for a fair few of Hadlee's, which owed to the pressure exerted by Chatfield.

Danny Morrison What he lacked in height Morrison made up for with his spirit. A round-arm action and a good natural outswinger made him a handful to deal with when he was at his best, but at the same time he was not the thriftiest.

Chris Martin The bald head, springy run-up with long steps, high leap before the stride, determination, and ineptness with the bat have made Martin a favourite with the New Zealand public. He has fought injuries, can bowl long spells without wavering in intensity, and has just gone past Morrison's mark of 160 wickets - and 24 ducks.

Shane Bond Before the script went wrong, first with injuries and then with the ICL, Bond and Martin held the promise of forming a Hadlee-Chatfield-like duo. Bond is one of the few genuinely fast modern men, and bowls with both hostility and smartness, but in a nine-year career has played only 17 Tests - for 79 wickets at an average of 22.39 and a strike-rate of 38.9

We'll be publishing an all-time New Zealand XI based on readers' votes to go with our jury's XI. To vote for your top New Zealand fast bowlers click here

Sidharth Monga is a staff writer at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • waspsting on October 8, 2009, 22:33 GMT

    I have to criticize the fragmentation of the selection options for this team. I would have liked Reid (a batting allrounder) at 6, and Bruce Taylor as one of the paceman. That way, we'd have 3 pacers (and Congdon, who could bowl a bit), and two spinners (Vettori and Reid) on the bowling side. On the batting side, 5 batsmen, Reid as the batting-allrounder plus a very strong lower order (Vettori, Hadlee, Smith, Taylor). Down to number 10, you have possible centurions. All that's moot because the way the selections were offered, you can't pick both Taylor and Reid. Crickinfo - you've improved this series a bit since it started - the choice of Bert Sutcliffe as middle order or opener shows this (as opposed to the England side, where one of Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton had to sit out), but there's still room for improvement.

  • USMMAQ on October 8, 2009, 8:29 GMT

    I think Hadlee is the anonymous choice for this team, with Bond the other one, the third should be Jack Cowie

  • robotiger on October 7, 2009, 23:04 GMT

    When in doubt, I've gone for stats, it's the only fair(ish) way to separate. Besides, the only place this team will play is on paper - so may as well make them look reasonable! JR Reid doesn't cut the mustard as pure batsmen, I would like him as my allrounder, but too much competition in this team. Donnelly and Cowie didn't play enough in my book - which may weaken the team... or may not... I guess we will never know. Hadlee, Bond and Taylor as the quicks. (Taylor should be considered as a bowler not an allrounder) McCullum is a hopeful selection. He may do well playing in this team...? I've put Vettori above him in the batting order in the time being. 1. G Turner 2. B Sutcliffe 3. A Jones 4. M Crowe 5. JF Reid 6. C Cairns 7. R Hadlee 8. D Vettori 9. B McCullum 10. B Taylor 11. S Bond.

  • Atlantic252 on October 7, 2009, 21:09 GMT

    Hadlee was one of the world's greatest players ever, so my suggestion is just to pick players to complement him. Collinge was an excellent foil for him in the late '70s who troubled most batsmen, notably Geoffrey Boycott in NZs first win over England. Whilst several others are gutsy hard-working types, for me the other has to be Bond or Cowie who were both match winners. For his sheer pace, Bond has to be my third.

  • foldhard on October 7, 2009, 5:22 GMT

    Hadlee and Bond. Im a big fan of Danny Morrison but no way, not even close.

  • Number1CricketFan on October 7, 2009, 1:11 GMT

    Chris Martin has been under rated. I think him and Chatfield should open, followed by Sir Richard Hadlee first change

  • FIASNAHK on October 7, 2009, 0:21 GMT

    Ok, the first two are automatic choices, Hadlee and Bond. But none of the rest really stand out. Most of the guys on the list average over 30 in test, for an all time eleven those are pretty sad figures, i don't think anyone in the England fast bowling shortlist averaged over 30. I can't say anything about Cowie, I haven't seen him bowl, who has? and do people really remember him that well from seeing him 50 years ago. But i will go by his stats and pick him, because the others are quite disappointing.

  • Rag-Aaron on October 6, 2009, 22:41 GMT

    I'd love to see the NZ XI play together because when most of these guys played test it was with the weight of the world on their shoulders. Unlike most world test sides our best players often had to carry the whole team. I remember watching Martin Crowe around the time he became captain, if he didn't get runs then you could be pretty sure the team would not do well. So imagine these guys playing with the freedom of being surrounded by quality players - especially the batsmen.

  • wobman on October 6, 2009, 21:43 GMT

    No doubt about Hadlee. But the other spot should go to Martin. New Zealand is all about work horses, those who can bowl long spells without tiring, and going cheaply, which is what Martin did. Also, if any of you have been to a cricket match in New Zealand, he is a fan favourite, especially when batting. It's a pity we don't have another really great bowler to compliment Hadlee though.

  • IlMagnifico on October 6, 2009, 18:36 GMT

    Shane Bond - The fastest LEGITIMATE bowler of this era. Everyone else chucks. Even Lee's fastest ones are not kosher. Cowie Hadlee Chatfield - As NFL commentators would say - "On the outside looking in"

  • waspsting on October 8, 2009, 22:33 GMT

    I have to criticize the fragmentation of the selection options for this team. I would have liked Reid (a batting allrounder) at 6, and Bruce Taylor as one of the paceman. That way, we'd have 3 pacers (and Congdon, who could bowl a bit), and two spinners (Vettori and Reid) on the bowling side. On the batting side, 5 batsmen, Reid as the batting-allrounder plus a very strong lower order (Vettori, Hadlee, Smith, Taylor). Down to number 10, you have possible centurions. All that's moot because the way the selections were offered, you can't pick both Taylor and Reid. Crickinfo - you've improved this series a bit since it started - the choice of Bert Sutcliffe as middle order or opener shows this (as opposed to the England side, where one of Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton had to sit out), but there's still room for improvement.

  • USMMAQ on October 8, 2009, 8:29 GMT

    I think Hadlee is the anonymous choice for this team, with Bond the other one, the third should be Jack Cowie

  • robotiger on October 7, 2009, 23:04 GMT

    When in doubt, I've gone for stats, it's the only fair(ish) way to separate. Besides, the only place this team will play is on paper - so may as well make them look reasonable! JR Reid doesn't cut the mustard as pure batsmen, I would like him as my allrounder, but too much competition in this team. Donnelly and Cowie didn't play enough in my book - which may weaken the team... or may not... I guess we will never know. Hadlee, Bond and Taylor as the quicks. (Taylor should be considered as a bowler not an allrounder) McCullum is a hopeful selection. He may do well playing in this team...? I've put Vettori above him in the batting order in the time being. 1. G Turner 2. B Sutcliffe 3. A Jones 4. M Crowe 5. JF Reid 6. C Cairns 7. R Hadlee 8. D Vettori 9. B McCullum 10. B Taylor 11. S Bond.

  • Atlantic252 on October 7, 2009, 21:09 GMT

    Hadlee was one of the world's greatest players ever, so my suggestion is just to pick players to complement him. Collinge was an excellent foil for him in the late '70s who troubled most batsmen, notably Geoffrey Boycott in NZs first win over England. Whilst several others are gutsy hard-working types, for me the other has to be Bond or Cowie who were both match winners. For his sheer pace, Bond has to be my third.

  • foldhard on October 7, 2009, 5:22 GMT

    Hadlee and Bond. Im a big fan of Danny Morrison but no way, not even close.

  • Number1CricketFan on October 7, 2009, 1:11 GMT

    Chris Martin has been under rated. I think him and Chatfield should open, followed by Sir Richard Hadlee first change

  • FIASNAHK on October 7, 2009, 0:21 GMT

    Ok, the first two are automatic choices, Hadlee and Bond. But none of the rest really stand out. Most of the guys on the list average over 30 in test, for an all time eleven those are pretty sad figures, i don't think anyone in the England fast bowling shortlist averaged over 30. I can't say anything about Cowie, I haven't seen him bowl, who has? and do people really remember him that well from seeing him 50 years ago. But i will go by his stats and pick him, because the others are quite disappointing.

  • Rag-Aaron on October 6, 2009, 22:41 GMT

    I'd love to see the NZ XI play together because when most of these guys played test it was with the weight of the world on their shoulders. Unlike most world test sides our best players often had to carry the whole team. I remember watching Martin Crowe around the time he became captain, if he didn't get runs then you could be pretty sure the team would not do well. So imagine these guys playing with the freedom of being surrounded by quality players - especially the batsmen.

  • wobman on October 6, 2009, 21:43 GMT

    No doubt about Hadlee. But the other spot should go to Martin. New Zealand is all about work horses, those who can bowl long spells without tiring, and going cheaply, which is what Martin did. Also, if any of you have been to a cricket match in New Zealand, he is a fan favourite, especially when batting. It's a pity we don't have another really great bowler to compliment Hadlee though.

  • IlMagnifico on October 6, 2009, 18:36 GMT

    Shane Bond - The fastest LEGITIMATE bowler of this era. Everyone else chucks. Even Lee's fastest ones are not kosher. Cowie Hadlee Chatfield - As NFL commentators would say - "On the outside looking in"

  • Cooch on October 6, 2009, 15:48 GMT

    Can't pick Bond as he hasn't played enough tests in an era when he should have played more. I also have to say that the selection 'nominations' for this admittedly theoretical (but nevertheless marvellously distracting) exercise are ridiculous. A best of NZ team should include 6 batsmen (one of whom bowls a bit), a spinner, a keeper and three seamers. No NZ test side should ever have an allrounder batting 6, and very few have - when Oram, Cairns and McCullum have batted in the top 6 in recent years it has usually been due to injuries and seldom successful. For me Turner, Wright, Sutcliffe, MD Crowe, Donnelly, JR Reid, CL Cairns, Vettori, Smith, Hadlee and Collinge are the best of the best. Gentleman cricketers all.

  • fordsantosh on October 6, 2009, 9:17 GMT

    Hadlee is the greatest as far as New Zealand cricket is concerned,with due respect i think all the other names just make up the list.

  • Inthealltogether on October 6, 2009, 9:13 GMT

    To answer Boraan - what's the rush? They aren't due to play this w/e. Your doubts about the WI batting line-up prove my point. Was J Wright better than Bert Sutcliffe? Danny Morrison?! Did you see Cowie bowl?

  • kiwi_fan7035 on October 6, 2009, 6:46 GMT

    boran i reckon u've only got 6-7 out of the 11 that will be picked so i don't think you can say its that simple. morrison. seriously?

  • loo_p on October 5, 2009, 22:39 GMT

    I disagree in regards to Doull he was never fast enough to trouble the top batsmen. I think Dion Nash deserves a mention his sheer determination won Nzl a few matches with both bat and ball. If it wasn't for all the injuries he would of been one of Nzl's all time greats.

  • MattBlake on October 5, 2009, 20:02 GMT

    Like many others, I'd include Doull, Nash, Taylor and Cameron in the list of contenders ahead of Chats, Morrison and Martin. Bond's average against the main countries (excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) is something like 27, so the selection shouldn't be that cut and dried... I think I'd pick Collinge (to go with Hadlee and Cowie), if only because his yorker to Boycott was NZ's "ball of the century".

  • Boraan on October 5, 2009, 19:48 GMT

    I don't understand why Cricinfo is taking this long to list NZ XI as it is easiest to name citing the fact that NZ has not produced many greats. it's as simple as anything - Glenn Turner, John Wright, Jones/Fleming, Martin Crowe, John F Reid, Chris Cairns, Brendon McCullum, Sir Richard Haldlee, Daniel Vettori, Danny Morrison , Shane Bond. The only Kiwi greats who does find place are more one-day specialists than being on the list. If this is the time taken to get a Kiwi XI , What would they do when it would come to the great winidies in all departments where they will have to choose 3 from set of 10 greats in each as they are taking so long for only one option available on the Kiwi one. Think about Winidies who the fast bowler would be , Holdings, Garners, Roberts, Marshalls, Amborse, Walsh, Bishop. Who would make the batting list with Sobers, Richards, Weeks,Worrels, Wallcot, Headelys, Laras, Lloyds, Kahanais,Hynes, Greenidges. And What Indian batsmen and spinners and Pak bowlers.

  • mikeindex on October 5, 2009, 16:54 GMT

    Looks like the selection for the XI is about as unanimous as the spinner will be!

    I'd agree with bradluen that Doull was a better bowler than several of the shortlist (though not good enough to oust Cowie or Bond); I'd also have said that Lance Cairns was at least as good as some, even discounting his iconic batting.

    I'd also agree with kiwifan about the restrictiveness of the format - though not about 'Haystack' Taylor, who I always thought looked a pretty ordinary bowler despite his impressive stats.

  • vrushi55 on October 5, 2009, 11:57 GMT

    1. Sir RJ Hadlee 2. SE Bond 3. J Cowie Its not hard.

  • buntyj on October 5, 2009, 11:08 GMT

    while i admire the record of motz and collinge i believe the choice has to be sir r hadlee, jack cowie and shane bond; this would make up a most competitive team that should be able to surprise the other all time xi s at least occassionally

  • the_giblet on October 5, 2009, 10:52 GMT

    Wholeheartedly agree with kiwi_fan7035's comments about the format - for me Bruce Taylor would be the third seamer, but his dubious inclusion in the all-rounder's category doesn't allow that. This all-time XI will certainly bat deep though - with 5 batsmen, all-rounder and wicketkeeper (I'd have McCullum), followed by Vettori at 8, Hadlee would be batting 9...gotta love that lower-order strikepower!

  • kiwi_fan7035 on October 5, 2009, 10:04 GMT

    will be interesting if any of the selectors differ from the 3 favourites. To me they are well above the leaders of the pack. Cowie dismissed all the greats of his generation cheaply, an undoubted star. The main differences of the 11s will be the keepers, cairns/reid at no. 6, and the make up of the top 5 - whether to open with sutcliffe to make room for fleming or cut flem and allow dempster/wright/rigor to partner turner with sutcliffe dropping down the order.

  • MalikNadeemAwan on October 5, 2009, 8:45 GMT

    i think hadlee was great no doubt but shane bond is also up to him and i am from pakistan where we have produced great fast bowlers and i am also big fan of bond he has ability to take wickets at any surface so it is my wish that he play more for newzealand and get more wickets for them and for himself

  • bradluen on October 5, 2009, 8:31 GMT

    Simon Doull was better than most of these guys. By a lot. Running through the vaunted Indian batting lineup at the Basin in 1999 is probably the best non-Hadlee bowling performance in NZ cricket history. He wouldn't quite make my XI (I'll boringly pick Hadlee, Cowie and Bond) but he'd be in my squad. Bruce Taylor, Collinge and Dion Nash would contend for second XI places. As for the likes of Chris Martin and Danny Morrison, well guys, I appreciate your service to your country, but if we picked you then our best hope would be for the other all-time XIs to injure themselves laughing.

  • AsifRathod on October 5, 2009, 6:35 GMT

    In my oppinion best two fastmen for NZ would be, Hadlee (quite obviously) and Bond. Bond hasn't played much of test cricket, but no one can questions his ability of taking wickets. At his prime he is one of the best fast bowler in the world, and not at his best,still he is performing quite well.

  • kirangupta on October 5, 2009, 6:30 GMT

    I think Hadlee Martin and Bond deserve to be in this all time XI always rescuing NZ from tough situations

  • RichardHobbs on October 5, 2009, 5:48 GMT

    This NZ best XI should beat every other team's best XI. It is looking good so far, and the addition of Hadlee, Bond and Cowie will bolster this team against the likes of Bradman et al.

  • Maui3 on October 5, 2009, 5:10 GMT

    Hadlee, Bond and Cowie for me. Its a shame Bond didn't play more. The way he made the Aussie and Indians hop around - easily the two best batting sides in this decade was phenomenal. Will be interesting to see if he still has the Aussie under his spell in the champions trophy final (even though its a ODI). Dont know much about, but an average of 22 (though only in 10 tests) is impressive. Mossison, Collinge, Chatfield and Martin are OK, but dont see them in an all-time XI.

  • kiwi_fan7035 on October 5, 2009, 3:52 GMT

    again the format jepodises what would otherwise be an amazing feature on cricinfo. Bruce Taylor was put in the all rounders category for a no.6 spot - against cairns and reid far better performers with the bat his average of 20 and occasional performance don't add up. But as a third seamer he would have to been in serious consideration for the 3 pace bowling spots! his 111 wickets cost him just 26.60 apiece. THIS DESTROYS the records of morrison and martin and when you consider cowie and bond (prob the 2 favourites) didnt play 2 many tests he would have to be very close.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • kiwi_fan7035 on October 5, 2009, 3:52 GMT

    again the format jepodises what would otherwise be an amazing feature on cricinfo. Bruce Taylor was put in the all rounders category for a no.6 spot - against cairns and reid far better performers with the bat his average of 20 and occasional performance don't add up. But as a third seamer he would have to been in serious consideration for the 3 pace bowling spots! his 111 wickets cost him just 26.60 apiece. THIS DESTROYS the records of morrison and martin and when you consider cowie and bond (prob the 2 favourites) didnt play 2 many tests he would have to be very close.

  • Maui3 on October 5, 2009, 5:10 GMT

    Hadlee, Bond and Cowie for me. Its a shame Bond didn't play more. The way he made the Aussie and Indians hop around - easily the two best batting sides in this decade was phenomenal. Will be interesting to see if he still has the Aussie under his spell in the champions trophy final (even though its a ODI). Dont know much about, but an average of 22 (though only in 10 tests) is impressive. Mossison, Collinge, Chatfield and Martin are OK, but dont see them in an all-time XI.

  • RichardHobbs on October 5, 2009, 5:48 GMT

    This NZ best XI should beat every other team's best XI. It is looking good so far, and the addition of Hadlee, Bond and Cowie will bolster this team against the likes of Bradman et al.

  • kirangupta on October 5, 2009, 6:30 GMT

    I think Hadlee Martin and Bond deserve to be in this all time XI always rescuing NZ from tough situations

  • AsifRathod on October 5, 2009, 6:35 GMT

    In my oppinion best two fastmen for NZ would be, Hadlee (quite obviously) and Bond. Bond hasn't played much of test cricket, but no one can questions his ability of taking wickets. At his prime he is one of the best fast bowler in the world, and not at his best,still he is performing quite well.

  • bradluen on October 5, 2009, 8:31 GMT

    Simon Doull was better than most of these guys. By a lot. Running through the vaunted Indian batting lineup at the Basin in 1999 is probably the best non-Hadlee bowling performance in NZ cricket history. He wouldn't quite make my XI (I'll boringly pick Hadlee, Cowie and Bond) but he'd be in my squad. Bruce Taylor, Collinge and Dion Nash would contend for second XI places. As for the likes of Chris Martin and Danny Morrison, well guys, I appreciate your service to your country, but if we picked you then our best hope would be for the other all-time XIs to injure themselves laughing.

  • MalikNadeemAwan on October 5, 2009, 8:45 GMT

    i think hadlee was great no doubt but shane bond is also up to him and i am from pakistan where we have produced great fast bowlers and i am also big fan of bond he has ability to take wickets at any surface so it is my wish that he play more for newzealand and get more wickets for them and for himself

  • kiwi_fan7035 on October 5, 2009, 10:04 GMT

    will be interesting if any of the selectors differ from the 3 favourites. To me they are well above the leaders of the pack. Cowie dismissed all the greats of his generation cheaply, an undoubted star. The main differences of the 11s will be the keepers, cairns/reid at no. 6, and the make up of the top 5 - whether to open with sutcliffe to make room for fleming or cut flem and allow dempster/wright/rigor to partner turner with sutcliffe dropping down the order.

  • the_giblet on October 5, 2009, 10:52 GMT

    Wholeheartedly agree with kiwi_fan7035's comments about the format - for me Bruce Taylor would be the third seamer, but his dubious inclusion in the all-rounder's category doesn't allow that. This all-time XI will certainly bat deep though - with 5 batsmen, all-rounder and wicketkeeper (I'd have McCullum), followed by Vettori at 8, Hadlee would be batting 9...gotta love that lower-order strikepower!

  • buntyj on October 5, 2009, 11:08 GMT

    while i admire the record of motz and collinge i believe the choice has to be sir r hadlee, jack cowie and shane bond; this would make up a most competitive team that should be able to surprise the other all time xi s at least occassionally