98: Ian Bishop

43 matches. 161 wickets @ 24.28. Strike rate: 52.22. 6x 5wi.

8 years. 1x good. 4x excellent. 2x outstanding.

The discussion

Ian Bishop's career is a classic example of two phenomena we are going to encounter multiple times throughout this rundown: a promising career with several peaks curtailed by injury, and a career whose overall numbers are impacted by the quality of his teammates.

First, let’s look at the peaks to examine why Bishop's career is remarkable for a fast bowler in his era. Ian Bishop was plagued by back injuries throughout his career and missed multiple series as a result. Even as late as the 1990s, a complete recovery from a severe back injury, especially one requiring surgery, was not a given. The simple fact that Ian Bishop lasted 10 years in that era of Test cricket as a genuine fast bowler is remarkable. That he had three peaks where he averaged under 25 and struck at a strike rate of better than 55 (1988–1991, 1992–93, and 1997) is even more incredible given the number of injuries he sustained.

Let’s take a closer look at each of those three periods.

Peak Number 1: 1988–1991

In a period of West Indian cricket when their continued dominance was again personified by their fearsome fast bowlers, Ian Bishop stood out against India (home), England (home) and Pakistan (away), averaging under 20 twice and striking at better than 40 (!) in Pakistan.

Peak Number 2: 1992–93

This second peak was much shorter, in between injury layoffs. Bishop exploited the pace and bounce in Australia to average 20.86, then struck at a strike rate of 40 against a visiting Pakistan team.

Peak Number 3: 1996-97

Some cricketers peak once in their career. A few, twice. Ian Bishop had three distinct peaks. Well, I call them peaks, but this was his standard of performance when fully fit. Bishop dominated a strong Australian side in 1996/97, despite the series score line. He followed that up by averaging under 22 across a four-Test home series against India.

By this point of the Hall of Fame, astute observers will note that Bishop’s 161 wickets are less than half of that of Nathan Lyon, who was left off this list. Yet Bishop makes the cut, but Lyon is omitted.

Why?

Well, largely because I’d argue that Ian Bishop's statistical impact was hampered by the quality of the pace battery he had around him. With Ambrose, Walsh and Malcolm Marshall (spoiler alert: you may hear these names again later in the Hall of Fame), Ian Bishop was not just fighting to be fit, he was fighting to stay in the side. Throw in players like Patrick Patterson, and the Benjamins — Kenneth and Winston — and it is clear there was heavy competition just to get on the park.

In the 12 series Ian Bishop took part in, he averaged under 25 in seven of those, striking at better than 56 in ten of them. Throw in three series averaging under 20 and three series striking at under 47 and you get a picture of how lethal he was. His average and strike rate are up there with the top-25 bowlers of all time. Let’s also add the fact that Ian Bishop's biggest weapon was swing. And now consider that when Bishop was bowling in the same side as Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall et al., taking the new ball down-breeze was not something that he got to do very often. He also did not get many opportunities to take large hauls of wickets — knocking the top off and wrapping up the tail was the privilege of the senior bowlers. He took his wickets the hard way. Sure, there was pressure building at the other end, and batters probably would have preferred facing Ian Bishop to Malcolm Marshall. But not for long.

The verdict

Bishop benefitted from playing in a fearsome fast bowling cartel, and injuries curtailed his longevity. Both of those circumstances are reasons why the number of wickets, 10wm, and 5wi are lower than you would expect for a member of the Hall of Fame. His strike rate and average remain world class and compare favourably among some of the more luminous names in the Hall of Fame.

 A lot of readers will disagree with my justification for Ian Bishop’s inclusion. Consider this, however. Of the bowlers I considered for the Hall of Fame, only England’s Brian Statham and India’s Ravindra Jadeja have more test wickets at an average under 25 without making the list. Neither Statham nor Jadeja possess a better strike rate than Ian Bishop’s 52.22. Other bowlers might have more Test wickets, but with a higher average or strike rate. In time, it is likely that a bowler who averages roughly 25 with 250 or 300 wickets may push Ian Bishop out the door.  The aforementioned Jadeja, Australians Josh Hazlewood and Mitchell Starc, and New Zealand’s current trio of Trent Boult, Tim Southee and Neil Wagner are all names to watch for the future.

In one word

Curtailed

Bio

Record

Source: ESPN CricInfo

career peak

Source: ESPN CricInfo