Best new ball pair late 90's/early 00's

[iamdavid]

Who in your opinion was the better of the four dominant new ball pairings floating around in world cricket from the mid-late 1990's through to the first part of this decade...Perhaps comparison is a little unfair as Wasim/Waqar were at their peaks in the early 90's whereas McGrath/Gillespie didn't hit theirs until about 2001...
Still, all things considered who do you believe was the best pairing?

 

[Sanz]

Wasim and Waqar Hands down.

 

[aussie]

DAMN!!. Cant split them, all even i'd say.

EDIT:

The reason i dont think they are even is because the their respective peaks as bowler i have always believed you can't split McGrath/Ambrose/Donald/Akram. They where where all equally as good AFAIC.

But you can split their partners probably something like Waqar>>Pollock>Gillespie=Walsh. Damn

Impossible to say who was the best combo IMO. Since on a greentop they all would cause equal havoc to any batting line-up. While they all had the skills to get good batsmen out/be economical on flat decks.

 

[Top_Cat]

At that time, McGrath/Gillespie but a few years earlier, the W's.

No Fleming/McGrath?

 

[zaremba]

Around the turn of the decade, Donald and Pollock for me. Contrasting bowlers of the highest quality.

W&W were of comparable quality, but a few years earlier.

Of the other two pairings, I'd put Walsh and Gillespie a rung below the other 6 bowlers mentioned here.

 

[age_master]

Wasim and Waqar Hands down.

I voted that way, more for the late 90's they were unplayable at their best. Ambrose and Walsh were more dominant earlier on.

 

[age_master]

Of the other two pairings, I'd put Walsh and Gillespie a rung below the other 6 bowlers mentioned here.

Yeah, both very consistently good but not as outstanding as the others.

 

[zaremba]

Donald
Pollock
Wasim
Waqar

There's room for all of 'em in the same team. W&W take the old ball. Simple.

Except that leaves no room for McGrath or Ambrose. Bollocks.

 

[stephen]

Walsh massively underrated by many in this thread. You don't get to take 500 wickets @ 25 without being absolutely top shelf.

 

[Goughy]

Wasim and Waqar Hands down.

New ball, really?

 

[Richard]

Walsh massively underrated by many in this thread. You don't get to take 500 wickets @ 25 without being absolutely top shelf.

Indeed you don't - it's just the rest of them were even better still.

Donald and Pollock the best for me - had everything, as of course did McGrath and Gillespie. Donald and Pollock were that bit better though IMO.

Wasim and Waqar were of course totally different and probably in their day even better. Their day however was 1990/91-1994/95; at the time the others were at their best they were past theirs, though they were not spent forces until 2000/01. Ambrose and Walsh were damn good but just a fraction behind the others IMO.

 

[Furball]

In the time frame specified, I'm going Donald and Pollock.

I'm probably just too young to have properly appreciated Donald, given that the first Test series I made a conscious effort to watch was the South Africa v England Millennium series, but I remember Pollock being seriously sharp. If Donald was even half as good as people on here have said (and I know that's easily the case), they win hands down.

Walsh was fantastic at the end of his career though, got better and better with age.

 

[MrIncredible]

Walsh massively underrated by many in this thread. You don't get to take 500 wickets @ 25 without being absolutely top shelf.

Actually its @24 plus his record in the subcon is outstanding, a great and definitely above Gillespie for mine but below WW, Amby, Donald, mcgrath obviously but not by that much. Probably on par with pollock (overall imo)

 

[social]

Wasim and Waqar Hands down.

Waqar's peak was very early nineties and by 2000 he was pretty average due to injuries whilst Wasim was coming to an end so I hardly think it's hands down

 

[Furball]

Waqar's peak was very early nineties and by 2000 he was pretty average due to injuries whilst Wasim was coming to an end so I hardly think it's hands down

Yeah, pretty sure if people actually read the OP WW wouldn't have half as many votes.

 

[Jono]

At the time specified, it's Pollock and Donald probably.

 

[Matt79]

Specified time frame = Donald and Pollock, ahead of McGrath and Gillespie. Curtley and Courtney and Wasim and Waqar were just a bit past their prime in comparison.

 

[zaremba]

Walsh massively underrated by many in this thread. You don't get to take 500 wickets @ 25 without being absolutely top shelf.

No-one's suggested for a second that he's anything less than excellent, and his sustained quality over a long career is a big feature of that. I've said that he and Gillespie were (imo) a rung below the others. But that's one rung difference at the very top of an incredibly tall ladder.

Would you not agree that some of these others were better than him? I would be surprised if there were many who didn't think that Ambrose, for example, was a better bowler.

 

[fredfertang]

Andy Caddick and Darren Gough would be up there with those pairs had their supporting cast not been so inadequate

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pretty depressing when one compares the respective countries' new ball pairings now, Windies especially, obv.