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

[irfan]

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

Well if we have a look now (first choice)...

Aus: Johnson & Siddle
WI: Edwards & Taylor
Pak: Aamer & Asif
SA: Steyn & Morkel

None of these pairs currently match up to their predecessors. Only really 3 world class bowlers in this list (Asif, Steyn & Johnson) with the rest merely decent/yet to showcase their full potential.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well if we have a look now (first choice)...

Aus: Johnson & Siddle
WI: Edwards & Taylor
Pak: Aamer & Asif
SA: Steyn & Morkel

None of these pairs currently match up to their predecessors. Only really 3 world class bowlers in this list (Asif, Steyn & Johnson) with the rest merely decent/yet to showcase their full potential.

Pffft.

 

[Jarquis]

Johnson's been first change recently hasn't he?

 

[stephen]

Well if we have a look now (first choice)...

Aus: Bollinger & Hilfenhaus
WI: Roach & Taylor
Pak: Aamer & Asif
SA: Steyn & Morkel

None of these pairs currently match up to their predecessors. Only really 3 world class bowlers in this list (Asif, Steyn & Johnson) with the rest merely decent/yet to showcase their full potential.

Fixed that for you.

In test matches Bollinger and Hilfenhaus would surely be the opening pair for Australia. Roach has done enough to be picked ahead of Edwards IMO.

 

[stephen]

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.

The thing is, I would place Walsh on a rung just marginally bellow Ambrose, Donald, McGrath and Akram. However, I think that he was better than Pollock, Gillespie and Waqar. Especially in the time period mentioned.

I would place Walsh as the 5th choice fast bowler for the last two decades, Pollock as the 6th and Dizzy as the 7th. There are other contenders though that haven't been mentioned such as Akhtar, Bond and Steyn, but it is difficult to know where to put them. The 00s didn't have as many great bowlers as the 90s, but it could have if Lee was a smarter bowler, Akhtar bothered showing up and Bond was fit.

 

[sasnoz]

Ambrose is the greatest fast bowler of all time, better than mcgrath,him and walsh were the heart and soul of the windies team even as old barstards they still kept things tight without a superstar spinner or a batting lineup that had just posted 500

 

[Ikki]

Definitely Donald and Pollock.

 

[aussie]

Really can't see how anyone can say with absolute certainty which pace combo was the best TBH.

 

[Furball]

Easy to forget just how outstanding Pollock was in the late 90s.

 

[Richard]

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)

Given that there is no "overall" with Pollock (it's utterly pointless to pretend the 1995/96-2001 Pollock and the 2001/02-2007/08 one were the same bowler IMO) then I obviously disagree, but certainly the later Walsh was better than the early Pollock and the early Pollock was a fair bit better than the early Walsh.

 

[Richard]

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.

Pollock had lost most of his pace by the 1999/2000 series - he was only seriously quick for his first year or two. He suffered a bad ankle injury in 1997 and thereafter was only ever fast-medium with the ability to bowl a very sharp quicker-ball.

In 1995/96 in his debut series there was by most batsmen's reckoning little to choose between Donald and Pollock pace-wise.

 

[Richard]

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

Dominic Cork and Craig White in 2000 were far from inadequate and arguably better still than their opening pair. The reason Caddick and Gough as a pairing aren't often taken seriously enough was their lack of longevity - in effect they were a pairing of the highest class for no more than a year, May 2000 to May 2001. Caddick only got in the side in 1999, Gough was injured that year and he was pretty dreadful on comeback in 1999/2000. And of course both of them went off-the-boil after the opening Test in the 2001 summer and never played together again after said summer.

If Caddick had been picked earlier - he should've been a fixture from 1996 onwards but for David Lloyd's inability to handle his personality - and if Gough had been less injury-prone, then they probably would be not that far behind the Donald\Pollocks and Ambrose\Walshes. But Donald and Pollock were a pair for over 5 years 1995/96-2001, Ambrose and Walsh for 7 1993-2000, and McGrath and Gillespie 4 2000/01-2004/05.

 

[Richard]

The thing is, I would place Walsh on a rung just marginally bellow Ambrose, Donald, McGrath and Akram. However, I think that he was better than Pollock, Gillespie and Waqar. Especially in the time period mentioned.

There is no way that Walsh came remotely close, at any point in his career, to being as good as Waqar was 1990/91-1994/95. That is essentially impossible - Waqar at that point was probably better than any bowler, except maybe SF Barnes, has ever been. The question one must ask themselves is is the fact that Waqar was merely decent for the next 5 years while Walsh was consistently very, very good indeed for 10 years 1986/87-1997 then outstanding for another 4 1997/98-2001 make Walsh a bowler more worthy of praise than Waqar?

It's a question that can go either way, but the best of Waqar - and not just something he was able to produce in the odd game, but that he was able to produce non-stop for 4 years - was better than the best of Walsh by a long way.

 

[aussie]

Dominic Cork and Craig White in 2000 were far from inadequate and arguably better still than their opening pair. The reason Caddick and Gough as a pairing aren't often taken seriously enough was their lack of longevity - in effect they were a pairing of the highest class for no more than a year, May 2000 to May 2001. Caddick only got in the side in 1999, Gough was injured that year and he was pretty dreadful on comeback in 1999/2000. And of course both of them went off-the-boil after the opening Test in the 2001 summer and never played together again after said summer.

If Caddick had been picked earlier - he should've been a fixture from 1996 onwards but for David Lloyd's inability to handle his personality - and if Gough had been less injury-prone, then they probably would be not that far behind the Donald\Pollocks and Ambrose\Walshes. But Donald and Pollock were a pair for over 5 years 1995/96-2001, Ambrose and Walsh for 7 1993-2000, and McGrath and Gillespie 4 2000/01-2004/05.

Small point in overall scheme of things. But you can say that partnership was pretty much always their since WI 96/97. Its just that Dizzy was injured alot between WI 96/97 to SRI 99/00, so it kept breaking up alot.

 

[aussie]

There is no way that Walsh came remotely close, at any point in his career, to being as good as Waqar was 1990/91-1994/95. That is essentially impossible - Waqar at that point was probably better than any bowler, except maybe SF Barnes, has ever been. The question one must ask themselves is is the fact that Waqar was merely decent for the next 5 years while Walsh was consistently very, very good indeed for 10 years 1986/87-1997 then outstanding for another 4 1997/98-2001 make Walsh a bowler more worthy of praise than Waqar?

It's a question that can go either way, but the best of Waqar - and not just something he was able to produce in the odd game, but that he was able to produce non-stop for 4 years - was better than the best of Walsh by a long way.

Would have to give it to Walsh TBH.

Its just like the Botham vs Imran argument, when comparing Botham 77-84 peak as an all-rounder before he fell of like Waqar due to injuries. To Imran longevity from WI 80 - WI 88 as an all-rounder, in which he just kept improving like Walsh.

But as you said Waqar peak was better than Walsh's peak & Botham's peak was better than Imran peak. But the longevity of Walsh & Imran would make them better overall.

 

[Richard]

Small point in overall scheme of things. But you can say that partnership was pretty much always their since WI 96/97. Its just that Dizzy was injured alot between WI 96/97 to SRI 99/00, so it kept breaking up alot.

Similarly one could claim that Gough and Caddick bowled together for about 5 Tests in 1996/97 and 1997, so their partnership was actually one of 4 years. But Caddick was then, stupidly, dropped again.

If McGrath and Gillespie opened together on more than about 10-12 occasions between 1996/97 and 1999/2000 I'll be surprised. A partnership can only be considered such when both parties are regular particicipants and thus relatively injury-free.

 

[sasnoz]

dont forget dion nash and chris cairns

 

[MrIncredible]

There is no way that Walsh came remotely close, at any point in his career, to being as good as Waqar was 1990/91-1994/95. That is essentially impossible - Waqar at that point was probably better than any bowler, except maybe SF Barnes, has ever been. The question one must ask themselves is is the fact that Waqar was merely decent for the next 5 years while Walsh was consistently very, very good indeed for 10 years 1986/87-1997 then outstanding for another 4 1997/98-2001 make Walsh a bowler more worthy of praise than Waqar?

It's a question that can go either way, but the best of Waqar - and not just something he was able to produce in the odd game, but that he was able to produce non-stop for 4 years - was better than the best of Walsh by a long way.

Richard here u are making the same mistake that u criticised me for u r comparing them overall. For the latter part of the 90s to the early 2000s (the period in question) Walsh was obviously better than Waqar.

 

[Ilovecric]

Lets look at their records as openers, is there anyway to do that ?

 

[Richard]

Richard here u are making the same mistake that u criticised me for u r comparing them overall. For the latter part of the 90s to the early 2000s (the period in question) Walsh was obviously better than Waqar.

Of course he was. And Ambrose and Walsh were clearly better than Wasim and Waqar at that point.

Nonetheless, the best of Waqar >>>>>> the best of Walsh.