Is Walsh underrated?

[vic_orthdox]

Because more than any other country, West Indies have had a ridiculous list of all time great bowlers. Reckon he'd make the second XI comfortably tbh.

1st XI:
Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Garner

2nd XI:
Roberts
Walsh
Hall
Ramadhin/Valentine

Would have Gibbs ahead of those two pals of mine?

 

[Ilovecric]

Ambrose and walsh were rated higher than mcgrath when all three of them were playing,

Ambrose was better than Walsh, but both of them were rated above mcgrath especially with walsh racing towards becoming the leading wicket taker in history with the help half decent bowlers after ambrose retired. Mcgrath got help bowling to irresponsible batsmen in the later part of his career aswell.


Swing, pace, bounce, reverse swing (new ball too) ...Walsh could take wickets at anytime, he didn't let up. Never ever let up or got tired, he was just as dangerous with the old ball as he was with the new ball.

Walsh bowled 300 or more maidens than mcgrath so his style of bowling was about building pressure on a batsman - which I think is the best way to get wickets. It's also another indication that he's from a different era one which decipline is the key, no balls to waste trying random **** and get silly wickets because batsmen of walsh's era cared alot about their wickets. Walsh is a better real test match bowler than mcgrath.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Walsh bowled 300 or more maidens than mcgrath so his style of bowling was about building pressure on a batsman - which I think is the best way to get wickets. It's also another indication that he's from a different era one which decipline is the key, no balls to waste trying random **** and get silly wickets because batsmen of walsh's era cared alot about their wickets. Walsh is a better real test match bowler than mcgrath.

Not sure if that is the correct conclusion to draw from that bit of statistical information. McGrath still conceded fewer runs per wicket earned than Walsh, so its obvious all those extra maiden overs were wasted opportunities for the bowler more than anything else.

 

[Athlai]

McGrath didn't know anything about putting pressure on batsman. Pie man if there ever was one clearly.

 

[Ilovecric]

Not sure if that is the correct conclusion to draw from that bit of statistical information. McGrath still conceded fewer runs per wicket earned than Walsh, so its obvious all those extra maiden overs were wasted opportunities for the bowler more than anything else.

Walsh was a change bowler for a good number of years of his career (they usually don't get that many wickets) and mcgrath picked up alot of easy wickets after 2000. I think from 1986 until the early 90s walsh was still a first or second change bowler, remember WI still had good bowlers then.

Mcgrath avg before year 2000 was 23, but after 2000 his avg was touching low 20s.


People who were paying attention during the 1990s knew Ambrose and walsh were the bowlers to watch - they were of the highest echelon in bowling.

 

[Teja.]

Walsh was a change bowler for a good number of years of his career (they usually don't get that many wickets) and mcgrath picked up alot of easy wickets after 2000. I think from 1986 until the early 90s walsh was still a first or second change bowler, remember WI still had good bowlers then.

Mcgrath avg before year 2000 was 23, but after 2000 his avg was touching low 20s.


People who were paying attention during the 1990s knew Ambrose and walsh were the bowlers to watch - they were of the highest echelon in bowling.

The 2000s were, if anything a harder time to bowl than the 1990s or 1980s. McGrath just hit his peak in the 00s.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

How can he be rated an all time great when in all honesty he probably wouldn't even make the 2nd team if you were to pick all time West Indies sides such was the depth they had at one time.A very good bowler yes but not as good as Ambrose,Holding,Marshall etc...
One thing though,if West Indies had a couple of bowlers half as good as him they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.

So if you are not as good as Ambrose you cant be an all time great?Flawed logic really.Just because WI had so many good bowlers it does not mean Walsh was not great.Srinath would get into an Indian all time XI is he great?Point is 500 wickets @ 24 is great however you look at it,

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So if you are not as good as Ambrose you cant be an all time great?Flawed logic really.Just because WI had so many good bowlers it does not mean Walsh was not great.Srinath would get into an Indian all time XI is he great?Point is 500 wickets @ 24 is great however you look at it,

No not flawed logic.He is in the bracket below.Still very good but not quite up with the best.Not really difficult to understand unless you have no brain.

 

[vic_orthdox]

No not flawed logic.He is in the bracket below.Still very good but not quite up with the best.Not really difficult to understand unless you have no brain.

Refrain from making indirect insults like that. Not the standard expected.

 

[slippyslip]

Probably tells you that a career bowling average is a pretty blunt tool to assess a bowler's quality more than anything else. Oh, and that you don't compare fast bowlers with spinners. Fortunately some of us can find things to discuss about cricket that aren't directly drawn from the manipulation of Statsguru.

Right, because I'm the only who uses statsguru?

I like how its convenient for people to use stats when it suits them but when it doesn't its "oh, you just use statsguru". Hypocrisy much, champ?

I'm not saying Walsh IS an all time great but his stats are not that far behind the all time greats. Maybe if people said why he wasn't an all time great it would help.

I think the fact that he took 44 less wickets than McGrath in 8 more test matches is probably the most damning stat as is his strike rate of nearly 58. And that in 34 more test matches he ended up with the same 5 wickets an innings and 10 wickets in a match as Ambrose.

I think Walsh is definitely underrated and but not probably a great but comes extremely close.

Walsh suffers from not being a top bowler during the West Indies great days. This forever tarnished him in peoples eyes and no matter what he did during the later years of his career wouldnt change that. But if you look at all the West Indian greats they had retired by the 12-13 years mark. Walsh played for 16.5 years. Even McGrath only did 13 years and 2 months. His longevity and consistently, considering he was a stock AND strike bowler in his final years, is a great accomplishment in itself.

Walsh is not great by the standards of Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath etc but Walsh is a one of a kind. His career was so different to most fast bowlers that by judging him by the traditional methods it diminishes his many accomplishments.

Maybe hes a great in a category by himself.

 

[zaremba]

Swing, pace, bounce, reverse swing (new ball too)

Hmm, not sure I ever really saw him get much swing of any sort. What he did get was seam movement, and as you've said pace and bounce.

I have to say I don't buy into the "better than McGrath" theory and haven't heard many others express it.

One thing worth mentioning is his career with Gloucestershire - he played for them for years, as captain for a time, and turned in enormous season after enormous season.

He gets a minus for his ugly bouncer bombardment of a helpless Devon Malcolm who was in no position to defend himself and who got precious little support from the umpires either.

 

[Matt79]

Right, because I'm the only who uses statsguru?

I like how its convenient for people to use stats when it suits them but when it doesn't its "oh, you just use statsguru". Hypocrisy much, champ?

I'm not saying Walsh IS an all time great but his stats are not that far behind the all time greats. Maybe if people said why he wasn't an all time great it would help.

I think the fact that he took 44 less wickets than McGrath in 8 more test matches is probably the most damning stat as is his strike rate of nearly 58. And that in 34 more test matches he ended up with the same 5 wickets an innings and 10 wickets in a match as Ambrose.

I think Walsh is definitely underrated and but not probably a great but comes extremely close.

Walsh suffers from not being a top bowler during the West Indies great days. This forever tarnished him in peoples eyes and no matter what he did during the later years of his career wouldnt change that. But if you look at all the West Indian greats they had retired by the 12-13 years mark. Walsh played for 16.5 years. Even McGrath only did 13 years and 2 months. His longevity and consistently, considering he was a stock AND strike bowler in his final years, is a great accomplishment in itself.

Walsh is not great by the standards of Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath etc but Walsh is a one of a kind. His career was so different to most fast bowlers that by judging him by the traditional methods it diminishes his many accomplishments.

Maybe hes a great in a category by himself.

That's a much better post than saying "he is great becaues his average is 0.52 more than Lillee" or whatever.

 

[archie mac]

I think he is dismissed a bit too quickly, a class act and never seemed to tier (or is it tire?). Work horse rather than a great bowler, but every team should have a Walsh a captains dream I should think

On a different note, his bio is one of the worst I have read

"I will not say anthing that may cause harm to West Indies cricket" or words to that effect seemed to be written everytime there was a chance for an interesting topic

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ambrose was better than Walsh, but both of them were rated above mcgrath especially with walsh racing towards becoming the leading wicket taker in history with the help half decent bowlers after ambrose retired. Mcgrath got help bowling to irresponsible batsmen in the later part of his career aswell.

Walsh is a better real test match bowler than mcgrath.

Love these sort of arguments against McGrath. They seem to betray a lack of understanding re: what bowling is about. McGrath got so many wickets from 2000 onwards because he bowled very, very well. I always find it amazing that these batsmen were only 'irresponsible' when they faced him.

On the subject of Walsh though he was a very good bowler.

 

[Migara]

He gets a minus for his ugly bouncer bombardment of a helpless Devon Malcolm who was in no position to defend himself and who got precious little support from the umpires either.

Devon should have tried to do the same, aim for the head, not the stumps of Walsh when he got the ball. Devon was not that slow either. Brett Lee did some exhibition "aim for the head" bowling in Ashes some time back.

 

[archie mac]

Devon should have tried to do the same, aim for the head, not the stumps of Walsh when he got the ball. Devon was not that slow either. Brett Lee did some exhibition "aim for the head" bowling in Ashes some time back.

Lee also did it against the SA No.11 on one occassion, still does not make it right who ever does it

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I find it hilarious how people try to do down the great Aussie players by saying inferior players from other countries were better.Saying Walsh was better than McGrath is a joke to wind up the Aussies right?

Walsh was good,very good in fact but he was just below the top level in the same way that Gillespie wasn't in the same bracket as McGrath, and for South Africa Ntini and Steyn aren't as good as Pollock and Donald.No disgrace in that but it still doesn't mean they weren't quality bowlers in their own right just that there were better around.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Walsh SR is not as bad as people are making out.It is up there with the likes of Akram and Pollock.Just because he may not make a West Indian all time XI simply because they have such a rich colection of great bowlers it does not mean that Walsh himself is not great.If a bowler has to be better than Mcgrath and Ambrose to be great then there will be very few great bowlers.

 

[Craig]

Why yes, I do believe I'm under-rated.

 

[slippyslip]

That's a much better post than saying "he is great becaues his average is 0.52 more than Lillee" or whatever.

My point was that some people in this thread dismissed him because of his average and I pointed out his average was only 0.52 higher than Lillee's. You cant discarde Walsh because of his average.