Greatest Bowler

[kyear2]

understood.

 

[Geoffboycott]

That's like saying Brett Lee is better than Mikey Holding .

its close between them too tho. but i would say holding was quicker.

 

[smash84]

A massive weener is useless if it doesnt even work half the time and you only have memories of that one incredible night you had, but then for the rest of your life you could never get it up

EDIT: quite appropriate as Harby is a massive weener

this is hilarious

will use this elsewhere

 

[harsh.ag]

its close between them too tho. but i would say holding was quicker.

Now do Kasprowicz vs Lindwall.

 

[kyear2]

lol

 

[Red]

This guy is an old friend of CW - he'll be gone when PEWS catches up with him so I suggest nobody risks getting infracted in the meantime

Welcome back SobersNo1. We'd missed you and your insights in to the game.

 

[Flem274*]

Hey I wanted to be first with the Precam jokes.

 

[Geoffboycott]

the greatest quicks ever are 1.ambrose 2.marshall 2.walsh 4.mcgrath and 5.Garner.in that order

 

[Coronis]

the greatest quicks ever are 1.ambrose 2.marshall 2.walsh 4.mcgrath and 5.Garner.in that order

Now I've seen it all.

 

[watson]

Now I've seen it all.

That list of top 5 quicks is OK. Can't say I disagree much, or even want to.

 

[smash84]

Now I've seen it all.

 

[Coronis]

That list of top 5 quicks is OK. Can't say I disagree much, or even want to.

Courtney Walsh a better bowler than McGrath or Garner? And on equal footing with Marshall?

 

[watson]

Courtney Walsh a better bowler than McGrath or Garner? And on equal footing with Marshall?

IMO Differences in player rankings are generally determined on how much weight is given to the following categories by the person performing the ranking;

1. 'Great'
2. 'Best'
3. 'Direct' Stat's like Average or Strike Rate
4. 'Indirect' Stat's like Longevity

Obviously if you value 'Longevity' then this will increase the 'Greatness' of Courtney Walsh. And of course, if 'Greatness' is valued more than 'Best' then Walsh will climb the rankings and appear in the Top 5.

Personally, I prefer 'Best' and 'Direct' Stat's, but there is no right or wrong here.

 

[Red]

Courtney Walsh is terribly under-appreciated. Brilliant quick bowler.

 

[Migara]

Walsh always did dirty work for his more illustrious colleagues. While Ambrose and Marshall bowled most of there balls up to the batsmen to get wickets, Walsh was made to intimidate batsmen by bowling persistently short at them.

 

[Red]

Walsh always did dirty work for his more illustrious colleagues. While Ambrose and Marshall bowled most of there balls up to the batsmen to get wickets, Walsh was made to intimidate batsmen by bowling persistently short at them.

Really? That's not how I remember him, although I was a kid at the time.

I always remember him as a very accurate off stump type bowler, bowling in to the wind while Ambrose bowled with it. Always seemed to have one of the best personalities as well. Seemed like a happy guy.

 

[kyear2]

Really? That's not how I remember him, although I was a kid at the time.

I always remember him as a very accurate off stump type bowler, bowling in to the wind while Ambrose bowled with it. Always seemed to have one of the best personalities as well. Seemed like a happy guy.

Yup, could be aggressive at times but he replaced Garner for the most part as the into the wind work horse stock bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

Look Walsh was alright but there's a reason he lived in Ambrose's shadow. I remember a tight series in 96/97 when an injury to Ambrose gave us the break we were looking for. All of a sudden the series was busted wide open. No pressure and with Walsh leading the attack - well lets just say he looked all alone and badly out numbered. Same with Bishop.

Walsh did the dirty work bcos he wasn't good enough to be the lead man. Can't help but feel he was made to look good associated with a group of glamour fast bowlers. Longevity is admirable but lets not parlay it into greatness.

 

[kyear2]

Look Walsh was alright but there's a reason he lived in Ambrose's shadow. I remember a tight series in 96/97 when an injury to Ambrose gave us the break we were looking for. All of a sudden the series was busted wide open. No pressure and with Walsh leading the attack - well lets just say he looked all alone and badly out numbered. Same with Bishop.

Walsh did the dirty work bcos he wasn't good enough to be the lead man. Can't help but feel he was made to look good associated with a group of glamour fast bowlers. Longevity is admirable but lets not parlay it into greatness.

Yes Walsh was great, not in the same league as the other gentlemen being mentioned. He did get better with age though, which was amazing.

 

[Red]

Look Walsh was alright but there's a reason he lived in Ambrose's shadow. I remember a tight series in 96/97 when an injury to Ambrose gave us the break we were looking for. All of a sudden the series was busted wide open. No pressure and with Walsh leading the attack - well lets just say he looked all alone and badly out numbered. Same with Bishop.

Walsh did the dirty work bcos he wasn't good enough to be the lead man. Can't help but feel he was made to look good associated with a group of glamour fast bowlers. Longevity is admirable but lets not parlay it into greatness.

I rate what you post generally, but this seems a bit OTT to me. Walsh was a great fast bowler.