Fast/Seam Bowlers of the 1990s - anyone for a Top Ten?

[weldone]

If the list is meant to be based on the performances in the 90s only, then my list will be:

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Wasim Akram
3. Allan Donald
4. Waqar Younis
5. Glenn McGrath
6. Courtney Walsh
7. Shaun Pollock
8. Ian Bishop
9. Heath Streak
10. Craig McDermott

If I'm told to rank the bowlers who bowled in the 90s based on their bowling career, then my ranking will be as below:

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Richard Hadlee
3. Glenn McGrath
4. Malcolm Marshall
5. Imran Khan
6. Courtney Walsh
7. Wasim Akram
8. Allan Donald
9. Waqar Younis
10. Shaun Pollock

 

[harsh.ag]

Waqar Younis at his peak was by far the best bowler i have seen.He is easily the bowler as well as the cricketer of 1990s.Whenever he used to come for a spell i always felt that Pakistan can win matches even if the opposition had 7 wicket in hands and needed just 30 odd runs for victory.He was very fast and breathtaking to watch.

Early 90s, he was brilliant and fearsome. Was not the same after the back injury. Great bowler though, and a proper treat to watch when on song. Perhaps the best old ball fast bowler of all time. Slightly incomplete in that his outswinger was limited, even when he started to open the bowling.

Personally would love to see him as the old ball bowler in a 3 pacer attack with Curtly and Wasim opening the bowling. That would be 90s heaven.

 

[smash84]

If the list is meant to be based on the performances in the 90s only, then my list will be:

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Wasim Akram
3. Allan Donald
4. Waqar Younis
5. Glenn McGrath
6. Courtney Walsh
7. Shaun Pollock
8. Ian Bishop
9. Heath Streak
10. Craig McDermott

If I'm told to rank the bowlers who bowled in the 90s based on their bowling career, then my ranking will be as below:

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Glenn McGrath
3. Imran Khan
4. Courtney Walsh
5. Wasim Akram
6. Allan Donald
7. Waqar Younis
8. Shaun Pollock
9. Kapil Dev
10. Craig McDermott

By your definition shouldn't Malcolm Marshall also make your 2nd list then?

 

[Prince EWS]

By your definition shouldn't Malcolm Marshall also make your 2nd list then?

Nah McDermott > Marshall

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Dion Nash for Streak or McDermott

 

[weldone]

By your definition shouldn't Malcolm Marshall also make your 2nd list then?

Haha yea included Hadlee and Marshall in the 2nd list; so Botham, Kapil and McDermott miss out.

 

[weldone]

Dion Nash for Streak or McDermott

I like Nash.

But Streak was too good in the 90s. And McDermott was very good during the little time he played in the 90s. Fannie De Villiers is another honourable mention. (so are Srinath and Vaas)

That'll make the top 14. (I don't rate the English cricket of the 90s)

 

[Saint Kopite]

1. Curtly Ambrose.
2. Wasim Akram.
3. Allan Donald.
4. Waqar Younis.
5. Glenn McGrath.
6. Shaun Pollock.
7. Courtney Walsh.
8. Ian Bishop.
9. Fanie De Villiers.
10. Craig McDermott.

 

[Burgey]

Waqar younis not just the bowler but the cricketer of 1990s

Really? I used to hope he'd bowl from both ends when he toured here. Devon Malcolm was more threatening.

Devon Malcolm not just the bowler of the 90s, the cricketer of the 90s.

 

[Teja.]

Waqar, 250+ wickets @ 5 wickets a game @ 21-odd in the 90s iirc. Dominated the West Indies too.

Bowler of the 90s, all the haters gonna rotate.

 

[weldone]

I don't have too many problems with SK's list.

 

[Blocky]

Streak was fantastic in the nineties, bowled with absolutely no support and a batting team that never really got him totals to put scoreboard pressure on and spent large portions of the time with an average below 25.

 

[weldone]

Waqar, 250+ wickets @ 5 wickets a game @ 21-odd in the 90s iirc. Dominated the West Indies too.

Bowler of the 90s, all the haters gonna rotate.

Ambrose was really the bowler of the 90s. Wasim, Donald, Waqar (and possibly Warne) can fight for the 2nd spot IMO. Ambrose was terrorising all batting lineups in the 90s, home and away.

If anything can be held against Ambrose at the slightest, it's that he never toured India.

 

[Teja.]

Ambrose was really the bowler of the 90s. Wasim, Donald and Waqar can fight for the 2nd spot IMO. Ambrose was terrorising all batting lineups in the 90s, home and away.

If anything can be held against Ambrose at the slightest, it's that he never toured India.

Look up Ambrose's series-by-series of the late 90s. I mean, it's great to maintain a low average if you have 4-74 with an economy rate below 2 over a whole series but that's not the sort of job I'm looking for when I'm expecting the greatest bowler of all-time. I think his raw stats exaggerate the impact he had on tests post-1995 a fair bit. Obviously, he'd sometimes have spells like in Perth v. Australia in 97 but by and large he was too much of a holding bowler for half a decade as opposed to generating strike output for me to consider him the greatest of the decade.

I was exaggerating about Waqar being the best as well because I love him so. I think he's second or third. I think the first probably has to be Wasim. He was awesome pretty much throughout the decade without any major dips in form.

Putting it this way, if you were entering a novice team who could pick only one bowler from the 90s for the decade, Ambrose will rip up **** for five years and then be content with not letting anyone score and picking a few poles now and then. Waqar would be the best of all-time for five years and a merely good but expensive strike bowler for the remaining five. Donald won't play the first three years and Mcgrath/Pollock won't play five. When I frame my question that way, Wasim appears to be a no brainer.

 

[Teja.]

Ambrose was definitely the most challenging bowler to face as a top order bat, the hardest to get away and an incredible option at a very niche job if you have a good bowling attack though.

 

[Teja.]

On the cricketer of the 90s, I think it has to be Sachin. The little **** averaged about eight runs more than anyone and scored far more test centuries than anyone playing 65 games despite the Aus/WI/Eng batsmen playing around 90-100 and the sort of awe and regard the 90s greats had for him is only matched by the admiration that Warne got.

 

[Blocky]

On the cricketer of the 90s, I think it has to be Sachin. The little **** averaged about eight runs more than anyone and scored far more test centuries than anyone playing 65 games despite the Aus/WI/Eng batsmen playing around 90-100 and the sort of awe and regard the 90s greats had for him is only matched by the admiration that Warne got.

Disagree entirely. I think the cricketer of the 90s has to go to someone who participated in his team being world beaters. Sachin, despite the backup of Azharuddin, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman (late 90s) and Kambli ( for the brief period he was good ) was not part of a world beating unit.

I'd say the cricketer of the 90s is still Shane Warne. He put his team ahead of every other by being able to take wickets in just about any environment and contributed to his side being the pinnacle of cricket for a number of years through the 90s and into the 00s.

 

[Saint Kopite]

Disagree entirely. I think the cricketer of the 90s has to go to someone who participated in his team being world beaters. Sachin, despite the backup of Azharuddin, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman (late 90s) and Kambli ( for the brief period he was good ) was not part of a world beating unit.

I'd say the cricketer of the 90s is still Shane Warne. He put his team ahead of every other by being able to take wickets in just about any environment and contributed to his side being the pinnacle of cricket for a number of years through the 90s and into the 00s.

I have no issue someone rating Warne or Lara ahead of Sachin as the cricketer of 90s. I love the man, but I agree there ain't that big of a difference between all of them.

However, the reason you gave is insane. Warne with Australia had a far far better supporting cast than India ever had. Nevermind just the nineties.

Shane Warne had Taylor, Slater, Waugh Brothers, McGrath/McDermott etc alongside him to win matches and dominate world cricket.

You talk about Azhar, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and Kambli etc. Ganguly and Dravid came into the team and were regulars only in the second half of the 90s and even then you need to remember that Dravid played his best cricket in the noughties and not nineties. He was a good player then but nowhere close to being amongst the best batsmen in the world. Laxman struggled initially when he came into the team. It was against Australia when we toured Down Under, he really flourished and that was around 2000, I think. That leaves us with Azhar, Kambli and Ganguly. All three has one major issue. They all struggled against pace and bounce, which is why leaving a few innings here and there, they never contributed outside the subcontinent. Ganguly had a great debut in England in his first series which boosts his away average by a bit. But the truth is, the best teams are the ones who not only dominate at their own yard but also also away from their home, which India never did because most of the times Sachin was the lone wolf. India's batting in nineties was famous for falling down like a pack of cards once Sachin got out and less said about the bowling attack of Prasad, Kuruvilla, Rajesh Chauhan etc the better.

You need a good balanced team to dominate world cricket and be world beaters. Something which Sachin in nineties never had.

 

[Blocky]

I have no issue someone rating Warne or Lara ahead of Sachin as the cricketer of 90s. I love the man, but I agree there ain't that big of a difference between all of them.

However, the reason you gave is insane. Warne with Australia had a far far better supporting cast than India ever had. Nevermind just the nineties.

Shane Warne had Taylor, Slater, Waugh Brothers, McGrath/McDermott etc alongside him to win matches and dominate world cricket.

You talk about Azhar, Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and Kambli etc. Ganguly and Dravid came into the team and were regulars only in the second half of the 90s and even then you need to remember that Dravid played his best cricket in the noughties and not nineties. He was a good player then but nowhere close to being amongst the best batsmen in the world. Laxman struggled initially when he came into the team. It was against Australia when we toured Down Under, he really flourished and that was around 2000, I think. That leaves us with Azhar, Kambli and Ganguly. All three has one major issue. They all struggled against pace and bounce, which is why leaving a few innings here and there, they never contributed outside the subcontinent. Ganguly had a great debut in England in his first series which boosts his away average by a bit. But the truth is, the best teams are the ones who not only dominate at their own yard but also also away from their home, which India never did because most of the times Sachin was the lone wolf. India's batting in nineties was famous for falling down like a pack of cards once Sachin got out and less said about the bowling attack of Prasad, Kuruvilla, Rajesh Chauhan etc the better.

You need a good balanced team to dominate world cricket and be world beaters. Something which Sachin in nineties never had.

You saw Lara as a bat single handedly keep the Windies competitive through the 90s until he couldn't do it no longer. You saw Warne take what was a pretty average "also-ran" team of the early nineties into a world beating team with help from other players and do it in all environments.

You just can't put Sachin as "the guy of the 90s" because ultimately, if you're looking for virtuoso performances then you're looking at Lara and what he did for Windies... if you're looking for pair performances, you're looking at the two W's from Pakistan and what they did throughout the 90s. If you're looking for world beaters, then you're looking at Warne/McGrath and what they did for Australia during the 90s. And Sachin did have the benefit of home conditions with a pretty good Kumble, a pretty good Harbhajan and a severely underrated Srinath.

Sachin was arguably more effective during the 00s in terms of innings that actually mattered, but I'd not actually consider him the best player of either the 90s or the 00s. The 00s, you're starting to talk about the Kallis', the Pontings, the Pollocks, the Steyns, the Warnes, the McGraths. The 90s, I'd have Waqar, Wasim, Lara, Warne as guys ahead of Sachin - not on talent, nor on pure aggregate - but on meaningful performances that lead his team to series wins.

ps, for every "Prasad, Kuruvilla, Chuahan" you talk about - I can talk about a Nixon McClean, a Scott Muller, a Brendon Julian, a Franklin Rose, a Basit Ali, a Hasan Raza... etcetera.

 

[Blocky]

I've never been a fan of the "Sachin is God" rhetoric, for the very basis that other players have had bigger impact for India in winning matches/series than Tendulkar has. Tendulkar for extended periods wasn't even the best player in his team.. I'd argue that Dravid for the better part of the early and mid 00s was the better batsman and had more innings of note ( generally tended to be "the other guy" to Laxman, Sehwag, et all during their match winning knocks) - then you had the performances of Harbhajan and Kumble to consider too.