• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
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.
I'm unsure if Wasim ran through a quality top order more times than Ambrose did in the 90s. I can look at that when I have more time, but I highly doubt it.

Edit: Almost all of 22 5-wicket hauls of Ambrose include a bulk of quality top order wickets. I'm not sure that the same can be said about Wasim.
 
Last edited:

Saint Kopite

First Class Debutant
Is it because of a case of national myopia?
:D

Like I said, even though I love him and consider him the best batsman in modern era, I would have no issues with someone picking Lara over him because the difference betwee them is negligible. But, I agree that some of his supporters overdo it.
 

cnerd123

likes this
I love how OS is defending Sachin in the thread that has nothing to do with him, but bashing Sachin in the thread about his autobiography.
 

Saint Kopite

First Class Debutant
To me, one of the best things about Tendulkar's career is how he adjusted his game after he got old and recovered from a career-threatening injury. I have a lot of respect for Tendulkar of 2007-2010. This is something that even greats like Viv Richards didn't manage (or didn't even bother about).
Yes. That phase in terms of performances and the way he batted was remarkable to see. If you might remember, there were talks about how he should retire after the 2007 WC debacle since he wasn't in great form for a year or so. But the way he fought back after that and performed, which was one of his best stretches in his career was awesome. That century against am unstoppable Steyn in Centurion was brilliant.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Just because I :wub: him doesn't mean I can't call him out on, what I believe, are lies
Well calling it a lie is debatable...in his eyes he may not have been tampering, and might have felt what he did was within the law. Maybe that's how he was taught to pick grass out of the seams as a kid. So while he is wrong, he isn't really lying as he is speaking the truth as it is to him.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Yes. That phase in terms of performances and the way he batted was remarkable to see. If you might remember, there were talks about how he should retire after the 2007 WC debacle since he wasn't in great form for a year or so. But the way he fought back after that and performed, which was one of his best stretches in his career was awesome. That century against am unstoppable Steyn in Centurion was brilliant.
His Cape Town century during that series was great too.

That entire series was one of India's best away series ever, even though we didn't win it.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Having watched cricket in the 90s, I can safely say that the two best bowlers were Wasim and Ambrose. Wasim was pretty much consistent throughout the whole decade, always a threat, and performed against everyone. Ambrose in the first half of the 90s was devastating, but the next half of the decade he was somewhat less intimidatory. There's a reason all the Aussies in the Taylor/Waugh teams rated these two above all. There was an intangible quality that set them apart. Donald wasnt far behind but wasnt the same threat against the Aussies, while McGrath only came good post-95.

Waqar was a bowler I loved to watch. However, I'm going to say something unpopular here. His terrific run in the early 90s is somewhat overrated. Yes, the stats are great, but a lot of the teams he faced were subpar quality. And during that same period, Akram was still rated the better bowler. Waqar at that time was a pretty poor new ball bowler, would spray it around, and comes back with his reverse swing to clean up later in the innings and his figures ended up looking pretty. This is exactly what happened against WI when he visited in 93.

To me, the best run by any fast bowler would have to be Imran Khan in the early 80s, when he did it all against high quality opposition with equal efficiency of new and old ball at high pace.
 
Last edited:

SAURABH BAHUGUN

Cricket Spectator
WAQAR match winner

the early 90s is somewhat overrated. Yes, the stats are great, but a lot of the teams he faced were subpar quality. And during that same period, Akram was still rated the better bowler. Waqar at that time was a pretty poor new ball bowler, would spray it around, and comes back with his reverse swing to clean up later in the innings and his figures ended up looking pretty. This is exactly what happened against WI when he visited in 93.

To me, the best run by any fast bowler would have to be Imran Khan in the early 80s, when he did it all against high quality opposition with equal efficiency of new and old ball at high pace.[/QUOTE]

WAQAR younis was the biggest match winner in 1990s.I have seen him win matches from impossible situations.As far as ratings are concerned he was at number 1 position in icc 1995 ratings ahead of Curtly Ambrose and wasim akram.
 

SAURABH BAHUGUN

Cricket Spectator
Wasim akram no doubt was a great fast bowler.Because he used to rely on swing and variety that is why his form with the ball never dropped a lot.However WAQAR YOUNIS USED TO RELY MORE ON PACE and he was the fastest bowler from 1990 to 1996 in the world.Hence when he lost pace in 2000s his form dropped.However at peak in 90s no other bowler could match Waqar younis.His pace ,accuracy, yorkers made him nightmare of all the batsmen.Above all he is the biggest match winner i have seen.used to win matches for Pakistan from impossible situations Also heis the first bowler to make bowling so popular.He was also the greatest superstar of cricket in 90s.Before him only the batsmen were real stars.He became a phenomena .
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Wasim akram no doubt was a great fast bowler.Because he used to rely on swing and variety that is why his form with the ball never dropped a lot.However WAQAR YOUNIS USED TO RELY MORE ON PACE and he was the fastest bowler from 1990 to 1996 in the world.Hence when he lost pace in 2000s his form dropped.However at peak in 90s no other bowler could match Waqar younis.His pace ,accuracy, yorkers made him nightmare of all the batsmen.Above all he is the biggest match winner i have seen.used to win matches for Pakistan from impossible situations Also heis the first bowler to make bowling so popular.He was also the greatest superstar of cricket in 90s.Before him only the batsmen were real stars.He became a phenomena .
Unarguable.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
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)
Dude - Gough, Fraser and Dean Headley??? C'mon

Also any list that doesn't start with

1. Ambrose
2. McGrath

is wrong from the get go.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Dude - Gough, Fraser and Dean Headley??? C'mon

Also any list that doesn't start with

1. Ambrose
2. McGrath

is wrong from the get go.
McGrath was any good for only half of the decade.

I don't rate the English bowlers as highly as the 14 I listed.
 

cnerd123

likes this
McGrath was any good for only half of the decade.

I don't rate the English bowlers as highly as the 14 I listed.
I'm pretty sure the forum rules state that you can't say you rate/don't rate a player/players without explaining yourself.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Lol, my 14 are:

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
11. Fannie De Villiers
12. Chaminda Vaas
13. Javagal Srinath
14. Dion Nash

I'm ready to hear an impeccable justification regarding why a 90s English bowler was definitely better than any of the above. Comparable? Yes. Definitely better than one of the above? No.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Donald v Akram

Donald's only weakness is his average in Aus. However, he did have a great series in 97/98 during the period Australia were at their best.

Akram was poorer to Donald comparatively in England, India (where Donald was amazing) and West Indies.

I am tending towards Donald. The way he used to bowl in India wins it for me. In 4 tests, he has 17 test wickets at an average of 16. Akram had 27 in 8 tests at an average of 27. Even in ODIs Akram averages close to 30 in India while Donald averages a bit less than 20.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Donald hurt us more than any other bowler in the 90s, for sure.

However, not to this extent

Donald v Akram
I am tending towards Donald. The way he used to bowl in India wins it for me. In 4 tests, he has 40 test wickets at an average of 16. Akram had 27 in 8 tests at an average of 27. Even in ODIs Akram averages close to 30 in India while Donald averages a bit less than 20.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
^^^
Thanks, edited.

Re Strike Rates v Economy Rates and Ambrose v Donald v Akram

Strike rates are important for bowlers. If you have a worse strike rate and are economical, the batsmen have more of a chance to see you off and make runs off less bowlers.

Donald - 47.00
Ambrose - 54.50
Akram - 54.60

An amazing aspect I find is the strike rates of Donald and Akram in Asia. Given the flat wickets, you would think it would be signifcantly higher than the strike rates outside Asia.

Donald - 48.50 (under 50!)
Ambrose - 56.00 (only 6 tests)
Akram - 52.40 (Better than outside Asia!)
 
Last edited:

Top