BEst fast Bowler of 90's?

[Richard]

on a more serious note the ODi bowler of the 90's fopr me would be Geoff Allot. im sure some would agree

Geoff Allott in the 1990s
I always liked the guy myself, having seen him bowl in WC99, but I'd no idea his record was that good!
He did only play 22 games, though - not really enough to be ranked up with the best.

 

[tooextracool]

Geoff Allott in the 1990s
I always liked the guy myself, having seen him bowl in WC99, but I'd no idea his record was that good!
He did only play 22 games, though - not really enough to be ranked up with the best.

actually if you look carefully he failed miserable in every series other than the world cup.....

 

[Richard]

I did.
I've simply gone on the fact that his by-and-large terrible economy-rates were compensated for pretty well by the number of wickets.
I confess I don't know the circumstances - didn't watch any of the games, didn't even know who any non-English player outside the top 20 players or so was before WC99 - but judging by how well he bowled in WC99, I'd say it was perfectly conceivable that he took wickets through good bowling.

 

[tooextracool]

I did.
I've simply gone on the fact that his by-and-large terrible economy-rates were compensated for pretty well by the number of wickets.
I confess I don't know the circumstances - didn't watch any of the games, didn't even know who any non-English player outside the top 20 players or so was before WC99 - but judging by how well he bowled in WC99, I'd say it was perfectly conceivable that he took wickets through good bowling.

and we do know that ER is the one thats most important in ODI cricket dont we? if he was such a brilliant wicket taker, he would have ended up with a better average than 58 in test match cricket.

 

[Swervy]

Allot always struck me as being a good (and nothing more) bowler who had a moment of glory in the biggest tournament in the world of cricket..he got lucky with his timing, although he did bowl pretty well

 

[Richard]

and we do know that ER is the one thats most important in ODI cricket dont we? if he was such a brilliant wicket taker, he would have ended up with a better average than 58 in test match cricket.

I don't deny that I'm possibly a little biased in his favour because I liked watching him in WC99 so much, but really, if you take WC99 as an extension rather than an anomaly (which I don't think it's unfair to do) then his ODI-record is pretty darn good... and something close to half the total, I might add.
He was rubbish in Tests, no denying that.

 

[Richard]

Allot always struck me as being a good (and nothing more) bowler who had a moment of glory in the biggest tournament in the world of cricket..he got lucky with his timing, although he did bowl pretty well

I don't think it was "getting lucky", more being best suited to the conditions as he never was anywhere else.
It's interesting that no-one's ever described Bichel as "getting lucky" in WC2003, more typifying Australia in that a mediocre player overperformed at just the right moment.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't deny that I'm possibly a little biased in his favour because I liked watching him in WC99 so much, but really, if you take WC2003 as an extension rather than an anomaly (which I don't think it's unfair to do) then his ODI-record is pretty darn good... and something close to half the total, I might add.

err wc 2003?

 

[Swervy]

I don't think it was "getting lucky", more being best suited to the conditions as he never was anywhere else.
It's interesting that no-one's ever described Bichel as "getting lucky" in WC2003, more typifying Australia in that a mediocre player overperformed at just the right moment.

ffs Richard..I didnt mean he was a lucky bowler, I meant he did what he did at the right time to get full exposure..yeah he bowled well in the conditions, but he didnt bowl spectacularly well...so he was a lucky man to have his star shine on world wide TV, not a lucky bowler.

regarding Bichel...a different kettle of fish altogether, Bichel more of an allround player, he did brilliantly with bat and ball in the WC...i guess he was lucky to have performed (or got chosen for the team) when he did,and so in the same way as Allott was a lucky fella, but I tell you what, Bichel shone brighter in the last World Cup than Allott did in 99 by about 10 times...for me THE outstanding cricketer of the tournament

 

[Richard]

err wc 2003?

Typo. Now corrected.

 

[Richard]

regarding Bichel...a different kettle of fish altogether, Bichel more of an allround player, he did brilliantly with bat and ball in the WC...i guess he was lucky to have performed (or got chosen for the team) when he did,and so in the same way as Allott was a lucky fella, but I tell you what, Bichel shone brighter in the last World Cup than Allott did in 99 by about 10 times...for me THE outstanding cricketer of the tournament

IMO that is a perception entirely due to the fact that his team dominated the tournament.
Of course he was the outstanding cricketer of the tournament, but he was remarkably lucky that his best performance came at the biggest point in his ODI-career.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't deny that I'm possibly a little biased in his favour because I liked watching him in WC99 so much, but really, if you take WC99 as an extension rather than an anomaly (which I don't think it's unfair to do) then his ODI-record is pretty darn good... and something close to half the total, I might add.

which is ludicrous, its one series in which he succeeded, you cant look at that one series and base his entire career on it. IMO he was extremely lucky to get seamer friendly conditions in most of those games in the WC.

 

[Richard]

That's as maybe, but he'd still taken wickets in most of his ODI career before that, even if his economy-rate had been very poor.
As I say, WC99 actually formed just about half his meaningful ODI career.

 

[tooextracool]

That's as maybe, but he'd still taken wickets in most of his ODI career before that, even if his economy-rate had been very poor.
As I say, WC99 actually formed just about half his meaningful ODI career.

yet nowhere near as good as you seemed to be making him out to be....

 

[Richard]

How good was I making him out to be, exactly?
All I said was in the little cricket he played before his serious injury he actually did very well in ODIs.
I made some effort to point-out that 22 games is really not enough evidence on which to say that someone is seriously good.

 

[tooextracool]

How good was I making him out to be, exactly?
All I said was in the little cricket he played before his serious injury he actually did very well in ODIs.
I made some effort to point-out that 22 games is really not enough evidence on which to say that someone is seriously good.

He did only play 22 games, though - not really enough to be ranked up with the best..

seems to be that you were trying to say that had he played more, he would be right up there with the very best....

 

[Richard Rash]

seems to be that you were trying to say that had he played more, he would be right up there with the very best....

The perception i got was that he was saying he didn't play enough games to judge whether he would have been up there with the best.

 

[Richard]

seems to be that you were trying to say that had he played more, he would be right up there with the very best....

I think there's a chance he might have been.
But of course I cannot be anything approaching certain.

 

[tooextracool]

well given what he did outside that one series i wouldnt think anything of the sort. his test performances suggest that that average is a lot lower than what it should be IMO.

 

[Richard]

So a fair thing to say would be "Richard thinks he could have been quite good - tooextracool doesn't". Yes?