Best new ball pair late 90's/early 00's

[Richard]

EDIT: Oops, misread the Donald/Pollock statistics. However, I still believe that they weren't as good as the WIndies bowlers. Particularly after reading Tugga's autobiography.

As I've said before when you mentioned Waugh's book, Ambrose (slightly less so Walsh) were generally impossible to get on top of, whereas with Donald (less so Pollock) you could do it under the right circumstances. Nonetheless, the SAfrican pair were generally more of a threat with new ball (and often old as well) than the WIndian one, and that IMO accounts for why Waugh's book shouldn't be seen as anything much in comparing the two.

 

[stephen]

As I've said before when you mentioned Waugh's book, Ambrose (slightly less so Walsh) were generally impossible to get on top of, whereas with Donald (less so Pollock) you could do it under the right circumstances. Nonetheless, the SAfrican pair were generally more of a threat with new ball (and often old as well) than the WIndian one, and that IMO accounts for why Waugh's book shouldn't be seen as anything much in comparing the two.

Either way, I just wish we had new ball pairs of this callibre around the world today.

Most sides would be lucky to field two bowlers who averaged under 30, let alone averaging near 20 like these 4 combinations did.

 

[DaRick]

I accidentally picked McGrath and Gillespie.

Seriously though, Wasim and Waqar were more lethal in the mid-1990's (and even then Waqar had peaked before) than afterwards. Donald and Pollock was a seriously formidable new-ball pair who bowled together regularly, as were Ambrose and Walsh (even though both were aging). McGrath and Gillespie were dangerous when they bowled together, but Gillespie was injured far too often in the late 1990's for the duo to become a significant new ball pairing. It was McGrath/Fleming, McGrath/Lee, more so than McGrath/Gillespie.

 

[zaremba]

You mean, except for Donald striking some 8 balls faster than Walsh.

So, the stats show it too. Donald and Pollock. The lowest averages and SRs.

Whoah, calm down. I picked Donald and Pollock.

All I was saying is that the stats show that Walsh and Ambrose were a better combination at that late stage than I had realised. In particular Walsh's figures surprised me - I've never been under any illusions as to what a great bowler Ambrose was.

 

[Richard]

For the last 3 years or so of their careers, Walsh was arguably a better bowler than Ambrose. Think his average was still about 1 run higher if you take 1997/98-2001 (1997/98-2000 in Ambrose's case as he retired a year earlier) but certainly Walsh seemed to have more at his disposal at the end of their careers. Ambrose was pretty much the same bowler throughout his career except that he became merely fast-medium in his last 2-3 years having been fast for the previous ~10; Walsh though developed immeasurably, along with slowing down as Ambrose did. I'd say at the end of their careers Walsh had more tricks up his sleeve than Ambrose; for much of their careers they were both pretty one-dimensional (as I said earlier, Walsh would bang it in halfway down loads, Ambrose would bowl the in-between length and nick them off) but they did what they did damn well; Walsh by the end of his career had complete control and disguise of the ball that went in (which was always his stock-ball) and the one that held up and went the other way.

 

[zaremba]

I'm a bit biased against Walsh because, to my eyes, he had such an awkward and ugly action. Which I don't think can be said of any of the rest of this lot, some of whom were among the mist watchable fast bowlers that can ever have played the game.

Plus I didn't much care for his bouncer onslaught against Devon Malcolm in the 1990s. I'm not a great fan of intimidatory bowling against really poor tailenders and that was a particularly nasty example.

 

[Richard]

Oh yeah that was horrific, though it's funny how his spell at Malcolm in 1994 gains notoreity while Kenneth Benjamin's, every bit as bad though not aimed specifically at one tailender, is barely remembered.

As for Walsh's ugly action, sure it made him less watchable, but it made him more difficult to face than a classic Holding\Donald action.

 

[Ikki]

Whoah, calm down. I picked Donald and Pollock.

All I was saying is that the stats show that Walsh and Ambrose were a better combination at that late stage than I had realised. In particular Walsh's figures surprised me - I've never been under any illusions as to what a great bowler Ambrose was.

Wasn't jumping on you mate, just pointing it out.