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

[Richard]

Lets look at their records as openers, is there anyway to do that ?

Nope, none whatsoever. How for instance to you define "as openers"? The first spell? No way to clock that, not without going through every scoresheet, which only the priveledged will be able to do.

 

[Ilovecric]

Nope, none whatsoever. How for instance to you define "as openers"? The first spell? No way to clock that, not without going through every scoresheet, which only the priveledged will be able to do.

There would have to be comparison of the first 10 overs in the games in which the bowlers listed here bowled together - wickets, runs etc..


I'm pretty sure walsh and ambrose were the most econ of the group.

 

[MrIncredible]

Of course he was. And Ambrose and Walsh were clearly better than Wasim and Waqar at that point.

Nonetheless, the best of Waqar >>>>>> the best of Walsh.

Thats not what we're debating. We're debating the best new ball pairs of the late 90s/early 00s and in this period Walsh was decidedly better. Give it up man

 

[Furball]

Nope, none whatsoever. How for instance to you define "as openers"? The first spell? No way to clock that, not without going through every scoresheet, which only the priveledged will be able to do.

Can do it quite easily on Statsguru. Here's the respective records of Donald and Pollock:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Furball]

Ambrose and Walsh:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Furball]

Wasim and Waqar:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[stephen]

Statistically that would make Ambrose and Walsh the best.

 

[MrIncredible]

Effectively as well. Which is y i now regret not reading the entire title b4 voting. Overall as a new ball pair Imo: WW>Pollock/Donald>= Amby/Walsh>=Mcgrath/Dizzy

 

[aussie]

Talking about bowling combo's, two great bowling combo's who didn't get to play together for different reasons where Le Roux/Van Der Bijl & Hall/Gilchrist.

For the WI team under Sir Frank Worrell circa 1960-163. If Gilchrist had toured AUS 60/61 to partner Hall, WI could have won. A team of that period could have been something like:

Hunte
Carew (whoever else)
Kanhai
Sobers
Butcher
Worrell
Alexander
Hall
Griffith
Gilchrist
Gibbs

Just BANGGG!!

 

[Debris]

Ambrose and Walsh for me. This is probably mostly based on performances involving Australia so there may be some bias. And yes, I read the original post.

 

[Ilovecric]

Ambrose kept the pressure on and Walsh took most of the wickets, even striking faster during that period.

Well Walsh is given the respect in West Indies quarters and that may be the only place it matters and actually mean something. Really sad to see the AUS pair getting more votes.

 

[Himannv]

I'll give it to Wasim and Waqar due to the mid nineties era. Donald and Pollock were pretty good, as were Walsh and Ambrose. Some serious quality pace duos.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ambrose and Walsh for mine. Consistently threatening, and always seemed at the top of their game.

 

[zaremba]

Great statsguru work, Ginge. I'm really surprised to see how good Walsh was during that period.

So statistically it looks like there's nothing really between Donald/Pollock and Ambrose/Walsh in that period. So it comes down purely to personal preference, aesthetics, bias etc. For me, Ambrose was the greatest of those 4 bowlers. But Donald was the best to watch, and Pollock was awesome in his bounce, awkwardness, accuracy and ability to get lateral movement (plus it's hard to eliminate his batting entirely from one's assessment).

 

[pskov]

This isn't exact as I can't find a way to only select matches where both players took the new ball, so the below stats are a bit rough but are generally only a few matches off so I think give a generally good reflection. Fwiw I have taken late 90s as starting in 1996 and early 00s up until 2004.

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 in matches from 1996 until Ambrose retired

CA Walsh - 38 matches, 168 wickets @ 22.04, 9 fivefors, 1 tenfor
CEL Ambrose - 37 matches, 136 wickets @ 20.55, 8 fivefors

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 in matches where Gillespie bowled in position 1 or 2 from 1996 until 2004

GD McGrath - 52 matches, 235 wickets @ 20.67, 13 fivefors, 1 tenfor
JN Gillespie - 53 matches, 197 wickets @ 25.26, 5 fivefors

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 from 1996 until Donald retired

AA Donald - 49 matches, 226 wickets @ 20.46, 15 5wi, 1 10wm
SM Pollock - 44 matches, 165 wickets @ 22.12, 7 5wi, 0 10wm

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 from 1996 until Wasim Akram retired not including Shoaib Akhtar

Wasim Akram - 27 matches, 98 wickets @ 23.39, 5 5wi, 2 10wm
Waqar Younis - 27 matches, 96 wickets @ 27.52, 1 5wi, 0 10wm

Edit: I should read the thread first , just seen Ginge has been statsguruing this also. Could've saved myself 45 mins or so of my life.

 

[stephen]

This isn't exact as I can't find a way to only select matches where both players took the new ball, so the below stats are a bit rough but are generally only a few matches off so I think give a generally good reflection. Fwiw I have taken late 90s as starting in 1996 and early 00s up until 2004.

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 in matches from 1996 until Ambrose retired

CA Walsh - 38 matches, 168 wickets @ 22.04, 9 fivefors, 1 tenfor
CEL Ambrose - 37 matches, 136 wickets @ 20.55, 8 fivefors

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 in matches where Gillespie bowled in position 1 or 2 from 1996 until 2004

GD McGrath - 52 matches, 235 wickets @ 20.67, 13 fivefors, 1 tenfor
JN Gillespie - 53 matches, 197 wickets @ 25.26, 5 fivefors

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 from 1996 until Donald retired

AA Donald - 49 matches, 226 wickets @ 20.46, 15 5wi, 1 10wm
SM Pollock - 44 matches, 165 wickets @ 22.12, 7 5wi, 0 10wm

Stats for bowlers in position 1 or 2 from 1996 until Wasim Akram retired not including Shoaib Akhtar

Wasim Akram - 27 matches, 98 wickets @ 23.39, 5 5wi, 2 10wm
Waqar Younis - 27 matches, 96 wickets @ 27.52, 1 5wi, 0 10wm

Edit: I should read the thread first , just seen Ginge has been statsguruing this also. Could've saved myself 45 mins or so of my life.

This makes it even more obvious who the winners should be.

People forget how good Walsh was, especially towards the end of his career. People also forget how much of a wrecking ball Ambrose was, right the way throughout his career. The finest opening ball partnership of the late 90s by a small but clear margin IMO.

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.

 

[aussie]

Regardless of those stats. Still can't see how anyone can say with absolutely certaintly who was the best attack at their respective "peaks" as combo IMO.

Put any of those attacks on a bowler friendly wicket & they would be equally destructive to any batting line-up.

 

[Ikki]

Great statsguru work, Ginge. I'm really surprised to see how good Walsh was during that period.

So statistically it looks like there's nothing really between Donald/Pollock and Ambrose/Walsh in that period. So it comes down purely to personal preference, aesthetics, bias etc. For me, Ambrose was the greatest of those 4 bowlers. But Donald was the best to watch, and Pollock was awesome in his bounce, awkwardness, accuracy and ability to get lateral movement (plus it's hard to eliminate his batting entirely from one's assessment).

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.

 

[Richard]

Thats not what we're debating. We're debating the best new ball pairs of the late 90s/early 00s and in this period Walsh was decidedly better. Give it up man

That's not actually all I'm debating, some of my posts are equable to ratio decendi, some to obiter dictum. Yes, at the time in question Ambrose and Walsh >>> Wasim and Waqar, no disputing that.

 

[Richard]

Ambrose kept the pressure on and Walsh took most of the wickets, even striking faster during that period.

Often it was the other way around. Walsh was often the man who banged the ball into the middle of the pitch (which causes pressure to some batsmen) and Ambrose was the one who bowled the "in between length" and picked-up the wickets. Hence for most of their careers Walsh's bowling-average was about 6 runs higher than Ambrose's.

Both of them could have taken wickets at a faster rate if they'd bowled a little differently.