• 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.

Shaun Pollock vs Courtney Walsh

Who is the better bowler?

  • Total voters
    16
R

reyrey

U19 Captain
Pollock was excellent for the first half and a bit of his career and then faded.

Walsh was better for longer. He had 2 peaks, early 90sish when he was scary fast and then a 2nd peak towards the end of his career. That clinches for me.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
reyrey said:
Pollock was excellent for the first half and a bit of his career and then faded.

Walsh was better for longer. He had 2 peaks, early 90sish when he was scary fast and then a 2nd peak towards the end of his career. That clinches for me.
Click to expand...
No. Walsh was pretty much vacillating between great to goodish for most of his career and was only consistently worldclass 97 onwards for a sustained peak.

Pollock's first 76 tests he took 300 plus wickets @20 before a sharp decline.

Pollock was as worldclass for a sustained long period which gives him the edge for me.
 
R

reyrey

U19 Captain
subshakerz said:
No. Walsh was pretty much vacillating between great to goodish for most of his career and was only consistently worldclass 97 onwards for a sustained peak.

Pollock's first 76 tests he took 300 plus wickets @20 before a sharp decline.

Pollock was as worldclass for a sustained long period which gives him the edge for me.
Click to expand...
You're mostly just saying the same things I said, albeit coming to a different conclusion.

Walsh was excellent around 89, 90, 91, 92 Averaged low 20s and was rapid.

Also factor in that Walsh had a 16.5 year Test career vs Pollacks 12. Walsh also wasn't a new ball bowler for half his career, Pollock was for like 90% of his. Walsh undoubtedly would have better numbers if he had the new ball (not playing 3rd or 4th fiddle) more often.
 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
reyrey said:
You're mostly just saying the same things I said, albeit coming to a different conclusion.

Walsh was excellent around 89, 90, 91, 92 Averaged low 20s and was rapid.
Click to expand...
Walsh averaged 20, 23, 28 and 25 in those years. He just wasn't consistent until 97 though if you collect his good years they may seem more .

reyrey said:
Also factor in that Walsh had a 16.5 year Test career vs Pollacks 12. Walsh also wasn't a new ball bowler for half his career, Pollock was for like 90% of his. Walsh undoubtedly would have better numbers if he had the new ball (not playing 3rd or 4th fiddle) more often.
Click to expand...
Walshs best numbers were from his non-new ball days except the end. Tells me he was mostly benefitting from the pressure of others though he was very good.

Pollock in those early years succeeded basically everywhere, including a good series in Aus where Walsh faltered, and across the SC. And it was a longish peak. I prefer that long stretch to scattered years and a strong end.
 
R

reyrey

U19 Captain
subshakerz said:
Walsh averaged 20, 23, 28 and 25 in those years. He just wasn't consistent until 97 though if you collect his good years they may seem more .


Walshs best numbers were from his non-new ball days except the end. Tells me he was mostly benefitting from the pressure of others though he was very good.

Pollock in those early years succeeded basically everywhere, including a good series in Aus where Walsh faltered, and across the SC. And it was a longish peak. I prefer that long stretch to scattered years and a strong end.
Click to expand...

Not being the 1st or 2nd pace bowler in the team typically means you don't get to bowl much on bowling friendly pitches and/or against weak batting line ups. The new ball pair take a bunch of wickets and will insist on bowling longer spells and then coming back on sooner if there are a few easy wickets left to take.

3rd and 4th pace bowlers tend to miss out on a lot of these easier wickets.

I wouldn't disagree on Pollock having a higher peak though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top