The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[bagapath]

You can fight til death all you want but Ambrose is easily a top 10 greatest fast bowler. Alan Border is not that as far as batsmen are concerned. Walsh is comfortably a greater bowler than Botham or Kapil, it's not close. Statistically, there isnt much to choose between a Wasim akram and Walsh. The only real hole in Walsh's resume, is his away record to Australia. That's it. Afaic, Walsh is closer to the Wasim and Co's level of greatness than the Kapil level of good bowlers. I don't know you people keep insulting great players like Walsh and Pollock by lumping them in with the likes of Kapil or ntini or whoever....

Would love to know your take on the Botham vs Walsh equation also. 27 five-fers and 4 ten fers and so so so many matchwinning spells versus very little one could recall.

Agree that Ambrose is top 10 and Border is probably not. But that is more to do with the fact that the top 10/20 bowlers list is easily more definable and that the top 10/20 batsmen argument becomes more complicated after top 8 places, probably. too many great batsmen on the same plane.

My take is this...

Ambrose was great everywhere and was the most feared bowler in the world for about ten years (88-98) when his team was dominating the world or sliding down the ladder. He was the match winner who produced match turning/ series defining iconic performances regularly. Border was the most respected middle order bat for a similar duration when his team was struggling back to primacy or when it neared the top of the tree. He produced iconic performances that defined matches and series regularly all around the globe.

One averaged 20 with the ball despite stiff competition from within his team and another averaged 50 with the bat when he was the lone gun in his team for a long time and when it was a difficult for the batsmen in general. For me both are A+ category players who could not be split. Walsh for me was a rung lower. More VVS Laxman or Mahela than a Dravid or Sanga or Border.

 

[Burgey]

I love you, bagapath

 

[Coronis]

U ****ing wot m8?

You missed Red Hill claiming Miller was on Border’s level as a batsman a few pages back mate.

 

[Burgey]

You’d have to have suffered a cerebral event to think that ffs, and I’m a Nugget fan.

 

[Slifer]

Would love to know your take on the Botham vs Walsh equation also. 27 five-fers and 4 ten fers and so so so many matchwinning spells versus very little one could recall.

Agree that Ambrose is top 10 and Border is probably not. But that is more to do with the top 10/20 bowlers list is easily more definable and the top 10/20 batsmen argument becomes more complicated after top 8 places, probably. too many great batsmen on the same plane.

My take is this...

Ambrose was great everywhere and was the most feared bowler in the world for about ten years (88-98) when his team was dominating the world or sliding down the ladder. He was the match winner who produced match turning/ series defining iconic performances regularly. Border was the most respected middle order bat for a similar duration when his team was struggling back to primacy or when it neared the top of the tree. He produced iconic performances that defined matches and series regularly all around the globe.

One averaged 20 with the ball despite stiff competition from within his team and another averaged 50 with the bat when he was the lone gun in his team for a long time and when it was a difficult for the batsmen in general. For me both are A+ category players who could not be split. Walsh for me was a rung lower. More VVS Laxman or Mahela than a Dravid or Sanga or Border.

My take on Walsh vs the likes of Botham is very simple. Botham was a good bowler, while Walsh was a great. For goodness sakes Walsh averaged something like 21 and 18 or so in Pakistan and India respectively. And not against any scrub batting lineups either. You might not recall many of Walsh's spells but thats probably because you don't follow WI as much as I do. And clearly west Indians don't really frequent this board. For example, along with Adams, Walsh was a one man army in India in 94 when we should've lost that series. He single handedly ended the promising career of vinod kambli. Then there's the one off test vs rsa just after readmission where again him and Amby won us that test in Barbados where we had no business winning. Series wise, people remember the 99 Australia series rightfully for Lara's performance, but walsh also put in a herculean effort vs an atg in capturing 26 wickets in 4 tests. Botham never did anything similar vs the atg team of his time. Again, the only hole in Walsh's resume is his away record to Australia. It's interesting to see people get bent out of shape with the mere mention of Border being equal to Walsh the bowler. And then you lot go on and compare Walsh to Kapil or zaheer or laxman (????). Walsh I agree is a rung below say Ambrose and Garner but not in the same bracket as merely good bowlers like kapil.


Afaic

1. Atg: Donald, Steyn, Ambrose, MM, McGrath, Lillee, Imran, Trueman, Hadlee,
2. Atg: lindwall, davidson, waqar, wasim, holding, garner, pollock s., etc
3. Great: walsh, Roberts, statham, bedser, fazal, Miller, Wllis, Snow (?), pollock p, etc

The rest. The likes of Botham, Vaas, Dev, Gillespie, are very good bowlers but a definitive rung below the truly great.

 

[trundler]

Ambrose was as good as McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn or Marshall. Border was clearly not as good as Tendulkar, Lara, Richards or Hammond. Case closed. Border probably more of a Lillee equivalent in that he was a clear rung or 2 below the absolute best.

 

[Burgey]

Stop, child. You’re embarrassing yourself

 

[Slifer]

U ****ing wot m8?

I fail to see the issue. Don't recall who it was but a few pages ago someone mentioned 20 fast bowlers greater than Walsh. That's disputable. I just happened to use a similar analogy with border. Where was this outrage when walsh was bracketed with frigging zaheer Khan or Ntini...

 

[trundler]

Stop, child. You’re embarrassing yourself

Yet a grown man triggered by others not sucking up to his childhood hero as much as him isn't

 

[Burgey]

Slifer, I didn’t read back through the thread ffs. If people want my opinion on things (and they should tbh) they need to ask directly and with the appropriate respect.

If some idiot brackets Walsh with Zaheer Khan the chances are they’re already an object of my ridicule, or I just scroll past their posts because they’re invariably *********.

 

[trundler]

Slifer, I didn’t read back through the thread ffs. If people want my opinion on things (and they should tbh) they need to ask directly and with the appropriate respect.

If some idiot brackets Walsh with Zaheer Khan the chances are they’re already an object of my ridicule, or I just scroll past their posts because they’re invariably *********.

I love you, bagapath

Tsk tsk tsk

 

[h_hurricane]

My take on Walsh vs the likes of Botham is very simple. Botham was a good bowler, while Walsh was a great. For goodness sakes Walsh averaged something like 21 and 18 or so in Pakistan and India respectively. And not against any scrub batting lineups either. You might not recall many of Walsh's spells but thats probably because you don't follow WI as much as I do. And clearly west Indians don't really frequent this board. For example, along with Adams, Walsh was a one man army in India in 94 when we should've lost that series. He single handedly ended the promising career of vinod kambli. Then there's the one off test vs rsa just after readmission where again him and Amby won us that test in Barbados where we had no business winning. Series wise, people remember the 99 Australia series rightfully for Lara's performance, but walsh also put in a herculean effort vs an atg in capturing 26 wickets in 4 tests. Botham never did anything similar vs the atg team of his time. Again, the only hole in Walsh's resume is his away record to Australia. It's interesting to see people get bent out of shape with the mere mention of Border being equal to Walsh the bowler. And then you lot go on and compare Walsh to Kapil or zaheer or laxman (????). Walsh I agree is a rung below say Ambrose and Garner but not in the same bracket as merely good bowlers like kapil.


Afaic

1. Atg: Donald, Steyn, Ambrose, MM, McGrath, Lillee, Imran, Trueman, Hadlee,
2. Atg: lindwall, davidson, waqar, wasim, holding, garner, pollock s., etc
3. Great: walsh, Roberts, statham, bedser, fazal, Miller, Wllis, Snow (?), pollock p, etc

The rest. The likes of Botham, Vaas, Dev, Gillespie, are very good bowlers but a definitive rung below the truly great.

Do agree completely. It is a joke to say Botham was a better bowler than Walsh. Number of 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls is such a poor metric to compare 2 players if that is the only metric used.

 

[Burgey]

You need to have a laxative or something dude. It's not that serious. All the profanity really isn't necessary. And FWIW, I respect the hell out of Border and the way he restored Australia in the 90s. I have a similar appreciation for Walsh; being the last of the truly great WI fast bowlers.

Yeah he was a stalwart and at the same time a lot more than just that.

 

[h_hurricane]

Tsk tsk tsk

fwiw, it was Stephen who bracketed Walsh with Zaheer.

 

[Burgey]

Genuinely surprised to find Trundler got something like that wrong.

 

[trundler]

Apparently Stephen started it by grouping Walsh and Zaheer together then Bagapath lumped Walsh and Ntini together in an attempt to correct that error but that didn't work either

 

[Burgey]

Well, best laid plans and all that. I once lumped Tendulkar in as an equal to Border as a batsman (never as a human or as a cricketer, obviously). We all make mistakes

 

[bagapath]

Botham was a bigger match winner as a bowler than most other greats including Walsh. Of course I followed west indies cricket - and international test cricket of that era - as diligently as any true cricket fan.

and it is silly to bunch zaheer and walsh in the same group. one was merely mid-range good and the other was at the bottom pile of greatness.

if border is selected in any all-time first xi as a middle order bat replacing either richards or tendulkar or lara (bradman at 3 and sobers at 6 definite locks) I wont mind it.

that's my take. and i can live with it.
so can you with yours, i am sure.

 

[Slifer]

Botham was a bigger match winner as a bowler than most other greats including Walsh. Of course I followed west indies cricket - and international test cricket of that era - as diligently as any true cricket fan.

and it is silly to bunch zaheer and walsh in the same group. one was merely mid-range good and the other was at the bottom pile of greatness.

if border is selected in any all-time first xi as a middle order bat replacing either richards or tendulkar or lara (bradman at 3 and sobers at 6 definite locks) I wont mind it.

that's my take. and i can live with it.
so can you with yours, i am sure.

Botham being more of a match winner than Walsh as purely bowlers is highly debatable. What's not debatable is that Walsh > Botham. Walsh was never ever going to stand out as a fast bowler considering his west Indian contemporaries. The rest of your post is reasonable so I take no issue with the rest of what you wrote. Cheers!

 

[h_hurricane]

CW has gone insane in the last few pages.

Miller = Border as a batsman
Zaheer=Walsh
Botham > Walsh as a bowler

Eagerly awaiting to hear someone rate Aamir Sohail as Javed Miandad's equivalent with the bat.