Allan Border vs Courtney Walsh

[aussie]

These are two blokes who even though they weren't in the case of Walsh the most destructive tear-away like so many of the other West Indies bowlers during a great era & Border being a hard-working & not the most elegant Australia have produced played a lot of test cricket for their respective nations with great distinction over long careers.

But how highly would they rate in the history of West Indies & Australian cricket. Would Walsh be rated above Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Hall, Roberts, Croft & would Border be rated above Chappell, Ponting, Harvey, McCabe, the Waugh brothers, Hassett, Boon, O'Neil?

What do you think?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If it's Allan Border vs Courtney Walsh as the title suggests then I would venture the opinion that Border was the better batsman and Walsh the better bowler.

 

[silentstriker]

If it's Allan Border vs Courtney Walsh as the title suggests then I would venture the opinion that Border was the better batsman and Walsh the better bowler.

The other way around for me, mate.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Border was marginally the better batsman. But only because he's an Aussie.

 

[silentstriker]

Border was marginally the better batsman. But only because he's an Aussie.

Bias, I say. I saw Walsh bat, it was poetry in action (Greek tragedy).

 

[aussie]

maybe i should have named the thread something else, since i think you people are missing the idea of the thread.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Would Walsh be rated above Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Hall, Roberts, Croft

No to all except for Croft and equal consideration with Hall IMO.

Walsh was a thinking bowler. As evidenced by his legendary slower ball.

would Border be rated above Chappell, Ponting, Harvey, McCabe, the Waugh brothers, Hassett, Boon, O'Neil?

What do you think?

He would be above a couple of those for sure. Mark Waugh and Boon at the very least IMO.

 

[Anil]

But how highly would they rate in the history of West Indies & Australian cricket. Would Walsh be rated above Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Hall, Roberts, Croft & would Border be rated above Chappell, Ponting, Harvey, McCabe, the Waugh brothers, Hassett, Boon, O'Neil?

What do you think?

i wouldn't rate walsh above any of the listed except croft, as for border, for me he would rate above everyone mentioned except chappell.....ponting and steve waugh would follow him in my list...the others are not in the same category....

 

[bagapath]

Here are my rankings of the players you've listed.

West Indian Bowlers

marshall
ambrose
holding
garner
hall
roberts
walsh
croft

Australian Batsmen

Greg Chappell
Border
Ponting
Steve Waugh
Harvey
McCabe
Hassett
Boon
O'Neil
Mark Waugh

This probably what anil had in mind too

 

[shortpitched713]

Out of the West Indian bowlers:
Marshall
Garner/Holding
Ambrose
Walsh/Roberts
Croft
Haven't heard or seen enough of Hall to make a judgement.

Australian batsmen:
G Chappel
Border/S Waugh
Ponting
Harvey
M Waugh
Boon
Haven't heard or seen enough of McCabe, Hasset, or O'Neil to make a judgement.

 

[Beleg]

Walsh is very under-rated on this forum.


WI quicks:

1. Marshall
2. Ambrose
3. Garner
4. Walsh
5. Holding
6. Roberts
7. Hall
8. Croft

Aussie batters:

1. Bradders
2. Chappell
3. Border
4. Victor Trumper
5. Neil Harvey
6. Steve Waugh
7. Ricky Ponting
8. David Boon
9. Clem Hill
10. Justin Langer
11. Matt Hayden
12. Mark Waugh

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Roberts > Walsh.

 

[oz_fan]

WI Fast Bowlers
1.Marshall
2.Ambrose
3.Holding
4.Garner
5.Walsh
6.Roberts
7.Hall
8.Croft

Aussie Batsmen
1.Bradman
2.G. Chappell
3.S. Waugh
4.Border
5.Ponting
6.Harvey
7.Trumper
8.Hassett/McCabe

 

[silentstriker]

No to all except for Croft and equal consideration with Hall IMO.

Walsh was a thinking bowler. As evidenced by his legendary slower ball.

You say thinking bowler as if its a bad thing. I agree that Walsh is way underrated in this forum.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

maybe i should have named the thread something else, since i think you people are missing the idea of the thread.

I think that's what is known as a sharp attack of dramatic irony. You should have called it Kramer VS Kramer.

But anyway, Walsh would only have been a fourth seamer had Marshall, Holding and Roberts all been available at the same time. For much of his career, particularly towards the end, he had only one world class seamer with him. Hence he bowled more and took more wickets than he might have done had he been 10 years younger.
Border wasn't in the same class as the other players mentioned but made the most of his limitations and of course as captain laid the foundations for the period of dominance.

 

[aussie]

I personally think for Australian batsmen Ponting & Harvey would be rated above Border to round up the top 5 Australian batsmen ever after Bradman, Chappell & S Waugh.

 

[Arjun]

They're both very under-rated. While we hear of all the various debates about Lara and Tendulkar, we don't see Border's name come up too often.

Walsh, to some, was never a match-winner, but more a workhorse, while batting sides feared Ambrose a lot more. The strength he had, apart from his build, may be how long he lasted, since he's played over 100 Tests, and picked up 519 wickets at a good average, but the strike rate wasn't too impressive.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You say thinking bowler as if its a bad thing. I agree that Walsh is way underrated in this forum.

In what way does that imply that it's a bad thing? I just mean that taking wickets didn't come as naturally to him as an Ambrose or a Holding. If you were around this forum for longer, you'd know that I was always a huge fan of Courtney Walsh. He was the best bowler in the world when he retired IMO, and at 38 (?) that's quite an achievement.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

WI Fast Bowlers
1.Marshall
2.Ambrose
3.Holding
4.Garner
5.Walsh
6.Roberts
7.Hall
8.Croft

Roberts is clearly under-rated on this forum too.

 

[shortpitched713]

Roberts > Walsh.

I don't see how you can make that assessment. Walsh has taken more than twice as many wickets, at a better average and a similar strike rate. Although I agree that Roberts was probably the more naturally talented bowler, I don't think that should count for everything. You seem to be holding Walsh's workhorse characterization against him, which is just baffling to me.