Is Walsh underrated?

[Avada Kedavra]

My point was that some people in this thread dismissed him because of his average and I pointed out his average was only 0.52 higher than Lillee's. You cant discarde Walsh because of his average.

Or his SR.His record is up there with the best.,...

 

[zaremba]

Devon should have tried to do the same, aim for the head, not the stumps of Walsh when he got the ball. Devon was not that slow either. Brett Lee did some exhibition "aim for the head" bowling in Ashes some time back.

Yeah and so did Jimmy Anderson against Chris Martin a couple of years back. This is not OK, regardless of who the perpetrator is.. If "the Spirit of Cricket" means anything at all, it must surely mean refraining from launching a barrage of bouncers against rank tailenders who are unable to defend themselves.

Rant over

 

[GotSpin]

They have helmets now. Don't see the problem.

 

[vcs]

I don't really know what to think of aggressive, borderline dangerous pace bowling. On the one hand, there are pages of history about the fallout from the Bodyline episode. Then again, I watched the "Empire of Cricket Australia" series and I find myself instinctively covering my family jewels with my hands (and lose sympathy with Australia for protesting about Bodyline). Or I watch the video of Holding's spell to Brian Close and find myself ducking and cowering in front of the computer monitor. It's scary, and yet awesome. Where exactly does it cross the lines drawn by "Spirit of the Game", if there is any such thing?

The way I see it is, if a country has the benefit of fielding express, intimidating bowlers, they are bound to stray into "dangerous bowling" occasionally. It comes with the territory, I guess.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

With Walsh the sum was worth more than the parts.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Ambrose and walsh were rated higher than mcgrath when all three of them were playing,

Ambrose was better than Walsh, but both of them were rated above mcgrath especially with walsh racing towards becoming the leading wicket taker in history with the help half decent bowlers after ambrose retired. Mcgrath got help bowling to irresponsible batsmen in the later part of his career aswell.


Swing, pace, bounce, reverse swing (new ball too) ...Walsh could take wickets at anytime, he didn't let up. Never ever let up or got tired, he was just as dangerous with the old ball as he was with the new ball.

Walsh bowled 300 or more maidens than mcgrath so his style of bowling was about building pressure on a batsman - which I think is the best way to get wickets. It's also another indication that he's from a different era one which decipline is the key, no balls to waste trying random **** and get silly wickets because batsmen of walsh's era cared alot about their wickets. Walsh is a better real test match bowler than mcgrath.

Mcgrath ended his career better than both Ambrose and Walsh. No-one got why Mcgrath was so good, not even batsman.

 

[zaremba]

They have helmets now. Don't see the problem.

The way I see it is, if a country has the benefit of fielding express, intimidating bowlers, they are bound to stray into "dangerous bowling" occasionally. It comes with the territory, I guess.

It comes with the territory but that doesn't make it ok. There is a line which it's not acceptable to cross. That line can be hard to draw, but there are clear cases where intimidatory bowling becomes unacceptable, and (unless I'm much mistaken) the umpire has duty to decide when that line has been crossed. It depends on a lot of factors, notably the pace of the bowler, the ability of the tailender, the nature of the pitch, whether the tailender has got his eye in, etc. The fact that the tailender has got protective equipment is a factor of some weight but it needs to be weighed up along with the other factors and, by itself, it's far from decisive in my view.

 

[stephen]

Mcgrath ended his career better than both Ambrose and Walsh. No-one got why Mcgrath was so good, not even batsman.

The pitch map technology revealed exactly why he was so good. McGrath wasn't about physical danger, he was about landing the ball in exactly the same place every single time, right in the corridor of uncertainty and getting just enough nibble both ways to find the edge. The extra bounce that his height extracted was also very dangerous to the batsman's wicket.

 

[GotSpin]

It comes with the territory but that doesn't make it ok. There is a line which it's not acceptable to cross. That line can be hard to draw, but there are clear cases where intimidatory bowling becomes unacceptable, and (unless I'm much mistaken) the umpire has duty to decide when that line has been crossed. It depends on a lot of factors, notably the pace of the bowler, the ability of the tailender, the nature of the pitch, whether the tailender has got his eye in, etc. The fact that the tailender has got protective equipment is a factor of some weight but it needs to be weighed up along with the other factors and, by itself, it's far from decisive in my view.

The only factor that should be considered is the state of the pitch.

 

[zaremba]

I saw on cricinfo today that Allan Border's 73 ODI wickets came at a cheaper cost than Courtney Walsh's. Not sure what that proves, but I thought it was an interesting stat

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think Walsh is perhaps slightly underrated. Belongs in a tier a gnat's away from the all-time greats IMHO, but his longevity seems to be often overlooked in these kind of discussions. At his peak I wouldn't have him up with the Waqars and Marshalls of the world, but his peak did last an awfully long time. Testament to his will and drive he was able to bowl quickly (he wasn't express at the end of his career, but still managed a decent lick) so well for so long.

With Mr Z on his assault (which is what is was) on Dev tho. Both unedifying and unnecessary. A complete dereliction of duty by the umpires too, but the incompetence of officialdom doesn't mitigate or excuse it. Short-pitched, hostile bowling to rank tailenders who can't defend themselves is, to swipe a Mike Selvey line, throwing punches by proxy.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

The pitch map technology revealed exactly why he was so good. McGrath wasn't about physical danger, he was about landing the ball in exactly the same place every single time, right in the corridor of uncertainty and getting just enough nibble both ways to find the edge. The extra bounce that his height extracted was also very dangerous to the batsman's wicket.

Accuracy is not objective. Every batsman and every ball requires a different line and length.

Figuring out what is many times harder than merely hitting the same spot of turf over and over. That's what Mcgrath had above any seamer I've seen.

 

[tooextracool]

I think Walsh is perhaps slightly underrated. Belongs in a tier a gnat's away from the all-time greats IMHO, but his longevity seems to be often overlooked in these kind of discussions. At his peak I wouldn't have him up with the Waqars and Marshalls of the world, but his peak did last an awfully long time. Testament to his will and drive he was able to bowl quickly (he wasn't express at the end of his career, but still managed a decent lick) so well for so long.

I agree. I am not sure why longevity is ignored as one of the criteria used to measure greatness, but it really is important. Should things like physical fitness, commitment etc be ignored when rating a fast bowler? I dont think so.

If I was WI right now and I had to choose between a bowler who was consistently great for 15+ years versus someone who is superlative for about 5-6 years and average thereafter, I think I would settle for the former.

 

[Xuhaib]

The pitch map technology revealed exactly why he was so good. McGrath wasn't about physical danger, he was about landing the ball in exactly the same place every single time, right in the corridor of uncertainty and getting just enough nibble both ways to find the edge. The extra bounce that his height extracted was also very dangerous to the batsman's wicket.

I still reckon this to be his most potent weapon.