Is Walsh underrated?

[Avada Kedavra]

There is always talk about the Hadlees,Ambroses,Wasims,Lillees and Waqars but hardly anyone ever mentions Walsh when talking about the great fast bowlers.Isn't that a bit harsh seeing he is the second most successful fast bowler ever?

[Teja.]

I'd take him over a certain Australian ATG bowler who averaged a similar amount and played 62 matches lesser than him and that is saying a lot.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Avada Kedavra

There is always talk about the Hadlees,Ambroses,Wasims,Lillees and Waqars but hardly anyone ever mentions Walsh when talking about the great fast bowlers.Isn't that a bit harsh seeing he is the second most successful fast bowler ever?

He's the second highest wicket taker because of his longevity.

A class act no doubt, but certainly a step below the greatest West Indian quicks, never mind some of the greatest quicks produced elsewhere.

[Matt79]

He's rated pretty accurately for mine. A great bowler, but not in the alltime very elite greats bracket like his contemporaries Marshall and Ambrose, or a McGrath, Hadlee, Lillee etc etc. 500+ wickets at <25 is a difficult record to argue for him being anything than a true great nonetheless.

[Top_Cat]

Yeah don't think he was in the WI gun group in their minds either, considering how many times he was dropped.

Had his moments, though. Was obviously a top-shelf, professional Test quick.

[Days of Grace]

From the mid-1990s to his retirement, he has an outstanding record.

I think he is judged relative to what came before him.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by Matt79

He's rated pretty accurately for mine. A great bowler, but not in the alltime very elite greats bracket like his contemporaries Marshall and Ambrose, or a McGrath, Hadlee, Lillee etc etc. 500+ wickets at <25 is a difficult record to argue for him being anything than a true great nonetheless.

A whole whopping 0.52 more runs per wicket than Lillee - who played in a time where the ball dominated the bat. I'd definitely rate Walsh ahead of Waqar at least.

And Walsh's average is lower than Warne's. His record against India is truly great, especially in India.

But in cricket, as in life, first impressions are everything. Walsh was always tagged as the "weakest" West Indian bowler, a tag despite how much he accomplished he never shrugged off.

Surprisingly, his bowling average for the 80's is 24.24, 0.2 lower than his career average. So much for being a terrible bowler in that decade.

I think Walsh's biggest let down is his strike rate, 57.8.

[Jono]

He was a fast bowler and captain at the same time. Respect.

[vcs]

I think Walsh was a slightly less talented bowler than Ambrose but a smarter one than him. Ambrose at times almost seemed contented to bowl just short of a length and go for 2 RPO even if he wasn't threatening batsmen on a regular basis.

[morgieb]

Probably rated the same way he should be - a very good bowler, yes, an all-time great, no.

[vcs]

Does anyone have the video of the incident where Walsh refused to run out the No. 11 Pakistan batsman in the '87 WC, resulting in WI losing the match? What a legend.

[Jono]

Rafique did it for Bangladesh vs. Pakistan too yeah? He refused to run him out/mankad, and if he did Bangladesh would have won a test match :-o

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by Jono

Rafique did it for Bangladesh vs. Pakistan too yeah? He refused to run him out/mankad, and if he did Bangladesh would have won a test match :-o

Refused to run out Gul the number 10.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by morgieb

Probably rated the same way he should be - a very good bowler, yes, an all-time great, no.

Why?

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

A whole whopping 0.52 more runs per wicket than Lillee - who played in a time where the ball dominated the bat. I'd definitely rate Walsh ahead of Waqar at least.

And Walsh's average is lower than Warne's. His record against India is truly great, especially in India.

But in cricket, as in life, first impressions are everything. Walsh was always tagged as the "weakest" West Indian bowler, a tag despite how much he accomplished he never shrugged off.

Surprisingly, his bowling average for the 80's is 24.24, 0.2 lower than his career average. So much for being a terrible bowler in that decade.

I think Walsh's biggest let down is his strike rate, 57.8.

Probably tells you that a career bowling average is a pretty blunt tool to assess a bowler's quality more than anything else. Oh, and that you don't compare fast bowlers with spinners. Fortunately some of us can find things to discuss about cricket that aren't directly drawn from the manipulation of Statsguru.