Yes. They were. Ambrose and Walsh, for all their excellence, were essentially one-dimensional - all they did was move the ball off the surface, as well as sometimes bang it in halfway down repeatedly and bore everyone senseless (including often boring the batsmen into making a mistake). Donald and Pollock had pretty much every basis covered - they swung it, seamed it, cut it, bowled short, bowled full - the 'ole kaboodle.
I don't know where this myth comes from. Pollock was always a superlative line-and-length merchant who was almost impossible to score freely from, right (as you say) from ball one. Yes, he was also 90 mph + initially, but this lasted no more than a year or two - Pollock was only ever fast-medium after his ankle injury in 1997.
4 years is plenty long enough for a reasonable-length plateau period, IMO.
And the end of the day, during the period of which both duo were playing everyone knew walsh and ambrose were better and had way more respect than donald and pollock.
Then why do Donald/Pollock have a better record than Walsh/Ambrose?
Thats not a new ball record, thats their partnership record.
Well you've asked for stats. What stats exactly are you after? The records of bowlers when the ball is less than 10 overs old? If that's what you want, you can compile the stats for yourself, son. I'm sure they'll prove whatever it is that you want them to prove (ie that your favourite WI players are the best in the world ever).
I doubt it.
Unquestionably world class, but maybe not one of the greatest pairs of new-ball bowlers as so much of their damage was done with the old ball?
I agree with that. Not sure how more refined stats can be unearthed.
"Box them in"? Let's leave your inability to read and worry about your inability to make a remotely coherant point.
They can't. Not without ridiculous amounts of painstaking work. In any case, as you mention, just how do you define "new-ball bowler"? Opening spell? When the ball was less than 10 overs old? When it was less than 30? There's any number of definitions that could be applied.
An accurate ranking for me would be something like:
You've split Waqar and Pollock into 2 categories but not Ambrose even though he lost a good 7+mph of pace and went form out blasting batsmen to being a much more clever bowler?
No, you misunderstand. I assumed Richard meant the TYPE of bowler. Both Waqar (1996-2000) and Pollock continued to be quality in the years Richard mentioned even if they slightly changed as bowlers. Pollock of 2006 onwards wasn't great but he was still excellent 2000-2005 and he was bowling on some crappy batsmen-friendly wickets 2002 onwards.