Walsh vs Pollock vs. Anderson

[subshakerz]

Based on current posts and previous comparisons, how would you rank these bowlers?

 

[honestbharani]

Walsh

 

[ZK$]

Walsh is definitely the best. The other two are very close, but I’ll probably go with Anderson since he’s still performing at such a high level.

 

[subshakerz]

Walsh is definitely the best. The other two are very close, but I’ll probably go with Anderson since he’s still performing at such a high level.

Strange because I tend to have Walsh the last. Pollock and Anderson were absolute worldclass for a much longer time than Walsh.

 

[ankitj]

CW had ranked the 3 pretty close to each other.

Once again, thanks to all involved in the voting and comments on this thread. Here is the final 40 together with relevant figures such as bowling average, strike rate, economy rate and wickets per match. I included the last of these as it is an indication of how important a component of a team's attack the bowler was.
I look forward to comments and discussion on this list.

The List	Tests	Wickets	Average	S.R.	E.R.	WPM
1. Malcolm Marshall	81	376	20.95	46.77	2.69	4.64
2. Glenn Mcgrath	124	563	21.64	51.95	2.50	4.54
3. Richard Hadlee	86	431	22.30	50.85	2.63	5.01
4. Curtly Ambrose	98	405	20.99	54.85	2.31	4.13
5. Dale Steyn	93	439	22.95	42.39	3.25	4.72
6. Imran Khan	88	362	22.81	53.75	2.55	4.11
7. Dennis Lillee	70	355	23.92	52.02	2.76	5.07
8. Fred Trueman	67	307	21.58	49.44	2.62	4.58
9. Wasim Akram	104	414	23.62	54.65	2.59	3.98
10. Allan Donald	72	330	22.25	47.03	2.84	4.58
11. Joel Garner	58	259	20.98	50.85	2.48	4.47
12. Ray Lindwall	61	228	23.03	59.87	2.31	3.74
13. Michael Holding	60	249	23.69	50.92	2.79	4.15
14. Waqar Younis	87	373	23.56	43.50	3.25	4.29
15. Alan Davidson	44	186	20.53	62.30	1.98	4.23
16. Shaun Pollock	108	421	23.12	57.85	2.40	3.90
17. Courtney Walsh	132	519	24.44	57.84	2.54	3.93
18. Andy Roberts	47	202	25.61	55.12	2.79	4.30
19. James Anderson	169	640	26.58	56.87	2.80	3.79
20. Pat Cummins	41	197	21.27	46.47	2.75	4.80
21. Keith Miller	55	170	22.98	61.54	2.24	3.09
22. Brian Statham	70	252	24.85	63.71	2.34	3.60
23. Bob Willis	90	325	25.20	53.41	2.83	3.61
24. Shoaib Akhtar	46	178	25.70	45.75	3.37	3.87
25. Harold Larwood	21	78	28.36	63.71	2.67	3.71
26. Ian Bishop	43	161	24.29	52.59	2.77	3.74
27. Neil Adcock	26	104	21.11	61.45	2.06	4.00
28. Wes Hall	48	192	26.39	54.28	2.92	4.00
29. Kagiso Rabada	52	243	22.41	40.77	3.30	4.67
30. Frank Tyson	17	76	18.57	45.42	2.45	4.47
31. Kapil Dev	131	434	29.65	63.92	2.78	3.31
32. John Snow	49	202	26.67	59.51	2.68	4.12
33. Jasprit Bumrah	29	123	21.73	49.20	2.65	4.24
34. Ian Botham	102	383	28.40	56.96	2.99	3.75
35. Stuart Broad	142	537	27.81	56.94	2.93	3.53
36. Peter Pollock	28	116	24.19	56.22	2.58	4.14
37. Neil Wagner	58	244	26.49	52.64	3.02	4.21
38. Jason Gillespie	71	259	26.14	54.96	2.85	3.65
39. Jeff Thomson	51	200	28.01	52.68	3.19	3.92
40. Tim Southee	85	338	28.20	57.25	2.95	2.98

 

[_00_deathscar]

Strange because I tend to have Walsh the last. Pollock and Anderson were absolute worldclass for a much longer time than Walsh.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[ZK$]

Strange because I tend to have Walsh the last. Pollock and Anderson were absolute worldclass for a much longer time than Walsh.

I think his average and strike rate would be a lot lower if he had either Pollock’s or Anderson’s home conditions tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

Absolute nonsense.

How?

Pollock's worldclass phase was 70 tests from mid-nineties to 2003.

Anderson's worldclass phase was from 2014 with 86 tests.

Walsh was from 97 to 2001 for around 39 tests.

On the flipside, Walsh's career before that was better than the other's off peak, averaging around 26 odd until he peaked.

 

[subshakerz]

I think his average and strike rate would be a lot lower if he had either Pollock’s or Anderson’s home conditions tbh.

WI in the 80s and 90s were pretty pace friendly, and England from mid-2000s to around 2014 was nowhere near as good as SA.

 

[_00_deathscar]

How?

Pollock's worldclass phase was 70 tests from mid-nineties to 2003.

Anderson's worldclass phase was from 2014 with 86 tests.

Walsh was from 97 to 2001 for around 39 tests.

On the flipside, Walsh's career before that was better than the other's off peak, averaging around 26 odd until he peaked.

Anderson's 'peak' has him taking 3.8 wickets per match, and that includes him cleaning up at home (so his away record is very poor) - he's not competing with Warne and McGrath for them.

I'm not saying he's a **** bowler, and he's clearly had some great performances here and there, but your prime/lead strike bowler can't be doing 3 wickets per match away from home for 20/40/60/80/100 or whatever tests and be considered the best.

 

[subshakerz]

Anderson's 'peak' has him taking 3.8 wickets per match, and that includes him cleaning up at home (so his away record is very poor) - he's not competing with Warne and McGrath for them.

I'm not saying he's a **** bowler, and he's clearly had some great performances here and there, but your prime/lead strike bowler can't be doing 3 wickets per match away from home for 20/40/60/80/100 or whatever tests and be considered the best.

335 wickets for 86 tests @ 21 from Anderson to me is better than 180 wickets in 39 tests @ 21 from Walsh.

 

[Slifer]

335 wickets for 86 tests @ 21 from Anderson to me is better than 180 wickets in 39 tests @ 21 from Walsh.

Ok now do their overall careers and include home and away performances. Walsh was peerless in Asia and pretty good vs all comers except Australia. And even vs Australia he averaged a respectable 28 odd.

 

[Slifer]

WI in the 80s and 90s were pretty pace friendly, and England from mid-2000s to around 2014 was nowhere near as good as SA.

Myth. Only Sabina and Kensington were pace friendly. ARG and Bourda were flat and QPO took spin.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok now do their overall careers and include home and away performances. Walsh was peerless in Asia and pretty good vs all comers except Australia. And even vs Australia he averaged a respectable 28 odd.

Sure I was talking about their respective peaks. I already said that Walsh did better than Pollock and Anderson off peak.

It is close between the three of them. Walsh had a 2 point average advantage over Anderson but overall had a more supportive bowling era. On other days, I may put Walsh ahead of Anderson...

 

[Coronis]

Man Walsh has a great rounded record. 25 and below vs every team bar Aus and SL (3 tests). Under 25 in every country bar Aus and SL (1 test). Multiple 5 wicket hauls everywhere he played, bar SL (0 in 1 test) and SA (1 in 4 tests)

 

[Slifer]

Sure I was talking about their respective peaks. I already said that Walsh did better than Pollock and Anderson off peak.

It is close between the three of them. Walsh had a 2 point average advantage over Anderson but overall had a more supportive bowling era. On other days, I may put Walsh ahead of Anderson...

And Walsh was much much more effective outside his home conditions, particularly Asia. And a 2 run overall average difference is huge. That's the difference between a Walsh and say a Hadlee. And no one would dream of considering Walsh remotely close to Hadlee.

More supportive bowling era? What does that even mean? Batting now is probably the worst I've ever seen it. The only team now, that has better batting than Walsh's era is NZ.

 

[subshakerz]

And Walsh was much much more effective outside his home conditions, particularly Asia. And a 2 run overall average difference is huge. That's the difference between a Walsh and say a Hadlee. And no one would dream of considering Walsh remotely close to Hadlee.

More supportive bowling era? What does that even mean? Batting now is probably the worst I've ever seen it. The only team now, that has better batting than Walsh's era is NZ.

Yeah but for Anderson its been pretty tough the first decade and a half of his career.

How about Pollock vs Walsh?

 

[Slifer]

I'd give Pollock the edge. For a good chunk of his career, Pollock was arguably the best in the world or among the best. Walsh imo, never reached such heights.

 

[subshakerz]

I'd give Pollock the edge. For a good chunk of his career, Pollock was arguably the best in the world or among the best. Walsh imo, never reached such heights.

Agreed.

 

[ZK$]

And a 2 run overall average difference is huge.

Is it? There are plenty of bowlers that average 2-3 runs higher than Garner but are rated higher than Garner.