• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Courtney Walsh vs. Jimmy Anderson

Who is the better bowler?

  • Courtney Walsh

    Votes: 32 68.1%

  • Jimmy Anderson

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Total voters
    47
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Slifer said:
I don't get this weaker comment. Walsh started off as the WI 4th bowler in the mid 80s bowling into the wind and doing the 'donkey work.' It's only after Bishop fell off completely that he consistently got the new ball. Thereafter his career elevated. If Walsh is weaker because he took less wickets, then so too are any other fast bowler since Anderson has the most wickets among seamers.
Click to expand...
Well it's mainly due to Walsh just obviously being quite weak, impotence another word I always associate with him
 
K

Kirkut

International Regular
BoyBrumby said:
Instinctively I have to go with big Courts.

Quicker and taller, and had the mindset of an enforcer. As scary as Curtly looked and undoubtedly was to face, most of the dirty work was done by Mr Walsh. He famously bowled something like a dozen consecutive bouncers to Devon Malcolm who was both a complete ferret (he went in after the rabbits) and blind as a bat to boot.
Click to expand...
Walsh wasn't quicker than Anderson, but that discomforting bounce he got off the pitch, that was the secret ingredient which created ATG Windies bowlers.
 
Himannv

Himannv

International Coach
subshakerz said:
One thing to remember about Walsh, until the mid 90s he wasnt considered that dangerous a bowler. His last few years really cementes his reputation.
Click to expand...
I don’t really agree that he “wasn’t considered that dangerous” when he first started playing. He was quicker back then and had a bit of a mean streak. He may not have been taking shed loads of wickets but he was not easy to deal with IMO. I think once he started bowling more with the new ball he was more of a wicket taker, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was a dangerous bowler to begin with.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Himannv said:
I don’t really agree that he “wasn’t considered that dangerous” when he first started playing. He was quicker back then and had a bit of a mean streak. He may not have been taking shed loads of wickets but he was not easy to deal with IMO. I think once he started bowling more with the new ball he was more of a wicket taker, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was a dangerous bowler to begin with.
Click to expand...
Other than for Croft he must have been the most akward bowler to face, due to open chested action, and uneven bounce he produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top