best new ball pair ?

[Richard]

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?

If you're being consistent, you should split him into 2 parts too.

Why? Ambrose's effectiveness was constant between 1990 and 2000, regardless of what tools he used to gain said effect.

I must say I've noticed you making this definition on how quick bowlers bowled a few times and it's utterly baffling - pace is merely a means to an end, not something which reclassifies a bowler according to it. What's more, to suggest that Ambrose wasn't clever and that pace was all there was to him in the first part of his career is, well, wrong, pure-and-simple. You don't get as good as he was purely by being a completely one-dimensional blast-'em-out merchant (even though, as I say earlier, Ambrose and Walsh were far more one-dimensional than Donald and Pollock were).

Pollock and Waqar had two totally different phases of their careers in terms of effectiveness, and it's that that counts - nothing else. Ambrose's effectiveness was completely constant between 1990 and 2000. Ditto Donald 1992 to 2001.

 

[Richard]

No, you misunderstand. I assumed Richard meant the TYPE of bowler.

All career, Donald, Ambrose, Wasim, Pollock, Waqar and Walsh were the same TYPE of bowler - seam-up bowlers. The change I gave was in their effectiveness: Pollock was hugely effective 1995/96 to 2001 and moderately effective 2001/02-2006; Waqar was ridiculously effective 1990/91-1994/95 and again only moderately effective 1995/96-2000.

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.

Pollock of 2006/07 and 2007/08 was actually better than he had been at any point in the previous 5 years. Between 2001/02 and 2006, though he did indeed have to bowl on many non-seam-friendly wickets, he was often ineffective - and in the first phase of his career (1995/96-2001) he'd been capable of bowling well on any deck. Between 2001/02 and 2006 he could bowl well only on seamers.

Waqar meanwhile was never remotely reliant on the deck as he was always a swing bowler par excellence. He just faded a fair bit after his injury in 1994/95.

Ambrose changed because of his drop in pace. He's 1 of my favourite bowlers ever. I didn't mean to imply he was a lesser bowler after he lost pace since that wasn't the case.

Walsh had some average years in a great career but generally remained the same bowler (his drop in pace wasn't as drastic as his partner in crime).

Walsh actually had precious few average years - 1997 was about the only one really. Between 1986/87 and 1996 he was consistently excellent; between 1997/98 and 2001 he was better than ever.

 

[Slifer]

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.

Ambrose changed because of his drop in pace. He's 1 of my favourite bowlers ever. I didn't mean to imply he was a lesser bowler after he lost pace since that wasn't the case.

Walsh had some average years in a great career but generally remained the same bowler (his drop in pace wasn't as drastic as his partner in crime).

Oh ok seen!!