Courtney Walsh - Where does he rank?

[Evermind]

First and foremost because he did not swing the ball. Bowlers who are able to move the ball in the air have a great advantage of being able to get lateral movement even when the surface is not conducive to the same.

But you replied to a question about Ambrose with a post about Holding. Ambrose's stats are incredible, like McGrath's, and neither of them were known for swinging the ball. I don't see how that inherently makes a bowler worse - it's a somewhat arbitrary qualification like a front-on action being better than side-on, all other things being equal. If they're just as effective, how are they worse?

 

[Pratters]

But you replied to a question about Ambrose with a post about Holding. Ambrose's stats are incredible, like McGrath's, and neither of them were known for swinging the ball. I don't see how that inherently makes a bowler worse - it's a somewhat arbitrary qualification like a front-on action being better than side-on, all other things being equal. If they're just as effective, how are they worse?

SJS doesn't rate McGrath that highly as well.

 

[shivfan]

Courtney Walsh was certainly great fast bowler. Among WI fastmen i would say he definatively is behind: Marshall, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, and maybe Bishop. Among the world's fast bowlers he'd probably be top 20 but definitely not top 10. Statistically he is easily a great averaging 24 with a SR of 58 and econ of 2.5.

I can't rate Bishop as a greater bowler than Walsh....

Bishop only had pace for a brief time of his career, which was cut short by injury. Walsh was far more useful to the WIndies, simply because he was such a great servant to the WI for a much longer time.

Longevity is extremely important in assessing how great a bowler is, IMHO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I can't rate Bishop as a greater bowler than Walsh....

Bishop only had pace for a brief time of his career, which was cut short by injury. Walsh was far more useful to the WIndies, simply because he was such a great servant to the WI for a much longer time.

Longevity is extremely important in assessing how great a bowler is, IMHO.

Yeah, I'd find it hard to rate Bishop ahead of Walsh.

 

[zaremba]

I presume Mr z is referring to the hypothetical that had Walsh been of "normal" fast-bowler stature in terms of career length, he'd have taken maybe 300-odd wickets at 25-ish.

Yes.

Courtenay was a terrific bowler, and I'd not suggest otherwise. But his most startling achievement was his overall wicket haul which was of course directly attributable to his longevity. He was able to keep on taking wicket hauls with amazing consistency, both for the Windies and Gloucestershire, year after year after year.

To say that he had longevity is not to downplay his ability, though. Because to have longevity he had to have ability (otherwise, obviously, he wouldn't keep getting picked), adaptability (he was able to cope with the fact that his role in the team changed quite dramatically over the years, and he also had to adapt his bowling style as his pace diminished), and fitness.

And of course he needed to be able to capitalise on the opportunities presented to him by his longevity by continually taking wickets, which he did.

 

[zaremba]

I can't rate Bishop as a greater bowler than Walsh....

Bishop only had pace for a brief time of his career, which was cut short by injury. Walsh was far more useful to the WIndies, simply because he was such a great servant to the WI for a much longer time.

Longevity is extremely important in assessing how great a bowler is, IMHO.

I agree.

(Bishop at his best was more dangerous than Walsh at his best, I think. And had Bishop been able to bowl at his best for the same sustained period that Walsh did, he'd be among the top 2 or 3 bowlers of all time imho).

 

[Noble One]

I can't rate Bishop as a greater bowler than Walsh....

Bishop only had pace for a brief time of his career, which was cut short by injury. Walsh was far more useful to the WIndies, simply because he was such a great servant to the WI for a much longer time.

Longevity is extremely important in assessing how great a bowler is, IMHO.

Spot on.

At their respective peaks, Bishop may well have been the more dangerous bowler than Walsh. But that means nothing compared to the consistency of 132 test matches.

Walsh's contribution over so many test matches is what makes him great. It is a testament to his fitness, training, adaptability and determination that drove him for so many years.

Wouldn't any team take a bowler who will give 17 years of fantastic service over a brief 3-4 year period of brilliance?

 

[Uppercut]

First and foremost because he did not swing the ball. Bowlers who are able to move the ball in the air have a great advantage of being able to get lateral movement even when the surface is not conducive to the same. Holding at Old Trafford is a great example of a swing bowler causing havoc on a featherbed. I wrote about the amazing stats of that bowling performance on The Fast Bowler's fast Bowlers thread. It really is amazing and everything, including the fact that he got 12 of those 14 wickets bowled and leg before (the other two were caught by keeper and the slips) shows what could be achieved by great swing bowling on a wicket where over 1100 runs were scored in the first innings of each side including two double centuries (one a near triple at 291). Here it is.

Holding destroys England single handedly at the Oval 1976

Its very important to understand how much of a batsman's wicket - a featherbed as Trueman called it - this wicket was. Here is what the other pace and medium pace bowlers from the two sides did in this Test match.

• 1122 runs were scored when England and West Indies finished one innings each fand all wickets had not fallen in these!
• Two double centuries were scored , one by either side, in the first innings!
• West Indies scored another 187 without loss before declaring their second innings closed.
• Now 1304 runs had been scored in the match and yet 20 wicket had not fallen.
• The bowling analysis on both sides made pathetic reading with one exception Mike Holding whose 8 first innings wickets had come at 11.5 runs each.
• 28 wickets fell in this match.
• Half of them fell to bowlers that included the likes of Andy Roberts, Bob Willis, Mike Selvey, Derek Underwood, Vanburn Holder, Tony Greig, Wayne Daniell. - that is 14 wickets for a combined total of 1254 runs at about 90 runs each
• and the other 14 fell to Mike Holding at 10.6 each !!

​

The seam only bowler needs a helpful track or an obliging line up of batsmen to run through sides in this manner.

Ambrose, interestingly, did not like the ball to swing. Prodigious movement not only beat the bat but was also more obvious to the batsman. Ambrose stated that he liked the ball to move only very slightly, whether in the air or off the pitch, so that to the batsman it appeared to do nothing but still took the edge. Coupled with nagging accuracy, great pace and a very real aggressive streak, he found that he had more success with slight movement than he did with big movement.

And after 405 test wickets @ 20, who am i to disagree?

 

[Shri]

Wouldn't any team take a bowler who will give 17 years of fantastic service over a brief 3-4 year period of brilliance?

Any sane selector will choose both.

 

[DaRick]

A fine bowler, known for his longevity and his durability. His will seemed to be as unbreakable as his body. He epitomised the 'workhorse'.

Maybe that had to do with his economical action and his athleticism, as much as anything else. Indeed, it serves as a big compliment when other bowlers (like Merv Dillon) try to emulate it.

But he falls short of the absolute best. Here are my rankings of nine WI bowlers in their golden period (up to 1995):

1) Marshall
2) Ambrose
3) Garner
4) Holding
5) Walsh
6) Croft
7) Bishop
8) Roberts
9) Patterson

 

[bagapath]

after the retirement of garner and holding in '87 - the two bowlers who really epitomised the pace quartert irrespective of who the other two were - marshall, ambrose, walsh and bishop for a while played together. i dont think a really potent pace quartert took the field in international cricket ever since.

 

[Richard]

See, that's interesting. What I've read of Holding's performance at The Oval was that even though there was no swing or seam movement for the other bowlers, Holding still managed to make the ball zip off the deck just through sheer speed. The clean bowls he got were mainly through pace, rather than movement, if what I've read is accurate (although there might have been some movement around in the 2nd dig).

I dunno, all I've seen are video highlights but, to me, there wasn't much in the way of swing in the wickets he got. Just flat-out, raw pace. Not having it seen it live, obviously I can't be sure about the swing between the wickets, though.

I've heard Holding talk about that match himself and he said there was just no point trying to beat batsmen purely for pace, as the surface was too slow. He said he needed to utilise his ability to swing the ball to succeed, and did.

 

[Richard]

I can't rate Bishop as a greater bowler than Walsh....

Bishop only had pace for a brief time of his career, which was cut short by injury.

This is absolutely untrue. Bishop was indeed exceptionally quick (too quick sometimes for even the best players of the pull stroke to pull), but he could move the ball away from the RHB plentifully and nicked-off any number. Bishop was very, very far from a one-trick pony.

Walsh was far more useful to the WIndies, simply because he was such a great servant to the WI for a much longer time.

It depends how you think. For me, though Bishop's career was crippled by his weak back, I still consider that he played enough to establish how superb he was. I've absolutely no doubt that Bishop was the better bowler.

But Walsh, of course, contributed far more to West Indies because his body was so much more durable.

 

[Richard]

Ambrose, interestingly, did not like the ball to swing. Prodigious movement not only beat the bat but was also more obvious to the batsman. Ambrose stated that he liked the ball to move only very slightly, whether in the air or off the pitch, so that to the batsman it appeared to do nothing but still took the edge. Coupled with nagging accuracy, great pace and a very real aggressive streak, he found that he had more success with slight movement than he did with big movement.

And after 405 test wickets @ 20, who am i to disagree?

Holding's 239 at 21.69 isn't exactly bad either. What let Holding down was that he missed several series (including both of his time against Pakistan, meaning he never played against one of the big teams) and thus played only a relatively low number of Tests.

I've never really been particularly keen on saying any of Garner, Ambrose or Holding were better than the other. They were all absolutely incredible, and they were all everso slightly less incredible than Marshall. And had Bishop been blessed with a stronger body, he would in my view almost certainly have been grouped alongside them too.

 

[Richard]

after the retirement of garner and holding in '87 - the two bowlers who really epitomised the pace quartert irrespective of who the other two were - marshall, ambrose, walsh and bishop for a while played together. i dont think a really potent pace quartert took the field in international cricket ever since.

Holding and Garner's last series was the '86 Blackwash. That series, it was Marshall, Holding, Garner, Patterson. Patterson only once bowled as he had in that series again (against Australia in 1991).

A few of the four-man pace attacks that stand-out to me thereafter:
Marshall, W Benjamin, Walsh, Ambrose (three Tests in England, 1988)
Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall (three Tests in Pakistan, 1990/91)
Ambrose, Patterson, Walsh, Marshall (five Tests against Australia, 1991)
Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, K Benjamin (five Tests in England, 1995)
Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Rose (six Tests against India and Sri Lanka, 1997)
Ambrose, Walsh, Rose, King (five Tests against Zimbabwe and Pakistan, 2000)

Of course, only the one of Pakistan '90/91 had four who would all go down as four of the best. But equally, this had only happened once '76-'86 - in '83 against India with Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall.

There had been several other excellent attacks (none more so than Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft which was first-choice '79/80 to '81/82) but they'd always been made-up of sometimes two, sometimes three of the best ever and one who was useful. EG:
Roberts, Holding, Daniel, Holder (two Tests in England, 1976)
Marshall, Holding, Garner, Baptiste (first-choice for eight Tests, 1984)
Marshall, Holding, Garner, Walsh (five Tests in Australia, 1984/85 - remember Walsh was only a rookie at that point and lost his place after that series)
Marshall, Holding, Garner, Davis (one Test against New Zealand, 1985)
Marshall, Holding, Garner, Patterson (mentioned above - four Tests against England, 1986)

Also, don't count-out the attack that toured the subcontinent in 1974/75 - Roberts, Holder, Boyce, Julien, Gibbs. Not as strong as some of later times, but certainly no pushover.

 

[Jono]

But you replied to a question about Ambrose with a post about Holding. Ambrose's stats are incredible, like McGrath's, and neither of them were known for swinging the ball. I don't see how that inherently makes a bowler worse - it's a somewhat arbitrary qualification like a front-on action being better than side-on, all other things being equal. If they're just as effective, how are they worse?

Agreed.

 

[SJS]

But you replied to a question about Ambrose with a post about Holding. Ambrose's stats are incredible, like McGrath's, and neither of them were known for swinging the ball. I don't see how that inherently makes a bowler worse - it's a somewhat arbitrary qualification like a front-on action being better than side-on, all other things being equal. If they're just as effective, how are they worse?

My answer was about Ambrose. I just used Holding's example to show what swing can do even when there is no movement off the deck.

For the rest of what you say, I have no argument with you. I was asked why I put him in the second group I gave my reason.

 

[Uppercut]

Holding's 239 at 21.69 isn't exactly bad either. What let Holding down was that he missed several series (including both of his time against Pakistan, meaning he never played against one of the big teams) and thus played only a relatively low number of Tests.

I've never really been particularly keen on saying any of Garner, Ambrose or Holding were better than the other. They were all absolutely incredible, and they were all everso slightly less incredible than Marshall. And had Bishop been blessed with a stronger body, he would in my view almost certainly have been grouped alongside them too.

It somewhat annoys me how you don't count the matches where a player bowls badly. Ambrose averages 20 with no need for such qualifications- that's much better in my books.

Nonetheless, i agree with your general point- i can't pick between them. Each had their own style and found what worked best for them. I was just objecting to SJS's comments on Holding being superior because he swung the ball more- to me that doesn't matter in the slightest so long as they both take wickets.

 

[bagapath]

Marshall, Holding, Garner, Baptiste (first-choice for eight Tests, 1984)
Marshall, Holding, Garner, Walsh (five Tests in Australia, 1984/85 - remember Walsh was only a rookie at that point and lost his place after that series)
Marshall, Holding, Garner, Davis (one Test against New Zealand, 1985)

bishop made his debut in the 88-89 home series against india. and he partnered marshall, ambrose and walsh in 3 of those 4 tests. like walsh's apprenticeship in australia mentioned above this also deserves a note as a solid four pronged pace attack.

the general vibe i am getting from this thread is that CW members acknowledge walsh's place among the all-time greats of west indies fast bowlers. the top 4 most definitely seem to be marshal, holding, garner and ambrose. walsh is bunched with roberts, bishop and hall. quite a distinguished company nevertheless befitting the big guy's achievements. but he is not a shoo-in among the all-time greats overall.

 

[SJS]

Ambrose, interestingly, did not like the ball to swing. Prodigious movement not only beat the bat but was also more obvious to the batsman. Ambrose stated that he liked the ball to move only very slightly, whether in the air or off the pitch, so that to the batsman it appeared to do nothing but still took the edge. Coupled with nagging accuracy, great pace and a very real aggressive streak, he found that he had more success with slight movement than he did with big movement.

And after 405 test wickets @ 20, who am i to disagree?

I am not sure about that. Its not prodigious movement which can be seen better by batsmen, it is early movement or swing that starts from the hand that can be seen early. Late movement will is always going to be difficult to see in time.

Then again, the latter the ball swings, the less 'prodigious' it is going to be. The less distance it has to travel before after it starts swinging the less the lateral movement. The great fast bowlers would adjudt their line/angle as well as length to ensure the swing is not wasted. You cant play some one like Lillee with his great outswing and expect that they will all leave you outside the off stump. He would pitch further up and further on to the stumps.

Any fast bowler would give anything to be able to move the ball in the air. It is an absolutely terrific weapon.