Courtney Walsh - Where does he rank?

[Richard]

That's true. However, in the days where 220 was an excellent score, an economy rate of 3.4 seems very impressive.

Oh, absolutely - nonetheless, as I say, it's just so hard to compare IMO that I prefer not to try. Test cricket on the other hand is broadly recogniseable now for what it was in 1974 or so.

Wait...shouldn't the fact that Walsh was so penetrative at an advanced age place him over Roberts, who took 300+ less wickets and left cricket at age 32? It takes a special bowler to be taking wickets aplenty at that age, IMO. Not that a special bowler necessarily needs to be taking wickets at that age, but it is certainly a meritorious achievement.

Even without WSC, Roberts probably would've taken far fewer Test wickets than Walsh.

As I said earlier in this thread, Walsh's remarkable "getting better with age" is incredibly unusual, and more so than ever in a seam bowler. Roberts, though, I just have no doubt that at his "normal" was better than Walsh at his "normal". Walsh's best came at an age precious few have ever managed it at, which makes him more unusual - but not, I don't think, better than Roberts.

There's also the fact that Roberts was the first, Walsh the last (ie, of the dynasty that started in '74/75 and ended in '01. That maybe shouldn't make an impact, but for me it does.

Well, he was certainly ineffective in his last series (incidentally, the same one in which Lillee passed Lance Gibbs' record for the most test wickets), but before that there was no obvious sign of decline. In other words, it is hard to tell.

It's not just that - it's also that much of Croft's success has been put down to his "awkwardness". And his pace. He wasn't that far short of 30 when West Indies' first series after his last commenced, and almost all bowlers (especially those who rely so much on muscularity) become slower at about that age. Bowlers who have awkward actions tend to have batsmen, eventually, become accustomed to them. Though Croft could make the ball hold up and move away with the big angle in, from what I've seen this wasn't actually how he took a large portion of his wickets.

I just think that how he did take his wickets suggests to me that it was something only likely to work over a relatively short period.

I'm not sure why you included Wayne Daniel in that list - he may've been very talented and he did do great things for Middlesex, but he didn't play much Test cricket. He is more of a could-have-been, like Sylverster Clarke.

Although Winston Benjamin may've been a good bowler, he didn't play that many Tests, either. Who knows how his career would've turned out had he did?

Daniel, Croft, Winston Benjamin and Clarke all fit into the "not played enough to know how good they really were at Test level" category for me. They're all guesses. Bishop, as I say, I don't feel he is.

As for Vanburn Holder, he was quite different. Unlike most of the rest, Holder was just a workhorse with an OK record, relying on accuracy. I know that Patterson was inconsistent and erratic, too, but I don't see why Holder>Patterson.

Holder was a fine bowler. He was ineffective when he was leading a moderate attack between '69 and '73 and suffered for returning to Test cricket for what was actually the A team, but between '73 and '77 he was actually a damn good bowler and put in superb performances in the subcontinent and in England (and he was ineffective in Australia when playing as a replacement). Patterson was essentially a two-series wonder - England in '86 and Australia in '91. Apart from that, he was only effective in one-game bursts (and that not many).

I'd have no qualms in putting Holder above him. Holder also missed the chance to bowl as part of a pace quartet when he suffered a serious injury just as said quartet had been formed in '76.

 

[Richard]

Exactly, zaremba....

Another poster said that if the selectors had the gift of hindsight, and were forced to make a choice, would they go for an injury-affected Bishop who wreaked havoc in a short period of time, or take a Walsh who was extremely fit, and took over 500 wickets over a longer period of time? I think most sane selectors would go for Walsh....

One advantage of Walsh is his variety. He may not be as fast as Patterson or Bishop, but he certainly knew how to bowl on pitches that didn't assist pace. Patterson, in contrast, was at sea on dead pitches. Sadly, after Bishop returned followed his back injury, he was never the same again.

Well Bishop twice returned from his back injury as good as ever - it was just that after 1997 it had worn him down and he was terrible in 1997/98.

As for Walsh vs Bishop, there's no doubt that if you wanted someone for a hypothetical 10-year career you'd go for Walsh. But as I say - that Bishop was the better bowler I have no doubt.