Courtney Walsh - Where does he rank?

[Slifer]

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.

 

[sammy2]

During walsh and ambrose run as the best new ball opening pair there was no evidence that ambrose was more dangoerous than him, he was just as good as ambrose.

 

[zaremba]

I'm sorry to see that the rantings of sammy2 have not got any less weird over the past few days while I've been away. Anyhow I agree with the general consensus in this thread - Walsh was a very good bowler with some outstanding qualities - but is a "statistical great" only by reason of his longevity.

I would add that although I haven't studied it in detail I think Richard's post ranking the all-time great fast bowlers is more or less spot-on.

 

[Slifer]

Could u expand on what u mean by Walsh being only a statistical great due to his longevity

 

[Anil]

Walsh was a very good bowler with some outstanding qualities - but is a "statistical great" only by reason of his longevity.

i am not so sure that it was just longevity, don't think there was any significant dip in form throughout his career, and he bowled some of his best spells towards the very end...that would make his career, as long as it was pretty special...

 

[Richard]

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.

The point I'd make, though, is that Walsh had this over all other great seam bowlers except Glenn McGrath. He wasn't one of the very best, though still firmly in the upper echleons of the fast bowler's pantheon, but he did do something that, to date, only one other has done, in playing for 13-15 years and well in excess of 100 Tests.

Walsh had something over almost everyone else, even though he was not as excellent as those at the very top of the tree (and let's face it, there's precious little to divide almost all of the names I gave in my first post of this thread).

 

[JBH001]

Reckon Walsh is under-rated, here and elsewhere.

I would have him in the top tier of West Indian quicks, he would almost certainly make my all time West Indian XI, and I think him an all-time great.

 

[Uppercut]

Reckon Walsh is under-rated, here and elsewhere.

I would have him in the top tier of West Indian quicks, he would almost certainly make my all time West Indian XI, and I think him an all-time great.

I don't know if that's what it is. My all-time West Indies attack would probably be Marshall, Holding, Garner and Ambrose, and if you'd have Walsh in your side over one of those four I'd suggest you're underrating them. I'm a huge fan of Walsh but i rate those guys even higher.

 

[JBH001]

I'd probably go for Marshall, Ambrose, Roberts, and Walsh (just squeaking past Holding).

 

[Uppercut]

I'd probably go for Marshall, Ambrose, Roberts, and Walsh (just squeaking past Holding).

No Garner?!

Big Bird's the stuff of legends. Statistically, he blows pretty much every other bowler in history out of the water when you look at all forms of the game.

 

[Sanz]

i am not so sure that it was just longevity, don't think there was any significant dip in form throughout his career, and he bowled some of his best spells towards the very end...that would make his career, as long as it was pretty special...

AWTA.

 

[SJS]

I wouldn't bother to rank them. Maybe put Hall, Roberts, Holding and Marshall in the first cluster and Croft, Garner, Ambrose and Walsh in the second.

 

[bagapath]

He is right up there with them.

courtney never managed to average more than 4 wickets per test and had a strike rate that was significantly less than the rest resulting in a higher bowling average. also he didnt take five-fers as frequently as the rest.

During walsh and ambrose run as the best new ball opening pair there was no evidence that ambrose was more dangoerous than him, he was just as good as ambrose.

I believe ambrose has a fair amount of statistical superiority over walsh and have no problem in calling him the better fast bowler of the two when they played together (or otherwise).

CEL Ambrose (WI) 95 174 3568.0 971 8215 389 7/25 11/84 21.11 2.30 55.0 21 2
CA Walsh (WI) 95 175 3563.3 818 9065 373 7/37 13/55 24.30 2.54 57.3 15 3

since i think walsh was inferior to even ambrose i would never want to discuss him in the same breath as marshall, mcgrath, hadlee, lillee et all. but he is in the top 20 fast bowlers of all time.

 

[Noble One]

What made Courtney Walsh such a fantastic bowler was the way he adapted his game as his career progressed.

He started off largely as an aggressive and hostile paceman, perfectly suited to the team he was in during the mid to late 80's. The beauty of his game is that he adapted a more line and length approach as his pace began to diminish. He then added some of the biggest off and leg cutters I have ever seen from a paceman. Then during the end of his career he added some of the most deceptive changes of pace a bowler has ever developed.

For a bowler to adapt his style to suit his body, his team, and changing playing conditions is a unique skill. Probably would have burnt out in his early 30's if he continued bowling like he did at the start of his career.

 

[bagapath]

What made Courtney Walsh such a fantastic bowler was the way he adapted his game as his career progressed.

He started off largely as an aggressive and hostile paceman, perfectly suited to the team he was in during the mid to late 80's. The beauty of his game is that he adapted a more line and length approach as his pace began to diminish. He then added some of the biggest off and leg cutters I have ever seen from a paceman. Then during the end of his career he added some of the most deceptive changes of pace a bowler has ever developed.

For a bowler to adapt his style to suit his body, his team, and changing playing conditions is a unique skill. Probably would have burnt out in his early 30's if he continued bowling like he did at the start of his career.

well said. totally agree.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I wouldn't bother to rank them. Maybe put Hall, Roberts, Holding and Marshall in the first cluster and Croft, Garner, Ambrose and Walsh in the second.

Hey SJS,

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you don't have Ambrose in the "top tier" with the others.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hey SJS,

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you don't have Ambrose in the "top tier" with the others.

AWTA. Seems a vastly under-rated bowler in general. Was much like McGrath in general but in particular was a far better bowler when he kept his temper in check.

 

[SJS]

Hey SJS,

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you don't have Ambrose in the "top tier" with the others.

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.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

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.

 

[Redbacks]

I remember on Walsh's last tour to Aus that his pitch map was absolutely brilliant, similar to what I had seen from McGrath. He just lacked penetration (probably not helped by the team being in poor positions in most games and lack of pressure at both ends), plus a bit of zip in pace also I guess.