i am sure you say these things to stir up some sort of CW controversy.Richard said:All-time - just below the "very top" bracket. If he'd been that little bit more accurate, however, he'd be up there with Malcolm Marshall as possibly the best seamer of the comparable age (1930-onwards).
'90s - one of a legion of great bowlers (along with Donald, Pollock, his parter Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh, Vaas, McGrath, Fleming, Streak, Srinath, Allott, Nash and, Cairns [the last three who would all IMO have been better than they turned-out but for injury]) most of whom were capable of extracting something from any surface. One of the big parts of the greatest decade for bowling in the game's history IMO.
Streak wasnt a devestating bowler before 99 he was a decent fast bowler...he had his injury in about 1996 I think(that was the real turning point in his career), before which he was genuinely fast and did tak wickets at a fair rate of knots....but this period only lasted for a fairly brief spell..certainly not long enough to be called an all time great fast bowler.Richard said:If so it's because of them tailing-off, to different extents, in the later stages of their careers.
Streak, especially, was a devestating bowler before a nasty injury in early 1999 - averaging 24-5 in Test-cricket.
I'm sorry, but I genuinely believe all the bowlers I named played a large part in making the '90s the greatest decade for bowling.
I wouldn't go that far. I think Ambrose was the most consitent performer if you take the whole decade of 90s, with McGrath in the same league, although he came into the picture only at the middle of the decade. Akram, Waqar and Donald are the next in line who were equally dangerous as the above two but were not as consistent as them for the whole decade. Walsh comes after that who just kept chipping in with Ambrose invoking the most fear in that attack.Bouncer said:so i have no doubt that in 1990's Waqar was the Champion fats bowler, The best of'em all.
He is one of the great bowlers the game has seen.Hit4Six said:when you all think about the best bowlers of the 90s where would you rate Waqar? and in all time fast bowelrs where would you rate him?
Why 50 years, within 5 years of retirement they'll be forgotten.Swervy said:Those I have highlighted will not in 50 years time be looked back on as great bowlers on the international scene.
marc71178 said:Why 50 years, within 5 years of retirement they'll be forgotten.
Some of them already are amongst casual fans.marc71178 said:Why 50 years, within 5 years of retirement they'll be forgotten.
Maybe he had an injury in 1996 (don't know about that) but believe me, he certainly had a very nasty injury in 1999, that forced him to cut his pace. In WC99 there was a game where Henry Olonga was clocking 89mph and Streak was being made to look pedestrian (80 tops). A South African commentator (might have been Dave Richardson) was saying that last year Streak could have done that. I never actually saw him bowl before WC99, so I just had to take his word.Swervy said:Streak wasnt a devestating bowler before 99 he was a decent fast bowler...he had his injury in about 1996 I think(that was the real turning point in his career), before which he was genuinely fast and did tak wickets at a fair rate of knots....but this period only lasted for a fairly brief spell..certainly not long enough to be called an all time great fast bowler.
Quite clearly you've never seen Dion Nash bowl before all his injuries. His career followed a similar pattern to Angus Fraser, and IMO they could both have been bowlers who took 300 Test-wickets at 24-5 if they'd had the injury record of, say, a Walsh.I'm sorry but if you list Fleming,Nash,Allott and Vaas in the top dozen or so bowlers of that decade, I think maybe the 90's wasnt that strong in the fast bowling department.
have a look at the 80's...Holding, Croft,Garner,Marshall,Bishop,Ambrose,Walsh(I still have my doubts about Walsh as being a true master of fast bowling, I personally think all I have mentioned here before Walsh were actually better bowlers than Walsh..but thats just my opinion), Hadlee,Lillee,Imran,Wasim were all good enough to be considered great bowlers..and then you even have bowlers like Geoff lawson,Dilley (on his day very good and fast),Alderman and others I cant think of ( ) who were very good bowlers, certainly better than Nash anyway
Go back to the 70's...the list is as long then as well.
So...really do you think that the fast bowlers of the 90's were, in depth, that good..admittedly the top ones were very very good (For me those are,Ambrose,McGrath,Wasim,Donald and Pollock..3 of those actually established themselves in first class cricket in the 80's)
In the case of Fleming, Nash and Allott, it's not just casual fans.Neil Pickup said:Some of them already are amongst casual fans.
an interesting way of looking at it is that if waqar had not played a test after 95(6 whole years since his debut) when his average was in the 19s he might have ended up being amongst the very best of all time. unfortunately now most people wouldnt even consider him in an all time XI.Richard said:All-time - just below the "very top" bracket. If he'd been that little bit more accurate, however, he'd be up there with Malcolm Marshall
nothing wrong with fleming, before his last game against india he was averaging below 25, an especially good average for someone who played as many series in the sub continent. under-rated, didnt get too many opportunities, and dropped after 1 poor game in india so i would say unlucky.....Swervy said:I'm sorry but if you list Fleming,Nash,Allott and Vaas in the top dozen or so bowlers of that decade, I think maybe the 90's wasnt that strong in the fast bowling department.