Wow I actually remember this happening!

[Butterteeth]

Whatever "presence" he might've had (along with extremely good bowling) in England, Australia, New Zealand and West Indies, he certainly had absolutely nothing in the subcontinent.
And without success in the subcontinent, no seamer can be regarded as a complete bowler.

Walsh was, by West Indian standards, only very good. It was only right at the end of his career that he was outstanding.
He took more wickets because he played more than most - simple as.
Had Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Bishop, Clarke, Gray, Croft, Daniel, et al played more they'd very likely have taken as many and more.
It's average and strike-rate that have meaning for bowlers - not number of wickets.

Donald had plenty of success against Australia, and everywhere else.

Gee its so nice to have my opinion so swiftly dismissed. I suppose this is a case of agree to disagree.

As for Donald - against Australia - 14 tests for 53 wickets at 31.07.
Moderate - as I said.

 

[Richard]

Which has a lot to do with the fact that he played 3 Tests when he shouldn't have.
Excluding those 3 he had 11 Tests, 48 wickets at 27.85, including 4 good matches, 3 moderate ones and 4 poor ones. Not as good as against the rest, but frankly there are sterner challenges than bowling against Australia.
I find I have presented a good case for why Lillee is not as good as most seem to think, and why Walsh was merely very good not exceptional.
If you disagree, you disagree.

 

[tooextracool]

I thought very seriously about putting Waqar in, and I might well have done so had he retired in 1998.
As it is, I reckon that lot were - just - better. Waqar didn't have the stamina to be a great bowler for more than 6 years or so - the others did. Even Donald, who had a very similar style.

i dont believe in that. to rate bowlers based on their overall careers is a crime, because some bowlers like kapil dev go on for too long, while others are clearly less effective after injury. had waqar younis not come back after 95, he would have been put down as arguably the greatest fast bowler ever, and it would take a brave man to argue against that when he was still averaging 20.05 with one of the best strike rates ever. the only thing he was lacking in was the fact that he never got to play in SA or Australia in his prime.

 

[Xuhaib]

Waqar made Wasim look ordinary between the 90-95 period.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Hadlee a finer bowler then Harmison.

Thats a bit of an understatement...

 

[Richard]

Well... I said that, didn't I?

 

[Richard]

i dont believe in that. to rate bowlers based on their overall careers is a crime, because some bowlers like kapil dev go on for too long, while others are clearly less effective after injury. had waqar younis not come back after 95, he would have been put down as arguably the greatest fast bowler ever, and it would take a brave man to argue against that when he was still averaging 20.05 with one of the best strike rates ever. the only thing he was lacking in was the fact that he never got to play in SA or Australia in his prime.

And you deride me for saying the same about Geoff Allott (yes, much shorter career, but still the same thing).
I don't disagree, Waqar in the right time was something near impossible to better.
Maybe if I'd seen more of him I might be more inclined to think so. Sadly I didn't.

 

[tooextracool]

And you deride me for saying the same about Geoff Allott (yes, much shorter career, but still the same thing).

geoff allott who averages 58 in test matches, and had about 2 series of international ODI success, with not to mention a pathetic ER for most of it? i cant see how anyone can put geoff allott in the same breath as Waqar younis when one man destroyed every opposition he played for 6 years straight, while the other had one fluke of a world cup and then failed miserably thereafter.

I don't disagree, Waqar in the right time was something near impossible to better.
Maybe if I'd seen more of him I might be more inclined to think so. Sadly I didn't.

how many of those bowlers have you seen really?
having pollock on there ahead of wasim or waqar is a joke in itself, and it makes it look even worse when you've mentioned in the past that you never really got to watch pollock in his prime either(not to mention called all his wickets lucky).

 

[Richard]

geoff allott who averages 58 in test matches, and had about 2 series of international ODI success, with not to mention a pathetic ER for most of it? i cant see how anyone can put geoff allott in the same breath as Waqar younis when one man destroyed every opposition he played for 6 years straight, while the other had one fluke of a world cup and then failed miserably thereafter.

The point is that "thereafter" might as well be ignored.
As it might with Waqar.

how many of those bowlers have you seen really?
having pollock on there ahead of wasim or waqar is a joke in itself, and it makes it look even worse when you've mentioned in the past that you never really got to watch pollock in his prime either(not to mention called all his wickets lucky).

Where on Earth did I put Pollock ahead of Wasim?
Large mistake, that.

 

[tooextracool]

The point is that "thereafter" might as well be ignored.
As it might with Waqar.

except that geoff allott was hardly anything special before. and you certainly cant go around parading bowlers based on one good ODI series.

 

[Richard]

IMO you can if that series formed near enough half their career.
That's beside the point, though, as you know, I was saying that you give credit to the view of placing less importance on Waqar's later lesser effectiveness but refuse to ignore Allott's games when he returned from injury palpably a lesser bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

IMO you can if that series formed near enough half their career..

regardless the series was within the same 2 months, 2 months form very little of someones career. and its not like his performanes in the world cup are deserving of deafening applause either.

That's beside the point, though, as you know, I was saying that you give credit to the view of placing less importance on Waqar's later lesser effectiveness but refuse to ignore Allott's games when he returned from injury palpably a lesser bowler.

i dont see how these are comparable. 6 years of continued success in every place in the world that he played in, and against every country, as opposed to 2 months of success in england against 2-3 teams at best.had waqar retired after those first 6 years, he would have been one of the top 3 fast bowlers of all time, were allott to retire after the world cup he would still have been considered a one series wonder.

 

[Richard]

regardless the series was within the same 2 months, 2 months form very little of someones career. and its not like his performanes in the world cup are deserving of deafening applause either.

Really...?
I'd say 10-37-4, 10-39-1, 10-64-4, 10-24-3, 10-42-1, 10-33-1, 9-41-0 was extremely credible.
I don't, frankly, give a damn if it only happened to be 2 months' worth of matches - it was 7 matches, and there were only 13 others.
In any case, I hardly see how his only previous run in the side (just prior to WC99) was Earth-shatteringly poor either... 9-35-4, 10-42-2, 10-51-2, 7-33-2, 10-47-4, 8.4-46-0.

i dont see how these are comparable. 6 years of continued success in every place in the world that he played in, and against every country, as opposed to 2 months of success in england against 2-3 teams at best.had waqar retired after those first 6 years, he would have been one of the top 3 fast bowlers of all time, were allott to retire after the world cup he would still have been considered a one series wonder.

I doubt it... given that he'd a record of 20 matches, economy-rate 4.6-an-over, average 20.67.
Not outstanding in terms of economy-rate, but not abysmally poor given that he was usually a death bowler in those few games, and a very fine wicket-taking record.
He'd probably be considered a bowler who was extremely unfortunate to miss 33 games in a row, then be dropped again for 4 more out of 7 later...
And I for one would agree with that.

 

[tooextracool]

Really...?
I'd say 10-37-4, 10-39-1, 10-64-4, 10-24-3, 10-42-1, 10-33-1, 9-41-0 was extremely credible..

credible yes, downright brilliant no.
out of those performances, only the 3/24,4/37 and the 1/33 were actually quality performances. the 1/89 and 1/42 were merely ok performances, while the 0/41 and the 4/64 were poor.
further one credible series in an entire career does not give you the license to put him down as even a half decent ODI performer.

I don't, frankly, give a damn if it only happened to be 2 months' worth of matches - it was 7 matches, and there were only 13 others...

they happened at the same time when he probably just reached the peak of his career and would hardly have been expected to maintain it.

In any case, I hardly see how his only previous run in the side (just prior to WC99) was Earth-shatteringly poor either... 9-35-4, 10-42-2, 10-51-2, 7-33-2, 10-47-4, 8.4-46-0....

an ER of 4.72 is hardly anything brilliant even if it is at a decent average, as you yourself have often mentioned

I doubt it... given that he'd a record of 20 matches, economy-rate 4.6-an-over, average 20.67.
Not outstanding in terms of economy-rate, but not abysmally poor given that he was usually a death bowler in those few games, and a very fine wicket-taking record.
He'd probably be considered a bowler who was extremely unfortunate to miss 33 games in a row, then be dropped again for 4 more out of 7 later...
And I for one would agree with that.

that isnt too far off his current record, an average of 23 with an ER of 4.74.
Further you've done a good job in ignoring the overall picture, i dont see what evidence there is to compare him with waqar younis, when one was a largely unproven quantity, and 7 games dont prove anything in ODI cricket, as opposed to someone who performed in test cricket for 6 years.

 

[Jono]

Sort of bridging off to TEC's original point, it is interesting that when discussing the best seamers of the modern era (say 1970-present) Waqar's name is often forgotten or mentioned after many others, yet as has already been made clear, from 1990-95 he was superb. Hell beyond superb.

 

[Swervy]

Sort of bridging off to TEC's original point, it is interesting that when discussing the best seamers of the modern era (say 1970-present) Waqar's name is often forgotten or mentioned after many others, yet as has already been made clear, from 1990-95 he was superb. Hell beyond superb.

scarily good in fact.

I cannot beleive Geoff Allott is being mentioned along side Waqar.

Its good to be back!!!!!!

 

[Jono]

Yay for Swervy's return

 

[Richard]

scarily good in fact.

I cannot beleive Geoff Allott is being mentioned along side Waqar.

Why on Earth not? No-one is saying they are comparably good bowlers - just that they had similar situations.

 

[Richard]

credible yes, downright brilliant no.
out of those performances, only the 3/24,4/37 and the 1/33 were actually quality performances. the 1/89 and 1/42 were merely ok performances, while the 0/41 and the 4/64 were poor.
further one credible series in an entire career does not give you the license to put him down as even a half decent ODI performer.

Why not? Unless there's further evidence to the contrary, I see no reason why Allott cannot be regarded as someone who was unlucky not to play more.
I regard him as a good ODI bowler - for a very short time. And his contribution to WC99 was one of the aspects that made it so enjoyable, in a competition that got me interested in the World game.

they happened at the same time when he probably just reached the peak of his career and would hardly have been expected to maintain it.

Fact is, we'll never know.
For all we know, he could've reached that peak much, much earlier, and continued with it until his injury in 1999.

an ER of 4.72 is hardly anything brilliant even if it is at a decent average, as you yourself have often mentioned

Except that the overall picture blurs the individual facts - that's 1 very good game, 3 not-disastrous ones and 1 poor one.

that isnt too far off his current record, an average of 23 with an ER of 4.74.
Further you've done a good job in ignoring the overall picture, i dont see what evidence there is to compare him with waqar younis, when one was a largely unproven quantity, and 7 games dont prove anything in ODI cricket, as opposed to someone who performed in test cricket for 6 years.

There is nothing in that - there is simply the fact that you refused to acknowledge that the games Allott played when returning (mistakenly) from injury are, for all intents and purposes, relatively meaningless.

 

[tooextracool]

Why not? Unless there's further evidence to the contrary, I see no reason why Allott cannot be regarded as someone who was unlucky not to play more.
I regard him as a good ODI bowler - for a very short time. And his contribution to WC99 was one of the aspects that made it so enjoyable, in a competition that got me interested in the World game.

Fact is, we'll never know.
For all we know, he could've reached that peak much, much earlier, and continued with it until his injury in 1999.

and when there is doubt, you cannot classify someone as being a good bowler. good bowlers are proven performers at either ODI or test match level

Except that the overall picture blurs the individual facts - that's 1 very good game, 3 not-disastrous ones and 1 poor one.

which again is hardly anything to be proud off.

There is nothing in that - there is simply the fact that you refused to acknowledge that the games Allott played when returning (mistakenly) from injury are, for all intents and purposes, relatively meaningless.

in the grand scheme of it all, geoff allott did not do enough just from 7 ODIs to be put amongst the half decent bowlers of the last decade.