What's new

As a bowling pair, which is the best out of Ambrose/Walsh, Broad/Anderson, Donald/Pollock?

Hasan123

Hasan123

Test Star
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Runs
38,432
Ambrose and Walsh
Anderson and Broad
Donald and Pollock

3 brilliant bowling pairs, out of these which is the best as a pair in tests?

Discuss
 
One pair doesn't belong here.
 
Didn't watched much of first pair

On rest the 3rd pair wins handsdown
 
Donald and Pollock

It is not even a contest.

If you take out Australia, Donald averages 21 and Pollock averages 22. Good luck facing them.
 
The_Odd_One said:
Donald and Pollock

It is not even a contest.

If you take out Australia, Donald averages 21 and Pollock averages 22. Good luck facing them.
Click to expand...


Anderson and Broad have good performances vs Australia, I know it's not the great Australian side of old but they can only play what's infront of them. Also broad and anderson have done well in the subcontinent.

Would love too see the stats for these pairs in Asia.
 
Out of the 3 I would definitely say Donald and Pollock. For me Donald and Pollock just edge it over Ambrose and Walsh. For me Donald = Ambrose, while Pollock > Walsh. Walsh was a very good bowler too but Pollock was better with the new ball and was more of a wicket taker than Walsh.

Anderson and Broad are not even in the picture. They have been very average in certain parts of their career and all the other 4 bowlers have been far better than them over the course of their respective careers.
 
Hasan123 said:
I rate Wasim and Waqar higher than 3 pairs above. I think it's a close contest between the 3 pairs I have chosen
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you are wrong then. Wasim and Waqar were not better than Donald and Pollock.

Waqar averages 31 against top 7 test teams after 1995, that is half the number of matches he played. Wasim's wickets of top 7 are much less than let's say Ambrose's.

Donald and Pollock, and Ambrose and Walsh were much better pairs than Wasim and Waqar because Waqar was the weak link.
 
Hasan123 said:
Anderson and Broad have good performances vs Australia, I know it's not the great Australian side of old but they can only play what's infront of them. Also broad and anderson have done well in the subcontinent.

Would love too see the stats for these pairs in Asia.
Click to expand...

Anderson and Broad is a good bowling pair but none of them is an ATG bowler.
 
The_Odd_One said:
I am sorry but you are wrong then. Wasim and Waqar were not better than Donald and Pollock.

Waqar averages 31 against top 7 test teams after 1995, that is half the number of matches he played. Wasim's wickets of top 7 are much less than let's say Ambrose's.

Donald and Pollock, and Ambrose and Walsh were much better pairs than Wasim and Waqar because Waqar was the weak link.
Click to expand...


Waqar at his peak was unreal. Yes there stats may not be the best but they ran through teams at times both with old and new ball
 
Hasan123 said:
Waqar at his peak was unreal. Yes there stats may not be the best but they ran through teams at times both with old and new ball
Click to expand...

Here are some interesting stats I took from a past post.

Wasim-Waqar
195 wkts at an avg of 19.95 with a S/R of 42.2 as a pair (1990-95)

Donald-Pollock
235 wkts at an avg of 19.93 with a S/R of 48.3 as a pair (1996-2001)

Even in their absolute peak, the pair of Wasim and Waqar was not better than Donald and Pollock. Stats for Wasim and Waqar were taken only for their peak years. If you include stats from after 1995, the average and strike rate will increase so much that it should not even be a discussion.
 
Quoting a very good post from an old thread.

IndianWillow said:
Instead of speculating who would be better, we can draw better conclusions from what these two duos have actually accomplished.

Ambrose and Walsh dismissed opponents for sub 150 scores in the 4th innings seven times in their career, in 42 innings , and this included the following teams: South Africa 148, England 137, Australia 114, India 114 and 81, Zimbabwe 63, England 46.

Akram and Waqar dismissed opponents for sub 150 scores in the 4th innings five times in their career, in 42 innings , and this included the following teams: Zimbabwe 139 and 134, NZ 131 and 93, WI 53.

Based on the stats, it is readily obvious that Ambrose and Walsh were capable of taking down big opponents (SA, Aus,Eng,Ind) while Akram and Waqar managed it mainly against weak opponents (Zimb, NZ).

The choice is relatively easy to make, I guess.
Click to expand...
 
The_Odd_One said:
Here are some interesting stats I took from a past post.

Wasim-Waqar
195 wkts at an avg of 19.95 with a S/R of 42.2 as a pair (1990-95)

Donald-Pollock
235 wkts at an avg of 19.93 with a S/R of 48.3 as a pair (1996-2001)

Even in their absolute peak, the pair of Wasim and Waqar was not better than Donald and Pollock. Stats for Wasim and Waqar were taken only for their peak years. If you include stats from after 1995, the average and strike rate will increase so much that it should not even be a discussion.
Click to expand...


Some good stats. But my judgement of Wasim and Waqar being a better pair isn't about stats. They could run through the opposition with the new ball and old ball. Also remember they played a lot of cricket in Asia were tracks weren't as helpful for fast bowlers. Donald and Pollock played in SA were they got support from the pitch. Whilst I think Pollock and in paticular Donald is underated I don't think they are better than Wasim and Waqar as a pair or as individual bowlers.
 
Wasim and Waqar were the best bowling pair ever. What these statisticians forget to take into account is that these two were from Pakistan, a country from the subcontinent.

How many other pairs have come close? Zero. Despite having heavily populated countries like India in this region. That should tell you how difficult it is to become fast bowling legends while bowling on dead surfaces for more than half your career.

By contrast, Donald and Pollock bowled in the most pace-friendly country on the planet. They're probably not even the best fair from their own country, Steyn and Philander probably edge them out.

The choice is definitely clear, Wasim and Waqar were better. As for the three mentioned in this thread, I would pick the West Indians.
 
Hasan123 said:
Some good stats. But my judgement of Wasim and Waqar being a better pair isn't about stats. They could run through the opposition with the new ball and old ball. Also remember they played a lot of cricket in Asia were tracks weren't as helpful for fast bowlers. Donald and Pollock played in SA were they got support from the pitch. Whilst I think Pollock and in paticular Donald is underated I don't think they are better than Wasim and Waqar as a pair or as individual bowlers.
Click to expand...

If Wasim and Waqar were better than Donald and Pollock because they bowled better in Asia (less fast bowler friendly conditions), then they should have performed better than Donald and Pollock outside Asia but it is not true.

Matches outside Asia (Wasim and Waqar played together):
Wasim averages 23, Waqar averages 25

Matches outside Asia (Donald and Pollock played together):
Donald averages 21, Pollock averages 22
 
The_Odd_One said:
If Wasim and Waqar were better than Donald and Pollock because they bowled better in Asia (less fast bowler friendly conditions), then they should have performed better than Donald and Pollock outside Asia but it is not true.

Matches outside Asia (Wasim and Waqar played together):
Wasim averages 23, Waqar averages 25

Matches outside Asia (Donald and Pollock played together):
Donald averages 21, Pollock averages 22
Click to expand...


The difference isn't even that big. Your acting as though they average 10 plus higher. An average of 25 outside of Asia for an Asian bowler is brilliant. Wasim's is very good as well.
 
The 2nd pair doesn't even come close - so, it's between 1 & 3.

It's quite balanced pair as well, because if I put in order - my rank will be Donald by millimeter, Ambi - distinctive gap - Walshi, Polly, again by millimeter. So it's a pair of 1-4 & 2-3.

As a pair complementing each others, those 2 are closely matches as well. Ambi was a great container & attacking threat as well; while Donald was extremely attacking, to complement his aggression, Polly was probably the meanest pacers in modern era.

Probably, it'll come down to the impact of the pair on different condition - in that regard, I'll take Donald-Pollock pair ahead of the other pair for my attack. Reason being -

1. Pollock was the best swing bowler of the lot - on green tops or swinging condition, Walshi won't come close to other 3
2. Ambi was outstanding 4th innings pacer, probably then next 2 (of the 3) are Pollock & Donald
3. With new ball, both pair was outstanding, probably the WI pair was slightly better; but the SAF pair was much better with old ball
4. As a combination, I think Donald-Pollock pair is a more diverse - in terms of pace, swing, bounce & stock ball. At their prime, Donald was fantastic with his short of length staff & Polly with his perfect late out-swing; to me that's the most difficult part of handling this pair - you are constantly on front & back foot & looking for incoming & out going balls. Also, Walsh was one of the best ever stock bowler - he got the new ball only after Bishop lost to injury; even if I am not wrong Reon King or Cameroon Cuffy got the new ball ahead of Walsh, but not sure.
 
Hasan123 said:
The difference isn't even that big. Your acting as though they average 10 plus higher. An average of 25 outside of Asia for an Asian bowler is brilliant. Wasim's is very good as well.
Click to expand...

You did not get the point. Outside Asia, everywhere in the world, the pair of Donald and Pollock was better than the pair of Wasim and Waqar. This could have been different if Waqar was a better bowler after 1994.
 
MMHS said:
The 2nd pair doesn't even come close - so, it's between 1 & 3.

It's quite balanced pair as well, because if I put in order - my rank will be Donald by millimeter, Ambi - distinctive gap - Walshi, Polly, again by millimeter. So it's a pair of 1-4 & 2-3.

As a pair complementing each others, those 2 are closely matches as well. Ambi was a great container & attacking threat as well; while Donald was extremely attacking, to complement his aggression, Polly was probably the meanest pacers in modern era.

Probably, it'll come down to the impact of the pair on different condition - in that regard, I'll take Donald-Pollock pair ahead of the other pair for my attack. Reason being -

1. Pollock was the best swing bowler of the lot - on green tops or swinging condition, Walshi won't come close to other 3
2. Ambi was outstanding 4th innings pacer, probably then next 2 (of the 3) are Pollock & Donald
3. With new ball, both pair was outstanding, probably the WI pair was slightly better; but the SAF pair was much better with old ball
4. As a combination, I think Donald-Pollock pair is a more diverse - in terms of pace, swing, bounce & stock ball. At their prime, Donald was fantastic with his short of length staff & Polly with his perfect late out-swing; to me that's the most difficult part of handling this pair - you are constantly on front & back foot & looking for incoming & out going balls. Also, Walsh was one of the best ever stock bowler - he got the new ball only after Bishop lost to injury; even if I am not wrong Reon King or Cameroon Cuffy got the new ball ahead of Walsh, but not sure.
Click to expand...

You are spot on Walsh not being the new ball bowler for the most part of his career. As far as I remember, Walsh was always the first change bowler. He only got the new ball when WI ran out of great fast bowlers.
 
The_Odd_One said:
You did not get the point. Outside Asia, everywhere in the world, the pair of Donald and Pollock was better than the pair of Wasim and Waqar. This could have been different if Waqar was a better bowler after 1994.
Click to expand...


You brought up the stats. It's you that doesn't understand them. The way you presented was that Donald and pollock records were significantly better but it wasn't even that much different.

Yes there stats are brilliant but I rate Wasim and Waqar higher. Stats aren't everything in cricket. They are an indicator
 
Hasan123 said:
I am assuming you think that's Broad and Anderson?
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant that pair.

Hasan123 said:
Anderson and Broad have good performances vs Australia, I know it's not the great Australian side of old but they can only play what's infront of them. Also broad and anderson have done well in the subcontinent.

Would love too see the stats for these pairs in Asia.
Click to expand...

Here you go,

Career stats of these Pair:

Donald+Pollock : Avg 21 for all venues -- Avg 20 in Asia

Ambrose+Walsh : Avg 22 for all venues - Avg 24 in Asia

Anderson+Broad: Avg 27 for all venues - Avg 29 in Asia

As I said, one pair doesn't belong here.
 
Buffet said:
Yes, I meant that pair.



Here you go,

Career stats of these Pair:

Donald+Pollock : Avg 21 for all venues -- Avg 20 in Asia

Ambrose+Walsh : Avg 22 for all venues - Avg 24 in Asia

Anderson+Broad: Avg 27 for all venues - Avg 29 in Asia

As I said, one pair doesn't belong here.
Click to expand...


Donald and Pollock were amazing in Asia. Would take them over Ambrose and Walsh
 
Hasan123 said:
Donald and Pollock were amazing in Asia. Would take them over Ambrose and Walsh
Click to expand...

Sample size in Asia is not too big as pair so I won't read much into it( like 4-5 tests as pair). They are around the same level as pair for me with probably Donald/Pollock having an edge.
 
Buffet said:
Sample size in Asia is not too big as pair so I won't read much into it( like 4-5 tests as pair). They are around the same level as pair for me with probably Donald/Pollock having an edge.
Click to expand...

It's very close, Ambrose is extremely underrated on this form. Bowled brilliant test match length, his battle with Steve Waugh was test match cricket at its best
 
Hasan123 said:
You brought up the stats. It's you that doesn't understand them. The way you presented was that Donald and pollock records were significantly better but it wasn't even that much different.

Yes there stats are brilliant but I rate Wasim and Waqar higher. Stats aren't everything in cricket. They are an indicator
Click to expand...

Does not matter how big is the difference, statistics prove that Donald and Pollock were a better bowling pair. You are free to have a different opinion but I will take Donald/Pollock over Wasim/Waqar everywhere except Pakistan and the UAE.
 
Have absolutely no idea why Anderson and Broad are on the list. Good partnership but not worthy of being there ahead of other partnerships such as Wasim and Waqar, McGrath and Warne, Steyn and Morkel. These England players are so over hyped and over rated.
 
Hasan123 said:
Waqar at his peak was unreal.
Click to expand...

Waqar's peak was not unreal. He played alongside ATG Wasim Akhtar. Take a look at following comparison of Waqar's and Rawalpindi Express Shoaib Akhtar's peak.

Akthar from Jan 2000 to Jan 2006 took 127 wickets @ 20.56 :akhtar

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/42655.html?class=1;spanmax1=1+jan+2006;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

^ Akhtar was injured in 2005-2006, otherwise he took 110 wickets @ 19.31 in 22 matches between 2000 to 2005.

Waqar's peak was 1989-94, He took 190 wickets in 33 tests @ 19.15 :waqar

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/43543.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Nov+1994;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings

It's only longevity factor that separates them. Also keep in mind Akhtar played in era dominated by batsmen, Waqar's peak ended in 1995 when quality bats again started to appear (Sachin, Lara, Waugh, Flower at peak). Waqar played on bowling friendly wickets viz-a-viz Akhtar who played on National Highways like Multan. Waqar had support from other end. Akhtar got support only for slight duration after arrival of Mohammed Asif. Akhtar had more success against Indian batting stalwarts, Both W's were neutralized by Indians.
 
Donald-Pollock best pair in 90s, individually Wasim Akram was best skillwise. Donald was most pleasing to watch.
 
KashifButt said:
Have absolutely no idea why Anderson and Broad are on the list. Good partnership but not worthy of being there ahead of other partnerships such as Wasim and Waqar, McGrath and Warne, Steyn and Morkel. These England players are so over hyped and over rated.
Click to expand...

Both are comfortably better Test bowlers than Morkel. This pair doesn't belong in the same category as the others you mentioned, but neither does the pair of Steyn and Morkel.

Morkel is a nobody in Test cricket. He hasn't been exposed because he has played a lot of his Test cricket with Steyn and Philander, who are brilliant Test bowlers.
 
I made a similar thread 5 years where i calculated performances by 2 bowlers playing in same tests.
This is what i got back then.

Bowling Pair - Head to Head

Irman v/s Akram (34 tests)
Imran - 115 wickets @ 23.18
Akram - 124 wickets @ 25.33

Aging Imran outshine young Wasim Akram , in defense of Akram he got 9 more wickets.

Akram V/s Waqar (61 tests)
Akram - 282 wickets @ 21.33
Waqar - 277 wickets @ 22.92
Wasim wins this one. Very close contest.

Akram v/s Akhtar (10 test)
Akram - 27 wickets @ 35.03
Akhtar - 22 wickets @ 42.95
It seems they bring out worst in each other.

Waqar v/s Akhtar (19 tests)
Waqar - 69 wickets @ 25.46
Akhtar - 68 wickets @ 25.13
Very close one. Draw in my book.


Saqlain Mushtaq v/s Mushtaq Ahmed (16 Test)
Saqlain Mushtaq - 74 wickets @ 27.21
Mushtaq Ahmed - 63 wickets @ 34.50

Saqlain wins by mile
------------------------------------

Harbhajan v/s Kumble (54 test)
Kumble - 281 wickets @ 28.36
Harbhajan - 220 wickets @ 32.60

Kmble win by landslide
--------------------------------------

Gillespie v/s Mcrath (58 tests)
Gillespie - 210 wicets @ 26.27
Mcgrath - 274 wickets @ 20.52
No surprises here.


Warne v/s Macgill (16 test)
Warne - 74 wickets @ 29.56
Macgill - 82 wickets @ 22.10

Perhaps the biggest had to head shocker. Most people will expect reverse record.
-----------------------------------


Gough v/s Caddick (30 tests)
Gough - 127 wickets @ 25.79
Caddick - 106 @ 29.14

Gough was the leader and it shows.
---------------------------------------

Pollock v/s Donald ( 47 tests)
Pollock - 189 wickets @ 21.65
Donald - 208 wickets @ 22.01

I'm surprised by Pollock's average being lower than Donald. However i give win to Donald for 19 more wickets.
-----------------------------------

Wash v/s Ambrose (95 tests)
Ambrose - 389 wickets @ 21.11
Walsh - 373 wickets @ 24.30
Ambrose wins by fair distance.

95 tests together for a pair is simply shocking. Next best are 2W's with 61 tests together. That's a huge gap.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-Head-to-Head&highlight=#sthash.MfcjWqfW.dpuf
 
Walsh-Ambrose and Pollock-Donald pair is far ahead of Anderson-Broad.

If you compare averages and strike rate then Pollock-Donald are ahead of the pack.

some stats for you all to digest (each pair in and outside subcontinent).
 

Attachments

  • bowlers.jpg
    bowlers.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 151
My serial

1.Wasim-Waqar
2.Ambrose-Walsh
3.Donald -Pollock
4.McGrath-Gillespie
5......
6.Broad-Anderson
 
Ambrose-Walsh is the wrong pairing.

It wasn't until Ian Bishop had had to remodel his action that Walsh got a sniff at bowling with Curtly Ambrose.

The real pair - and it 's a story of promise ruined by injury - was Bishop Ambrose.

They were some pair! Terrifying.
 
Tera Gawaandi said:
Waqar's peak was not unreal. He played alongside ATG Wasim Akhtar. Take a look at following comparison of Waqar's and Rawalpindi Express Shoaib Akhtar's peak.

Akthar from Jan 2000 to Jan 2006 took 127 wickets @ 20.56 :akhtar

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/42655.html?class=1;spanmax1=1+jan+2006;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

^ Akhtar was injured in 2005-2006, otherwise he took 110 wickets @ 19.31 in 22 matches between 2000 to 2005.

Waqar's peak was 1989-94, He took 190 wickets in 33 tests @ 19.15 :waqar

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/43543.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Nov+1994;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings

It's only longevity factor that separates them. Also keep in mind Akhtar played in era dominated by batsmen, Waqar's peak ended in 1995 when quality bats again started to appear (Sachin, Lara, Waugh, Flower at peak). Waqar played on bowling friendly wickets viz-a-viz Akhtar who played on National Highways like Multan. Waqar had support from other end. Akhtar got support only for slight duration after arrival of Mohammed Asif. Akhtar had more success against Indian batting stalwarts, Both W's were neutralized by Indians.
Click to expand...

Nice post with proper research even if I don't fully agree

Though never thought of it before but the post 1995 point does have some merit though tbf the injury had more to do with the fall in stats
 
Slog said:
Nice post with proper research even if I don't fully agree

Though never thought of it before but the post 1995 point does have some merit though tbf the injury had more to do with the fall in stats
Click to expand...

His post is waffle, both W's barely played any Tests against India let alone being neutralised :))
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Which cricketing nation produces the most talent?
Replies
44
Views
869
BunnyRabbit
B
hassan918
  • Poll Poll
[VIDEOS] Is Sajid Khan/Noman Ali the most lethal bowling pair for Pakistan after Wasim Akram/Waqar Younis?
Replies
68
Views
3K
zahid01
Z
MenInG
The Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy: Significance?
Replies
45
Views
1K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
B
How did Shaun Pollock manage to achieve so much success as a bowler?
2 3
Replies
175
Views
4K
Hitman
Hitman
The Bald Eagle
  • Locked
England vs India | 1st Test | Headingley | June 20-24 | Pre-Match Discussion
2
Replies
80
Views
1K
Rajdeep
R
Back
Top