What's new

Who is the greatest West Indies fast bowler?

Hasan123

Test Star
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Runs
38,432
Ambrose
Walsh
Garner
Marshall
Holding
Roberts

West Indies have produced some of the greatest fast bowlers the game has seen. I'm interested to know who posters rate as the greatest West Indies fast bowler.
 
Haven't seen Garner, Marshall, Holding, and Roberts live. So, can't comment on them.

I have seen Ambrose and Walsh. I pick Walsh.
 
Thats easy and hardly any debate about it - Marshall

The tougher qs is whos the second greatest? For me has to be Ambrose who was brilliant in his time for west indies a true great
 
Roberts because he was the leader of the group then Marshall overtook it.
 
1: Malcolm Marshall. ( big lead)
2: Michael holding
3: curtly Ambrose
4: joel garner
5: Andy Roberts. Many people praise him and he was a great bowler. But stats not as good as the above.
 
Well Marshall's the goat by a decent margin

Then probably Ambrose, Garner Bishop and Holding
 
Marshall
Ambrose

Top 2.

Garner, Holding, Roberts roughly same. Same level as Pollock but ahead of Shoaib/Thomson.

Courtney Walsh no.6.

Ian Bishop was phenomenal also but underachieved due to injuries.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Marshall
Ambrose & Roberts & Holding
Walsh
Joel Garner

Garner was essentially a third seamer who never really ran thru the opposition unlike the others
 
Marshall- The GOAT

Ambrose- Top 5 fast bowlers material

Garner/Holding- Top 15 material

Roberts- Top 20 material

Courtney Walsh- Top 25

Bishop- Same as Shoaib Akhtar and Jeff Thomson but injuries hurt his career, he still ended with 160 test wickets.
 
Marshall- The GOAT

Ambrose- Top 5 fast bowlers material

Garner/Holding- Top 15 material

Roberts- Top 20 material

Courtney Walsh- Top 25

Bishop- Same as Shoaib Akhtar and Jeff Thomson but injuries hurt his career, he still ended with 160 test wickets.

Roberts , Holding & Walsh were definitely superior to Joel Garner

Garner was always more of a third seamer in attack - more of support role
 
Roberts , Holding & Walsh were definitely superior to Joel Garner

Garner was always more of a third seamer in attack - more of support role

But Garner averages 20.99 in test cricket. He is also greatest West Indies bowler in ODIs ever. He was fast, tall, extracted bounce and was known for his toe-crusing yorkers. Don't think Walsh was better. Holding and Roberts maybe, can't say.

Actually, Walsh was more like support bowler to Ambrose and Bishop but Bishop's career got cut short by injuries while Walsh kept on getting better and ended with plenty of wickets, Anderson-esque but he was all conditions bowler.
 
Marshall. Not just the best WI quick but the best quick of all.
 
Roberts , Holding & Walsh were definitely superior to Joel Garner

Garner was always more of a third seamer in attack - more of support role

Until he quickened up and took the new ball from 1983-86. Averaged just 20 and took 268 wickets - better than Roberts and Holding.
 
Until he quickened up and took the new ball from 1983-86. Averaged just 20 and took 268 wickets - better than Roberts and Holding.

He had good numbers but benefited more from bowling with Marshall & Holding at other end

A bit like how Mourne Morkel benefitted due to Steyn or Gillespie due to McGrath
 
But Garner averages 20.99 in test cricket. He is also greatest West Indies bowler in ODIs ever. He was fast, tall, extracted bounce and was known for his toe-crusing yorkers. Don't think Walsh was better. Holding and Roberts maybe, can't say.

Actually, Walsh was more like support bowler to Ambrose and Bishop but Bishop's career got cut short by injuries while Walsh kept on getting better and ended with plenty of wickets, Anderson-esque but he was all conditions bowler.

Garner was very good in ODIs but not really a strike bowler at any point of time. He benefited from being part of a fearsome pace attack

Walsh was support bowler in 80s & came into his own in 90s
 
It's Marshall by quite a distance.

Top 10 for me:

1. Marshall
2. Ambrose
3. Roberts
4. Holding
5. Garner
6. Walsh
7. Bishop
8. Hall
9. Croft
10. Roach
 
He had good numbers but benefited more from bowling with Marshall & Holding at other end

Well I would argue that they also benefited, from having an unhittable bowler at the other end, forcing batters to take risks against them.
 
Overall the choice of Marshall is uananimous if you assess record .Averaging 20.94 at strike rate of 46.7 speaks for itself,within the greatest quartet itself.Marshall was not the fastest or the most accurate but took creative genius to regions unexplored with his subtle skidding bounce and banana swing.Nonone disguised which way the ball was moving better or had better skill in skidding a cricket all.Holding had a far more perfect action and had consistently more speed through the air,Garner and Ambrose were more accurate and relentless,Sylvester Clarke was quicker,Roberts was more classically complete with 2 different types of bouncers.Howevere in terms of stats Marshal towered above everyone.

His runner up to me is almost inevitably Ambrose who was arguably even better than Marshall on bouncy strips or bad wickets and even more lethal in single in spells.Ambrose produced the most match-winning spells in 4th innings However Ambrose was not at his best with the old ball or on flat strips and could become quite predictable at times.

Technicallly the closest to Marshall was Andy Roberts who was more classically complete than even Marshall and had a wider repertoire than Curtly.Remember Ambrose never toured India where Roberts was outstanding in 1974-75 taken 32 wickets.Roberts had great sklll with an old ball 60 overs old and could reverse swing it.Significant that Gavaskar rated Roberts the best he ever faced and Lillee rated him the most complete pace bowler he ever saw.Barry Richards and Chappell brothers felt Roberts was only behind Lillee in his time.

Holding's sheer speed through the air made him a champion even on flat sub-continent tracks or those like the Oval in 1976 when he captured 14 wickets.None had an as perfect action as Holding.He has to his credit the best ever bowing performance in a test or in an over in test cricket.In 1981-82 Holding was arguably the best pace bowler in the world when taking 24 scalps in Australia.

Garner was as relentless and accurate as Curtly but hardly given the opportunity to open the attack.If e had he may well have reached the Lillee class.Remember from 1983-84 he was arguably the best pace bowler in the world,maybe ahead of even Richard Hadlee.Average of 20.97 was a whisker better than even Ambrose.

Walsh was a great in his own right even if he was not as quick as Marshal or Holding.On a flat strip he was more lethal than team mate Curtly,as is evident in his great performances in India and Pakistan.No paceman was such a workhorse or metronome as Walsh.

Overall thus in order of merit

Marshall
Ambrose
Roberts
Holding
Garner
Walsh
 
Marshall- The GOAT

Ambrose- Top 5 fast bowlers material

Garner/Holding- Top 15 material

Roberts- Top 20 material

Courtney Walsh- Top 25

Bishop- Same as Shoaib Akhtar and Jeff Thomson but injuries hurt his career, he still ended with 160 test wickets.

I feel you are underestimating Andy Roberts who was more lethal than anyone bar Marshall and complete in the class of Dennis Lillee.Noone had slow and fast bouncer like Andy.Gavaskar rated Andy as the best pace bowler he ever faced while Lillee ranked him as the most complete of all pace bowlers.Remember the amazing rate at which Andy captured his 1st 100 wickets spearheading the attack alone and his topping the averages in 1st year of World series cricket.The Chappell brothers and Barry Richards rated facing Roberts a more daunting task than even Holding and so did Tony Greig or David Gower.Holding was quicker with a better action but not as versatile or Intelligent a bowler as Andy or as much as a master with the old ball.Ofcoures a better new ball bower or more penetrative on a fast track.
 
Roberts , Holding & Walsh were definitely superior to Joel Garner

Garner was always more of a third seamer in attack - more of support role

Unfair to Joel who may have joined a Dennis Lillee ahd he opened the attack.Remember in mid 1980's Garner was the best fast bowler in the world.Most relentless pacemen ever with Ambrose .Average of 20.97 speaks for iteslf.Overall ahead of Walsh and the 5th best.
 
Marshall. Not just the best WI quick but the best quick of all.
Greatest bowler who ever walked the Earth.

The next best was actually Bishop but only very briefly before his first spinal fractures.

Best performance was Walsh - otherwise a fairly ordinary bowler - in the 1995 Wellington Test.

7-37 and 6-18! While Ambrose took 1-32 and 1-17.

So Walsh took 13 wickets for 55 in 35 overs while Ambrose took 2-49 in 24 overs!
 
Roberts , Holding & Walsh were definitely superior to Joel Garner

Garner was always more of a third seamer in attack - more of support role

The greatest 3rd seamer of all time by a margin. He was more suited to that role due to his height and bounce. It is like how Cummins was Aus' change bowler for a while despite being their best bowlers
 
Tough question, as so many greats.

For me, in terms of skill and ability, it has to be Macko Marshall.
 
Compare Windies top 10 to Pakistan,

1.Imran Khan
2.Wasim Akram
3.Waqar Younis
4.Shoaib Akhtar
5.Fazal Mahmood
6.Mohammad Asif
7.Mohammad Amir
8. Mohammad Rafique
9. Mohammad Abbas
10.Khan Mohammad
 
Greatest bowler who ever walked the Earth.

The next best was actually Bishop but only very briefly before his first spinal fractures.

Best performance was Walsh - otherwise a fairly ordinary bowler - in the 1995 Wellington Test.

7-37 and 6-18! While Ambrose took 1-32 and 1-17.

So Walsh took 13 wickets for 55 in 35 overs while Ambrose took 2-49 in 24 overs!

It's a shame that Bishop got injured so badly. He would have possibly been challenging Marshall in all conditions as a goat.
 
WI def has the most depth overall. Following them is Aus (Miller, Lillee, McGrath, Davo, Lindwall) and Sa (Adcock, Proctor, Pollock x2, Steyn, Donald).
 
Malcolm Marshall. He performed in most conditions and is only rivalled by McGrath as the GOAT fast bowler when you look at the numbers.
 
Greatest bowler who ever walked the Earth.

The next best was actually Bishop but only very briefly before his first spinal fractures.

Best performance was Walsh - otherwise a fairly ordinary bowler - in the 1995 Wellington Test.

7-37 and 6-18! While Ambrose took 1-32 and 1-17.

So Walsh took 13 wickets for 55 in 35 overs while Ambrose took 2-49 in 24 overs!

It's shocking to see this most bipolar attitude from you. You are rating a 5'11" Marshall above 6'8" Ambrose when everybody knows that modern pitches and kookaburra balls are effective only in the hands of bowlers above 6'3". Marshall could not have bowled a safe length in today's test cricket .

Very disappointed by this post tbh.
 
1. Marshall
2. Roberts/Ambrose (can’t separate either)
4. Holding
5. Garner
6. Bishop
7. Colin Croft
8. Wes Hall
9. Walsh
10. One of Roy Gilchrist/Charlie Griffith - too close to call.
 
ambrose, when i first saw him on tv, appeared less exciting than wasim and waqar and no different from the factory list of w.i. fast bowlers who preceded him. i remember him getting smashed in sharjah by basit ali of all people.

then, i went to national stadium karachi to watch the 1995 quarter final match between w.i and s.a. and boy, was i wrong about ambrose.

[utube]-mzSlZBJDlQ[/utube]

memory of ambrose steaming in from pavilion end is something that has stayed with me all these years much like the memory of watching waqar from side on. from tv, you could not judge the height from which ambrose delivered the ball, the bounce he was getting on the flat pitch and the unerring accuracy with which he bowled. the batsman simply had no option but to defend against him without being comfortable either on the back or the front foot. i can only imagine what a frightening prospect he must have been on a helpful pitch with a bevy of slip-fielders behind him. his partner, walsh, was not bad either. again, the bounce and movement he got was something that did not reflect properly on tv. having watched them live, i can totally understand why the likes of great batsmen like hayden, langer and yk failed against this attack and only became regular members of their sides after the retirement of these two great bowlers. ambrose simply was from another planet.

another memory from that match: lara. milking medium pacers and destroying spinners. hit symcox for five fours in one over. watching him live, you saw how he picked out gap from where the fielder had been removed after the previous delivery.

the world cup itself changed odi cricket forever and credit for that goes to sl. their destruction of england, in faisalabad (i think) set the template for how good teams would play odi cricket going forward. that match was a total humiliation of england and opened the eyes of cricketing world on what was possible.

one more memory from that w.c - that ball steve waugh bowled to lara who was taking the match away from aussies. steve waugh was to repeat the same heroics in the next world cup on a much grander scale. on paper, steve waugh's credentials are rather ordinary. but cricket thankfully is not played on paper or on excel sheets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Marshall
2. Roberts/Ambrose (can’t separate either)
4. Holding
5. Garner
6. Bishop
7. Colin Croft
8. Wes Hall
9. Walsh
10. One of Roy Gilchrist/Charlie Griffith - too close to call.

Why Walsh so low with so many scalps and mastery on sub-continent surfaces?None was such a metronome and only Marshall and Roberts were better in the sub-continent?Otherwise great list in term s of order.
 
Why Walsh so low with so many scalps and mastery on sub-continent surfaces?None was such a metronome and only Marshall and Roberts were better in the sub-continent?Otherwise great list in term s of order.

Really tough to rate after top few with so many greats around. I think, top 5 are almost fixed for everyone with many be minor changes in order. It’s the next bunch where it’s really difficult. Among the last 4 (# 6-9), one can place them in any order, but I picked my order for certain considerations.

Walsh wasn’t a strike bowler; he is probably the best ever stock bowler, but it was the decline of WI cricket that allowed him to take the new ball - till Benjamin’s (Winston & Kenny), Bishop & Rose; he actually didn’t open with Ambrose. Walsh had a fantastic smooth action, which despite being a fast bowler, allowed him to play Test cricket for almost 17 years, and he maintained a fantastic average being part of the greatest fast bowling unit in history; but other three had better reputations as the strike bowler, and unfortunate to some extent. Wes Hall retired at 31 and played only 48 Tests; Clark was a fearsome fast bowler who opted to leave for SAF and Bishop was injury prone; played last Test even before reaching 29. At their prime, I believe each one was better than Walshi.
 
Really tough to rate after top few with so many greats around. I think, top 5 are almost fixed for everyone with many be minor changes in order. It’s the next bunch where it’s really difficult. Among the last 4 (# 6-9), one can place them in any order, but I picked my order for certain considerations.

Walsh wasn’t a strike bowler; he is probably the best ever stock bowler, but it was the decline of WI cricket that allowed him to take the new ball - till Benjamin’s (Winston & Kenny), Bishop & Rose; he actually didn’t open with Ambrose. Walsh had a fantastic smooth action, which despite being a fast bowler, allowed him to play Test cricket for almost 17 years, and he maintained a fantastic average being part of the greatest fast bowling unit in history; but other three had better reputations as the strike bowler, and unfortunate to some extent. Wes Hall retired at 31 and played only 48 Tests; Clark was a fearsome fast bowler who opted to leave for SAF and Bishop was injury prone; played last Test even before reaching 29. At their prime, I believe each one was better than Walshi.

And to [MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION]
I love Courtney Walsh. I'm the one who raised his 7-37 and 6-18 at Wellington in 1994-95. But having grown up watching County Cricket, I must say a few long-forgotten things about Courtney Walsh.

Walsh was born at the end of October 1962. By the mid-1980's he was a stalwart fast bowler at Gloucestershire - the best foreign player that they had had since Mike Procter.

But he just couldn't break into the West Indies team. He wasn't quite good enough.

He was tall and he was quick-ish - around 140K. But there was any number of West Indian players in his era who were better than him: not just Roberts/Holding/Garner/Marshall but also Croft and Clarke and Stephenson and Moseley (all of whom went to South Africa) and then Bishop, who was the most talented of the lot.

Walsh was mainly a reserve until Bishop fractured his spine in 1991 - by which time Walsh was almost 30. There would be overseas tours that the senior bowlers would opt out of, and there were opportunities when Roberts and then Garner and then Holding retired. But Walsh wasn't quite good enough to replace them.

Pakistan toured the West Indies in 1987-88 when Garner and Holding had just retired, although Ambrose was on debut replacing Garner. Walsh played all 3 Tests - and he took 4 wickets in 86 overs at 57.50 in a low-scoring series.

Then immediately afterwards, on his favourite surfaces in England, in a 4-0 series victory he took just 12 wickets in 5 Tests at 34.33 as England barely scored a run all summer.

We had arrived at the point at which Ian Bishop exploded onto the scene. And the first choice attack was clearly Ambrose and Bishop to open the bowling with Marshall and another quick - often Winston Benjamin - in support.

By the time England toured the West Indies in 1989-90 - famously the first series ever broadcast live from the Caribbean, by BSkyB - Walsh was a fringe player, a reserve who literally was in one match, out the next.

And then Bishop's back gave way. And suddenly the West Indies realized that they had a pace attack built on attrition and keeping the scoring rate down, with the two strike bowlers (Bishop and Marshall) struck down by injury and age respectively.

And that is where Courtney Walsh so successfully reinvented himself.

Up until now for the last 14 years there had really been no hierarchy of strike bowler and stock bowler roles in the West Indies team, or of bowling with the wind or into the wind. The problem now - around 1991- was that nobody was quicker or faster or more devastating than anyone else once Bishop got his injury.

Pakistan came pretty close to dethroning the West Indies in both 1987-88 and 1990-91, and then straight afterwards the Australians nearly did so in the Caribbean.

The West Indies survived those scares, but the pace attack needed to operate differently.

And it was actually Sir Richie Richardson who came up with the solution when he took over from Viv Richards. He recognized that Bishop may never regain his former level, but that Ambrose had the capacity to be more of a strike bowler than the Garner-like stock bowler that he had been used as.

On the legendary tour to Australia in 1992-93 Bishop was back, but Richardson had changed Walsh's role to strictly being an into-the-wind support bowler. He only took 12 wickets in 5 Tests at 39 runs apiece, but the change seemed to work - Walsh was very difficult to score off.

And for the next decade that became Walsh's role. He abandoned any pretence of being a typical West Indies fast bowler. He cut back his pace and his length and became a stifling 130-135K bowler who bowled a length that you couldn't drive or cut. And this allowed Ambrose to attack more at the other end.

He was a very fine bowler in that role. But to be honest, this is a man who wasn't a Test regular even when England toured in 89-90, when he was 27 years of age. He basically had Ian Bishop's career, and he had it because his body was stronger and more durable than Bishop's.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION].

Completely agree with your writeup, however it is necessary to note how Walsh improved throughout his career - his peak was at the very end. The bowler he was in 2000 is vastly different to the bowler he was in 1990 or 1985
 
And to [MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION]
I love Courtney Walsh. I'm the one who raised his 7-37 and 6-18 at Wellington in 1994-95. But having grown up watching County Cricket, I must say a few long-forgotten things about Courtney Walsh.

Walsh was born at the end of October 1962. By the mid-1980's he was a stalwart fast bowler at Gloucestershire - the best foreign player that they had had since Mike Procter.

But he just couldn't break into the West Indies team. He wasn't quite good enough.

He was tall and he was quick-ish - around 140K. But there was any number of West Indian players in his era who were better than him: not just Roberts/Holding/Garner/Marshall but also Croft and Clarke and Stephenson and Moseley (all of whom went to South Africa) and then Bishop, who was the most talented of the lot.

Walsh was mainly a reserve until Bishop fractured his spine in 1991 - by which time Walsh was almost 30. There would be overseas tours that the senior bowlers would opt out of, and there were opportunities when Roberts and then Garner and then Holding retired. But Walsh wasn't quite good enough to replace them.

Pakistan toured the West Indies in 1987-88 when Garner and Holding had just retired, although Ambrose was on debut replacing Garner. Walsh played all 3 Tests - and he took 4 wickets in 86 overs at 57.50 in a low-scoring series.

Then immediately afterwards, on his favourite surfaces in England, in a 4-0 series victory he took just 12 wickets in 5 Tests at 34.33 as England barely scored a run all summer.

We had arrived at the point at which Ian Bishop exploded onto the scene. And the first choice attack was clearly Ambrose and Bishop to open the bowling with Marshall and another quick - often Winston Benjamin - in support.

By the time England toured the West Indies in 1989-90 - famously the first series ever broadcast live from the Caribbean, by BSkyB - Walsh was a fringe player, a reserve who literally was in one match, out the next.

And then Bishop's back gave way. And suddenly the West Indies realized that they had a pace attack built on attrition and keeping the scoring rate down, with the two strike bowlers (Bishop and Marshall) struck down by injury and age respectively.

And that is where Courtney Walsh so successfully reinvented himself.

Up until now for the last 14 years there had really been no hierarchy of strike bowler and stock bowler roles in the West Indies team, or of bowling with the wind or into the wind. The problem now - around 1991- was that nobody was quicker or faster or more devastating than anyone else once Bishop got his injury.

Pakistan came pretty close to dethroning the West Indies in both 1987-88 and 1990-91, and then straight afterwards the Australians nearly did so in the Caribbean.

The West Indies survived those scares, but the pace attack needed to operate differently.

And it was actually Sir Richie Richardson who came up with the solution when he took over from Viv Richards. He recognized that Bishop may never regain his former level, but that Ambrose had the capacity to be more of a strike bowler than the Garner-like stock bowler that he had been used as.

On the legendary tour to Australia in 1992-93 Bishop was back, but Richardson had changed Walsh's role to strictly being an into-the-wind support bowler. He only took 12 wickets in 5 Tests at 39 runs apiece, but the change seemed to work - Walsh was very difficult to score off.

And for the next decade that became Walsh's role. He abandoned any pretence of being a typical West Indies fast bowler. He cut back his pace and his length and became a stifling 130-135K bowler who bowled a length that you couldn't drive or cut. And this allowed Ambrose to attack more at the other end.

He was a very fine bowler in that role. But to be honest, this is a man who wasn't a Test regular even when England toured in 89-90, when he was 27 years of age. He basically had Ian Bishop's career, and he had it because his body was stronger and more durable than Bishop's.

Walsh was great for Gloster, but between him and Procter, wasn’t there a Pakistani scoring hundreds for fun, named Zaheer Abbas??

Walsh probably won’t have played even 50 Tests had he been born 10 has earlier. A very good fast bowler, but not as good as his stats suggests.
 
Walsh was great for Gloster, but between him and Procter, wasn’t there a Pakistani scoring hundreds for fun, named Zaheer Abbas??

Walsh probably won’t have played even 50 Tests had he been born 10 has earlier. A very good fast bowler, but not as good as his stats suggests.
Zaheer Abbas was really good county player for Gloucestershire - so too was Sadiq Mohammad - but neither had a fraction of the impact of the man after whom they called the team "Proctershire".

Mike Procter tends to get forgotten because he missed so much of his international career due to Apartheid, but he was even greater as an all-rounder than Imran or Botham or Kapil Dev.

Sobers and Kallis were really top order batsmen who were good bowlers, but Procter was one of the ten best bowlers of all-time and also a genuine Top Six batsman.

He was the greatest cricketer that I have ever watched.
 
Really tough to rate after top few with so many greats around. I think, top 5 are almost fixed for everyone with many be minor changes in order. It’s the next bunch where it’s really difficult. Among the last 4 (# 6-9), one can place them in any order, but I picked my order for certain considerations.

Walsh wasn’t a strike bowler; he is probably the best ever stock bowler, but it was the decline of WI cricket that allowed him to take the new ball - till Benjamin’s (Winston & Kenny), Bishop & Rose; he actually didn’t open with Ambrose. Walsh had a fantastic smooth action, which despite being a fast bowler, allowed him to play Test cricket for almost 17 years, and he maintained a fantastic average being part of the greatest fast bowling unit in history; but other three had better reputations as the strike bowler, and unfortunate to some extent. Wes Hall retired at 31 and played only 48 Tests; Clark was a fearsome fast bowler who opted to leave for SAF and Bishop was injury prone; played last Test even before reaching 29. At their prime, I believe each one was better than Walshi.

He was an excellent old-ball bowler, but a strike bowler when he eventually got the new ball. In the 2000 Anglo-WI series he took 36 wickets to Ambrose's 18.

Last 44 tests of his career saw him take 180 wickets at 21.
 
i saw the following match on youtube recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucFOGEQka-Q

in this match, a fairly decent pakistani top order was barely able to score @2rpo against a bowling attack in which, during the first fifteen overs, roger binny and madan lal were supporting acts to kapil dev.

the reason i am highlighting this match is to point out that for most of the eighties, batting standards against pace was not that great - laughable even. poor quality of protective equipment might have something to do with it but even accounting for that, there are very few teams from that era that had a strong batting lineups with the possible exception of w.i. itself. things began to change during the late eighties when teams like australia and pakistan began to be much more adept against pace bowling. as a result, and this may sound sacrilegious to some, but when doing cross-generation comparison, the quality of bowlers from early eighties is over emphasised. this applies to other great fast bowlers from other countries as well. imran and marshall would have been great in the nineties but they would not have produced the numbers they did in the eighties imv. bowling to tailor, slater, the two waughs and later ponting, is an entirely different proposition than bowling to aussie line up from the eighties when border was the only dominant batsman. and yet walsh and ambrose kept w.i. competitive during their era.

another factor in favour of w.i bowlers from the eighties is their own dominant batting lineup which would stack up in any era. their bowlers from nineties did not enjoy such luxury which says a lot about their their achievement.

this is also why cricket was so enjoyable to watch from late eighties to about 2003 world cup. that was a period when you had equal contest between bat and ball. over the last few years, thanks to regulations and other factor, this balance has been lost and this has greatly reduced the charms of the sport.
 
Back
Top