West Indies ATG Team- Open Voting

[watson]

08. Marshall
09. Holding
10. Ambrose
11. Gibbs

I don't see why 4 x ATG Fast-Bowlers should offer any more advantages over 3 x ATG Fast-Bowlers. Especially as Sobers was farely quick when he wanted to be. Therefore, Gibbs gives the necessary added variety, and is also a match-winner on a turning track.

 

[Satyanash89]

Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Garner

These guys are good enoiugh to do well against anyone, anywhere on any track. Introducing a spinner into the mix doesnt make sense to me... Gibbs is great abd all, but he cannot replace Garner.
Screw variety... 20 overs from a spinner would just give the oppposition some much needed respite from the brutality of the attack.
Sobers is already in the team anyway... why do you need variety when that guy can pretty much play any role the team needs?

 

[Days of Grace]

Sobers was a better left-arm fast-medium than he was a slow left arm spinner.

I'm going with Gibbs. Harsh on Garner.

Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Gibbs

 

[Flametree]

Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Gibbs

The four-pronged pace attack is a bit of a myth. The West Indian bowler from their great era with the highest win ratio (68% wins, 8% losses) is Roger Harper. I know he would have often been included against India, one of the weakest sides of the era, and often in a 5-man attack with someone like Baptiste playing, but that still suggests the spinner had a role to play and there's more to picking a side than just going with your best four bowlers.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Ramadhin

 

[kyear2]

Not sure whom to choose, in modern cricket not sure if it is possible to play four fast bolwers with some flat pitches and over rates to contend with. That being said Garner at times played the role of a spinner keeping it tight with his yorkers and rib ticklers. All of the bowlers contended will with flat wickets and turning tracks especially Marshall, Holding and the aforementioned Garner. The effect of Sobers though is greater felt as a seamer than a spinner, especially as an attacking option, but could have kept it tight as a spinner as well and rip it with his wrist spin option.
Gibbs is also under rated and a notorious spinner of the ball, if he had the conditions of Laker and some of the other early finger spinners no doubt would have had similar results, but as it is he was just or more succesful as the Indian spinners and to boot the first spinner to 300 test wickets is no mean feat.
Will think about it a bit more before I vote, Garner's average and s/r vs Gibbs variety. Both were, to boot excellent fielders aswell. Tough decision.

 

[kingkallis]

Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Gibbs

 

[kingkallis]

If Marshall, Ambrose and Holding with the help of Gibbs cant take 20 wickets then I seriously doubt that Marshall, Ambrose, Holding & Hall / Roberts / Garner / Clarke / Walsh would do it...

 

[Justo]

08. Marshall
09. Holding
10. Ambrose
11. Gibbs

Nothing like a bit of variety with a full time spinner.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Malcolm Marshall, Curtley Ambrose, Joel Garner and Michael Holding will be my selections

 

[doesitmatter]

Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Garner .. Went with the 4 pace attack as Sobers, Richards can be the spin option..almost went for Ramadhin for Garner as he had this ability to spin both ways (cricinfo says) which would have been an asset

 

[bagapath]

Marshall
Holding
Ambrose
Gibbs

 

[Eds]

Malcolm Marshall
Curtly Ambrose
Michael Holding
Joel Garner

I'd vote this, but I'd only do it on the condition Worrell were opening. That's the difficulty with this format.

 

[Prince EWS]

(For the purposes of this post I'm basically going to assume that the pecking order for West Indian quicks is Marshall-Ambrose-Holding-Garner, even though I actually disagree).

The way I look at the fourth quick v Gibbs argument is this: if a batsman, or perhaps more importantly a partnership, had managed to see off Marshall, Ambrose and Holding, who'd be more likely to get the breakthrough? GIbbs or Garner?

Personally I feel that if a batsman really could withstand that first trio, it's likely he's either a superb player or pace bowling or the pitch is offering nothing to the quicks (or quite likely both). In either situation I definitely think having Gibbs, who would challenge different parts of the technique of the batsmen in and get assistance from different tracks, would be the better call. Sometimes the fourth quick is just better than the spinner by enough to make him the more likely of the two in that situation anyway, especially if the first three quicks aren't as good as they are here, but Gibbs was a great spinner so I think he should get the nod really.

 

[Red]

(For the purposes of this post I'm basically going to assume that the pecking order for West Indian quicks is Marshall-Ambrose-Holding-Garner, even though I actually disagree).

The way I look at the fourth quick v Gibbs argument is this: if a batsman, or perhaps more importantly a partnership, had managed to see off Marshall, Ambrose and Holding, who'd be more likely to get the breakthrough? GIbbs or Garner?

Personally I feel that if a batsman really could withstand that first trio, it's likely he's either a superb player or pace bowling or the pitch is offering nothing to the quicks (or quite likely both). In either situation I definitely think having Gibbs, who would challenge different parts of the technique of the batsmen in and get assistance from different tracks, would be the better call. Sometimes the fourth quick is just better than the spinner by enough to make him the more likely of the two in that situation anyway, especially if the first three quicks aren't as good as they are here, but Gibbs was a great spinner so I think he should get the nod really.

Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Gibbs

Good point. I agree. But why not pick the quicks from your own pecking order?

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBH with Sobers in the team spin's taken care of, IMHO. IVAR could also send down a few if needs be.

Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding

 

[Prince EWS]

Good point. I agree. But why not pick the quicks from your own pecking order?

I just think Walsh was better than Garner, which in the end was irrelevant to my vote because I voted for Gibbs. If I used Walsh in the example, no doubt someone would've quoted it saying I was intellectually dishonest by not using the right bowler etc. It seems Garner is favoured here by those who want four quicks so it was better to use him for the argument.

 

[Teja.]

Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Holding

Rob, I understand you think Walsh had a more complete career and was hence 'greater' but for the purposes of a Dream XI would you rather have Walsh or Garner against the Mars XI?

 

[Prince EWS]

Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Holding

Rob, I understand you think Walsh had a more complete career and was hence 'greater' but for the purposes of a Dream XI would you rather have Walsh or Garner against the Mars XI?

I've actually managed to confuse myself; it's Holding I rate Walsh ahead of, not Garner, So I'll change my vote to:

Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Gibbs

I'll edit my vote out of the other post so it doesn't look contradictory.

 

[Teja.]

Conveniently after I voted for Garner at #2.