West Indies ATG Team- Open Voting

[Prince EWS]

Conveniently after I voted for Garner at #2.

Didn't even realise you were doing it in order, tbh.

But yeah, Garner is the ideal third seamer really. If the current Bangladesh team had to choose out of Holding/Garner they'd probably take Holding and rightly so because he was more of a genuine strike weapon to lead an attack, but coming on after Marshall and Ambrose I think Garner would balance the attack better.

 

[watson]

There's been a few posts in this thread about how Garner adds more variety to the attack. However, I don't see how because he and Curtly Ambrose had similar styles of bowling.

Both were very tall men with a high action that got steep bounce off the pitch. Ambrose bowled slightly better short-of-a-length and Garner bowled slightly better when he pitched the ball up. But that's about it. In all, there's nothing that Garner did that Ambrose couldn't also do.

Therefore, if you have Ambrose in your team then there's no desperate need to include Garner IMO. And vice versa.

Holding on-the-other-hand, well he was really fast.

 

[Blakus]

Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I was going through this page that shows some best new ball opening pairs. It's not that relevant to selecting bowlers for ATG XI but it's interesting. It shows Marshall and Garner together is the best opening pair ever.

the pair with the best combined bowling average is the Garner-Marshall combination: both averaged marginally over 20 runs per wicket, and their combined average in the innings in which they took the new ball was an outstanding 20.16.

In fact, Garner didn't take the new ball that often in his Test career - only 49 times out of 111 innings did he bowl at the start of an innings, over a three-year period from 1984 to 1987. Out of those 49 innings, 43 times his new-ball partner was Marshall, and together they wreaked havoc

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/535666.html

 

[Days of Grace]

A Marshall/Ambrose combination would probably be just as good.

 

[The Sean]

8. Marshall
9. Holding
10. Ambrose
11. Gibbs

Always pick a spinner. Lloyd's 4-man attack was actually relatively short-lived and would only have been played in the time period that it did. Doesn't really have a place in an All-Time side for my quid.

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.

Yep, what these blokes have said - I think an all-conditions All Time XI needs to have a spinner. It should also be remembered that Sobers was a lot more effective bowling fast rather than slow, so I'd be much more comfortable with him as the fourth quick rather than the only spinner.

If the four quicks combination for WI gets up though, as seems likely, it will make for difficult comparisons with the Australian team who have picked two spinners - the outcome of a match between those two teams would then be decided heavily by the type of pitch that was prepared for them!

 

[Red]

Garner is often forgotten when the best of the best quicks are discussed.

The guy was an absolute beast fast bowler. Right up there with the best of the best. Very similar in a lot of ways to McGrath and Ambrose in terms of height and the ability to be economic and strike regularly.

 

[kyear2]

Malcolm Marshall
Curtly Ambrose
Michael Holding
Lance Gibbs

Just believe the team needs balance, Sobers could then either be the 4th quick or the 2nd spinner depending on the conditions.

 

[kyear2]

Joel Garner: 11 Votes
Lance Gibbs: 10 Votes

 

[watson]

Garner is often forgotten when the best of the best quicks are discussed.

The guy was an absolute beast fast bowler. Right up there with the best of the best. Very similar in a lot of ways to McGrath and Ambrose in terms of height and the ability to be economic and strike regularly.

If you think about it this discussion regarding ATG West Indian fast bowlers is rather moot because let's face it, all batsman are going to be a tad apprehensive no matter what 3 bowlers are lined up and ready to go.

It's not as if Arthur Morris or Jack Hobbs is going say, "Oh good, I'm really glad I'm facing Mashall-Ambrose-Holding rather than Marshall-Garner-Ambrose this morning."

Actually, I remember watching a documentary back in the late 70s where the camera crew (I think it was '60 Minutes') had exclusive access to the Australian dressing room on the first morning of a Test match against the West Indies. The focus of attention was Rick McCosker who was padded up and just waiting for the umpires call. I remember Rick was bent over forward and gripping the edge of the table. His head and body were swaying from side to side. As the rest of the team clapped and yelled to gee him up his face appeared to just go paler than it already was, and just got more vacant looking.

I don't remember anymore of the documentary other than poor Rick. He made 14.

 

[Red]

If you think about it this discussion regarding ATG West Indian fast bowlers is rather moot because let's face it, all batsman are going to be a tad apprehensive no matter what 3 bowlers are lined up and ready to go.

It's not as if Arthur Morris or Jack Hobbs is going say, "Oh good, I'm really glad I'm facing Mashall-Ambrose-Holding rather than Marshall-Garner-Ambrose this morning."

Actually, I remember watching a documentary back in the late 70s where the camera crew (I think it was '60 Minutes') had exclusive access to the Australian dressing room on the first morning of a Test match against the West Indies. The focus of attention was Rick McCosker who was padded up and just waiting for the umpires call. I remember Rick was bent over forward and gripping the edge of the table. His head and body were swaying from side to side. As the rest of the team clapped and yelled to gee him up his face appeared to just go paler than it already was, and just got more vacant looking.

I don't remember anymore of the documentary other than poor Rick. He made 14.

The change in a batsman's psyche (at international level) since helmets have become common has been massive. Guys like McCosker, going out to face Holding, Garner and Roberts without a helmet, were under serious threat of death. The same applies to Bradman etc in bodyline series. Nowadays, batsmen can take a lot more liberties than they did prior to the 1980s, since the very real threat of death while batting has been (mostly) removed from cricket.

A guy like Langer, who seemed to get hit flush in the helmet a couple of times each series, would have been killed in the 70s.

Holding bowling to Brian Close on the "Fire in Babylon" DVD (after Greig made his "grovel" comment) is some of the most calculated and chilling cricket footage. FMD that looks quick, and flat out frightening.

 

[Slifer]

But helmets were very common place by the 80s and fast bowlers were still successful. In fact IMO the hey day for fast bowling was the 90s where helmets, the bouncer rule and overates were all in place and fast bowlers still thrived. The threat of death might have been removed with the advent of proper protective gear and all but great fast bowling and bowling in general will always find a way through......

 

[Red]

But helmets were very common place by the 80s and fast bowlers were still successful. In fact IMO the hey day for fast bowling was the 90s where helmets, the bouncer rule and overates were all in place and fast bowlers still thrived. The threat of death might have been removed with the advent of proper protective gear and all but great fast bowling and bowling in general will always find a way through......

Yeh, my point wasn't that fast bowlers do/don't thrive when batsmen have protective gear....

An example of the way helmets have changed things would be the way Hayden used to walk at Akhtar. He wouldn't have done that without a helmet.

 

[watson]

Joel Garner: 11 Votes
Lance Gibbs: 10 Votes

Close.

 

[kyear2]

Very, in any even the looser will be 12th man for a quick switch like how England has Verity depending on pitch conditions. My question was if selected would Gibbs be a weak link, but 18 5 wicket hauls on the wickets he played on and allowing less than 2 runs p/o over his career means that he is a threat on spinning wickets and on unresponsive ones can at least tie down an end and let the fat men rotate on the other end. Sobers too was a much better fast bowler than spinner and brings the LHF variety as well. And yes Sobers will be at leg slip for Gibbs as well, with Lara at 1st.

 

[kyear2]

The change in a batsman's psyche (at international level) since helmets have become common has been massive. Guys like McCosker, going out to face Holding, Garner and Roberts without a helmet, were under serious threat of death. The same applies to Bradman etc in bodyline series. Nowadays, batsmen can take a lot more liberties than they did prior to the 1980s, since the very real threat of death while batting has been (mostly) removed from cricket.

A guy like Langer, who seemed to get hit flush in the helmet a couple of times each series, would have been killed in the 70s.

Holding bowling to Brian Close on the "Fire in Babylon" DVD (after Greig made his "grovel" comment) is some of the most calculated and chilling cricket footage. FMD that looks quick, and flat out frightening.

Marshall and Ambrose played all of their careers in the helmet era while half of Holding's career was after WSC as well, they all were still feared and made no less effective after helmets were common place.

Plus Marshall aimed for the ribs and throat anyway

 

[Red]

Just posting this cos I love it....

Fire in Babylon - Michael Holding vs Brian Close - YouTube

Close must've been a tough bastard.

And a bit of robelinda's fine work...

Malcolm Marshall tribute video - GREATEST FAST BOWLER - YouTube

 

[Jager]

Ambrose
Marshall
Gibbs
Garner

 

[Jager]

Holding on-the-other-hand, well he was really fast.

Who cares if he was faster? Garner was better.

Garner also preferred to bowl into the wind which means he's a happy second opening bowler or first change.

 

[watson]

Who cares if he was faster? Garner was better.

Garner also preferred to bowl into the wind which means he's a happy second opening bowler or first change.

Well, Holding wasn't called 'Whispering Death' for bowling half volleys and handing out ham sandwiches,

Fast = Death