Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[the big bambino]

Would agree with the comments above. I don't think its controversial to say the WI bowling in that 15 yr window was cricket's most formidable. Also their team in the 80s, in particular, were the game's best imo. Though some other sides come close.

 

[kyear2]

Ambrose is the best I've seen. As for best ever that's hard as the case for bowlers is pretty close. I will say though I can't imagine a better bowler than Ambrose, ever.

I also think he kept a disintegrating WI competitive right up to his retirement and would have extended the WI empire to the extreme of 1997 if he wasn't injured for the Adelaide test that season. As strong circumstantial proof of that belief is the WI victory in Perth right after a heavy loss at Adelaide when Ambrose was back in the side.

EDIT: If forced to rate the best I couldn't split what I've seen from Ambrose to what I've read about SF Barnes

Have no issue with that as I rate Ambrose 3rd just ahead of Lillee, so there really is no bad bowlers of the lot and they are all up there for me and no that much between them really. As some others have said Steyn might just be in the top 5 by the time he is finished, so.
Marshall
Mcgrath
Ambrose
Lillee
Steyn/Trueman/Holding/Lindwall/Imran

Still re-evaluating Larwood, so probably put him up there as well with (just ahead of) Garner/Hadlee/Davidson/Donald/Waqar/Wasim in the next tier.

Still see Barnes as more of a spinner than a pacer though, so he doesn't factor in here.

 

[the big bambino]

Donald better then Steyn.

(Its true!)

 

[kyear2]

Would agree with the comments above. I don't think its controversial to say the WI bowling in that 15 yr window was cricket's most formidable. Also their team in the 80s, in particular, were the game's best imo. Though some other sides come close.

Don't think you have ever agreed with anything I have said before, so give me a minuite to get over the shock.

Really wanted to sat earlier thought that Bagapath has really constructed some really quality posts earlier in the thread. Didn't get a chance to mention it earlier.

Silfer too.

 

[the big bambino]

Don't think you have ever agreed with anything I have said before, so give me a minuite to get over the shock.

Really wanted to sat earlier thought that Bagapath has really constructed some really quality posts earlier in the thread. Didn't get a chance to mention it earlier.

Silfer too.

I have. Just haven't mentioned it. One of the deciding factors favouring the WI from that 15 year period as the game's best is the longevity of the dominance. You could argue it lasted until Oz won in the Carribean in 94 or 95. Its very hard to maintain dominance after achieving it and the WI then did it longer than any other side. The Australian side that took over under Taylor - Waugh - Ponting comes closest followed by the post WW2 Aussies.

 

[kyear2]

Yea agree, clearly the top three teams to play the game IMHO.

 

[Dan]

I have always personally seen it as there have been three true superstars/Giants of the game. Grace, Bradman and Sobers, but two true phenomenons of the game. Bradman's batting and the West Indies 4 pronged attack from '76 - '91. If one wants to look at how Bradman affected bowler's stats, look at how the West Indian bowlers plus Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Dev ect would have affected the batting stats of the era. For my money though the quartet was the most dominant force in the history of the game and like Bradman inspired/ forced more rule changes than at any other time.

Yeah, that's my entire point. And IMO Marshall cops criticism for the weakness of the batsmen more than Lillee does, because Lillee's career had a rather large section in the 1970s, in which that phenomenon occurred to a lesser extent IMO.

 

[Slifer]

I have. Just haven't mentioned it. One of the deciding factors favouring the WI from that 15 year period as the game's best is the longevity of the dominance. You could argue it lasted until Oz won in the Carribean in 94 or 95. Its very hard to maintain dominance after achieving it and the WI then did it longer than any other side. The Australian side that took over under Taylor - Waugh - Ponting comes closest followed by the post WW2 Aussies.

IMO the WI dominant period started right after their humbling at the hands of Oz in1976. Thats when Lloyd did away with spinners and loaded up his team with the likes of: Croft, Garner, Holding, Roberts (not to mention Wayne Daniel etc). From 76 up until Lloyd retired I think WI were really dominant beating all other test teams home and away losing only away to NZ and away to India (with a second XI). After Lloyd retired Garner and Holding were in and out of the team more often than not and though the WI were still (IMO) clearly the best team they werent quite as dominant as evidenced by all those draws post 86 (much credit must be given to Imran, Hadlee etc ). Even in 95 WI might have won had Courtney Brown not had butter fingers and dropped Waugh in the critical 4th test In Jamaica. The first time in 20 years that I really knew the torch was passed was when Oz beat us in 96/97. The scoreline read 3-2 in Oz's favor but they really were the much better "team".

 

[smash84]

IMO the WI dominant period started right after their humbling at the hands of Oz in1976. Thats when Lloyd did away with spinners and loaded up his team with the likes of: Croft, Garner, Holding, Roberts (not to mention Wayne Daniel etc). From 76 up until Lloyd retired I think WI were really dominant beating all other test teams home and away losing only away to NZ and away to India (with a second XI). After Lloyd retired Garner and Holding were in and out of the team more often than not and though the WI were still (IMO) clearly the best team they werent quite as dominant as evidenced by all those draws post 86 (much credit must be given to Imran, Hadlee etc ). Even in 95 WI might have won had Courtney Brown not had butter fingers and dropped Waugh in the critical 4th test In Jamaica. The first time in 20 years that I really knew the torch was passed was when Oz beat us in 96/97. The scoreline read 3-2 in Oz's favor but they really were the much better "team".

*sigh*.....seem so far away those glory days of WI cricket....your post does bring back so many memories

 

[kyear2]

They are coming back Smali. Mark my word.

 

[the big bambino]

IMO the WI dominant period started right after their humbling at the hands of Oz in1976. Thats when Lloyd did away with spinners and loaded up his team with the likes of: Croft, Garner, Holding, Roberts (not to mention Wayne Daniel etc). From 76 up until Lloyd retired I think WI were really dominant beating all other test teams home and away losing only away to NZ and away to India (with a second XI). After Lloyd retired Garner and Holding were in and out of the team more often than not and though the WI were still (IMO) clearly the best team they werent quite as dominant as evidenced by all those draws post 86 (much credit must be given to Imran, Hadlee etc ). Even in 95 WI might have won had Courtney Brown not had butter fingers and dropped Waugh in the critical 4th test In Jamaica. The first time in 20 years that I really knew the torch was passed was when Oz beat us in 96/97. The scoreline read 3-2 in Oz's favor but they really were the much better "team".

I have to admit I would have felt upset if we didn't win that 96/97 series. So I guess the bad luck the WI had in losing Ambrose for Adelaide was perhaps compensation for our more consistent play over the breadth of the series.

 

[robelinda]

I have to admit I would have felt upset if we didn't win that 96/97 series. So I guess the bad luck the WI had in losing Ambrose for Adelaide was perhaps compensation for our more consistent play over the breadth of the series.

Also, even though Ambrose was injured for Adelaide, the other WI bowlers couldve had a much better time had they not over stepped with no balls, 3 wickets off no balls in the innings? Hayden twice, and Bevan i seem to recall. Hopeless stuff.

 

[smash84]

They are coming back Smali. Mark my word.

I hope so.....it would be great for world cricket to have a strong WI again

 

[kyear2]

We have some young impressive fast bowlers who will start to emerge shortly. Batting wise Bravo needs to emerge and I think Powell has the ability to be a great opener, but yea, the batting has a really long way to go and we don't know how long Samuels will be around. Chanders is also on the way out.

 

[the big bambino]

We have some young impressive fast bowlers who will start to emerge shortly. Batting wise Bravo needs to emerge and I think Powell has the ability to be a great opener, but yea, the batting has a really long way to go and we don't know how long Samuels will be around. Chanders is also on the way out.

Can you name a few? Would like to check out their profiles.

 

[Slifer]

We have some young impressive fast bowlers who will start to emerge shortly. Batting wise Bravo needs to emerge and I think Powell has the ability to be a great opener, but yea, the batting has a really long way to go and we don't know how long Samuels will be around. Chanders is also on the way out.

Yes we do. And I'm particularly impressed with Gabriel and Roach thus far, though, obviously it's way too early to assess their potential. I am concerned about the third seamer though. Sammy is ok but he's no first change bowler AFAIC and he only makes the team (IMHO) because he is the captain. Batting wise,there is heaps load of room for improvement.

On a side note and this is completely unrelated but there is a seamer from Zimbabwe who played us in the last series Jarvis I think. I think he has a lot of potential as well.

 

[the big bambino]

Oh ok. I thought there maybe some U19 bowlers or some guys doing well in island cricket that have yet to debut.

 

[kyear2]

Miguel Cummins, only 9 matches, but you have to see him bowl. He is 22 I believe.

 

[kyear2]

Yes we do. And I'm particularly impressed with Gabriel and Roach thus far, though, obviously it's way too early to assess their potential. I am concerned about the third seamer though. Sammy is ok but he's no first change bowler AFAIC and he only makes the team (IMHO) because he is the captain. Batting wise,there is heaps load of room for improvement.

On a side note and this is completely unrelated but there is a seamer from Zimbabwe who played us in the last series Jarvis I think. I think he has a lot of potential as well.

Sammy has no right in our Test team, period.

 

[Coronis]

We have some young impressive fast bowlers who will start to emerge shortly. Batting wise Bravo needs to emerge and I think Powell has the ability to be a great opener, but yea, the batting has a really long way to go and we don't know how long Samuels will be around. Chanders is also on the way out.

Yeah Chanders is really on the way out... 987 runs @ 98.70 last year, poor guy.