• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Michael Holding vs Joel Garner

Who was the better bowler? (Tests)

  • Michael Holding

    Votes: 10 32.3%

  • Joel Garner

    Votes: 21 67.7%
  • Total voters
    31
sunilz

sunilz

International Regular
FWIW Gavaskar said Garner was the most difficult one to face of all the WI quicks iirc.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Tough to choose between these two. Statswise edge to Garner but I think Holding was more highly rated.

I chose Holding more out of a preference of his speed over Garner's accuracy and bounce. Garner was generally fast-medium whereas Holding proved he could take wickets on dead pitches through sheer pace.
 
Last edited:
Himannv

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
Garner was consistent and had that natural bounce. Holding was quicker and more exciting. I'd say Garner was more effective, while Holding was more fun to watch.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Burgey said:
lolwut. No he wasn't. FMD this is revisionist rubbish.
Click to expand...
Yeah. He could crank it up but generally was just lively.

As per his Wisden 1980 profile: "Garner, in fact, is not really fast. The top men generate speed through the air of between 90 and 95 miles an hour, if the scientific measurements are to be believed. Garner would be between 75 and 80. Where he is most awkward is in the sharp life he can achieve from his immense height. The steeper the lift, the more difficult it becomes to counter - hence Garner's success. In addition, Garner also possesses the ball which complements the bouncer ideally, the yorker. Speared into the batsman's toes, it is meant to trap the batsman softened by the bouncer."
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Burgey said:
No, he really was fast. Seriously. Like a lot sharper than Ambrose and McGrath fast. Not Holding or Thommo fast, but fast.
Click to expand...
Definitely not faster than Ambrose.

I think he looked faster because of his height and awkwardness. He actually hit the batsmen more frequently than other WI pacers. But he wasnt that fast.
 
Shady Slim

Shady Slim

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Yeah. He could crank it up but generally was just lively.

As per his Wisden 1980 profile: "Garner, in fact, is not really fast. The top men generate speed through the air of between 90 and 95 miles an hour, if the scientific measurements are to be believed. Garner would be between 75 and 80. Where he is most awkward is in the sharp life he can achieve from his immense height. The steeper the lift, the more difficult it becomes to counter - hence Garner's success. In addition, Garner also possesses the ball which complements the bouncer ideally, the yorker. Speared into the batsman's toes, it is meant to trap the batsman softened by the bouncer."
Click to expand...
read this in an attenborough voice
 
Himannv

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
It's just the ambling sort of runup that makes him seem slow perhaps. I think he's actually quite fast although not as fast as Holding. He was faster than Marshall IMO.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Judging from just clips can be misleading, whereas the reports from those who faced them all put Holding and Marshall in the express pace category and Garner was a level below in pace. That mean sustained pace from a spell, not just a highlight wicket that seems faster than he normally would bowl.

I dont doubt that with his height, Garner could beat the bat and hit the batsman more than others, but that doesnt make him faster.

Anyways, we all agree Holding is the top speed merchant of the WI pacers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top