• 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.

How would you rank the other Windies pacers?

Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
I think (almost) all of us will have Marshall and Ambrose as our top two and most with Garner as 3rd.

How would you guys rate the others (Roberts, Holding, Walsh), or indeed all 6 if your thoughts differ?
 
flibbertyjibber

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Too young for Roberts and clips you only see great balls or 4s so it's difficult to judge properly.

Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding
Roberts
Walsh

Would happily shuffle Roberts up the list if I got convinced by someone who saw him.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
I put Holding a smidge above Garner, followed by Roberts and then Walsh.

Why Holding better?

Pace (not quite sure how Garner would do on flatter wickets), better peer rating and some very impressive mega series hauls in Australia, England and India.
 
Last edited:
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
I think for me I originally had Roberts above Walsh due to conventional wisdom mostly but on closer inspection Walsh has better longevity (obviously) and a better rounded record.

Don’t have him quite with Holding but definitely ahead of Roberts.

Its also impressive that his best period actually came towards the end of his long career.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
Walsh gets a bit of a rough deal being ranked behind Roberts and Holding, ya? His career numbers are basically Holding + Roberts, with some extra wickets on top. His peak matches either of them. So besides the fact that he just looked like a crap bowler, why is he ranked so low?
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Walsh is one of the most underrated on this forum. He was also an absolute workhorse.
Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Garner
Walsh
Roberts
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Bolo. said:
Walsh gets a bit of a rough deal being ranked behind Roberts and Holding, ya? His career numbers are basically Holding + Roberts, with some extra wickets on top. His peak matches either of them. So besides the fact that he just looked like a crap bowler, why is he ranked so low?
Click to expand...
Marshall is arguably the greatest of all time, and gets a plurality of votes on CW for same.

Ambrose is generally ranked either 4th or 5th among fast bowlers by most here @subshakerz apet of course.

Holding wasn't that far behind Lillee during the 70's and very early 80's and was till about '83 the leader of the pack.

Garner was never the leader, but the best complimentary (fast) bowler ever, he never got a 10fer and sometimes cleaned up the tail, but was ridiculously efficient at what he did.

Roberts was the godfather, he was the first leading guy and the first great one we had since Hall? He was the initial spark to the dynasty.

Walsh was never the guy until Ambrose retired and for stretches of his career did the donkey work, though to his credit, quite credibly. Yeah he's a little low, but he was a magnificent servant of WI cricket and a great in his own right. Highest I would go is above Roberts.

I must say that we do over do the longevity thing here sometimes, linger doesn't mean better.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
Walsh gets a bit of a rough deal being ranked behind Roberts and Holding, ya? His career numbers are basically Holding + Roberts, with some extra wickets on top. His peak matches either of them. So besides the fact that he just looked like a crap bowler, why is he ranked so low?
Click to expand...
Actually his peak is relatively short, for most of his career he was slightly below worldclass level unlike Holding and even Roberts.

He sucked in Australia which was the best batting until of his time.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
In his short peak he took nearly 2/3 of the career wickets that Holding managed in his career, with much better stats. Holding would have been out injured with half the amount.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Roberts peak is just barely better than Walsh’s career average lol.

kyear2 said:
Marshall is arguably the greatest of all time, and gets a plurality of votes on CW for same.

Ambrose is generally ranked either 4th or 5th among fast bowlers by most here @subshakerz apet of course.

Holding wasn't that far behind Lillee during the 70's and very early 80's and was till about '83 the leader of the pack.

Garner was never the leader, but the best complimentary (fast) bowler ever, he never got a 10fer and sometimes cleaned up the tail, but was ridiculously efficient at what he did.

Roberts was the godfather, he was the first leading guy and the first great one we had since Hall? He was the initial spark to the dynasty.

Walsh was never the guy until Ambrose retired and for stretches of his career did the donkey work, though to his credit, quite credibly. Yeah he's a little low, but he was a magnificent servant of WI cricket and a great in his own right. Highest I would go is above Roberts.

I must say that we do over do the longevity thing here sometimes, linger doesn't mean better.
Click to expand...
You do realise Walsh’s peak was at the end of his career right?

subshakerz said:
Actually his peak is relatively short, for most of his career he was slightly below worldclass level unlike Holding and even Roberts.

He sucked in Australia which was the best batting until of his time.
Click to expand...
Patently untrue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top