Holding vs Gibbs

[kyear2]

Was looking for a thread like this but dint find one.

In short, which would be the better candidate for the 4th bowling spot for a WI all time XI.

 

[kyear2]

Alternatively there's also the philosophical question of do you go with a spinner for variety even if there's a better pace option.

It's come up a bit of late, so what do you all think?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I will agree with @Coronis ' take that a spinner is for more than just variety or pitch, but plays a very important role in maintaining the over rate. The very reason despite having the Avengers End Game of pace bowling, the 80s WI had a subpar win rate for their calibre.

 

[Coronis]

And I mean, Gibbs is a quality spinner.

If say, someone like Harbhajan was your best choice you might just have to rely on Sobers bowling more overs than you’d prefer

 

[kyear2]

All good arguments no doubt.

Holding is also magnitudes better as a bowler. Holding is arguably a top 10 candidate, coming In at no. 18 in the latest poll while Gibbs was ranked at 34th.

 

[OverratedSanity]

On average over a decent chunk of games, Gibbs would probably add more value to the team.

 

[Qlder]

This is a no brainer. You have Sobers to bowl as 4th seamer so easily pick the previous World record holder Gibbs

 

[peterhrt]

In 2010 Cricinfo's ten West Indian judges picked their team. Gibbs received nine votes, more than any of the quicks. The selector who didn't pick him was Garth Wattley of the Trinidad Express who went with a four-man attack of Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose and Sobers, with back-up from Worrell.

Marshall got 8 votes, Holding 7, Ambrose 6 and Roberts 4, with one apiece for Hall and Garner. Opinions on the wicket-keeper were split: Hendriks 4, Walcott 3, Dujon 2, Deryck Murray 1.

In a separate exercise Tony Cozier (not one of Cricinfo's judges) agreed with an attack of Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Sobers and Gibbs.

Lance Gibbs bowled his overs very quickly so wouldn't have given a fast bowler at the other end much rest. This was one reason put forward during the 1980s to argue that Gibbs would not have got into West Indies' side at the time.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In 2010 Cricinfo's ten West Indian judges picked their team. Gibbs received nine votes, more than any of the quicks. The selector who didn't pick him was Garth Wattley of the Trinidad Express who went with a four-man attack of Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose and Sobers, with back-up from Worrell.

Marshall got 8 votes, Holding 7, Ambrose 6 and Roberts 4, with one apiece for Hall and Garner. Opinions on the wicket-keeper were split: Hendriks 4, Walcott 3, Dujon 2, Deryck Murray 1.

In a separate exercise Tony Cozier (not one of Cricinfo's judges) agreed with an attack of Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Sobers and Gibbs.

Lance Gibbs bowled his overs very quickly so wouldn't have given a fast bowler at the other end much rest. This was one reason put forward during the 1980s to argue that Gibbs would not have got into West Indies' side at the time.

NGL, with WI's batting; having a 4 man attack with Sobers as the 4th bowler seems kinda excessive.

 

[peterhrt]

NGL, with WI's batting; having a 4 man attack with Sobers as the 4th bowler seems kinda excessive.

He wanted the best keeper - Hendriks - who wasn't really a number seven bat, and also favoured Worrell as captain. Another judge did the same, with Roberts, Marshall, Sobers and Gibbs as the main bowlers.

It was actually a formula that worked well for West Indies in real time in England in 1963: Hall, Griffith, Sobers and Gibbs, with skipper Worrell batting at number seven and bowling in four of the five Tests.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I mean I think Holding’s the third best WI pacer, so I’d take him over Garner, and have a bowling attack of Marshall, Amby, Holding and Gibbs.

 

[kyear2]

NGL, with WI's batting; having a 4 man attack with Sobers as the 4th bowler seems kinda excessive.

He could bowl spin, two types actually.

 

[kyear2]

I mean I think Holding’s the third best WI pacer, so I’d take him over Garner, and have a bowling attack of Marshall, Amby, Holding and Gibbs.

Garner actually bowled first change though, and was pretty damn good at it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He could bowl spin, two types actually.

Not convinced it's really good enough to be 4th in an ATG setup

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

He could bowl spin, two types actually.

If he was as good of spinner as he was quick then I would have slight thinking. Though wouldn’t choose him as a 4th bowler regardless. Imagine Sobers playing as a 4th bowler and bowling spin to Bradman, Smith, Ponting etc. That’s gonna be a huge weak link for WI.

 

[Qlder]

Was looking for a thread like this but dint find one.

Probably should have looked in the comparison forum instead of here?

 

[kyear2]

In 2010 Cricinfo's ten West Indian judges picked their team. Gibbs received nine votes, more than any of the quicks. The selector who didn't pick him was Garth Wattley of the Trinidad Express who went with a four-man attack of Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose and Sobers, with back-up from Worrell.

Marshall got 8 votes, Holding 7, Ambrose 6 and Roberts 4, with one apiece for Hall and Garner. Opinions on the wicket-keeper were split: Hendriks 4, Walcott 3, Dujon 2, Deryck Murray 1.

In a separate exercise Tony Cozier (not one of Cricinfo's judges) agreed with an attack of Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Sobers and Gibbs.

Lance Gibbs bowled his overs very quickly so wouldn't have given a fast bowler at the other end much rest. This was one reason put forward during the 1980s to argue that Gibbs would not have got into West Indies' side at the time.

To start, all that some of these exercises go to show is that many experts and journalists don't know what they're doing. Because the attack that Mr. Wattley came up with, makes little sense.

The selection of Gibbs would also directly impact the keeper selection because that reduces Dujon's viability, forcing Walcott into the team.

The point of Gibbs's short overs not giving the pacers sufficient time to rest, can be countered by the ability to rotate the pacers from on end on shorter spells around him. But also imagine his impact and work load would primarily be in the 3rd or 4th innings of a test.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

You don’t need a spinner if you got 4 ATG quicks unless the pitch is a turner

 

[capt_Luffy]

You don’t need a spinner if you got 4 ATG quicks unless the pitch is a turner

So you can draw all the games (like 80s WI)

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

If you're picking a fixed side to play across all conditions I'd take the spinner so long as they are good (which Gibbs was) even if the 4th pacer is better (which Holding was).

As others have said, I'd rather have Sobers playing the 4th pacer role than lead spinner.