Holding vs Gibbs

[Starfighter]

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

Garner was actually better opening than first change, Holding vice versa.

 

[peterhrt]

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.

One useful purpose they serve is to show that there is less consensus around rating players than we might think. In times gone by there were fewer cricket writers/commentators and they tended to talk to each other and agree on most things. Now opinion is more splintered across generations and nationalities, as you yourself have pointed out.

There were ten judges in this exercise. Four Guyanese and two each from Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad. Half picked Worrell as captain. Four, including Jimmy Adams, didn't choose Lara. Only Adams picked Garner. Hendriks was the most popular keeper. Only Sobers, Richards and Headley received all ten votes.

During the 1980s the received wisdom was that an all-pace attack suited West Indies perfectly. Over-rates were unregulated. Opposing batsmen struggled. Fast bowlers from all countries, especially West Indies, had done well in India. It was often said that a Gibbs or a Ramadhin would not have got a game.

Times have changed. The Top 10 leading Test wicket-takers of the 1980s featured only one spinner, Abdul Qadir. During the past ten years the two leaders for wickets are both spinners, as is the guy in seventh place. Including at least one spinner, while packing the batting, reflects in both real and hypothetical teams.

 

[Slifer]

Ok I'm convinced. Play 3 fast bowlers say: Ambrose, Marshall, and Holding. Gibbs would be the 4th bowler and Sobers in his left arm pace version where I believe he averaged somewhere in the late 20s. Frankly, if the 3 pacers aren't able to get you out, then a 4th is probably pointless. Sobers as a paceman at least adds some variety.

 

[kyear2]

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

Yeah, I was working and misread the post.

 

[kyear2]

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.

No argument here.

 

[kyear2]

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

And this is where you're going overboard and misrepresenting history.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And this is where you're going overboard and misrepresenting history.

WI literally had more success with Harper in the set up...... I really am not. They would had won heaps more just by delivering overs a bit faster.

 

[kyear2]

One useful purpose they serve is to show that there is less consensus around rating players than we might think. In times gone by there were fewer cricket writers/commentators and they tended to talk to each other and agree on most things. Now opinion is more splintered across generations and nationalities, as you yourself have pointed out.

There were ten judges in this exercise. Four Guyanese and two each from Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad. Half picked Worrell as captain. Four, including Jimmy Adams, didn't choose Lara. Only Adams picked Garner. Hendriks was the most popular keeper. Only Sobers, Richards and Headley received all ten votes.

During the 1980s the received wisdom was that an all-pace attack suited West Indies perfectly. Over-rates were unregulated. Opposing batsmen struggled. Fast bowlers from all countries, especially West Indies, had done well in India. It was often said that a Gibbs or a Ramadhin would not have got a game.

Times have changed. The Top 10 leading Test wicket-takers of the 1980s featured only one spinner, Abdul Qadir. During the past ten years the two leaders for wickets are both spinners, as is the guy in seventh place. Including at least one spinner, while packing the batting, reflects in both real and hypothetical teams.

It's wasn't about the consensus, it was the though that Sobers are the 4th bowler made sense.

Adams did not like Lara btw, and some would say for good reason.

And yes, there are beliefs that then to be prevalent among certain demographics, which for the life of me I can't comprehend.

Ok I'm convinced. Play 3 fast bowlers say: Ambrose, Marshall, and Holding. Gibbs would be the 4th bowler and Sobers in his left arm pace version where I believe he averaged somewhere in the late 20s. Frankly, if the 3 pacers aren't able to get you out, then a 4th is probably pointless. Sobers as a paceman at least adds some variety.

Yeah, I'm not as yet fully convinced, but it does make sense. The gap between Holding / Garner and Gibbs is pretty large though, and one of the two greatest teams ever was based on that premise. But yeah, three does seem to be sufficient.

The question of which to choose between between Garner and Holding is another issue all together which I honestly haven't given enough thought to.

 

[Slifer]

And this is where you're going overboard and misrepresenting history.

This why this board can be so frustrating sometimes. There are people on here who I've spoken to b4 and they use the term "context" over and over again to suit their arguments and i listen.

Let me say this again, maybe a quality spinner would've helped WI to finish off games sooner, we don't know but what I do know is that there were plenty of games from the 80s where the WI were in a position to win or on the brink of winning but for weather. And unlike the practice that begun in the late 90s or there about (could've been earlier I'm not sure) time tests were not extended or begun earlier to make up for lost time. In another post, I listed at least 9 such tests from the 80s (there were more) that I recall WI being in a position to win but weather intervened and that time was never made up (nor any attempts to do so). Context matters.

 

[Slifer]

It's wasn't about the consensus, it was the though that Sobers are the 4th bowler made sense.

Adams did not like Lara btw, and some would say for good reason.

And yes, there are beliefs that then to be prevalent among certain demographics, which for the life of me I can't comprehend.



Yeah, I'm not as yet fully convinced, but it does make sense. The gap between Holding / Garner and Gibbs is pretty large though, and one of the two greatest teams ever was based on that premise. But yeah, three does seem to be sufficient.

The question of which to choose between between Garner and Holding is another issue all together which I honestly haven't given enough thought to.

There are pros and cons to either bowler. Holding could blast a side out on any wicket but his fitness was sometimes an issue. Garner wasn't as explosive but he was more consistent and he definitely could make runs scoring near impossible. Both can bring the nastiness where needed. Maybe leave out Ambrose and include those two??? Lol lol

 

[capt_Luffy]

This why this board can be so frustrating sometimes. There are people on here who I've spoken to b4 and they use the term "context" over and over again to suit their arguments and i listen.

Let me say this again, maybe a quality spinner would've helped WI to finish off games sooner, we don't know but what I do know is that there were plenty of games from the 80s where the WI were in a position to win or on the brink of winning but for weather. And unlike the practice that begun in the late 90s or there about (could've been earlier I'm not sure) time tests were not extended or begun earlier to make up for lost time. In another post, I listed at least 9 such tests from the 80s (there were more) that I recall WI being in a position to win but weather intervened and that time was never made up (nor any attempts to do so). Context matters.

Again, I am just saying that probably even among those rain interrupted drawn games, WI would had won a few more by being able to bowl a few more overs in the limited time. I mean, including Harper in the line-up actually has a distinct improvement in their results. Someone like Rangy Nanan should had played a fair few more games in place of a few more matches for like Baptiste or Davis.

 

[kyear2]

There are pros and cons to either bowler. Holding could blast a side out on any wicket but his fitness was sometimes an issue. Garner wasn't as explosive but he was more consistent and he definitely could make runs scoring near impossible. Both can bring the nastiness where needed. Maybe leave out Ambrose and include those two??? Lol lol

Hard nooooooo. Lol

 

[kyear2]

This why this board can be so frustrating sometimes. There are people on here who I've spoken to b4 and they use the term "context" over and over again to suit their arguments and i listen.

Let me say this again, maybe a quality spinner would've helped WI to finish off games sooner, we don't know but what I do know is that there were plenty of games from the 80s where the WI were in a position to win or on the brink of winning but for weather. And unlike the practice that begun in the late 90s or there about (could've been earlier I'm not sure) time tests were not extended or begun earlier to make up for lost time. In another post, I listed at least 9 such tests from the 80s (there were more) that I recall WI being in a position to win but weather intervened and that time was never made up (nor any attempts to do so). Context matters.

Guyana was almost always assured to lose at least one day to rain, and the rest of the islands weren't that much better.

Weather, even in the recent world cup was an issue and that's with much improved drainage.

It's easy to say a spinner would have made a difference, but you're also taking away early Walsh.

But yeah, with two out pitches that favored spin, and a flat one, a spinner would have been suitable in some scenarios.

 

[peterhrt]

In terms of total overs bowled in a series, Sobers was never the fifth bowler from the time he adopted his quicker style in Australia in 1960-61.

From that point he played in 14 series. In 12 he bowled the second most overs for his team, in one the third most and, late on in 1973, the fourth most. He also bowled the second most overs for the Rest of the World in England in 1970. In all cases bar one, the bowler who delivered more overs than Sobers was a spinner, usually Gibbs.

Of the leading ten all-time West Indian Test wicket-takers, Sobers bowled the third most deliveries per match, behind only Gibbs and Roberts. On 45 occasions he opened the bowling.

Four of Cricinfo's ten West Indian judges picked Sobers as one of four main bowlers, which is actually what he was during most of his career.

 

[Slifer]

Guyana was almost always assured to lose at least one day to rain, and the rest of the islands weren't that much better.

Weather, even in the recent world cup was an issue and that's with much improved drainage.

It's easy to say a spinner would have made a difference, but you're also taking away early Walsh.

But yeah, with two out pitches that favored spin, and a flat one, a spinner would have been suitable in some scenarios.

.
Yeah it's a real head scratcher why they kept on scheduling games at Bourda...

 

[kyear2]

In terms of total overs bowled in a series, Sobers was never the fifth bowler from the time he adopted his quicker style in Australia in 1960-61.

From that point he played in 14 series. In 12 he bowled the second most overs for his team, in one the third most and, late on in 1973, the fourth most. He also bowled the second most overs for the Rest of the World in England in 1970. In all cases bar one, the bowler who delivered more overs than Sobers was a spinner, usually Gibbs.

Of the leading ten all-time West Indian Test wicket-takers, Sobers bowled the third most deliveries per match, behind only Gibbs and Roberts. On 45 occasions he opened the bowling.

Four of Cricinfo's ten West Indian judges picked Sobers as one of four main bowlers, which is actually what he was during most of his career.

I understand all of that, what I'm saying is that he's not elite enough to be a 4th bowler in this scenario, and anyone who thought he was I would strenuously disagree with.

 

[Coronis]

In terms of total overs bowled in a series, Sobers was never the fifth bowler from the time he adopted his quicker style in Australia in 1960-61.

From that point he played in 14 series. In 12 he bowled the second most overs for his team, in one the third most and, late on in 1973, the fourth most. He also bowled the second most overs for the Rest of the World in England in 1970. In all cases bar one, the bowler who delivered more overs than Sobers was a spinner, usually Gibbs.

Of the leading ten all-time West Indian Test wicket-takers, Sobers bowled the third most deliveries per match, behind only Gibbs and Roberts. On 45 occasions he opened the bowling.

Four of Cricinfo's ten West Indian judges picked Sobers as one of four main bowlers, which is actually what he was during most of his career.

Its good to know he has the capability to bowl more and still be good in case of injury or some other circumstance but yeah he doesn’t make the XI as a 4th bowler.

 

[kyear2]

Its good to know he has the capability to bowl more and still be good in case of injury or some other circumstance but yeah he doesn’t make the XI as a 4th bowler.

And I know again this isn't a popular opinion, but this is similar to how I see Miller batting in the top order for an Aussie XI. Yeah he did it, but not at this level.

 

[Slifer]

Again, I am just saying that probably even among those rain interrupted drawn games, WI would had won a few more by being able to bowl a few more overs in the limited time. I mean, including Harper in the line-up actually has a distinct improvement in their results. Someone like Rangy Nanan should had played a fair few more games in place of a few more matches for like Baptiste or Davis.

Possibly. But we should also appreciate the fact that in the 80s, WI also did play the majority of their games on the road. Of the 20 series WI played in the 80s, only 7 were played at home. Contrast that to other great teams, where the ratio is more 50-50. Add that to what I said about the weather and time lost.

Contrast this with the great Aussie teams 1999 (Gilchrist debut) to losing to India in 2008 (general period of their domination) . Australia played something like 30 odd series and played 17 at home and 13 away.

 

[kyear2]

Possibly. But we should also appreciate the fact that in the 80s, WI also did play the majority of their games on the road. Of the 20 series WI played in the 80s, only 7 were played at home. Contrast that to other great teams, where the ratio is more 50-50. Add that to what I said about the weather and time lost.

Contrast this with the great Aussie teams 1999 (Gilchrist debut) to losing to India in 2008 (general period of their domination) . Australia played something like 30 odd series and played 17 at home and 13 away.

A really good point, not to add zero minnows.

But yeah, we were apparently quite busy helping to make money for other boards, lol.