• 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.

Best bowling attack ever (4 bowlers)

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard, if you'd been watching cricket at that time (not your fault, btw), you'd realise that Garner dramatically changed his approach to bowling at about that time - some said it was ego related because Marshall started getting the headlines as supposed "world's fastest bowler"

Anyway, he changed his runup from a lumbering, measured approach to a positive sprint to the wicket with dramatic increase in pace

Patterson, btw, was virtually always bowled downwind because pace was the only thing at his disposal. However, he also bowled a lot at first change
I never said Garner didn't change his approach. I never said he wasn't extremely quick either.

I said there's no way anyone, and almost certainly not an Australian, could know whether he or Patterson bowled quicker in the single series they played together. And they can't.

Every single England batsman who played in that series thinks Patterson was notably quicker than Marshall, Holding or Garner. Graham Gooch himself said Patterson's debut was the only time he felt a bowler was too quick for him. However, no-one commented on whether Patterson was given the wind ahead of three bowlers who were inestimably more senior.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Like fc averages translating to test success :laugh:
Nah, that's a very common and very reliable rule. Almost never will someone who has failed at the domestic level be more likely to suceed at the Test level than someone who has suceeded at the domestic level.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Good observation that!! I think the best WI lineups that acutally played together would be those composed of either:

Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft

Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

Marshall
Ambrose
Bishop
Walsh/Patterson
Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall is the best for mine (they played 6 tests together)

However I could probably go Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft as they played 11 tests together
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Perhaps I am not understanding this debate, but is anyone actually disputing that the most reliable indicator of success at the Test level is success at the domestic FC level? It's obvious to me, and while there are exceptions, it is still the way to tell who'll be successful at the Test level. If it wasn't useful for that, then most countries wouldn't keep a black hole that is the domestic FC infastructure.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Perhaps I am not understanding this debate, but is anyone actually disputing that the most reliable indicator of success at the Test level is success at the domestic FC level? It's obvious to me, and while there are exceptions, it is still the way to tell who'll be successful at the Test level. If it wasn't useful for that, then most countries wouldn't keep a black hole that is the domestic FC infastructure.
It's a good indicator nothing more

If it were a "rule", one of Richard's favourite players wouldnt have been a complete flop at test level
 

bagapath

International Captain
holding and garner were the two regulars in the famus west indian quartet in any combination. marshall played in 26 tests with them. they lost only one, IIRC, when bob holland bowled australia to a surprise win under border's captaincy.

for a four pronged attacked even their 1988 line-up against India is a very strong candidate.

Marshall
Ambrose
Walsh
Bishop

Ravi Shastri scored 107 against them in Bridgetown. I have been a fan of his ever since.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neither Ambrose nor Walsh was quite at that time the bowler they would later be, though.

I'd be more inclined to go for Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft over that attack.

Marshall-Holding-Garner-Patterson in the last hurrah of the '86 blackwash has a fair case too, though Holding was already ailing by that time.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Some stats of awsome foursomes...

Roberts: 11 tests, 28 wkts @ 35.53
Holding: 11 tests, 51 wkts @ 20.56
Garner: 11 tests, 47 wkts @ 19.48
Croft: 11 tests, 46 wkts @ 25.82

Roberts: 6 tests, 33 wkts @ 17.48
Holding: 6 tests, 15 wkts @ 45.86
Garner: 6 tests, 19 wkts @ 25.36
Marshall: 6 tests, 23 wkts @ 27.08

Holding: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 23.20
Garner: 4 tests, 18 wkts @ 24.83
Marshall: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 28.33
Walsh: 4 tests, 11 wkts @ 29.81
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
How but this Aussie 1956 bowling line-up...4 pace & 2 spinners :)

Lindwall
Miller
Davidson
Archer
Benaud
Johnson

Some pretty handy allrounders as well.....
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
How but this Aussie 1956 bowling line-up...4 pace & 2 spinners :)

Lindwall
Miller
Davidson
Archer
Benaud
Johnson

Some pretty handy allrounders as well.....
Looks good at first glance doesn't it, but IIRR Lindwall was well past his best by then, Davidson and Benaud had yet to find theirs, and Archer and Johnson were never much more than middling Test bowler.

Miller was getting on too of course - less sure about how he was handling ageing.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Some stats of awsome foursomes...

Roberts: 11 tests, 28 wkts @ 35.53
Holding: 11 tests, 51 wkts @ 20.56
Garner: 11 tests, 47 wkts @ 19.48
Croft: 11 tests, 46 wkts @ 25.82

Roberts: 6 tests, 33 wkts @ 17.48
Holding: 6 tests, 15 wkts @ 45.86
Garner: 6 tests, 19 wkts @ 25.36
Marshall: 6 tests, 23 wkts @ 27.08

Holding: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 23.20
Garner: 4 tests, 18 wkts @ 24.83
Marshall: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 28.33
Walsh: 4 tests, 11 wkts @ 29.81
Really surprised at Roberts' ordinariness when bowling with Holding, Garner and Croft; actually knew about Holding's with Roberts, Garner and Marshall as I spotted it when I looked at the fact that the best four played so rarely together.

Even though Marshall-Holding-Garner-Walsh was short-lived, theirs was clearly the only time all four bowlers went well at the same time.

Could we have the same thing for a year later when it was Marshall-Holding-Garner-Patterson?
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Lillee: 11 tests, 53 wkts @ 25.26
Thomson: 11 tests, 49 wkts @ 26.42
Walker: 11 tests, 35 wkts @ 36.91
Mallett: 11 tests, 31 wkts @ 31.96

plus
Walters: 8 tests, 9 wkts @ 12.33

Also, Lillee & Thomo bowling together in the 1970's

Lillee: 16 tests, 81 wkts @ 26.75
Thomson: 16 tests, 71 wkts @ 26.15
 
Last edited:

aussie tragic

International Captain
I'll go with West Indies 1980-87

Marshall: 26 tests, 123 wkts @ 21.33
Garner: 26 tests, 110 wkts @ 21.03
Holding: 26 tests, 98 wkts @ 25.63

plus

Baptiste: 6 tests, 34 wkts @ 17.41
Roberts: 6 tests, 33 wkts @ 17.48
Patterson: 4 tests, 17 wkts @ 17.70
Croft: 3 tests, 12 wkts @ 31.41
Walsh: 4 tests, 11 wkts @ 29.81
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Marshall: 4 tests, 19 wkts @ 18.42
Holding: 4 tests, 16 wkts @ 24.06
Garner: 4 tests, 23 wkts @ 15.08
Patterson: 4 tests, 17 wkts @ 17.70
That's gotta be it, then.
Yep, thought so. This attack completely and totally destroyed England in 1986, the last hurrah for the great West Indies teams (thereafter the better sides were able to hold them back and occasionally even outplay them) as well as the start of the most wretched four years in the history of English cricket.
 

Top