social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Like fc averages translating to test successNope, flimsy rules like that are nought but conjecture.
Like fc averages translating to test successNope, flimsy rules like that are nought but conjecture.
I never said Garner didn't change his approach. I never said he wasn't extremely quick either.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
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.Like fc averages translating to test success
Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall is the best for mine (they played 6 tests together)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
It's a good indicator nothing morePerhaps 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.
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.How but this Aussie 1956 bowling line-up...4 pace & 2 spinners
Lindwall
Miller
Davidson
Archer
Benaud
Johnson
Some pretty handy allrounders as well.....
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.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
Marshall: 4 tests, 19 wkts @ 18.42Could we have the same thing for a year later when it was Marshall-Holding-Garner-Patterson?
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
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.That's gotta be it, then.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