How would you rank the other Windies pacers?

[ma1978]

Roberts was widely considered amongst his peers to be the best before Marshall as well as opposition players like Gavaskar. Before there was a quartet there was Roberts. To put him in the same category as Walsh who was Anderson before there was Anderson is blasphemy.

The jawbreaker

Andy Roberts was too mean, too quick, too deadly… until you got to know him

www.thecricketmonthly.com

Andy, Vishy and me

Flashback to 1975, when the mighty West Indians came up against a pint-sized giant at the Chepauk

www.espncricinfo.com

Believe me,Walsh was a fine bowler and great servant of Windies cricket, but no one is writing nostalgic articles about him

 

[Coronis]

Roberts was widely considered amongst his peers to be the best before Marshall as well as opposition players like Gavaskar. Before there was a quartet there was Roberts. To put him in the same category as Walsh who was Anderson before there was Anderson is blasphemy.

The jawbreaker

Andy Roberts was too mean, too quick, too deadly… until you got to know him

www.thecricketmonthly.com

Andy, Vishy and me

Flashback to 1975, when the mighty West Indians came up against a pint-sized giant at the Chepauk

www.espncricinfo.com

Believe me,Walsh was a fine bowler and great servant of Windies cricket, but no one is writing nostalgic articles about him

Nostalgia is overrated. Most people realise this when they grow up that the things they thought were amazing when they were young aren’t quite as good as they remember.

 

[kyear2]

Roberts was widely considered amongst his peers to be the best before Marshall as well as opposition players like Gavaskar. Before there was a quartet there was Roberts. To put him in the same category as Walsh who was Anderson before there was Anderson is blasphemy.

The jawbreaker

Andy Roberts was too mean, too quick, too deadly… until you got to know him

www.thecricketmonthly.com

Andy, Vishy and me

Flashback to 1975, when the mighty West Indians came up against a pint-sized giant at the Chepauk

www.espncricinfo.com

Believe me,Walsh was a fine bowler and great servant of Windies cricket, but no one is writing nostalgic articles about him

Nostalgia is overrated. Most people realise this when they grow up that the things they thought were amazing when they were young aren’t quite as good as they remember.

Valid points both.

 

[ma1978]

Nostalgia is overrated. Most people realise this when they grow up that the things they thought were amazing when they were young aren’t quite as good as they remember.

And looking at stats only to judge things you haven’t seen is a fools errand.

someday, someone on this board will argue Kyle Jamieson was better than Jimmy Anderson

 

[kyear2]

And looking at stats only to judge things you haven’t seen is a fools errand.

someday, someone on this board will argue Kyle Jamieson was better than Jimmy Anderson

I think Andy being the pioneer is similar to how some use that to boost Lillee, though of course Lillee is clearly ahead of Roberts. Many thought he was the most skilled and dangerous of the quartet, at least in the begining of the run.
Walsh also gets underrated by me because I guess I've always seen him as a no. 2, the guy who did the grunt work or the lion hearted loyal servant at the end. But once he and Amby were around I always felt like he had a chance.

But both were loyal and dedicated to the cause, so while one may be over rated and one under rated, I wouldn't disparage one for the other.

I would concede that Walsh was probably more effective.

 

[Coronis]

And looking at stats only to judge things you haven’t seen is a fools errand.

someday, someone on this board will argue Kyle Jamieson was better than Jimmy Anderson

Far from the craziest thing I’ve heard on this forum tbh

 

[ma1978]

R
I think Andy being the pioneer is similar to how some use that to boost Lillee, though of course Lillee is clearly ahead of Roberts. Many thought he was the most skilled and dangerous of the quartet, at least in the begining of the run.
Walsh also gets underrated by me because I guess I've always seen him as a no. 2, the guy who did the grunt work or the lion hearted loyal servant at the end. But once he and Amby were around I always felt like he had a chance.

But both were loyal and dedicated to the cause, so while one may be over rated and one under rated, I wouldn't disparage one for the other.

I would concede that Walsh was probably more effective.

Roberts closer to Marshall than Walsh

 

[kyear2]

Roberts closer to Marshall than Walsh

I wouldn't go that far

 

[ma1978]

I wouldn't go that far

statsguru?

 

[Coronis]

statsguru?

Just common sense.

 

[kyear2]

statsguru?

From watching, reading, stats, skill set, impact, consistency, effectiveness in all conditions and against all opponents

For me he's the GOAT, and the only other players in his tier are McGrath and Hadlee.

So yes, Roberts is closer to Walsh than Marshall.

 

[ma1978]

From watching, reading, stats, skill set, impact, consistency, effectiveness in all conditions and against all opponents

For me he's the GOAT, and the only other players in his tier are McGrath and Hadlee.

So yes, Roberts is closer to Walsh than Marshall.

All before there was Marshall there was a Roberta and he was all of those things, went toe to toe with Lillee and wasn’t found wanting.

 

[Line and Length]

The article confirms what I previously thought and interpreted. Roberts had two bouncers. The first was a three quarter paced sucker ball that lulled batsmen into a false sense of security. The second was quicker and viciously directed ... as many were to experience. One of the few to regularly take him on was Ian Chappell and they were great battles to watch ... and all before the introduction of helmets.

 

[ma1978]

The article confirms what I previously thought and interpreted. Roberts had two bouncers. The first was a three quarter paced sucker ball that lulled batsmen into a false sense of security. The second was quicker and viciously directed ... as many were to experience. One of the few to regularly take him on was Ian Chappell and they were great battles to watch ... and all before the introduction of helmets.

yep, and all people will see today is the 25 average and assume he was some modern day version of Mohammed Shami

 

[Bolo.]

The article confirms what I previously thought and interpreted. Roberts had two bouncers. The first was a three quarter paced sucker ball that lulled batsmen into a false sense of security. The second was quicker and viciously directed ... as many were to experience. One of the few to regularly take him on was Ian Chappell and they were great battles to watch ... and all before the introduction of helmets.

Not sure it's confirming the sucker bouncer thing, just the 2 different paces. I've read the extra pace being posited as both suckering and just getting annoyed and bowling faster. The article makes it sound more like the latter.

 

[Coronis]

All before there was Marshall there was a Roberta and he was all of those things, went toe to toe with Lillee and wasn’t found wanting.

So?

 

[kyear2]

yep, and all people will see today is the 25 average and assume he was some modern day version of Mohammed Shami

No one thinks that.

 

[howitzer]

No one thinks that.

There is a possibility that someone on the forum thinks that, tough I don't know who it would be, if true. What I do know is, that if anyone on the forum actually expressed that opinion it would be seen by the vast majority of the forum as an extremely niche opinion.

 

[ma1978]

No one thinks that.

you get nonsense like this

“
Actually looking closer, the only thing you can really point to for Roberts is a better record in Australia, but lets not pretend the two Australian teams they faced were similar in quality.

Also Roberts was relatively poor at home. I don’t think longevity can be ignored at all in this case, Walsh played for twice as long, hell he has more wickets at home and more wickets away than Roberts has in his whole career.”

 

[Coronis]

you get nonsense like this

“
Actually looking closer, the only thing you can really point to for Roberts is a better record in Australia, but lets not pretend the two Australian teams they faced were similar in quality.

Also Roberts was relatively poor at home. I don’t think longevity can be ignored at all in this case, Walsh played for twice as long, hell he has more wickets at home and more wickets away than Roberts has in his whole career.”

Whats nonsenical about that?