Michael Holding vs Joel Garner

[sunilz]

Good interview of Garner to understand more about his bowling.

"I was the stock bowler, used to keep things tight till the other guys were fresh enough to have another go."

Sportstar archives - Joel Garner: Get rid of the batsman at any cost

When on song, Joel Garner took his trade to great heights. He was at his vicious best in the ’84 series against Australia at home, when he prised out 31 batsmen.

sportstar.thehindu.com

2 interesting things from interview

1. Looks like umpiring was extremely biased in NZ in 80s
2. He says no amount of victory in JAMODIS would compensate for the 83 WC final loss( Kohli this is for you)

 

[Burgey]

No because he was a giant.

He had a fairly orthodox action, was about 4cm taller than McGrath and roughly the same height as Ambrose. Yet he hit more batsmen than either of those blokes. Why do you reckon that might have been?

Answer - because he was faster than them.

 

[Burgey]

2 interesting things from interview

1. Looks like umpiring was extremely biased in NZ in 80s
2. He says no amount of victory in JAMODIS would compensate for the 83 WC final loss( Burgey this completely vindicates your stance on what matters in ODIs and what makes ODI players great)

Yeah fair comment

 

[subshakerz]

He had a fairly orthodox action, was about 4cm taller than McGrath and roughly the same height as Ambrose. Yet he hit more batsmen than either of those blokes. Why do you reckon that might have been?

Answer - because he was faster than them.

He was 7.5 cm taller than McGrath. Thats a fair bit difference especially with a high arm action that McGrath didnt have.

Ambrose from 88 to 94 was pure speed but didnt bounce as often, prefering to probe outside off.

 

[Burgey]

that McGrath didnt have

u wot?

 

[subshakerz]

u wot?

Garner had slightly more of a high arm action to generate bounce than McGrath.

 

[Burgey]

I can't with this. It's extraordinary. Literally building a line of argument on a succession of mis-characterizations and untruths.

 

[Himannv]

Judging from just clips can be misleading, whereas the reports from those who faced them all put Holding and Marshall in the express pace category and Garner was a level below in pace. That mean sustained pace from a spell, not just a highlight wicket that seems faster than he normally would bowl.

I dont doubt that with his height, Garner could beat the bat and hit the batsman more than others, but that doesnt make him faster.

Anyways, we all agree Holding is the top speed merchant of the WI pacers.

I think it's the other way around. I felt Marshall focused more on accuracy and swing with his stock ball but he could bowl quicker if he wanted to. Garner, to me, seemed quicker with his stock ball. I can't comment on the games vs India - I haven't watched those so perhaps Marshall focused more on pace in those ones, hence your opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

I can't with this. It's extraordinary. Literally building a line of argument on a succession of mis-characterizations and untruths.

Really? I actually quoted pundits of that time on Garners pace. Then I corrected you on his height. If you wish he was faster, fine, then accept there werent accurate speed guns then and respectfully disagree.

 

[h_hurricane]

Really? I actually quoted pundits of that time on Garners pace. Then I corrected you on his height. If you wish he was faster, fine, then accept there werent accurate speed guns then and respectfully disagree.

Why this weird fascination for speed ? Garner was a better bowler than Holding on most statistical parameters. Better average, strike rate, WPM etc.
He also has the best away average for any ATG quick bowler in modern era. And it is not as if they played in different eras. They were team mates and contemporaries for a decade. Makes sense to go with pure stats for once here.

 

[The Sean]

Anyways, we all agree Holding is the top speed merchant of the WI pacers.

Yeah agreed, of the top bracket of WI pacemen from that generation I'd say Holding at top pace was the fastest, followed by Marshall.

The one bloke who I reckon rivalled (and according to some, even eclipsed) Holding for sheer speed - though of course he wasn't as good a bowler overall - was Patrick Patterson. For a few years in the mid-late '80s and very early '90s he was terrifyingly quick.

 

[The Sean]

And on the subject of Patrick Patterson, this is a compelling, heartbreaking but also very hopeful read.

Patrick Patterson: The story of an Unquiet Mind

The most fearsome of Caribbean pacers disappeared into oblivion in the 1990s. Patrick Patterson is still around, though he does not quite remember the man he was, or his bowling spells which went down in history. But he is grateful for the dogged fan who travelled half-way around the world to...

indianexpress.com

 

[subshakerz]

Why this weird fascination for speed ? Garner was a better bowler than Holding on most statistical parameters. Better average, strike rate, WPM etc.
He also has the best away average for any ATG quick bowler in modern era. And it is not as if they played in different eras. They were team mates and contemporaries for a decade. Makes sense to go with pure stats for once here.

Back to my earlier post, I said I opted for Holdings pace over Garners accuracy, as Holding would take wickets on dead pitches through sheer speed. But I think its important for others to understand that according to reports, Garner wasn't express.

 

[subshakerz]

And yes, I concede that Garner has better overall stats. But its not as if Holdings stats arent within world class parameters, so to me thats not a deal breaker. I look at other factors along with stats.

Holding had some box office performances in his career that Garner didnt, wasnt ever considered a stock bowler and from the reports I gather of the time, was the more highly rated of the two. He seemed to have that Shoaib-like quality of taking the pitch out of the equation when it suited. That to me is enough to give him the edge.

 

[Binkley]

Ian Smith made a comparison between Jamieson and Garner fairly recently, based mostly on their height. But he also expressed the view that Garner bowled at around the same pace as Jamieson and wasn’t as quick as the rest of the Windies bowlers of that era. And, if I recall correctly, Smith would have faced that attack in at least three series (80/81, 84/85 and 86/87).

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's not exactly controversial to say that taller bowlers often feel quicker while showing up as slower than you'd think on the speed gun

 

[Arachnodouche]

Yes, the giant from SL at the recent WT20 for instance was timed in the 120s but seemed much quicker. I think the steepling bounce off good lengths puts batsmen in awkward positions and creates the impression of high pace.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And on the subject of Patrick Patterson, this is a compelling, heartbreaking but also very hopeful read.

Patrick Patterson: The story of an Unquiet Mind

The most fearsome of Caribbean pacers disappeared into oblivion in the 1990s. Patrick Patterson is still around, though he does not quite remember the man he was, or his bowling spells which went down in history. But he is grateful for the dogged fan who travelled half-way around the world to...

indianexpress.com

Patterson was a hell of a bowler. Wasn't he the guy who broke Gatting's nose?

 

[subshakerz]

It's not exactly controversial to say that taller bowlers often feel quicker while showing up as slower than you'd think on the speed gun

Well apparently to some posters it is, even though as you indicated it makes sense.

 

[subshakerz]

Patterson was a hell of a bowler. Wasn't he the guy who broke Gatting's nose?

Marshall did.