What is your ultimate 4 man pace attack in Tests of all time?

[Migara]

While waqar was something else, garner was the something. Garner ****ed you up so you were mentally gone and physically sore. Just the most awkward delivery ever.

Waqar would not injure you. But with old ball just hit the base of your stumps. And he used far less number of deliveries per wicket than anyone yet alone Garner.

 

[subshakerz]

Waqar would not injure you. But with old ball just hit the base of your stumps. And he used far less number of deliveries per wicket than anyone yet alone Garner.

Ahem

 

[subshakerz]

While waqar was something else, garner was the something. Garner ****ed you up so you were mentally gone and physically sore. Just the most awkward delivery ever.

Wasnt Garner fast medium though? Still awkward no doubt.

 

[Victor Ian]

Waqar would not injure you. But with old ball just hit the base of your stumps. And he used far less number of deliveries per wicket than anyone yet alone Garner.

You miss the point. Garner took more deliveries to get you out, but when you were out, you were also out next innings, and the next one and the next one for the rest of the series for not much, trying to have a swing at Marshall or Holding or whoever. My main memory of batsman facing Garner is of them holding their bat so it looked like a tie while looking away, hoping it didn't hit you.

 

[Migara]

You miss the point. Garner took more deliveries to get you out, but when you were out, you were also out next innings, and the next one and the next one for the rest of the series for not much, trying to have a swing at Marshall or Holding or whoever. My main memory of batsman facing Garner is of them holding their bat so it looked like a tie while looking away, hoping it didn't hit you.

Didin't matter with Waqar. You knew the ball with your name is coming, and it is coming very soon. Probably twice faster than when Garner delivered it. There is just no time to think. This innings you are out, so is the next, so is the next and so on.

I don't care whether my bowlers torture batters. I want them to be sent to the hut. With the old ball there was no one even close to Waqar in the swiftness of sending them to the hut.

 

[andruid]

Weather forecast: Cloudy?

Not passing up the chairperson of the post 2000s meme spell club.

 

[fredfertang]

Larwood, Waqar, Marshall and the mighty Sylvers

 

[smash84]

Yeah, Garner > Waqar for old ball easily for me as well

Old ball Garner > Waqar easily? Really?

Peak Waqar inswinging yorkers were at a different level than anything before or since. I can understand if someone chooses Garner over Waqar but when the ball is old, almost no one beats waqar, let alone easily.

Never gets old

 

[Arachnodouche]

Eh, you simply don't get better with the old ball than peak Wx2. That's their entire USP; you take that out and they're not much better than middle tier.

 

[subshakerz]

A new batsman facing Waqar with the old ball was one of the most difficult prospects.

 

[Flem274*]

Wasnt Garner fast medium though? Still awkward no doubt.

bounce is so much worse to face than pace. a high release point is just so pesty to judge where the ball will land. pace you can get very used to if the angle is kind.

 

[subshakerz]

bounce is so much worse to face than pace. a high release point is just so pesty to judge where the ball will land. pace you can get very used to if the angle is kind.

In the subcontinent, bounce can be neutralized.

 

[Prince EWS]

In the subcontinent, bounce can be neutralized.

Like your face/posts.

 

[Migara]

bounce is so much worse to face than pace. a high release point is just so pesty to judge where the ball will land. pace you can get very used to if the angle is kind.

So is when it is swinging, drifting and full. The difficulty is probably more than when it is bouncing. Only thing is that it doesn't threaten your vital organs like bounce. But yorkers are the most difficult to face because it involves a blind spot.

 

[bagapath]

And Garner was the champ when it comes to bowling the yorker.

Granted that Waqar from 1989 - 1994 was a deadly exponent of the swinging yorker; and an overall ATG bowler. Similar to Botham's career's first phase.

33

59

1142.5

219

3640

190

7/76

13/135

19.15

3.18

36.0

19

4

Post 1994 his record is merely good and nowhere near the league he was operating in for the first five years.

54

95

1561.1

297

5148

183

6/55

10/133

28.13

3.29

51.1

3

1

Garner was deadly throughout his career.

 

[smash84]

And Garner was the champ when it comes to bowling the yorker.

Granted that Waqar from 1989 - 1994 was a deadly exponent of the swinging yorker; and an overall ATG bowler. Similar to Botham's career's first phase.

33

59

1142.5

219

3640

190

7/76

13/135

19.15

3.18

36.0

19

4

Post 1994 his record is merely good and nowhere near the league he was operating in for the first five years.

54

95

1561.1

297

5148

183

6/55

10/133

28.13

3.29

51.1

3

1

Garner was deadly throughout his career.

I don't think many would argue that Waqar was a better bowler than Garner, but old ball Waqar at his peak has almost everybody beat, except maybe old ball Wasim or old ball Imran. As @Arachnodouche stated, without the old ball Waqar would definitely drop to middle tier level, the old ball was the main reason of his meteoric rise.

 

[subshakerz]

As a third or fourth seamer, Garner over Waqar.

If you wanted to give the old ball to someone, then it would be Waqar.

 

[bagapath]

I don't think many would argue that Waqar was a better bowler than Garner, but old ball Waqar at his peak has almost everybody beat, except maybe old ball Wasim or old ball Imran. As @Arachnodouche stated, without the old ball Waqar would definitely drop to middle tier level, the old ball was the main reason of his meteoric rise.

As a third or fourth seamer, Garner over Waqar.

If you wanted to give the old ball to someone, then it would be Waqar.

agree with you both.

my point was that his amazing run lasted five years. all those banana swingers, toe crushers, shattered stumps. then it all got neutralised. he was just a name for the next eight years but never the same threat. not just him, no one else has been such a force that he was from 90-94.
the 95-2003 version of waqar was no big deal, though.

Malcolm Marshall turning into Andy Caddick so to speak.

 

[Burgey]

Wasnt Garner fast medium though? Still awkward no doubt.

I think he was faster than that tbh. He just didn't look it.

 

[ankitj]

I don't think many would argue that Waqar was a better bowler than Garner

Actually, I expect Waqar to win over Garner here in a poll