Which was the greater WI Pace Quartet ?

[Bert]

As a combo, which was the greater WI Pace Quartet ?

Statistically,

 

[subshakerz]

The first. They were more feared. Marshall had declined a bit by the time Bishop came.

 

[Randomfan]

How many tests both sets bowled together? if not a meanigful number then how many tests 3 out of 4 of them bowled together?

 

[DrWolverine]

Are there stats of how they did when they bowled together?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Bishop was a beast, shame that he had those injuries

 

[Coronis]

Roberts/Holding/Garner/Croft
11 matches 182 @ 22.79
Roberts 28 @ 35.53
Holding 51 @ 20.56
Garner 47 @ 19.48
Croft 46 @ 25.82

182/191 wickets taken

Marshall/Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop
6 matches 101 @ 20.76
Bishop 32 @ 20.53
Marshall 25 @ 18.24
Walsh 25 @ 19.12
Ambrose 19 @ 26.63

101/103 wickets taken

 

[Bolo.]

The second pair pretty comfortably, whether going off form, or careers.

 

[DrWolverine]

What about the other pace quartet?
Marshall. Garner. Roberts. Holding.

 

[subshakerz]

What about the other pace quartet?
Marshall. Garner. Roberts. Holding.

Probably the best.But it was Walsh not Roberts

 

[OverratedSanity]

Definitely the first pair because they actually peaked together.

 

[Bolo.]

Definitely the first pair because they actually peaked together.

You mean this in the sense of more career overlap, or actually peaking? If the latter, when?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Definitely the first pair because they actually peaked together.

Roberts was pretty bad by any standards when they all played together. Averages something like 35 iirc.

Edit: Yeah 35, Coronis has provided the stats

 

[OverratedSanity]

Roberts was pretty bad by any standards when they all played together. Averages something like 35 iirc.

Edit: Yeah 35, Coronis has provided the stats

It's hard to make judgements like these statistically when it comes to the attack as a whole over a small sample of games. As a package I'd say Roberts-Garner-Croft-Holding were all at or close to their matured versions when in the early 80s. And they also featured together heavily in multiple big series.

With the other quartet, Marshall was approaching the end, Ambrose wasn't at his peak yet, Walsh was a long long way from his peak, bishop was maybe the only one in that quartet where you could say that was actually the version of Bishop people remember. I'm not going to look at stats at all for this. Numbers when you play together for like 5-6 games means close to nothing imo.

 

[subshakerz]

It's hard to make judgements like these statistically when it comes to the attack as a whole over a small sample of games. As a package I'd say Roberts-Garner-Croft-Holding were all at or close to their matured versions when in the early 80s. And they also featured together heavily in multiple big series.

With the other quartet, Marshall was approaching the end, Ambrose wasn't at his peak yet, Walsh was a long long way from his peak, bishop was maybe the only one in that quartet where you could say that was actually the version of Bishop people remember. I'm not going to look at stats at all for this. Numbers when you play together for like 5-6 games means close to nothing imo.

Yeah and I would say the first had complementary bowling styles. Roberts with his nous, Holding pure pace, Garner bounce and height, Croft such awkward and nasty.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's hard to make judgements like these statistically when it comes to the attack as a whole over a small sample of games. As a package I'd say Roberts-Garner-Croft-Holding were all at or close to their matured versions when in the early 80s. And they also featured together heavily in multiple big series.

With the other quartet, Marshall was approaching the end, Ambrose wasn't at his peak yet, Walsh was a long long way from his peak, bishop was maybe the only one in that quartet where you could say that was actually the version of Bishop people remember. I'm not going to look at stats at all for this. Numbers when you play together for like 5-6 games means close to nothing imo.

Shouldn't it solely be on the games when all 4 played together??

 

[subshakerz]

Shouldn't it solely be on the games when all 4 played together??

No six games is too small sample.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No six games is too small sample.

Then we should not judge them with that and instead go with careers. Them playing in various combinations wasn't the question listed.

 

[subshakerz]

Then we should not judge them with that and instead go with careers. Them playing in various combinations wasn't the question listed.

We can do both. Judge which one was tougher to face in 80 or 89. But we don't have to rely on just six games to determine how good one was.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Roberts/Holding/Garner/Croft
11 matches 182 @ 22.79
Roberts 28 @ 35.53
Holding 51 @ 20.56
Garner 47 @ 19.48
Croft 46 @ 25.82

182/191 wickets taken

Marshall/Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop
6 matches 101 @ 20.76
Bishop 32 @ 20.53
Marshall 25 @ 18.24
Walsh 25 @ 19.12
Ambrose 19 @ 26.63

101/103 wickets taken

Wow Ambrose was worst in quatert

 

[govinda indian fan]

What about the other pace quartet?
Marshall. Garner. Roberts. Holding.

But they played just one series