• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

West Indies Attacks early 80s vs present English attack

Slifer

International Captain
A lot of banter has been going around on various message boards comparing the West Indies' pace attacks of the 1980s and the present English pace attack. The WI attacks Im talkin about would be those from the 1980 and 1981 test series in England and WI:

Marshall
Holding
Croft
Garner


Garner
Holding
Roberts
Croft

My question is how do the 2 compare? And do u think that the WI attacks would have been as effective against this 'strong' Ozzie lineup? One last thing, im talking about present conditions (bowling restictions etc)
 

greg

International Debutant
To be fair i think most comparisons have not been in order to measure the actual quality of one vs the other, but in comparing their similarity in being able to offer consistently excellent pace pressure on the batsmen who are then given little respite. The difference being that on really good pitches England are forced by their marginally quicker over-rates to offer Ashley Giles as a bit of temptation from time to time.

EDIT: Also Matthew Hoggard really isn't that quick
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Captain
Oh come on, this is getting ridiculous. I notice that most cricket fans make Gods of their own contemporary heroes; and this is very natural, for special style and exploits get indelibly fixed in the mind of the assembled multitude and necessarily affect judgement. But it is a little irritating to be told that this England attack is the best there has ever been; or Shane Warne is the greatest spinner in history; or some particular batsman the best (Bradman being, of course, condescendingly barred) that ever handled the willow. In almost all cases, people who make these flattering statements about their present day heroes have not studied the history of the relevant discipline in enough detail to be qualified to make such a statement, and seldom use any objective evidence to support their claim.

Yes, England have won the Ashes; a great and unexpected achievement, but why not try to prevent the jingoistic British press from forcing us to go overboard at the achievement?
 

Slifer

International Captain
I completely agree with what u said which is y i posed the question. I just wanted to pick the minds of others here on the forum to see what they thought in regard to much of the talk of this England attack. I was very impressed by what I saw of the English attack however and i do give them their props.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
I had a feeling this sort of thread would come up, and as good as Marshall was, Jonesy he wasn't :p.
 

C_C

International Captain
Now this is what i call getting carried away.
This english attack is a good one.
But they still have a LONG way to go.
It isnt as good as Donald-Pollock-deVillers-Adams-Klusener- Symcox-etc. combo, let alone the four prong, a bowling attack even this aussie team at their very peak doesnt match ( okay, McGrath-Warne would've made that attack. But Gillespie, Kaspa, Lee, etc. would've struggled to make the barbados team, let alone west indies team). It is worth remembering that west indies had players such as Colin Croft, Wayne Daniel, Winston Davis and Sylveyster Clarke who didnt get much chances due to how strong that attack was. And ANY of those four bowlers would've walked into any of the bowling attacks of their time or subsequent times ( 80s,90s and currently) as the third or fourth bowler or sometimes the top bowler easily.
Comparing Flintoff- Giles- Harmison-Hoggard-Jones to Roberts-Garner-Marshall-Holding-Croft-etc. is sheer folly at this stage.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
C_C said:
Now this is what i call getting carried away.
This english attack is a good one.
But they still have a LONG way to go.
It isnt as good as Donald-Pollock-deVillers-Adams-Klusener- Symcox-etc. combo, let alone the four prong, a bowling attack even this aussie team at their very peak doesnt match ( okay, McGrath-Warne would've made that attack. But Gillespie, Kaspa, Lee, etc. would've struggled to make the barbados team, let alone west indies team). It is worth remembering that west indies had players such as Colin Croft, Wayne Daniel, Winston Davis and Sylveyster Clarke who didnt get much chances due to how strong that attack was. And ANY of those four bowlers would've walked into any of the bowling attacks of their time or subsequent times ( 80s,90s and currently) as the third or fourth bowler or sometimes the top bowler easily.
Comparing Flintoff- Giles- Harmison-Hoggard-Jones to Roberts-Garner-Marshall-Holding-Croft-etc. is sheer folly at this stage.
I HOPE everyone is in agreeance with this.
 

C_C

International Captain
twctopcat said:
I HOPE everyone is in agreeance with this.
Oh no you see i am an Al-Qaeda member, racist and england hater to dare suggest such a thing according to some. How dare i say something like that about the Queen's own country!
 

Swervy

International Captain
C_C said:
Now this is what i call getting carried away.
This english attack is a good one.
But they still have a LONG way to go.
It isnt as good as Donald-Pollock-deVillers-Adams-Klusener- Symcox-etc. combo, let alone the four prong, a bowling attack even this aussie team at their very peak doesnt match ( okay, McGrath-Warne would've made that attack. But Gillespie, Kaspa, Lee, etc. would've struggled to make the barbados team, let alone west indies team). It is worth remembering that west indies had players such as Colin Croft, Wayne Daniel, Winston Davis and Sylveyster Clarke who didnt get much chances due to how strong that attack was. And ANY of those four bowlers would've walked into any of the bowling attacks of their time or subsequent times ( 80s,90s and currently) as the third or fourth bowler or sometimes the top bowler easily.
Comparing Flintoff- Giles- Harmison-Hoggard-Jones to Roberts-Garner-Marshall-Holding-Croft-etc. is sheer folly at this stage.
I think you might be overstating how good that SA bowling attack was....de Villiers was certainly brilliant..Adams??????...Symcox???? Klusener had a bit of pace butwasnt that special. The bowling attack was Donald and Pollock really..and did those players play much together anyway???? Again, what the England bowling attack may lack in an outstandingly shining talent(like Donald and Pollock at their best), it makes up with relentless pressure due to depth,and variety.

And again, you seem to be swept up with 80s/90s nostalgia with the 4 WIs bowlers you mentioned. Croft was very good, as was Clarke...but Wayne Daniel was only really at his best in the late 70's and wasnt really that good (fast but not anyway near as good as you make out)..and Winston Davis simply wasnt that good full stop

I find it strange that you are willing to class a bunch of bowlers who have not much more than 50 tests between them as being so good, when for other players of the current day, they have to have played 50 tests each to be recognised as being good
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
a massive zebra said:
Oh come on, this is getting ridiculous. I notice that most cricket fans make Gods of their own contemporary heroes; and this is very natural, for special style and exploits get indelibly fixed in the mind of the assembled multitude and necessarily affect judgement. But it is a little irritating to be told that this England attack is the best there has ever been; or Shane Warne is the greatest spinner in history; or some particular batsman the best (Bradman being, of course, condescendingly barred) that ever handled the willow. In almost all cases, people who make these flattering statements about their present day heroes have not studied the history of the relevant discipline in enough detail to be qualified to make such a statement, and seldom use any objective evidence to support their claim.

Yes, England have won the Ashes; a great and unexpected achievement, but why not try to prevent the jingoistic British press from forcing us to go overboard at the achievement?
To be fair, the thread starter IS from Florida.

(You need to be a Farker to understand that)
 

Top