West Indies Attacks early 80s vs present English attack

[Slifer]

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)

[Anil]

there is really no comparison...

[PY]

I can't quite believe the comparison has even been made.

[Sanz]

Could the WI bowlers reverse swing though ?

[greg]

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

[a massive zebra]

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]

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.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

or Shane Warne is the greatest spinner in history;

Don't see why thats a problem.. Arguably he is, isn't he?

[sledger]

oh dear, not a great deal of comparison to be made here.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

Don't see why thats a problem.. Arguably he is, isn't he?

Shhhhh... you'll prompt *another* Warne v Murali argument.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Shhhhh... you'll prompt *another* Warne v Murali argument.

oops sorry..

*zips up sleeping bag*..

[twctopcat]

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

[greg]

Originally Posted by twctopcat

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

lol. Nice one!

[C_C]

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]

Originally Posted by C_C

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.