Best bowling attack ever (4 bowlers)

[social]

Nope, flimsy rules like that are nought but conjecture.

Like fc averages translating to test success

 

[Richard]

Richard, if you'd been watching cricket at that time (not your fault, btw), you'd realise that Garner dramatically changed his approach to bowling at about that time - some said it was ego related because Marshall started getting the headlines as supposed "world's fastest bowler"

Anyway, he changed his runup from a lumbering, measured approach to a positive sprint to the wicket with dramatic increase in pace

Patterson, btw, was virtually always bowled downwind because pace was the only thing at his disposal. However, he also bowled a lot at first change

I never said Garner didn't change his approach. I never said he wasn't extremely quick either.

I said there's no way anyone, and almost certainly not an Australian, could know whether he or Patterson bowled quicker in the single series they played together. And they can't.

Every single England batsman who played in that series thinks Patterson was notably quicker than Marshall, Holding or Garner. Graham Gooch himself said Patterson's debut was the only time he felt a bowler was too quick for him. However, no-one commented on whether Patterson was given the wind ahead of three bowlers who were inestimably more senior.

 

[Richard]

Like fc averages translating to test success

Nah, that's a very common and very reliable rule. Almost never will someone who has failed at the domestic level be more likely to suceed at the Test level than someone who has suceeded at the domestic level.

 

[aussie tragic]

Good observation that!! I think the best WI lineups that acutally played together would be those composed of either:

Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft

Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

Marshall
Ambrose
Bishop
Walsh/Patterson

Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall is the best for mine (they played 6 tests together)

However I could probably go Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft as they played 11 tests together

 

[silentstriker]

Perhaps I am not understanding this debate, but is anyone actually disputing that the most reliable indicator of success at the Test level is success at the domestic FC level? It's obvious to me, and while there are exceptions, it is still the way to tell who'll be successful at the Test level. If it wasn't useful for that, then most countries wouldn't keep a black hole that is the domestic FC infastructure.

 

[social]

Perhaps I am not understanding this debate, but is anyone actually disputing that the most reliable indicator of success at the Test level is success at the domestic FC level? It's obvious to me, and while there are exceptions, it is still the way to tell who'll be successful at the Test level. If it wasn't useful for that, then most countries wouldn't keep a black hole that is the domestic FC infastructure.

It's a good indicator nothing more

If it were a "rule", one of Richard's favourite players wouldnt have been a complete flop at test level

 

[Richard]

Rules are not without exceptions.

 

[bagapath]

holding and garner were the two regulars in the famus west indian quartet in any combination. marshall played in 26 tests with them. they lost only one, IIRC, when bob holland bowled australia to a surprise win under border's captaincy.

for a four pronged attacked even their 1988 line-up against India is a very strong candidate.

Marshall
Ambrose
Walsh
Bishop

Ravi Shastri scored 107 against them in Bridgetown. I have been a fan of his ever since.

 

[Richard]

Neither Ambrose nor Walsh was quite at that time the bowler they would later be, though.

I'd be more inclined to go for Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft over that attack.

Marshall-Holding-Garner-Patterson in the last hurrah of the '86 blackwash has a fair case too, though Holding was already ailing by that time.

 

[aussie tragic]

Some stats of awsome foursomes...

Roberts: 11 tests, 28 wkts @ 35.53
Holding: 11 tests, 51 wkts @ 20.56
Garner: 11 tests, 47 wkts @ 19.48
Croft: 11 tests, 46 wkts @ 25.82

Roberts: 6 tests, 33 wkts @ 17.48
Holding: 6 tests, 15 wkts @ 45.86
Garner: 6 tests, 19 wkts @ 25.36
Marshall: 6 tests, 23 wkts @ 27.08

Holding: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 23.20
Garner: 4 tests, 18 wkts @ 24.83
Marshall: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 28.33
Walsh: 4 tests, 11 wkts @ 29.81

 

[aussie tragic]

How but this Aussie 1956 bowling line-up...4 pace & 2 spinners

Lindwall
Miller
Davidson
Archer
Benaud
Johnson

Some pretty handy allrounders as well.....

 

[silentstriker]

Very good thread - Boycott has his opinion on the very same matter!

Go towards the end.

 

[Richard]

How but this Aussie 1956 bowling line-up...4 pace & 2 spinners

Lindwall
Miller
Davidson
Archer
Benaud
Johnson

Some pretty handy allrounders as well.....

Looks good at first glance doesn't it, but IIRR Lindwall was well past his best by then, Davidson and Benaud had yet to find theirs, and Archer and Johnson were never much more than middling Test bowler.

Miller was getting on too of course - less sure about how he was handling ageing.

 

[Richard]

Some stats of awsome foursomes...

Roberts: 11 tests, 28 wkts @ 35.53
Holding: 11 tests, 51 wkts @ 20.56
Garner: 11 tests, 47 wkts @ 19.48
Croft: 11 tests, 46 wkts @ 25.82

Roberts: 6 tests, 33 wkts @ 17.48
Holding: 6 tests, 15 wkts @ 45.86
Garner: 6 tests, 19 wkts @ 25.36
Marshall: 6 tests, 23 wkts @ 27.08

Holding: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 23.20
Garner: 4 tests, 18 wkts @ 24.83
Marshall: 4 tests, 15 wkts @ 28.33
Walsh: 4 tests, 11 wkts @ 29.81

Really surprised at Roberts' ordinariness when bowling with Holding, Garner and Croft; actually knew about Holding's with Roberts, Garner and Marshall as I spotted it when I looked at the fact that the best four played so rarely together.

Even though Marshall-Holding-Garner-Walsh was short-lived, theirs was clearly the only time all four bowlers went well at the same time.

Could we have the same thing for a year later when it was Marshall-Holding-Garner-Patterson?

 

[morgieb]

I think the best is the West Indies from 1976-1991.

 

[aussie tragic]

Could we have the same thing for a year later when it was Marshall-Holding-Garner-Patterson?

Marshall: 4 tests, 19 wkts @ 18.42
Holding: 4 tests, 16 wkts @ 24.06
Garner: 4 tests, 23 wkts @ 15.08
Patterson: 4 tests, 17 wkts @ 17.70

 

[Days of Grace]

Marshall: 4 tests, 19 wkts @ 18.42
Holding: 4 tests, 16 wkts @ 24.06
Garner: 4 tests, 23 wkts @ 15.08
Patterson: 4 tests, 17 wkts @ 17.70

That's gotta be it, then.

 

[aussie tragic]

Lillee: 11 tests, 53 wkts @ 25.26
Thomson: 11 tests, 49 wkts @ 26.42
Walker: 11 tests, 35 wkts @ 36.91
Mallett: 11 tests, 31 wkts @ 31.96

plus
Walters: 8 tests, 9 wkts @ 12.33

Also, Lillee & Thomo bowling together in the 1970's

Lillee: 16 tests, 81 wkts @ 26.75
Thomson: 16 tests, 71 wkts @ 26.15

 

[aussie tragic]

I'll go with West Indies 1980-87

Marshall: 26 tests, 123 wkts @ 21.33
Garner: 26 tests, 110 wkts @ 21.03
Holding: 26 tests, 98 wkts @ 25.63

plus

Baptiste: 6 tests, 34 wkts @ 17.41
Roberts: 6 tests, 33 wkts @ 17.48
Patterson: 4 tests, 17 wkts @ 17.70
Croft: 3 tests, 12 wkts @ 31.41
Walsh: 4 tests, 11 wkts @ 29.81

 

[Richard]

Marshall: 4 tests, 19 wkts @ 18.42
Holding: 4 tests, 16 wkts @ 24.06
Garner: 4 tests, 23 wkts @ 15.08
Patterson: 4 tests, 17 wkts @ 17.70

That's gotta be it, then.

Yep, thought so. This attack completely and totally destroyed England in 1986, the last hurrah for the great West Indies teams (thereafter the better sides were able to hold them back and occasionally even outplay them) as well as the start of the most wretched four years in the history of English cricket.