Best players of big 3 and/or 4

[SJS]

This thread is a statisticians delight

During the period that at least three of these four bowlers were playing (Feb 1977 t0 march 1987), Gavaskar played 17 Tests over three series against the West Indies. Here is how he fared.

[B]No. Greats	Tests	Innings	Runs	Highest	100’s	50’s	Avg[/B]

4 Greats	4	7	221	147*	1	0	36.8
3 Greats	3	5	275	236*	1	0	68.75
2 Greats	4	8	249	121	1	1	31.1
[COLOR="DarkRed"]NO Greats	6	9	732	220	4	1	91.5[/COLOR]
							
Overall	17	29	1477	341	7	2	56.8

When playing in the West Indies, even two of these great foursome were enough for most batsmen.... at least Gavaskar's record seems to suggest so. The figures below are only for the 1977 to 1987 period since these I have already taken out. To be accurate we need to add the period when Roberts and Holding faced him and garner was yet to make his debut.

[B]Where        	Tests	Innings	Runs	Highest	100’s	50’s	Avg[/B]

Home( 2+)	6	11	505	236*	2	1	50.5
Away (2+)	5	9	240	147*	1	0	30.0

 

[SJS]

According to me, two great fast bowlers makes any attack a really good one as far as this type of bowling is concerned. Lillee and Thomson, Lindwall and Miller, Wasim and Waqar etc have shown that amply down the years.

I have always wanted to break down the tests over the last century by those with great attacks. Four good bowlers of who two are close to being called great is what I was going to set the criteria as. Of course the two (minimum) great bowlers in this attack have to be in the period after they got established as class bowlers and before they really declined. Thus Botham in the latter part of his career would not count towards such classification.

I haven't been able to do this but will love it if someone found the time and energy to do this.

Similarly one could classify the poor attacks (lets say attacks with no great bowlers and no more than two good ones) and one could, if stats took ones fancy, try to do what this thread is trying to do on a much broader canvas.

 

[Richard]

Amarnatht he greatest batsmen of all time, obviously.. The rest can go to hell..

A bit like Gooch, he was someone who demonstrated rare excellence against some of the most challenging bowling in history but who only cashed-in to a moderate extent against more moderate fare.

You get the odd player like them from time to time, but they're very strange cases.

 

[Richard]

Roberts was at the end of his career and had, in fact been dropped for the first three tests of the series with Daniel, Davis and Baptiste filling up and doing a great job. After Windies was leading 2-0 at the end of the 3rd test and it was clear that this was going to be the great Roberts's last tour, Windies decided to give him a send of in India itself and what better place than Calcutta. He got 3 wickets and West indies won the 4th Test and the series 3-0. They then decided to include him for the last Test also.

Is that really so? I honestly never remotely knew that, thought he was just unfit to play the first four Tests and Baptiste\Daniel instead stood-in (Davis played the entire series as a replacement for the injured Garner, I do know that much).

 

[SJS]

Is that really so? I honestly never remotely knew that, thought he was just unfit to play the first four Tests and Baptiste\Daniel instead stood-in (Davis played the entire series as a replacement for the injured Garner, I do know that much).

You are right in thinking that way because he was officially stated to have strained himself in practice in the tour but his actual utilisation during the tour put some considerable doubt on that.

He played in the first class game (against South Zone at Hyderabad), in the 1st ODI that followed and in the next FC game against North Zone where he did not bowl in the second innings.

It is possible that he was injured during this match and may have missed out the next two Tests which followed immediately because of that.

However, he again played the FC game against the Board President's XI that came after the 2nd Test. In the first innings he bowled 20 overs (more than any other Windies bowler) and another five in the short second. He was clearly fit now even if he hadn't been before the first.

Yet he was again not included in the 2nd ODI that followed with just ONE DAY's gap after the FC game he had played. He was also not in the side for the 3rd Test which followed TWO DAY's after the ODI. If he was kept out because of injuries, they seemed to be more than one and recurring.

He again played the FC game against West Zone that followed the 3rd Test and bowled 26 overs. Only spinner harper bowled more. The other fast bowlers put together bowled as many as Roberts. More interestingly, he had a poor match and his solitary wicket cost him 62 runs! There was no second innings.

Now he was included for the 4th Test !

It was a strange selection even if one accepts the premise that he somehow injured himself before every test match.

Of course he never again played for West indies and that too says something.

 

[Richard]

Roberts was certainly not a bowler who aged well, and had been given to niggling injuries after the restoration of Test cricket post-Packer, missing a fair few isolated Tests.

I've always found his performances in the previous WI-vs-Ind series, in the Caribbean, interesting too. At the pace-friendly grounds Sabina Park and Kensington Oval, he demolished the Indians. On the slower decks at Bourda and Queen's Park Oval, he struggled (I think we can forgive him for doing nothing much at the ARG, as precious few bowlers have ever done much there).

 

[SJS]

You are right in thinking that way because he was officially stated to have strained himself in practice in the tour but his actual utilisation during the tour put some considerable doubt on that.

He played in the first class game (against South Zone at Hyderabad), in the 1st ODI that followed and in the next FC game against North Zone where he did not bowl in the second innings.

It is possible that he was injured during this match and may have missed out the next two Tests which followed immediately because of that.

However, he again played the FC game against the Board President's XI that came after the 2nd Test. In the first innings he bowled 20 overs (more than any other Windies bowler) and another five in the short second. He was clearly fit now even if he hadn't been before the first.

Yet he was again not included in the 2nd ODI that followed with just ONE DAY's gap after the FC game he had played. He was also not in the side for the 3rd Test which followed TWO DAY's after the ODI. If he was kept out because of injuries, they seemed to be more than one and recurring.

He again played the FC game against West Zone that followed the 3rd Test and bowled 26 overs. Only spinner harper bowled more. The other fast bowlers put together bowled as many as Roberts. More interestingly, he had a poor match and his solitary wicket cost him 62 runs! There was no second innings.

Now he was included for the 4th Test !

It was a strange selection even if one accepts the premise that he somehow injured himself before every test match.

Of course he never again played for West indies and that too says something.

By the way. I made a mistake.

He was again not included in the 4th test which West indies won and with it the series (3-0)

He was then included in the 3rd ODI. West Indies He took one for 35 in 8 overs. Windies won and with it the five game series 3-0)

He played the next FC game against East Zone (1 for 54). East Zone failed to reach 200 in one innings and even a hundred in the other.

He played the last two ODI's. the last two tests.

I think it is a bit stiff that after missing the tour opener, he played all the first class games till the end of the fifth test but not the first four tests that fell between them.

 

[silentstriker]

Holding calls Gavaskar a 'fair-weather' batsman, he was much more impressed by Amarnath in seaming conditions. He mentions this frequently when asked about the subject.

 

[vcs]

Holding also rates Miandad a lot higher than Gavaskar in his autobiography IIRC.

 

[Richard]

Holding calls Gavaskar a 'fair-weather' batsman, he was much more impressed by Amarnath in seaming conditions. He mentions this frequently when asked about the subject.

Armanath has to be one of the most under-rewarded batsmen in history. People talk about Gooch's successful combating of that attack all the time, people exaggerate hopelessly how well Gavaskar did against it, but Armanath only ever seems to get occasional mentions, along the lines of "he was a gutsy type", which is the same thing that is often said about Peter Willey, who for all his guts did not really have the skill to bat at Test level. Armanath, on the other hand, clearly did.

EDIT: and speaking of Indians in 1983, have just looked up the averages and Kapil Dev did damn well that series as well, didn't he? Had never remotely thought of him in terms of this question.

 

[wpdavid]

Allan Lamb's record against the West Indies is one of the great myths of cricket

Yeah, I knew he didn't do much against them apart from 1984.