Best AT WI pacer to complement M.Marshall

[Engle]

Who, in your opinion, is the best AT WI pacer to complement M.Marshall ?

Am looking for the best opening pair attack ( not necessarily the next best pacer after Marshall )

 

[Checkmate]

Hard to go past Ambrose. In addition to just being awesome, the pair would have a crazy height difference, trouble for any batsmen.

Didn't pick Garner cuz he was more of a 1st change IIRC.

 

[NasserFan207]

Holding or Ambrose, hard to split them imo.

 

[Cruxdude]

Who, in your opinion, is the best AT WI pacer to complement M.Marshall ?

Am looking for the best opening pair attack ( not necessarily the next best pacer after Marshall )

Wouldn't the 2nd best pacer and the 1st best pacer make the best opening pair?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Was a toss-up for me between Ambrose and Roberts; having seen the standings after voting, should have given Andy some love.

 

[vcs]

Was a toss-up for me between Ambrose and Roberts; having seen the standings after voting, should have given Andy some love.

I think Roberts is the hugely underrated one out of the WI quicks of that era.. Holding has a huge amount of respect for him in his autobiography. Apparently he was the mentor for the rest.

 

[vic_orthdox]

From memory, Lillee is of much the same opinion; many of the quicks and batsmen who played alongside or against him rate him very highly.

 

[Teja.]

Both Ian Chappel and Sunil Gavaskar rate Roberts the best they faced IIRC. He, Lillee and Marshall are the ones everyone in the era rates as the best.

As to the question, Garner obv. Particularly with an ATG pacer coming in from the other end.

 

[bagapath]

both garner and ambrose are too close to split

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...lve=1571;team=4;template=results;type=bowling

 

[MrIncredible]

Went with Garner. IMO could do everything big Curtly could but slightly more effective imo. Plus had a yorker from hell which he could bowl at will, ready to pry out any stubborn batsman.

 

[kingkallis]

Ambrose!

 

[Himannv]

Voted for Ambrose but surprised to see no votes for Roberts.

 

[thierry henry]

Went with Garner. IMO could do everything big Curtly could but slightly more effective imo.

Effective in what way?

 

[Goughy]

Hard to go past Ambrose.

This

 

[Teja.]

Effective in what way?

The wicket-taking way.

1. Garner has a considerably higher wpm than Ambrose while having higher competition for wickets

2. Garner had a better SR despite SRs being slighly higher in his day.

3. In an attack with Marshall in it, You require an exceptional impact bowler such as Garner more than an exceptional metronomic bowler such as Ambrose.

4. Both have one hole in their records(against India) but Ambrose played a good number of games(9) against India for it be explained away as an irrelevancy compared to Garner(4)

The only argument I can think of in favour of Ambrose is that he was the bowler who is more likely to take a fiver of the two but Garner was not given much chance to do that in the first place and Ambrose wasn't particularly exceptional at taking hauls of wickets when compared to other ATG pacers either.

 

[ankitj]

both garner and ambrose are too close to split

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

This analysis splits them. Even though both Garner and Ambrose have nearly identical averages, Ambrose was picking up more valuable wickets.

For this poll - Ambrose, without a second thought!

 

[ankitj]

The wicket-taking way.

1. Garner has a considerably higher wpm than Ambrose while having higher competition for wickets

2. Garner had a better SR despite SRs being slighly higher in his day.

3. In an attack with Marshall in it, You require an exceptional impact bowler such as Garner more than an exceptional metronomic bowler such as Ambrose.

4. Both have one hole in their records(against India) but Ambrose played a good number of games(9) against India for it be explained away as an irrelevancy compared to Garner(4)

The only argument I can think of in favour of Ambrose is that he was the bowler who is more likely to take a fiver of the two but Garner was not given much chance to do that in the first place and Ambrose wasn't particularly exceptional at taking hauls of wickets when compared to other ATG pacers either.

You are still sticking to the "Ambrose is overrated" stance of yours?

As for the impact player, how about the fact that Ambrose had the most entries in the Wisden 100 best bowling spells.

 

[Teja.]

You are still sticking to the "Ambrose is overrated" stance of yours?

As for the impact player, how about the fact that Ambrose had the most entries in the Wisden 100 best bowling spells.

I already admitted Ambrose is the likelier bowler to take a haul of wickets. Impact bowler bears a different definition for me. Ambrose was an exceptional metronomic bowler who worked over batsman and penetrated technique however Garner was the better bowler for coming in and taking that wicket, IMHO. This question would have torn me if it was as bowlers overall but for being ebony to Marshall's ivory, I'd pick Garner.

 

[Teja.]

While I do feel Ambrose is slightly overrated, This time it's me feeling Garner is criminally underrated.

 

[Prince EWS]

This analysis splits them. Even though both Garner and Ambrose have nearly identical averages, Ambrose was picking up more valuable wickets.

For this poll - Ambrose, without a second thought!

Played against better batting lineups too.