West Indies ATG Team- Open Voting

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Monk

The change in a batsman's psyche (at international level) since helmets have become common has been massive. Guys like McCosker, going out to face Holding, Garner and Roberts without a helmet, were under serious threat of death. The same applies to Bradman etc in bodyline series. Nowadays, batsmen can take a lot more liberties than they did prior to the 1980s, since the very real threat of death while batting has been (mostly) removed from cricket.

A guy like Langer, who seemed to get hit flush in the helmet a couple of times each series, would have been killed in the 70s.

Holding bowling to Brian Close on the "Fire in Babylon" DVD (after Greig made his "grovel" comment) is some of the most calculated and chilling cricket footage. FMD that looks quick, and flat out frightening.

Marshall and Ambrose played all of their careers in the helmet era while half of Holding's career was after WSC as well, they all were still feared and made no less effective after helmets were common place.

Plus Marshall aimed for the ribs and throat anyway

[Monk]

Just posting this cos I love it....

Fire in Babylon - Michael Holding vs Brian Close - YouTube

Close must've been a tough bastard.

And a bit of robelinda's fine work...

Malcolm Marshall tribute video - GREATEST FAST BOWLER - YouTube

[Jager]

Ambrose
Marshall
Gibbs
Garner

[Jager]

Originally Posted by watson

Holding on-the-other-hand, well he was really fast.

Who cares if he was faster? Garner was better.

Garner also preferred to bowl into the wind which means he's a happy second opening bowler or first change.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Jager

Who cares if he was faster? Garner was better.

Garner also preferred to bowl into the wind which means he's a happy second opening bowler or first change.

Well, Holding wasn't called 'Whispering Death' for bowling half volleys and handing out ham sandwiches,

Fast = Death

[kyear2]

He was also a very skilled bowler who performed well the world over even in the most benign conditions as evidenced by his perfornances in India in '83 and his famous 14 wicket performance.
But still, speed does kill and until '83/ '84 he was the fastest bowler in the world (until supplented by Marshall) and one of the fastest ever.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by kyear2

He was also a very skilled bowler who performed well the world over even in the most benign conditions as evidenced by his perfornances in India in '83 and his famous 14 wicket performance.
But still, speed does kill and until '83/ '84 he was the fastest bowler in the world (until supplented by Marshall) and one of the fastest ever.

Quite a few of the guys from the 70s are adamant that Holding was the quickest ever.

[morgieb]

Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Holding

Sobers can bowl spin.

[watson]

Originally Posted by morgieb

Marshall
Garner
Ambrose
Holding

Sobers can bowl spin.

Just out of interest - What percentage of wickets were obtained by spin bowling as opposed to bowling fast?

[Flametree]

Originally Posted by watson

Just out of interest - What percentage of wickets were obtained by spin bowling as opposed to bowling fast?

I don't know that anyone knows that.

But he averaged 30.75 in innings when he opened the bowling, 34.5 when he bowled first change, and 36.5 when he bowled lower down the bowling order. Which suggests he was more effective bowling swing/seam, (though it's possible he changed modes halfway through innings and took more of his wickets with spin having initially started off bowling quick).

[kingkallis]

I am not comfortable going without a spinner and Sobers, Viv were 'NO' spinners.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Flametree

I don't know that anyone knows that.

But he averaged 30.75 in innings when he opened the bowling, 34.5 when he bowled first change, and 36.5 when he bowled lower down the bowling order. Which suggests he was more effective bowling swing/seam, (though it's possible he changed modes halfway through innings and took more of his wickets with spin having initially started off bowling quick).

If that's the case, and Gibbs is left out, then the attack is effectively and 5 man pace attack - which seems a bit excessive to me.

However, I do have a feeling that Sobers took a rare 5fer against England bowling wrist- spin, but I can't recall the actual test.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by watson

However, I do have a feeling that Sobers took a rare 5fer against England bowling wrist- spin, but I can't recall the actual test.

Checking, Sobers took 3 five-fors against England. The first was his first ever five-for bowling brisk fast-medium. The second was this match a few years later where he hit a ton, took a five-for having apparently "adopted" the pace of his best quick Hall. In the second dig he bowled spin, taking three.

The Wisden report doesn't say what he bowled in the third match, but given he opened the bowling in both innings it's safe to say he was being deployed at least primarily as a seamer.

Really it does suggest that Sober's best bowling was his quick bowling, given that I went explicitly looking for a great feat of spin and found only more praise of his seamers.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Checking, Sobers took 3 five-fors against England. The first was his first ever five-for bowling brisk fast-medium. The second was this match a few years later where he hit a ton, took a five-for having apparently "adopted" the pace of his best quick Hall. In the second dig he bowled spin, taking three.

The Wisden report doesn't say what he bowled in the third match, but given he opened the bowling in both innings it's safe to say he was being deployed at least primarily as a seamer.

Really it does suggest that Sober's best bowling was his quick bowling, given that I went explicitly looking for a great feat of spin and found only more praise of his seamers.

Yeah, fare enough.

So, essentially, Sobers will be the 4th or 5th pace bowler.

[Bahnz]

Originally Posted by watson

Yeah, fare enough.
Since Sobers was essentially a pace bowler why do we feel the need to drop Gibbs?

Because as good as Gibbs may have been, Garner was better. Much better.