Why is Joel Garner so underrated?

[Debris]

Not enough five fers. Don't think he went wicketless in any of his 58 tests which is probably a record. But didn't single handedly bowl out opposition like Marshall or Holding or Ambrose often enough to be remembered for specific performances. He was always a threat and was a giant in stature. He rarely failed. but I don't recall specific games where he rocked the opposition with stellar performances like holding did in oval 76 or Amby in Perth 92.

He did have a fair bit of competition for wickets. Makes getting lots of wickets a bit more challenging.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

He did have a fair bit of competition for wickets. Makes getting lots of wickets a bit more challenging.

Also on the contrary, many people argue that having superior bowling mates make your path easier to take wickets as much

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I don't think he is underrated just that WI had so many great bowlers at the time that there will always be one who is talked about less than others and he unfortunately is the one, doesn't mean he wasn't great and better than most players from other nations at the time.

 

[kyear2]

Not enough five fers. Don't think he went wicketless in any of his 58 tests which is probably a record. But didn't single handedly bowl out opposition like Marshall or Holding or Ambrose often enough to be remembered for specific performances. He was always a threat and was a giant in stature. He rarely failed. but I don't recall specific games where he rocked the opposition with stellar performances like holding did in oval 76 or Amby in Perth 92.

This exactly. Always a threat, always consistent, but in tests never quite the match winner.

I rate him behind, Marshall, Ambrose and Holding.

 

[NasserFan207]

He was mister reliable in a team of rockstars. Flew under the radar somewhat.

Batsmen who faced him all rated him very highly though.

 

[Coronis]

He did have a fair bit of competition for wickets. Makes getting lots of wickets a bit more challenging.

Marshall and Holding still managed it, which is why they're rated higher.

 

[thierry henry]

Classic case of glorifying the past imo when people say stuff like "Garner was 6'8" with that high action, he must've been unplayable at times with his yorkers and bouncers".

Guys like Chris Tremlett, Steve Finn, Jason Holder, even Jacob Oram have been around the same height and no-one says "oh when Finn bowls a short ball it's basically unplayable because he's so tall" or "Holder's yorkers are impossible to play, might as well just give up because he's so tall". That's not to mention Irfan, who could pick Garner up and put him in his pocket (ok, exaggeration) but no-one says "all Irfan has to do is bowl short and it's unplayable by default".

If anything it's selling Garner short (excuse the pun), as he is defined by attributes which in no way suggest greatness. It's either that, or people used to be more easily impressed.

 

[Burgey]

It wasn't just Garner's height which mad him so good. There have been loads of tall bowlers, but he had the ability to make the ball lift, even for a bloke so tall. He was also genuinely quick, and ridiculously accurate. He gave batsmen nothing, almost like a McGrath type bowler, only a bit faster and taller. The bloke could seriously bowl.

Edit: Good link here showing him bowling to GC in 1979-80. Uses the crease really well in that spell too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ah524EPXxo

 

[Burgey]

I mean, I know he's no Tim Southee and all, but he was ok.....

 

[viriya]

He is considered an ODI bowling great by many but I think he bowled at at time when batsmen didn't go after bowlers so his record flatters him a bit. It also helps that he didn't have to bowl at the GOAT ODI batsman.

 

[smash84]

He is considered an ODI bowling great by many but I think he bowled at at time when batsmen didn't go after bowlers so his record flatters him a bit. It also helps that he didn't have to bowl at the GOAT ODI batsman.

Yes, he MUST be penalized for not preparing to play batsmen 30 years into the future. Brilliant

 

[Debris]

Marshall and Holding still managed it, which is why they're rated higher.

Do you rate bowlers based on peak performance then? They had great games but they also had bad games. They all took around the same amount of wickets a test. (Marshall a bit more than Garner, Holding a bit less).

 

[karan316]

I didn't think he was underrated? He's generally seen as an all time great isn't he?

Yap, but a lot of other bowlers are rated higher as compared to him. But I don't remember any bowler who can match the hostile and accurate bowling of Garner.

 

[karan316]

Not enough five fers. Don't think he went wicketless in any of his 58 tests which is probably a record. But didn't single handedly bowl out opposition like Marshall or Holding or Ambrose often enough to be remembered for specific performances. He was always a threat and was a giant in stature. He rarely failed. but I don't recall specific games where he rocked the opposition with stellar performances like holding did in oval 76 or Amby in Perth 92.

One of the reasons for that might be the fact that he was a part of a successful bowling lineup and had plenty of competition for wickets. And I can say this for sure that he had a big disadvantage in getting LBWs because of the extra bounce he extracted.

 

[karan316]

Classic case of glorifying the past imo when people say stuff like "Garner was 6'8" with that high action, he must've been unplayable at times with his yorkers and bouncers".

Guys like Chris Tremlett, Steve Finn, Jason Holder, even Jacob Oram have been around the same height and no-one says "oh when Finn bowls a short ball it's basically unplayable because he's so tall" or "Holder's yorkers are impossible to play, might as well just give up because he's so tall". That's not to mention Irfan, who could pick Garner up and put him in his pocket (ok, exaggeration) but no-one says "all Irfan has to do is bowl short and it's unplayable by default".

If anything it's selling Garner short (excuse the pun), as he is defined by attributes which in no way suggest greatness. It's either that, or people used to be more easily impressed.

The bowlers you have mentioned are just "tall", but none of them are accurate or dangerous if you compare with Garner. It wasn't about his height, it was about his effectiveness. There was another bowler who was equally tall, Bruce Reid, but we don't rate him so highly, because he didn't have that impact.

 

[karan316]

No one hit Joel

 

[viriya]

Yes, he MUST be penalized for not preparing to play batsmen 30 years into the future. Brilliant

Not penalized - just that his econ and average isn't as impressive since he did it then. If a player does the same thing now it would be more impressive. Kind of like how Viv's 90+ SR is insane considering his times.

 

[Debris]

The bowlers you have mentioned are just "tall", but none of them are accurate or dangerous if you compare with Garner. It wasn't about his height, it was about his effectiveness. There was another bowler who was equally tall, Bruce Reid, but we don't rate him so highly, because he didn't have that impact.

Bruce Reid is a bad example because it was injuries that prevented him having an impact. He would have been one of the best bowlers Australia has produced if he could have avoided injuries.

 

[Red]

Reid would've been absolute elite if not for injuries.

 

[karan316]

Bruce Reid is a bad example because it was injuries that prevented him having an impact. He would have been one of the best bowlers Australia has produced if he could have avoided injuries.

Tall fast bowlers have this issue of injuries, not sure whats the reason for it, but you cannot claim that he "would have been one of the best bowlers ". M talking about what actually happened rather than assuming things. And Garner's fitness and agility was not something you don't usually relate with a fast bowler of that frame, that was a rarity in itself.

Bruce Reid has an impressive record, but Garner was a freak. Reid relied more on the extra bounce that he got, Garner was a lot more than that. He was way more accurate that any other bowler of his time, could bowl perfect yorkers and use different angles of the crease to trouble the batsmen.