Why is Joel Garner so underrated?

[BeeGee]

I noticed Julien Wiener on the scorecard. lol.

Blimey, Australia had some **** players back then.

 

[Chrish]

I noticed Julien Wiener on the scorecard. lol.

Blimey, Australia had some **** players back then.

Greg Chappell arguably has the best record against genuine pace bowling when we include his perfomence from World Series cricket.. But he was completely owned here

 

[BeeGee]

Greg Chappell arguably has the best record against genuine pace bowling when we include his perfomence from World Series cricket.. But he was completely owned here

Yeah, I definitely wasn't including Chappell in my "**** players" comment. One of Australia's great batsmen. Also great at dealing with streakers. And it was certainly no disgrace to be owned by Garner.

I was more thinking of the Wieners, Lairds and Tooheys.

 

[cnerd123]

The advent of head gear would have been a big difference. Hook and pull were difficult shots because it needed foot wotk to get in side the line of the ball. Hook and pull can be played in front of the face without getting in side the line but if you miss or get a top edge it would have been curtains without a helmet. But now, batsman hook and pull on the front foot, in front of the face, because they know if they miss, they will not die.

Garner's main bowling method was short of a line bowling. Playing pulls, against that line without a helmet would have been very dangerous. Modern day batsmen will pull them happily. They have been pulling bowlers who were much quicker than Garner. If some one can neutralize Garner's short of a length balls, then his yorkers will become in effective when the batsman is expecting a full length delivery. Not to mention, we have batsmen who ramp or Dilscoop 150k yorkers at the death.

But Garner would have been an absolute great in test cricket, in any era. Quicker, bouncier and more menacing McGrath. That is the dream fast bowler.

Garner bowled those lines and lengths because batsmen were unprotected. In modern day cricket he would have adapted his plans. Ridiculous to say he is overrated because he played in a different era. He's still, in your own words, a quicker bouncier and more menacing McGrath. How would a bowler of that description not be an ODI ATG?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

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.

On the other hand, if we're going to do the spreadsheet thing, Garner's BowlSR of 36.5 isn't particularly impressive compared to Bond's 29, Morkel's 29, Starc's 23. Hell, even Corey Anderson strikes at 23 in ODI's. That Garner could maintain a sub-19 bowling average with such a poor strike rate is absolutely incredible.

 

[bagapath]

I concur.

Roberts could also swing and seam the ball.

He wasn't as dramatic as Marshall but, IMO, is the best West Indies quick I have seen.

Garner was quicker than he looked with a languid action. generally about 87-88mph I reckon but when he slipped himself might be above 90. Good control and patience and a fine off cutter. Certainly in the top ten Windies quicks I have seen - day in day out ahead of Ambrose but if Curtley had a mood on...........

No one was day in day out ahead of Ambrose, IMO. He very rarely had off days. In fact, but for his debut series against India his record would be perfect against everyone everywhere.

At the ATG dinner, you can place Amby and Bird at the same table and they won't have a problem with each other's company.

 

[Red]

Best ODI pace bowler of all time imo.

Also, imo the perfect 3rd quick in a test trio. Just unwavering accuracy combined with a bit of intimidation and run drying ability. Such a legend of a guy too.

Without doubt one of my all time fave cricketers.

 

[Bolo]

Hard to imagine anyone doing better as a third quick.

How would he have performed had he opened?

 

[Migara]

Garner bowled those lines and lengths because batsmen were unprotected. In modern day cricket he would have adapted his plans. Ridiculous to say he is overrated because he played in a different era. He's still, in your own words, a quicker bouncier and more menacing McGrath. How would a bowler of that description not be an ODI ATG?

Garner is overrated in ODI cricket because he bowled to batsmen who were not as prolific as today. Easy method would be to compare the adjusted ERs for the era, and Garner, McGrath, Wasim, Pollock and Murali fall within 0.5 range within each other. It's ridiculous to suggest that ODI batting quality of late 70s and early 80s were similar to today. Garner is an ATG in ODI, but never the best ODI pacer as some people rates him.

On the other hand I rate him much higher in test cricket. He is criminally underrated in longer format.

 

[Days of Grace]

He would have a higher E/R if he played today, but also a much lower S/R, as batsmen take more chances. So he would still be well in the discussion for best ever ODI quick.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So if we take a bowler out of his era, and place him in modern day cricket where things have changed, but assume he wouldn't change his approach at all, we can say he wouldn't have been as good? Seems like a good way to go about it...

Saw Big Bird at the Gabba in the 80s, and he was a very good bowler. An awesome sight on the field. One thing I noticed in these clips is how short his follow through was. Fo a big bloke, who generated reasonable pace, pulling up that quickly is pretty impressive. To the batsman it probably felt like he was standing on top of them anyway.

 

[Red]

Garner is overrated in ODI cricket because he bowled to batsmen who were not as prolific as today. Easy method would be to compare the adjusted ERs for the era, and Garner, McGrath, Wasim, Pollock and Murali fall within 0.5 range within each other. It's ridiculous to suggest that ODI batting quality of late 70s and early 80s were similar to today. Garner is an ATG in ODI, but never the best ODI pacer as some people rates him.

On the other hand I rate him much higher in test cricket. He is criminally underrated in longer format.

It's not about that. He had all the tools. That angle, trajectory whatever you want to call it. Guys said you could never get under his deliveries to hit them uppish. He had the best yorker, ever. He was just incredibly difficult to hit for boundaries. None of that would change in the modern era.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He's overrated on Cricketweb (or at least was a few years ago). There was a poll between Garner and Lillee and it ran pretty much neck and neck.

 

[Migara]

It's not about that. He had all the tools. That angle, trajectory whatever you want to call it. Guys said you could never get under his deliveries to hit them uppish. He had the best yorker, ever. He was just incredibly difficult to hit for boundaries. None of that would change in the modern era.

ALL of them change in modern era. Heck, batsmen are now ramping 150k yorkers. Waqar had the best ever yorker, but later when batsmen learnt about reverse swing he was taken to cleaners on occasions. Saying modern batsman cannot adapt to a bowler like Garner is blasphemous. Simply, the fear factor has flown out of the window for batsmen. And we are talking here about Sachin, MSD, Bevan, Symonds, Ponting, Gilchrist, ABDV or Kohli. No batsman of 70s or 80s come close to above named except the king. And interestingly, Garner rarely bowled to the king. If Garner bowled today, still I think he would be a bloody good bowler. Make the top 5 pacers in ODI in modern era, I have my reservations.

 

[Migara]

He would have a higher E/R if he played today, but also a much lower S/R, as batsmen take more chances. So he would still be well in the discussion for best ever ODI quick.

Theory has merit, but unlike test batting, the quality of ODI batting has improved exponentially. Looks like the quality is plateuing these days.

 

[Red]

ALL of them change in modern era. Heck, batsmen are now ramping 150k yorkers. Waqar had the best ever yorker, but later when batsmen learnt about reverse swing he was taken to cleaners on occasions. Saying modern batsman cannot adapt to a bowler like Garner is blasphemous. Simply, the fear factor has flown out of the window for batsmen. And we are talking here about Sachin, MSD, Bevan, Symonds, Ponting, Gilchrist, ABDV or Kohli. No batsman of 70s or 80s come close to above named except the king. And interestingly, Garner rarely bowled to the king. If Garner bowled today, still I think he would be a bloody good bowler. Make the top 5 pacers in ODI in modern era, I have my reservations.

Nah, he'd still be really, really good. It'd take some balls to ramp Garner.

And really, how many guys are bowling 150 clicks?

 

[cnerd123]

ALL of them change in modern era. Heck, batsmen are now ramping 150k yorkers. Waqar had the best ever yorker, but later when batsmen learnt about reverse swing he was taken to cleaners on occasions.

This isn't even true. He lost pace and accuracy as he got older. 145k reverse swinging yorkers are infinitely harder than 135k reverse swinging full tosses/half volleys.

It's true that batsmen today have more tools, but the great bowlers would have adapted. They always do.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

My brother was actually named after Big Bird so at least I know old man Schearzie was a fan of Garner

 

[smash84]

This isn't even true. He lost pace and accuracy as he got older. 145k reverse swinging yorkers are infinitely harder than 135k reverse swinging full tosses/half volleys.

It's true that batsmen today have more tools, but the great bowlers would have adapted. They always do.

This is true. Waqar lost some pace after his first injury and then after the time of his second injury in the mid 90s he lost a significant amount of pace. I remember that towards the end 90s and early 00s waqar used to bowl slower than Wasim and generally would be around the 80-82 mph mark. He had also lost his banana swing of the early years which when send down at pace had earned him so many wickets.

 

[Jono]

Mostly because he flew under the radar given his contemporaries.

big bird pun?