Where does Andy Roberts gets ranked among the all time greats of the game?

[stephen]

Walsh is definitely with those 3, not below.

I don't know, he always played second fiddle to Ambrose and Bishop when they were in the same team. Bishop was definitely a better bowler than Walsh when he was fit and was largely the difference between Australia and the West Indies during the 90s. When Bishop was for the West Indies usually won.

 

[stephen]

I would go with Marshall, Ambrose, Holding, Roberts and then Garner.

Roberts gets ranked highly mostly based on his peers several of whom put him at the top. Lillee, Gavaskar and others called him the best bowler, which has value.

Garner has pretty figures and was terribly effective, but never really a leader of the pack or single handed destroyer like the other (he never took a 10-fer, for example). Didnt play much in the subcontinent as the others to suggest he was as versatile.

It's pretty hard to split them and I could really accept any combination of Ambrose, Roberts, Garner, Marshall and Holding being rated as the best. My father rates Garner as being the best if the Windies quicks and he has better memories of the 80s than I do.

 

[AndrewB]

Regarding Garner's pace, there's an interesting quote in his "Cricketer of the Year" write-up in the 1980 Wisden:

"Garner, in fact, is not really fast. The top men generate speed through the air of between 90 and 95 miles an hour, if the scientific measurements are to be believed. Garner would be between 75 and 80."

 

[Burgey]

I remember a front page of the SMH Good Weekend in the early 80s. It was a great portrait photo of Garner striking a pretty thoughtful pose with the headline

Joel Garner: He Doesn't Look Fast. But Try Facing Him.

The article interviewed a stack of players from here and OS who all reckoned he hit the bat harder than anyone. Bat flexing in your hand type pace. Was probably an effect of the bounce or his action or whatever, but it was a terrific article.

 

[Slifer]

I would go with Marshall, Ambrose, Holding, Roberts and then Garner.

Roberts gets ranked highly mostly based on his peers several of whom put him at the top. Lillee, Gavaskar and others called him the best bowler, which has value.

Garner has pretty figures and was terribly effective, but never really a leader of the pack or single handed destroyer like the other (he never took a 10-fer, for example). Didnt play much in the subcontinent as the others to suggest he was as versatile.

Regarding Garner. He never took a ten for nor too many 5 fors for that matter but his wpm is second behind the peerless MM. Also, he had the best Sr (after MM) and disturbingly good economy rate. He didn't play much in the subcon but the one opportunity he did have he was outstanding. Pretty sure if he'd played more he'd have still been great.

Needless to say I love love love big Joel. Excellent fast bowler and overall cool human being.

 

[stephen]

When you're fighting Marshall and Holding for wickets it makes sense that you aren't going to pick up big hauls.

 

[watson]

Being more than 2 metres tall is not really a skill as such. Yet Garner got most of wickets for this reason because of the added bounce that it gave to his short-of-a-length ball.

I think the reason that people generally revere Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and Roberts more than Garner is because they exhibited more skill with the ball. Roberts himself had the nagging accuracy of Garner, but he also had his 'two-speed' bouncer, the off-cutter and natural out-swing. His sheer variety meant that he could out-think any batsman, even Gavaskar.

Garner was intimidating and menacing in his own way, but he was never in tha same league as Roberts at his peak. Nor Marshall, Ambrose or Holding.

 

[stephen]

Garner's yorker required loads of skill. Most tall bowlers find it difficult to bowl a good yorker since the extra bounce they get turns a lot of almost-yorkers into half-volleys.

Garner was accurate and nasty. He was certainly as good as any of the other quicks.

 

[watson]

Ian Chappell clueless, Greg simply beaten by pace and bounce. Border no where near it.

.

 

[watson]

Here is Roberts squaring-up all 6'8 of Tony Greig with a "good length" ball on a flat pitch. That's pretty impressive if you think about it.

 

[Burgey]

Being more than 2 metres tall is not really a skill as such. Yet Garner got most of wickets for this reason because of the added bounce that it gave to his short-of-a-length ball.

I think the reason that people generally revere Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and Roberts more than Garner is because they exhibited more skill with the ball. Roberts himself had the nagging accuracy of Garner, but he also had his 'two-speed' bouncer, the off-cutter and natural out-swing. His sheer variety meant that he could out-think any batsman, even Gavaskar.

Garner was intimidating and menacing in his own way, but he was never in tha same league as Roberts at his peak. Nor Marshall, Ambrose or Holding.

I dunno. He seems quicker than most to me. Plus he decked it around a fair bit too.