Do you consider Colin Croft a "what if?"

[Starfighter]

Walsh might not have debuted when he did if Croft was still around, and his continued presence might well have ended Roberts' career earlier and meant Davis did not play as much. That's discounting other politics around the team (like Daniel's exclusion). That Marshall only comrehsively broke through in '83 (though he hd a good '80) is something else to consider in the context of the time.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I don't see Walsh playing when he did if Croft was still around.

Genuinely mean bowler. Wasn't aware of his back issues, though with his action I'm not surprised.

 

[wpdavid]

Looking at cricinfo, Croft's figures during his final test series (in Australia during 1981-82) were actually pretty mediocre. Whether that's down to his back, or other issues, I have no idea. But it's not hard to see Marshall replacing him anyway next time around, even if Croft hadn't gone to SA. I think he was approaching 30 when he did go on the 'rebel' tour, so maybe he saw that as a factor too. Obviously he'd have still played some tests thereafter even if not part of the first choice attack due to others occasionally being injured. But he wouldn't have been in the first-choice XI, I think. Not sure about him keeping Walsh out though. I think Croft would have been in his mid-30s when Walsh first played test cricket.

 

[_00_deathscar]

What is there to discuss?
Bradman Was the better batsman

Was he though?

 

[Starfighter]

Anthony Gray is another one.

Watched some of his stuff on YT looked a real handful. Big strong pacey bowler with a great bouncer and Yorker. I believe he ran in to some issues with Viv which cut his career short.

I thought Gray's absence was due to back issues, though it is strange the Benjamins kept getting picked over him. Not express, but very high action and could swing it away too.

 

[Xuhaib]

I thought Gray's absence was due to back issues, though it is strange the Benjamins kept getting picked over him. Not express, but very high action and could swing it away too.

I read somewhere Viv and him did not get along and I always believed that's the main reason he did not play much despite some great performances

 

[Burgey]

He played a couple of the ODIs on the 91 Aus tour over there iirc. He looked decent but at that time I mean it just seemed like they had an endless production line of blokes so he sort of didn't stand out.

 

[Starfighter]

I read somewhere Viv and him did not get along and I always believed that's the main reason he did not play much despite some great performances

I read somewhere it was due to back issues...

 

[Slifer]

The important question is out of Harris, Bond, and Asif, who would have been selected as a seamer to the WI side?

Bond and Asif do bring in a different dimension to the WI attack with very different MO, so they could break in.

On other hand would Croft be a part of MacGrath, Gillespie and Lee attack replacing one of them? Probably not, because Lee was as good as Croft with "Croft work" and he could pitch it up, swing it too. And that also few clicks above Croft.

You're high. Lee was no where close to Croft. Croft was one of the differences when WI won a tough series in Pakistan in 1980 I believe and that too vs a good Pakistan team.

 

[Slifer]

Fwiw, the player that definitely would've gotten more games was Sylvester Clarke. He was in the same class as Garner and Holding. But for the rebel tours and lifetime bans, he'd have likely played more.

 

[andruid]

Time for a Bradman-Jadeja thread?

The winner will be Kallis

 

[Xuhaib]

My late father was a big fan of Sylvester Clarke. He reckoned him and Marshall are the two best Windies fast bowlers he had ever seen.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Was lucky to play at all. Not in the same league as Wayne Daniel who Clive Lloyd wouldn’t select for personal reasons.

 

[mr_mister]

What's the explanation for his WPM and 5fer rate easily exceeding Garner? And for having an 8fer under his belt which Garner and Marshall never got

When he played he was never making up the numbers or being a passenger it seems, he was taking wickets off his peers and doing serious damage

 

[_00_deathscar]

I wouldn't pay too much attention to a solitary 8-fer or something. Venky Prasad or someone random probably has one, when top bowlers don't.
The rate of WPMs - is that down to him playing those tours when others were out of it?

 

[Slifer]

What's the explanation for his WPM and 5fer rate easily exceeding Garner? And for having an 8fer under his belt which Garner and Marshall never got

When he played he was never making up the numbers or being a passenger it seems, he was taking wickets off his peers and doing serious damage

He did have an awkward approach and delivery angle which must have been uncomfortable for most bowlers. The guy was quality but injuries and the rebel tour are what did him in.

 

[wpdavid]

Does anyone know why his figures were so poor in his final test series?
7 wickets at 51.6 across three tests when the other WI quicks were doing fine looks very odd. He was only 28, so age won't have been a factor. Maybe he was carrying an injury, but that would be strange when Sylvester Clarke was available as a reserve. All I know is that 12 months later he was playing in SA and Marshall had replaced him in the WI team.

 

[Migara]

I feel except for the first two years of his career, Lee wasn't remotely in Crofts class

Got his first 50 wickets cheaply then just became 150kmph bowler to target for the opposition. Burgey described him as a bowling machine on the highest setting once and it's pretty true. He didn't bowl smartly

The question is "Was Croft smarter than Lee?"

From accounts it appears he was much worse than Lee, trying to bounce out even his grand mother. Lee has way, way more skills in his repatoire than Croft.

 

[Migara]

IMO Croft didn't have much as a fast bowler other than pace and akward approach. Once pace deserted him he must have gone down in a heap. Lee had literally everything in his arsenal as a fast bowler. Pace, bounce, swing, reverse swing, yorkers, slower balls, you name it. Croft would have been very effective because of the team he played in. Lee in the place of Croft in THAT team, would have been nightmarish for any side.

 

[h_hurricane]

IMO Croft didn't have much as a fast bowler other than pace and akward approach. Once pace deserted him he must have gone down in a heap. Lee had literally everything in his arsenal as a fast bowler. Pace, bounce, swing, reverse swing, yorkers, slower balls, you name it. Croft would have been very effective because of the team he played in. Lee in the place of Croft in THAT team, would have been nightmarish for any side.

And yet, Lee didn't have the one skill that he needed, and Croft had, i.e. accuracy and control over his craft. Among the most wayward bowlers ever to have played that long.

An example, see the Sydney test 2004 when he went for over 200 in under 40 overs. Remembering Harsha Bhogle's commentary there, "Brett Lee's 200 is up. Second double century in the match".