All Time West Indies XI game

[jimmy101]

Sobers
Holding

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sobers
Gibbs

 

[Starfighter]

Sobers
Holding

 

[morgieb]

Sobers
Gibbs

As others say, Sobers was a better seamer than spinner. Close call though as the gap between Gibbs and Holding et al is quite large.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sobers
Holding

Can't leave out the Rolls.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm going for Holding because I think having him and Sobers sending down the spin when needed makes a more effective bowling attack than having Gibbs, even if it is less balanced. I mean, four pacers worked in the eighties did it not?

 

[Days of Grace]

Gibbs had a fantastic record up to 1966

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Also, apart from aesthetics, why is Walsh not considered when he averaged a mere one run more that Holding but took more than double the amount of wickets?

 

[fredfertang]

Tempted to nominate Sonny Ramadhin, but Sobers and Gibbs,

 

[Slifer]

Sobers
Holding

Unless wi produces a spinner like a warne or a murali or even an underwood then all pace

 

[Tom Flint]

I'm going for Holding because I think having him and Sobers sending down the spin when needed makes a more effective bowling attack than having Gibbs, even if it is less balanced. I mean, four pacers worked in the eighties did it not?

I didn't know holding could bowl spin?

 

[Starfighter]

I didn't know holding could bowl spin?

Perhaps I could have phrased that better lol

 

[AndrewB]

I'm confident Richards would have had the ability to adapt his game to the openers slot pretty easily, and I think a lineup with Richards/Headley/Weekes/Lara is a fair bit stronger than Hunte/Headley/Richards/Lara.

He did OK when he was picked as an opener: 30, 101, 50, 98 off Lillee, Thomson, Gilmour and Mallett.

I was quite surprised to learn that Worrell only opened in 4 Tests (scored 191* in one innings but not much in the others) - less than Sobers - and that Headley never did.

 

[steve132]

Sobers
Gibbs

Every all-time (Test) team needs the variety that a top class spinner provides. It's true that W.I. were successful in the 1980's with four fast bowlers, but they only played them because there was no Gibbs or Ramadhin available. I think that Clive Lloyd, who is a first cousin of Lance Gibbs and played alongside him in the W.I. team for almost a decade, would agree with these sentiments.

 

[Teuton]

Sobers
Gibbs

 

[Slifer]

Sobers
Gibbs

Every all-time (Test) team needs the variety that a top class spinner provides. It's true that W.I. were successful in the 1980's with four fast bowlers, but they only played them because there was no Gibbs or Ramadhin available. I think that Clive Lloyd, who is a first cousin of Lance Gibbs and played alongside him in the W.I. team for almost a decade, would agree with these sentiments.

Awta. Unfortunately, WI will be competing with the likes of RSA, Oz, Eng etc. Each has a world class spinner in their ranks. Relatively speaking, Gibbs just doesn't measure up. As a result, your best bet is to go with the better bowler and Holding was decidedly better than Gibbs (using any measure). Also, Holding proved that he could bowl anywhere so holding it is for me.

 

[Flametree]

I'm going for Holding because I think having him and Sobers sending down the spin when needed makes a more effective bowling attack than having Gibbs, even if it is less balanced. I mean, four pacers worked in the eighties did it not?

I think the 80s bowler with the best win-loss percentage is.... Roger Harper!

Doesn't prove much I know, since you'd have to look at who he played against and on what type of wickets.

Sobers
Gibbs

 

[harsh.ag]

It is more aesthetically pleasing to see your side take wickets for more runs and more deliveries because spin is involved.

Esp more aesthetically pleasing when the bowler you're leaving out is the Rolls Royce of fast bowling.

 

[Starfighter]

I think that Clive Lloyd, who is a first cousin of Lance Gibbs and played alongside him in the W.I. team for almost a decade, would agree with these sentiments.

That would be the same Clive Lloyd who left out Harper at Sydney in 1985 on a very spin friendly wicket but played Walsh despite Harper outperforming him by a distance in series?

 

[steve132]

That would be the same Clive Lloyd who left out Harper at Sydney in 1985 on a very spin friendly wicket but played Walsh despite Harper outperforming him by a distance in series?

The very same one. Lloyd has selected, or participated in selecting, best-ever West Indian teams on more than one occasion. Have you seen the results of any of those exercises? Here's a hint - Gibbs's name appears in each of the teams.

Lloyd is still very much around to offer his view if asked. He has a healthy respect for spin, having faced Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Underwood, Qadir and others.

 

[steve132]

Awta. Unfortunately, WI will be competing with the likes of RSA, Oz, Eng etc. Each has a world class spinner in their ranks. Relatively speaking, Gibbs just doesn't measure up. As a result, your best bet is to go with the better bowler and Holding was decidedly better than Gibbs (using any measure). Also, Holding proved that he could bowl anywhere so holding it is for me.

This is a serious underestimation of Gibbs who, IIRC, took more Test wickets in the 1960's than anyone else. In his prime he could be relied upon to win at lest one match for the W.I. in every series - Sydney in 1961, Bridgetown in 1962, Old Trafford in 1963 and 1966, Georgetown in 1965, or Calcutta in 1967.

In any event, if Gibbs is deemed unacceptable the best option would seem to be Ramadhin rather than a fourth right arm fast bowler. A bowling attack needs variety if it is to succeed in a wide range of conditions. Even the great W.I. teams of the 80's could look limited in certain conditions. Of course they lacked Sobers as well, but he was definitely more effective as a seam bowler than he was as a spinner.