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

[RK_123]

Where does he gets rated alongside the likes of Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Holding and Walsh or any other WI great?

 

[mr_mister]

Seems like Roberts, Holding and Garner are considered the same calibre. Marshall and Ambrose the top 2. Dunno about Walsh

 

[Red]

Seems like Roberts, Holding and Garner are considered the same calibre. Marshall and Ambrose the top 2. Dunno about Walsh

Pretty much agree. For me it's Marshall first (greatest overall quick of all time IMO), then Ambrose, then not much splitting Roberts, Holding and Garner. Walsh was a great durable bowler, but is slightly lower ranked than all the others IMO

 

[S.Kennedy]

Although he was allegedly a tad slower than Holding and Garner, the batsmen who played against Roberts feared him the most; he had a deceptive bouncer, one you (believe) played alright and then one which then knocked your block off.

 

[stephen]

Here's how I rate the the WI quicks

Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding
Roberts
Bishop
Walsh
Croft
The rest.

This puts him in the second tier of WI quicks. He'd be good enough to lead any real attack in the world but not quite up there with the very top group of WI quicks (which very few are).

 

[Red]

He'd be good enough to lead any real attack in the world but not quite up there with the very top group of WI quicks (which very few are).

Dunno about this. He actually led the WIs attack pretty much for the decade of the early 70s to the early 80s in teams that contained Holding, Marshall and Garner. He handed the baton onto Marshall

 

[Burgey]

Although he was allegedly a tad slower than Holding and Garner, the batsmen who played against Roberts feared him the most; he had a deceptive bouncer, one you (believe) played alright and then one which then knocked your block off.

As David Hookes could bear witness.

Roberts was a ****ing gun. Silent assassin.

 

[Arachnodouche]

What did the West Indians of yore eat that made them look so much cooler than the current lot? Dead eyed beasts.

Depending on who you talk to, Roberts was the nastiest of the lot, what with the fabled variety in bouncers and the intelligence and craft he brought to fast bowling.

 

[stephen]

Dunno about this. He actually led the WIs attack pretty much for the decade of the early 70s to the early 80s in teams that contained Holding, Marshall and Garner. He handed the baton onto Marshall

It's pretty close between Garner, Holding and Roberts. Roberts had the reputation as being the most physically dangerous but I think Holding and Garner were a shade better at getting batsmen out. But it's a close thing and I could change my mind in five minutes.

I do wonder whether Roberts would be as effective today with all the protective gear. His greatest asset was his bouncer which I can't see as being as threatening to today's players, unlike Garner's bounce or Holding's pace.

 

[Slifer]

It's pretty close between Garner, Holding and Roberts. Roberts had the reputation as being the most physically dangerous but I think Holding and Garner were a shade better at getting batsmen out. But it's a close thing and I could change my mind in five minutes.

I do wonder whether Roberts would be as effective today with all the protective gear. His greatest asset was his bouncer which I can't see as being as threatening to today's players, unlike Garner's bounce or Holding's pace.

Umm and Garner also had a yorker that completely took the wickets out of the equation

 

[Burgey]

Still reckon Garner was the best of all of them tbh.

 

[fredfertang]

Roberts played full time cricket for years so it's hardly surprising he didn't bowl flat out most of the time - according to those who played with him if a batsman upset him he was quite capable of cranking the pace up several notches

 

[stephen]

Umm and Garner also had a yorker that completely took the wickets out of the equation

Yeah it was a fantastic yorker made even more effective because of his height causing extra bounce in his stock deliveries.

Garner's yorker was remarkable because he rarely bowled a half volley or full toss when executing it. Remarkable bowler and great gully catcher as well.

 

[Howe_zat]

Sorry RK_123, we are only accepting threads about Jimmy Anderson right now, please try again later,

 

[Red]

Still reckon Garner was the best of all of them tbh.

Yeh, I loved Big Bird so much.

If you are actually putting together a bowling attack, I reckon Garner is the best first change you could get in tests.

In addition to this, he was the greatest ODI bowler of all time IMO.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Roberts was as good as any of them. He had pace and variation. Very similar to John Snow in that he didn't play the number of Tests and therefore didn't rack up the numbers that a lot of them did. Most of the great WI quicks had different assets. Colin Croft had a wretched action and minimal skill but was the one a lot of the top batsman (including Sir Geoffrey) liked facing least.

 

[weldone]

Seems like Roberts, Holding and Garner are considered the same calibre. Marshall and Ambrose the top 2. Dunno about Walsh

Walsh is definitely with those 3, not below.

 

[watson]

Despte the Iconic battle between Holding & Brian Close I still reckon that there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that Roberts bowled consistently faster than Holding in that 1976 series. By the 1980s Roberts had lost some of his pace and bounce but during the 1970s he was lethal.

Richie Benaud reckons that he was the greatest West Indian quick of them all. I wouldn't go that far, but if someone put him number 3 after Marshall and Ambrose then I wouldn't grumble. Actually if someone put him number 2 then I wouldn't grumble either as Roberts was the proto-type that Lloyd used to get the pace jugganaut going in the first instance. Ambrose 'merely' carried on the good work.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Walsh once won me a £20 bet. It was during the 1987 World Cup and England were struggling to beat the West Indies. From memory I think it was about 17 needed off the last over and young Courtney bunged at least one, and it might even have been two, lots of 4 wides down the leg side and England got the runs.

 

[subshakerz]

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.