Why is Joel Garner so underrated?

[Pratters]

Nice thread, this. Garner doesn't get talked about as often, and mostly his ODI prowess is all that is described by people.

His 880 first class wickets at 18.50 is incredible.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

Did any of the other great quicks of the era average 18 with an ER of barely 3?

 

[Kirkut]

When was he underrated? Maybe due to not being express pace, he didn't have the glamour factor which probably Holding had.

 

[Kirkut]

Also considering the fact that electronic media grew stronger after 1990s, people mostly remember Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Donald and Mcgrath as great fast bowlers. Very few are aware of Garner, Thompson, Trueman, Amar Singh.

 

[viriya]

Did any of the other great quicks of the era average 18 with an ER of barely 3?

No, but I would argue that Hadlee, Holding and Roberts weren't that far behind. Garner would be a better version of Morkel (only slightly, since Morkel is a great ODI bowler himself) if he were bowling today imo. Notice that even though Morkel goes for ~5 an over he also takes 7 less balls per wicket than Garner.

 

[cnerd123]

No, but I would argue that Hadlee, Holding and Roberts weren't that far behind. Garner would be a better version of Morkel (only slightly, since Morkel is a great ODI bowler himself) if he were bowling today imo. Notice that even though Morkel goes for ~5 an over he also takes 7 less balls per wicket than Garner.

...wow

 

[marc71178]

It's all about those numbers *****, never forget that.

 

[adub]

Just two wickets in the clip, but he must've been literally unplayable at times with the height and the bounce he generated. Amazing to watch

Play that one to Smith. You can't. If you're lucky you don't get the gloves up high enough and you wear it on the arms or body. It wasn't that short, but damn Big Bird could get it up off a goodish length. Not getting into arguments of if he was better than Marshall, or Holding, but he was always my 'favourite' (favourite = guy you wished was playing for you, not against you).

 

[zaremba]

Magnificent bowler. Long time now since he played, and memories fade and tend to become rose-tinted, but I remember him as the most impressive of the WI quicks in my childhood, and his record is incredible.

I don't subscribe to the "not enough 5-fers" view. It's the sort of arbitrary stat which, in his case at least, proves very little. The 10 wickets on offer needed to be shared with at least 3 other bowlers of exceptional quality, and Garner operated for most of his Test career as a change bowler. I am reminded of the complete nonsense spouted about Jacques Kallis being somehow a lesser player because (and until) he managed to tick that particular (arbitrary) box on his CV. Much more telling, as in my view is usually the case, is Garner's bowling average, which was extraordinary.

Nor do I share the view that he lacked the X-factor - quite the opposite. His X-factor came from his height, his bouncer and his yorker, and just how difficult he was to play.

He wasn't just ridiculously tall, he also maximised that with his action. Someone like Finn is almost as tall as Garner but Garner's release point was, I think, much higher - he had long arms and a really high action.

 

[Goughy]

Magnificent bowler. Long time now since he played, and memories fade and tend to become rose-tinted, but I remember him as the most impressive of the WI quicks in my childhood, and his record is incredible.

I don't subscribe to the "not enough 5-fers" view. It's the sort of arbitrary stat which, in his case at least, proves very little. The 10 wickets on offer needed to be shared with at least 3 other bowlers of exceptional quality, and Garner operated for most of his Test career as a change bowler. I am reminded of the complete nonsense spouted about Jacques Kallis being somehow a lesser player because (and until) he managed to tick that particular (arbitrary) box on his CV. Much more telling, as in my view is usually the case, is Garner's bowling average, which was extraordinary.

Nor do I share the view that he lacked the X-factor - quite the opposite. His X-factor came from his height, his bouncer and his yorker, and just how difficult he was to play.

He wasn't just ridiculously tall, he also maximised that with his action. Someone like Finn is almost as tall as Garner but Garner's release point was, I think, much higher - he had long arms and a really high action.

Yeah, arm length really is what separates him. I dont think he is underrated but then I guess it depends on who you ask.

 

[zaremba]

Good pic.

Just to explain my previous incoherence, the Kallis reference was about his failure for a long time to get a double hundred which some people held against him.

 

[bagapath]

Good pic.

Just to explain my previous incoherence, the Kallis reference was about his failure for a long time to get a double hundred which some people held against him.

Are you talking to me?
I am the only one here.
Who the **** are you taking to?

______

We are not discussing whether Garner was an all time great bowler or not. He certainly was. I do remember how good he was. (I wrote a thread about my dream xi couple of years ago and Garner was in it along with Hadlee, Marshall and Warne).

We are trying to figure out if and why Garner is underrated. My opinion is that he didn't produce too many solo match winning performances.

Now you can say that Garner is not underrated. You can say he should not be underrated. You can say he is underrated and for whatever reason you can think of. What you cannot do is be dismissive of someone who feels a great bowler is underrated and believes that is because he didn't produce too many match winning performances like his colleagues. It is a legitimate opinion. You can shoot it down by quouting counter examples of Garner's solo hits. But you can't dismiss the opinion outright.

If you ever quote my posts without referring to me by name I will send Harsha Bhogle to your house and make him whisper in your ears while you are sleeping.

 

[smash84]

Are you talking to me?
I am the only one here.
Who the **** are you taking to?

______

We are not discussing whether Garner was an all time great bowler or not. He certainly was. I do remember how good he was. (I wrote a thread about my dream xi couple of years ago and Garner was in it along with Hadlee, Marshall and Warne).

We are trying to figure out if and why Garner is underrated. My opinion is that he didn't produce too many solo match winning performances.

Now you can say that Garner is not underrated. You can say he should not be underrated. You can say he is underrated and for whatever reason you can think of. What you cannot do is be dismissive of someone who feels a great bowler is underrated and believes that is because he didn't produce too many match winning performances like his colleagues. It is a legitimate opinion. You can shoot it down by quouting counter examples of Garner's solo hits. But you can't dismiss the opinion outright.

If you ever quote my posts without referring to me by name I will send Harsha Bhogle to your house and make him whisper in your ears while you are sleeping.

 

[BigBrother]

I don't think he is underrated at all, I find him closer to the opposite if anything.

Still one of the great bowlers of the game nonetheless which should go without saying.

 

[zaremba]

Are you talking to me?
I am the only one here.
Who the **** are you taking to?

______

We are not discussing whether Garner was an all time great bowler or not. He certainly was. I do remember how good he was. (I wrote a thread about my dream xi couple of years ago and Garner was in it along with Hadlee, Marshall and Warne).

We are trying to figure out if and why Garner is underrated. My opinion is that he didn't produce too many solo match winning performances.

Now you can say that Garner is not underrated. You can say he should not be underrated. You can say he is underrated and for whatever reason you can think of. What you cannot do is be dismissive of someone who feels a great bowler is underrated and believes that is because he didn't produce too many match winning performances like his colleagues. It is a legitimate opinion. You can shoot it down by quouting counter examples of Garner's solo hits. But you can't dismiss the opinion outright.

If you ever quote my posts without referring to me by name I will send Harsha Bhogle to your house and make him whisper in your ears while you are sleeping.

Not sure if I was talking to you or quoting you B, but I will consider myself warned.

You're right, I didn't really answer the question. Boringly the answer is that I don't know if he's under-rated but I'm pretty sure he isn't underrated by me.

 

[Chrish]

 

[Migara]

Under rated in tests, overrated in ODIs.

 

[Migara]

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.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

I reckon that Andy Roberts is the most under-rated of the 8 great modern West Indian fast bowlers - not that I want to turn this into a thread about Andy Roberts. Just as quick as Holding at his peak, more accurate, and had a better bouncer.

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...........

 

[BeeGee]

One of the best bowlers I ever saw live. I would absolutely hate having to face him with the ball coming up into you at such a steep angle.

I got his autograph and shook his hand at an Auckland ODI in the 80s. I couldn't get over how enormous he was and how small my hand felt in his.