Windies pace quartets overrated?

[Dissector]

I only averaged for the last two tests. Like I said the first test was evenly matched and then the West Indies blew apart the Australian line-up. Possibly the absence of Clive Lloyd in the first test played a role.

 

[Matt79]

I only averaged for the last two tests. Like I said the first test was evenly matched and then the West Indies blew apart the Australian line-up. Possibly the absence of Clive Lloyd in the first test played a role.

Yeah, sorry, realised that once I responded - have already edited my post.

 

[Richard]

But was that difference due solely to a difference in the quality of the bowling (which obviously accounted for a significant proportion of the difference) or did Viv Richards being a freak at the peak of his powers also play a notable role?

Only in '76 (vs India and England) and between '79/80 and '81 did Richards indeed manage his superhuman "second-best-to-Bradman" outputs. West Indies' pace hedgemony lasted much longer than that.

As to are the pace quartets overrated, well, it's an interesting question. I'd say that many people do indeed overrate them, yes, but not perhaps for the exact reasons He Of The Birth In '79 is on about here. It seems to me that many people get the impression that West Indies had a superlative all-seam attack of four top-notch seamers for two decades or so - well, they didn't. Only very, very rarely was there an attack without a weak-link.

The strongest attack in pace-quartet-dom (Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner, which played four Tests against India in '83 - no more than that, though they had teamed-up a couple of times previously when Marshall was a replacement for Croft) was indeed IMO very possibly the best attack in history. But there's certainly no daylight-second case if so.

It should be remembered also that these bowlers missed games regularly and that there was a two-year hiatus caused by Kerry Packer (West Indies' first XI didn't play Tests at all between 1978 and 1979/80). Added to the fact that of the undisputably top-notch performers, they became established thus:
Roberts 1974/75
Holding 1976
Garner 1977
Marshall 1983
Walsh 1986/87
Bishop 1989
Ambrose 1990

So, as I say, there was almost no time when the attack was made-up of four of the very best. There was often a fourth who was very good who had a short time in the quartet (Vanburn Holder '76, Wayne Daniel '76 and '83/84, Colin Croft '79/80-'81/82, Sylvester Clarke '80/81, Tony Gray '86/87, Winston Benjamin '88, Kenneth Benjamin '94-'95, Franklyn Rose '97). But there were also weaker links (Winston Davis, Milton Small, Eldine Baptiste, Patrick Patterson, Ezra Moseley, Ian Allen, Anderson Cummins, Cameron Cuffy, Ottis Gibson, Patterson Thompson), and occasionally a spinner did make his way in (Holford, Jumadeen, Padmore, Inshan Ali, Imtiaz Ali, Parry, Nanan [who was a good bowler BTW and very unlucky not to play more], Butts and Dhanraj all played very occasional isolated Tests between '76 and '97). So as I say - it's not like (as legend sometimes has it) that West Indies had an all-seam attack brimming with quality for two decades.

But when your first-choice three is Roberts-Holding-Garner then Marshall-Holding-Garner for a decade (as it was '76-'86) then you've had quite some attack regardless of who the fourth member is.

 

[Dissector]

Incidentally there are a couple of great Youtube videos of the West Indies bowling in that Adelaide test.
YouTube - The original fearsome foursome - Part 1
YouTube - Original fearsome foursome - Part 2

 

[Richard]

Yup, some of the most must-watch vids out there IMO.

Just a real shame there's nothing from the series against India in '83, because that'd be even better.

I wonder if anyone has anything from the next series in Australia - in '81/82 - because that was the last that was seen of that quartet as '79/80 had been the first.

 

[subshakerz]

As to are the pace quartets overrated, well, it's an interesting question. I'd say that many people do indeed overrate them, yes, but not perhaps for the exact reasons He Of The Birth In '79 is on about here. It seems to me that many people get the impression that West Indies had a superlative all-seam attack of four top-notch seamers for two decades or so - well, they didn't. Only very, very rarely was there an attack without a weak-link.
.

I think when we refer to the West Indies pace quartet, we talk about the quartet of four world class pace bowlers that was formed after the WSC around 1979 till around the mid-80s under Lloyd's captaincy. This includes any four out of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Clarke, and Daniels, and there are no weak links among that group, even if the last three had fewer chances to play. Later attacks were simply not as good and usually did have a weak link fourth bowler.

A larger point is that once this attack was formed, they were able to win everywhere, even in the sub-continent, which is why they are exceptional in cricket history. Except for the freak loss to New Zealand in 79-80, they were near impossible to beat in a series. Compare that to Australia, who even with Warne and McGrath struggled occasionally in the sub-continent, losing to Pakistan in 94/95, Sri Lanka in 99, and India in 2001.

 

[Slifer]

But was that difference due solely to a difference in the quality of the bowling (which obviously accounted for a significant proportion of the difference) or did Viv Richards being a freak at the peak of his powers also play a notable role?

yes it was down to bowling. In the previuos test series in Austrllia WI were wiped out 5-1 because they didnt have the fire power to fight back with against Australia, by 1979 they did.

 

[Richard]

I think when we refer to the West Indies pace quartet, we talk about the quartet of four world class pace bowlers that was formed after the WSC around 1979 till around the mid-80s under Lloyd's captaincy. This includes any four out of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Clarke, and Daniels, and there are no weak links among that group, even if the last three had fewer chances to play. Later attacks were simply not as good and usually did have a weak link fourth bowler.

Even that isn't quite true. Between 1979/80 and 1981/82 they had Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft as the first-choice (with, staggeringly, Marshall, Clarke and Daniel as first-reserves) but after 1983 when as I say they had Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner for 4 Tests, there was always one weak-link. First Garner missed 7 consecutive games then by the time he was back Roberts had retired. There were other very short periods where an outstanding four-prong attack played (Marshall, Holding, Garner, Patterson for 4 Tests in 1986; Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall in Pakistan in 1990/91) but it was only ever very short.

Even in 1984 and 1985 there was Davis, Baptiste and a rookie Walsh (who wasn't the Walsh we came to know him as until 1986/87 - which funnily enough was precisely when WI first had to do without Holding and Garner). WI's seam quality was sufficiently shallow in 1985 for fingerspinners Butts and Harper to play as part of four-man attacks (most of Harper's games came instead of a middle-order batsman as a fifth bowler).

Things might've been much different if the quadruplet of Croft, Clarke, Moseley and Stephenson hadn't elected for Rebel tours in 1982/83.

A larger point is that once this attack was formed, they were able to win everywhere, even in the sub-continent, which is why they are exceptional in cricket history. Except for the freak loss to New Zealand in 79-80, they were near impossible to beat in a series. Compare that to Australia, who even with Warne and McGrath struggled occasionally in the sub-continent, losing to Pakistan in 94/95, Sri Lanka in 99, and India in 2001.

West Indies were almost impossible to beat in Tests, never mind series', between 1976 and 1986. This was because they had, purely and simply, a brilliant team - not just a brilliant bowling-attack.

 

[archie mac]

Please note guys, already two people have questioned who I think was better. That's not my question. I'm quite open to them being the best attack ever, and if they aren't they're right up there.

What I'm questioning is what I think is sometimes the assumption/conviction that amongst the bowling attacks in history, there are the Windies quartets, then a huge amount of daylight, then the rest - that they were so much better than anything else there's ever been. Or from another angle, that they were so good that it was impossible to succeed against them (a slightly different question again, but goes to the same issue).

I don't think they are first then daylight second, not for a moment. I think they are the best pace attack(s) ever. But I think on really fast spin friendly tracks SCG for instance they were found out. The WI teams of the time all so had some great batsman

 

[Richard]

But I think on really fast spin friendly tracks SCG for instance they were found out.

You mean they were found-out on 2 occasions in 2 dead Tests in 1984/85 and 1988/89.

To suggest that Roberts, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh, etc. were dependent on seaming decks to succeed is simply wrong. And I know full well that you don't believe it for Marshall, because I've seen you write as such before.

 

[archie mac]

You mean they were found-out on 2 occasions in 2 dead Tests in 1984/85 and 1988/89.

To suggest that Roberts, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh, etc. were dependent on seaming decks to succeed is simply wrong. And I know full well that you don't believe it for Marshall, because I've seen you write as such before.

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post?

The fact that they won Tests in India and Pakistan would suggest they did not rely on seaming decks. What I said on a fast turning wicket the West Indian team struggled, and their bowling attack also did not seem to know how to slow their pace for the surface. I never watched them play in Pakistan or India during their great run, no paid TV. So maybe SJS or someone who watched them can tell us what they did differently

 

[Burgey]

Incidentally there are a couple of great Youtube videos of the West Indies bowling in that Adelaide test.
YouTube - The original fearsome foursome - Part 1
YouTube - Original fearsome foursome - Part 2

Loving that. Still the best summer of cricket I've ever seen, the 1st post-Packer summer.

 

[Noble One]

Loving that. Still the best summer of cricket I've ever seen, the 1st post-Packer summer.

Love reading/viewing anything to do with the 79/80 summer of cricket against the West Indies. Such an awesome display of cricket.

Bruce Laird was one of the gutsiest and gritty cricketers who ever played the game. Such a shame he never converted more of those 50's into 100's, was one of the few batsman who could stand toe to toe with bowlers such as Roberts, Holding, Croft and Garner. He would be hit on the body countless times before he would surrender his wicket.

 

[Burgey]

A couple of Laird's cuts and clips to leg really remind me of David Boon.

 

[Noble One]

A couple of Laird's cuts and clips to leg really remind me of David Boon.

Yes very similar style of player both Laird and Boon. Tough as nails, built like a beer kegs.

I know many who played with Laird rated some of his innings during WSC as some of the finest displays of opening batting against true world class bowling attacks. Taking on bowlers such as Roberts, Garner, Holding, Khan and Proctor and belting centuries. Fair achievement.

Just never converted across to the test arena. Deserved so much more than a mid 30's average.

 

[Burgey]

...and Garth Le Roux too.

 

[Top_Cat]

Don't think there's much doubt the WI pace quartet were decent bowlers individually but I think the team culture/leadership had a big say in how well they did too. In certain series', Holding/Garner/Roberts and others had to take a back-seat when it was, for example, Marshall's time to shine and get more overs. Considering the egos involved, that they were able to do it without spitting the dummy or sacrificing performance (i.e. even if not taking big bags, they were at least economical and took any wickets they could) is as much to be proud of from the WI perspective as the individual performances of the bowlers themselves.

That was the huge thing missing which could have united a team of Rose/Dillon/McClean/etc. to be a solid group instead of the total mediocrity they showed for the late 90's/early 00's.

 

[Burgey]

LMAO here at Colin Croft bowling around the wicket in the second video. An act of a contortionist given his action!!!!

I can't think of another bowler who's closer to the stumps from around the wicket than over.

Nice to see all the Windies fellas clapping Laird on his 50, even Croft. Although we can't hear what they're saying of course. When Boon made 50 on debut, Marshall said "Well batted Boonie. Now are you going to get out, or do I have to come around the wicket and kill you?"

 

[aussie]

Only in '76 (vs India and England) and between '79/80 and '81 did Richards indeed manage his superhuman "second-best-to-Bradman" outputs. West Indies' pace hedgemony lasted much longer than that.

As to are the pace quartets overrated, well, it's an interesting question. I'd say that many people do indeed overrate them, yes, but not perhaps for the exact reasons He Of The Birth In '79 is on about here. It seems to me that many people get the impression that West Indies had a superlative all-seam attack of four top-notch seamers for two decades or so - well, they didn't. Only very, very rarely was there an attack without a weak-link.

The strongest attack in pace-quartet-dom (Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner, which played four Tests against India in '83 - no more than that, though they had teamed-up a couple of times previously when Marshall was a replacement for Croft) was indeed IMO very possibly the best attack in history. But there's certainly no daylight-second case if so.

It should be remembered also that these bowlers missed games regularly and that there was a two-year hiatus caused by Kerry Packer (West Indies' first XI didn't play Tests at all between 1978 and 1979/80). Added to the fact that of the undisputably top-notch performers, they became established thus:
Roberts 1974/75
Holding 1976
Garner 1977
Marshall 1983
Walsh 1986/87
Bishop 1989
Ambrose 1990

So, as I say, there was almost no time when the attack was made-up of four of the very best. There was often a fourth who was very good who had a short time in the quartet (Vanburn Holder '76, Wayne Daniel '76 and '83/84, Colin Croft '79/80-'81/82, Sylvester Clarke '80/81, Tony Gray '86/87, Winston Benjamin '88, Kenneth Benjamin '94-'95, Franklyn Rose '97). But there were also weaker links (Winston Davis, Milton Small, Eldine Baptiste, Patrick Patterson, Ezra Moseley, Ian Allen, Anderson Cummins, Cameron Cuffy, Ottis Gibson, Patterson Thompson), and occasionally a spinner did make his way in (Holford, Jumadeen, Padmore, Inshan Ali, Imtiaz Ali, Parry, Nanan [who was a good bowler BTW and very unlucky not to play more], Butts and Dhanraj all played very occasional isolated Tests between '76 and '97). So as I say - it's not like (as legend sometimes has it) that West Indies had an all-seam attack brimming with quality for two decades.

But when your first-choice three is Roberts-Holding-Garner then Marshall-Holding-Garner for a decade (as it was '76-'86) then you've had quite some attack regardless of who the fourth member is.

Yep, i think Richard has smashed it here. Thread should be closed now...

 

[Burgey]

Here's some 84 Windies v Aus action, this time in Perth (por bastards batting) - Marshall at or near his best around this time. Also check out Garner's carry (and pace!!) early on to Wessels.

YouTube - Vintage Windies versus Australia 1984