Derek Pringle on Joel Garner

[greg]

I think part of Garners problem was that he was one of many fantastic bowlers at the same time so he almost becomes just another bowler from that period,if he had been like McGrath standing alone at a time of mediocrity then his stock would be higher as his performances would have stood out like a sore thumb.

I think Garner is a victim of circumstances in that he played in a great era so it is difficult to single them out individually.Shame for him but that is how it goes i guess.

[Milo]

It is commonly accepted on this board that the Bird Bird was one of the best (if not the best) limited overs bowler in history. His record is amazing for both Somerset and the West Indies. At test level, it is a pity that he was deprived of the new ball for so long. Andy Roberts never gave up the new ball (as the senior bowler) even when he had seriously lost his power (something Marshall moaned about in his autobiography). Having four opening bowlers in a team can be difficult because we never get to see the best of the player who is not given the role they truly want. When Garner got the new ball as an older man (33) in 1984-87 his bowling was the best of his career - and was every bit a match for Marshall.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he didn't take heaps of 5-fors.

Thats only because he was used as a stock bowler along with 3 other strike bowlers.

Originally Posted by greg

I think part of Garners problem was that he was one of many fantastic bowlers at the same time so he almost becomes just another bowler from that period.

Agreed. To many he was one of the "fab four"


McGrath probably gets more praise because he's only just retired. But Garner did everything McGrath did 20 years ago just 5 mph quicker, with more bounce, a better yorker and a good leg cutter. Oh and Garner didnt need to resort to foul mouthed sledging.

[jrwb]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

McGrath probably gets more praise because he's only just retired. But Garner did everything McGrath did 20 years ago just 5 mph quicker, with more bounce

I don't know much about him being that much quicker than McGrath - Garner's main asset was his tremendous height and high arm which gave him a lot of bounce - this puts him in the fast medium category.

[pie_chucker]

Thats fair enough. Most of the time he probably only bowled lively fast medium probably because he was used as a stock bowler, but had the capability to crank it up and bowl at a genuinely express pace.

[jrwb]

Had he decided to bowl flat out like most genuinely fast bowlers, he would have been much worse to face. He had a very easy and relaxed action, and I always wondered what would have happened had he really pushed them through - perhaps they would have bounced up high off a good length, over the 'keepers head and gone for four byes!!

[pie_chucker]

I remember reading somewhere that in WSC in the 70's the furthest any keeper stood back was to Garner at well over 30 yards from the stumps.

He also apparently broke Jeremy Coneys arm despite him wearing an arm guard.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Thats only because he was used as a stock bowler along with 3 other strike bowlers.

That's exactly the point I was making! As impressive as his own performances were, he constantly had to bowl behind Roberts, Croft, Marshall etc. so he didnt' have much opportunity to take 5-fers! Read what I said at the end of my post. "Not that that's any of his fault, mind you!"

[pie_chucker]

I think we were saying the same thing just in different ways

[jrwb]

I remember Ian Bishop had to put up with the same situation on tour of England (this was after his recovery from his injury) - he had to wait until Ambrose and Walsh had finished before he could get a look-in. In that series - I forget what year that was - Bishop was bowling faster and better than both Walsh and Ambrose (the tour averages reflect this) - yet he could not get the new ball in tests.