Message Board Archives

Which attack was better: Macwarne or the 80s WI?
Now the Fearsome Foursome always had four great ( or at lest goiod) pacers in its cast. Macwarne, OTOH, had two of the gratest bowlers of all time, plus a supporting cast of good to ordinary bit players. (Gillespie aspired to greatness for awhile, but suddenly could not even make the team ).
The fearsome Foursome had the benefit of no restrictions on bouncers for a while but that was cut out about 1985. Macwarne always had to live with those restrictions, plus the wickets are considered more batsman friendly today.
I tend to think that Macwarne would have done even better in the free for all 80s , whereas the Fearsome Foursome would have been less fearsome today. Macwarne would also do better on spin friendly pitches.
We should note too that the Fearsome Foursome wasn't all about intimitation. Marshall in particular was a formidable swing bowler. In the 1988 series versus England, he cut down in his pace, focused on movement and grabbed 34 wickets in five Tests. In 1976 Michael Holding was able to take 14 wickets on a dead Oval pitch by keeping the ball well pitched up and moving it around.
Basd on all that, which attack would you prefer?

There was nothing before or after as Dominating and Devastating as the WI four prong of the 80s...there have been instances of combinations similar to McGrath/Warne....Imran Khan/Abdul Quadir, Hall/Griffith/Sobers/Gibbs (which won the World Title beating Aus in 1965) Akram/Younis//Saqlain, Davidson/Benuad, Trueman/Laker? The WORLD STOCKS re BATSMANSHIP are very weak and thats why your Macwarne looks so dominant although India drew with them in Aus and England won against them last year in England.

In reply to analyst-kid

Thats the official WI view, to be adhered to no matter what... but lets take anothe look at this.
1.The Fearsome FOrsome operated under less restraints and had friendlier wickets, than Mcwarne. If the conditions were EQUAL, which attack would be better? On a dustbowl Soth Asian wicket, which attack would you prefer?
2.As for batsmanship, lets see.
In the 80s, there were Richards, Greenidge-Haynes, Gower, Gavasker, the Chappells and Border.
In the Macwarne era you have
Lara
Pontig
Tendulkar
Steve Waugh
Dravid
Hayden

WE should note that FOUR of these players have higher averages than Richards' ( the conensus best player of his era)and have 30 centuries or more.Whats more, except for Waugh, they arent finished yet.
Right behind them is Hayden who is statistically superior to Greenidge by a fair bit. Indeed-, Hayden-Langer is statistically superior to Greenidge-Haynes in many ways. There was no wicketkeeper-batsman in the 80s to compare with Gilchrist( who is in many ways almost as intimidating a batsman as Richards).
Based on all this, its not all clear to me that the batting stocks of the 80s were supewrior to todays.Maybe if do more than wave your hands and make claims, you may convince me.

In reply to carib

The batting stocks of the 80s were not statistically superior because of quality pace attacks. You got the 4-prong, Lille & Thommo, Willis, Botham, Hadlee, Dev, Imran, etc etc. It was harder for batsmen to score runs. For batsmen who played most of their careers from the mid-70s to the late 80s, there are only 4 batsmen who averaged over 50 in Border, Viv, Miandad and Chappell.

The pitches weren't all necessarily bouncy wickets. Subcontinent, notably India, prepared flatter spin-friendly wickets during that period. WI still won in India. Check the 4-prong's record in India. The 4-prong could bowl on any surface. If you look at today's teams, Australia's pace attack, which is a shadow of the 4-prong, has been successful against all teams. Even their losses to India in India have been close. The 4-prong would've been no contest in this era. The subcontinent would've been the only place where they would've had some problem but given that current subcontinent batsmen cannot play pace in the manner of Amarnath, Viswanath, Gava, Majod Khan, Wasim Raja, etc, it would've been over for those teams.

people should write that down before they facilely conclude, without argument , that the batsmen of the 80s were somehow superior to the batsmen of today. One of the problem with those old icons is that we always remember their 100s and forget their ducks.

The 4 prong wasnt really successful in Pakistan ( we never beat Pakistan in Pakistan during that entire era and indeed almost lost to Pakistan in the WEST INDIES in 1988. We tied the series in final Test when Dujon and one of the Benjamins had a 60 run eighth wicket partnership to win it.



Those were some fine batsmen but were they REALLY better than Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, Inzaman, Yousuf, and Seed Anwar?. I dont think so.
Todays Indian team is FAR superior to the 80s Indian team. Todays Pakistan team MAY be worse than the 80s team, but not by much.

In reply to carib

I said cannot play pace. read and understand.

In reply to thefan

I read it.
Inzaman cant play pace?
Yousuf?
Tendulkar?
Dravid?

NONSENSE

On what basis do you argue that these guys cannot play pace? Once again, base your arguments on facts, not memory. I remember Mohinder Armanath as a fine, gritty middle order batsman. But there's no way he even comes close to a Tendulkar or Dravid and he himself would admit this. At best he would be on par with Ganguly.
Majid Khan and Wasim Raja were fine , exciting stroke players. But they cant match Inzaman or Yousuf in stats. , even if you deflate the 90s batsmen acvverages to account for easier scoring nowadays.

In reply to carib

I'm talking about the performance of those batsmen against good pace attacks. Statistically, they are not in the Inzi, Tendy and Dravid class but if one look closely at the statistics of Tendy, Dravid and Inzi against McGrath, Gillespie and Lee or against Ambi & Walsh or against Donald & Pollock or against Wasim & Waqar, you would see a notable drop off in their averages.

The oldsters played against the 4-prong, Lillee & Thommo, Hadlee, Imran & Wasim, etc. As far as I can tell, the only player to avg over 50 against the 4-prong was Wasim Raja. Gooch had a mid-40s avg against the 4-prong, which is phenomenal. Inzi's record against Aus is pisspoor. Dravid averages under 40 against SA and under 50 against Aus and under 40 against early Pak with the 2 Ws. Against top pace attacks, Tendy's avg is not impressive. The funny thing is that these fackers never faced anything like the 4-prong.

Amarnath avg 38.42 against the 4-prong, the most devastating pace force known to man and 45.47 against Aus. Gavaskar had averages over 40 against both WI and Aus. Viswanath avg 53.88 against the WI and 53.03 against Aus. vensarkar avg 44.33 against the WI and 38.35 against Aus.

The evidence is clear that these batsmen were superior to the present crop AGAINST PACE.

THanks for including statistical, fact based argument. It always to just wave your hands and say that the 80s bats were better, but at least you took the time to dig up the stats.
I would say that there were more great fast bowlers around then than today. In the 90s, though there were a lot more great fast bowlers than today, plus Warne and Murali, so its not just all pie throwers.
Tendy and Dravid actually have quite good averages against Australia. (53.11 for Tendulkar, 48.18 for Dravid). Dunno how you can get much better than THAT, mate.
Laxman is even better still (52.11). IMO, Laxman could do well against ANY pace attack, including the FF.
Yousuf and Inzi both have poor records vs pace, no question. OTOH SAeed Anwar averages 59 vs Australia.
wasim Raja was a fine player, but with a Test average of 36, he would have to be considered mediocre. ( Hooper averages that and the whole of CC.com considers him mediocre :D)
mohinder Armanath won his reputation battling the four prong, but overall, a Dravid or Tendulkar he is not .
Again, you can pick your stats and your memories and say , " The batsmen of the 80s were superior". But fronmm where I sit, tha stas dont show it.

In reply to carib

I said "AGAINST PACE". I did not say overall better but AGAINST PACE. The Indian batsmen of the mid-70s and throughout the 80s were better than this current lot against quality pace. They did it in an era of faster bouncier wickets and no helmets.

Tendy and Dravid having excellent averages against Australia with essentially 1 great quick.

Pace was the key ingredient of the 80s and history shows that in any era of dominant pace attacks, batsmen traditionally score less runs. In addition, the 70s and 80s had the Spin Prong, the greatest spin attack ever and there was Qadir, a great spinner.

In reply to carib Budday you is a blind man both Roberts and Marshall too 33 wickets in India. Roberts break Sadiq Mohammed jaw at Bourda so wah kite you talking about conditions. Sylvester Clarke nearly kill the pakistanis in pakistan. Those bowlers would excel in any conditions because they were great bowlers. i saw Colin Croft break Graham Yallop jaw after he had already scored 100+ at Bourda and he was batting with a helmet. You making it seem as though these guys used to run up a just bowl bouncer after bouncer.

In reply to carib Well I see Majid Khan and Yousof and Inzie wish they could bat with he. Note majid Khan was an openning batsmen none of these two are so he faced the fire from ball one without a helmet.

In reply to carib You just basing you argument on stats which one part of the equation, but calling Hayden name in deh same sentence with Greenidge and Haynes is a joke is cheese to chalk. You talk about Warne a spin friendly pitches so why he rass has been mediocre in India. You know if Alan lamb deh play in this era he would be a great batsman look at his record against the four prong. You think mcGrath would have bothered he when he was able to handle Marshall, Holding, Garner et al

In reply to denoke

Er, Why? Hayden is averaging 54.00 now with around 26 100s. I saw Greendge bat. Great batsman, but stats wise he is way inferior to Hayden.Do you have a REASONABLE, non-nostalgia based argument as to why Hayden is inferior to Greendge and Haynes?

THose were great bowlers who broke a lot of jaws :D

Fact is, we never did well vs Pakistan that era.
the fact there were great bowlers doesnt mean that they didnt have a hard time on subcontinental wickets. THey did.
Shane Warne has done poorly in India, but very well in SL and Pakistan. Indeed, he has done well all over the world for his 699 wickets.I'll take shane Warne as my option on a spin friendlywicket over even the FF, thanks.

In reply to carib

... No Zim.

In reply to natty_forever

Hey thats notHaydens fault. And in the 1980s SL was just as hopeless as Zim and Bangledesh. There was no South Africa either, and they would have a had a helluva team

In reply to carib

I would prefer without a doubt the feared four prong pace attack of the 80s , alot of times more often than not, facing sustained high quality firebrand pace bowling for the entire day would wear batsmen down and they would give up.

Batsmen would be mentally drained facing that speed and quality of bowling for a prolonged period of time,

One after the other , the fast men would come, non stop all day long, it was like facing a firing squad all day.

That alone would make me pick the four prong.

I wont even bother mentioning how devastating the four prong were.

Imagine facing a nice bouncy rubber ball on a smooth concrete surface ( thats what we practiced with in school) Now imagine facing that in a test match all day long with leather passing your nose.

If one of them was having a bad day in the field you can bet your ass, more than likely the other three or two would fire.

The batting now against quality attacks is still mediocre, though maybe not on flat pancakes.

In reply to denoke

bannuh you does tak some reak skunt feh true yeh. greenidge better than Hayden??

Based on WHAT??

wait......doan answer................his nationality and skin colour.

Right??

Steeeeeeeeeeuuppsssssssssssssssssss

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

OUCH!

In reply to carib

It shouldn`t be hard to pick the 4 prong, easily the best bowling attack in the history of the game, and that will ever be.
They were fearsome, hostile, ruthless, ferocious and great and would dismantle any team in any era on any continenet.

Lillee and Thommo could dismantle teams like mcgrah and warne too.

In reply to carib

Also recall that Bradman`s OZ were considered invincible until larwood laid hands on them. So quality hostile pace bowling has always done the trick.
From larwodd to Miller/Lyndwall, Lillee/Thomo to the FF, the greatest of them all.

Pace like fire won every where they played in their time.

In reply to garyg

Lillee and Thommo when healthy dismantled teams better than McGrath and Warne. If you check the records when Lillee and Thommo are in tandem they are better than Warne and McGrath.

In reply to carib
Why yuh so duncie eeh??
Yuh eva check de four prong STRIKE RATE????
Look at ALL BOWLERS in de HISTORY of de GAME
Use de following criteria
1.One hundred wickets
2.Strike rate less than 56

How many bowlers in dat group??
Weh de four prong deh?

Ah hope yuh unnastand lil moe now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

all of you guys might be right, the four prong is better, but Id like to see EVIDENCE, not nostalgic memories and misguiided attempts at sarcasm.HAHAHA STEUPS!
still not so sure the 4prong would do so well on todays flatter wickets and with bouncer restrictions, though.

In reply to carib

Well Walsh "the least of the 4 prong or jus a back up then" did quite well in his latter days and finished on top of hisd game.

With Warne and Mcgrath around, Ambrose was the world`s best bowler in his prime

Ambi blew away the pomms for 46. mcwarne can`t do that. Just giving some perspective. Mcwarne are great but the 4 prong led by the greatest bowler ever( Maco) as greater.

In reply to thefan

.

Thats right .
Not even our quality batting lineup could handle them in 75/76.

Saw the 4 prong in it's heyday..........1980 in england.

English batsmen for the most part kept them at bay.

At Lords, they were virtually impotent.

Saw Peter Willey stand up and hold them at bay at the Oval.

Ambrose and Walsh were better than ALL the 4 prong except Marshall.

I seh suh!

The 4 prong, for the most part, intimidated on bad wickets when batsmen did not wear helmets.

The 4 prong were not bowlers of the calibre of McGrath, Waqar, Akram, Hadlee, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald.

Look at Roberts.

By 1980 u could virtually stick a fork in him..................people were wearing helmets and he lost his zip.

Listen man......even Marshall spoke about the helmet thing and he was the best of that lot.

The Aussie attack of 1996/7/8/9..............2000/1 was better than the 4 prong of the 70s.

I seh suh again!!

Regards anyway to all of you!

In reply to garyg
Mcwarne blew us away for 51. Forgot that, hmmmm?

HARMISON Blew us away for 47. Forgot that too?
and quiet as its kept, PAKISTAN blew away the legendary 80s batting lineup for 53 in 1986:

West Indies 2nd innings (target: 240 runs) R M B 4 6
CG Greenidge lbw b Imran Khan 12 34 17 1 0
DL Haynes lbw b Imran Khan 0 7 3 0 0
RB Richardson c Rameez Raja b Abdul Qadir 14 79 54 1 0
HA Gomes b Abdul Qadir 2 12 5 0 0
*IVA Richards c Rameez Raja b Abdul Qadir 0 3 2 0 0
+PJL Dujon lbw b Imran Khan 0 3 2 0 0
RA Harper c sub (Shoaib Mohammad) b Abdul Qadir 2 20 17 0 0
MD Marshall c & b Abdul Qadir 10 50 22 1 0
AH Gray b Abdul Qadir 5 9 12 0 0
CA Walsh b Imran Khan 0 3 3 0 0
BP Patterson not out 6 24 14 1 0
Extras (lb 2) 2
Total (all out, 25.3 overs) 53

FoW: 1-5 (Haynes), 2-16 (Greenidge), 3-19 (Gomes),
4-19 (Richards), 5-20 (Dujon), 6-23 (Harper),
7-36 (Richardson), 8-42 (Gray), 9-43 (Walsh),
10-53 (Marshall).

Bowling O M R W
Imran Khan 13 5 30 4
Wasim Akram 3 0 5 0
Abdul Qadir 9.3 1 16 6


People who talk about the invincible 80s WI batting should spend some time with THAT scorecard

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie Look at Roberts.

By 1980 u could virtually stick a fork in him..................people were wearing helmets and he lost his zip.

Who was de facting MAN OF THE MATCH in de FIRST TEST MATCH in 1980 which the WEST INDIES WON??
1983 vs India in the West Indies Andy took 24 wickets in 5 tests and yes he took 9 wickets in the first test which the WI won.He routed India after tea on the last day to set up a totally unexpected win.

You could only spout that crap to people who doan know bout cricket in dem days.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie Have a Merry Christmas yuh ole skunt ole. Wah match yuh was watching we bowl England out fuh under 300 except one time in deh whole series. Peter Willey mek a hundred in one match outta 209. Budday I remember listening duh series on deh radio and hearing John Arlott describing deh fear in English batsmen eyes. Oh Roberts deh spent by 1980 must ask deh batsmen dat face he if dat was so.

In reply to carib You is a real kite you show one scoreboard to defend your argument you don't even know deh conditions of deh bloody pitch. West Indies get bowled out by Ireland fuh 25 and would duh mek dem a bad batting team. I am beginning to believe you sound like a man who never set foot on a cricket field and all you could do is recite stats.

In reply to thefan

First off, WI batsmen never played against de four-prong. Dey played against two prongs wid backups. But de difference between den and now is NOT de pace bowlers per se, is de rules. Pace bowlers back den were allowed tuh bowl short continuously short. Most batsmen back den struggled against de four prong, and evidence indicates dat WI batsmen wud have struggled against de four prong too. However, Viv stands out for his play against quicks back den, not just because he refused tuh wear helmets, but because he refused tuh be intimidated. TriniD listened tuh Viv in ah Shell Shield match against JA, when Patterson at full speed (TriniD tinks, not sure) tried tuh tek Viv's head off, but Viv hit him for six. Viv tried de shot again and was out hooking, cuz he cudn't control de shot. But dat was Viv's way against pace. He imposed his will and was either his way or no way. Similar tuh Lara vs spin.

TriniD saw Border score 90-someting against de four prong at QPO. Border was tough as nails. He got hit several times, but just rode it out. Dat was his approach, and it was successful in de sense dat was didn't lose his wicket.


No. Not agianst pace, but short pitched bowling. Even assuming arguendo and saying dat dey were better agianst pace, dat doh mean dat dey superior period. Why? Cuz dey were forced tuh be better against pace. If present day batsmen were forced tuh play pace, and not just pace, but short bowling dey wud be better against pace. Not saying dat dey wud average 50s against all pace bowling attacks, but dey wud be able tuh play it. Why? Cuz when you are good, you are good, and when you're great, you're great. There is nothing in de DNA of players today dat meks dem different from batsmen in de past. Why yuh tink batsmen today tek dem eyes off de ball so much? Cuz dey have de security of equipment dat protect dem from deadly blows. Yuh tink any batsman in his right mind wud tek his eyes off de ball if he didn't have helmet and ting?

Nowadays we have two of de greatest spinners ever in Warne and Murali. TriniD wonders how past batsmen wud have handled dese studs. Batting is batting. And it takes true batting skill tuh handle dese guys, in de same way it took true batting skills tuh handle short pitched bowling. TriniD wonders how 70s and 80s batsmen wud have handled de nagging line and lenght corridor of uncertainty bowling of Ambrose and McGrath? TriniD wonders how dem batsmen, wud have handled de scrutiny of film especially where every minute flaw is discovered?

Different eras, difficult tuh compare eras. However, in every era, de cream always rise tuh de top.


Wid respect tuh Carib's question

Warney and McGrath are ah great and deadly combo. Warne is ah different proposition, different from what our batsmen in de 80s faced. Who knows how dey wud have done against de likes of him, especially considering dat dey saw little spin. McGrath too wud have been difficult because of his stinginess. Every batsman loves tuh score freely, and when he put de brakes on scoring, batsmen take risks tuh their detriment. TriniD still tinks dat Warney wud have been ah more difficult proposition dan McGrath though.

For all-round strength in attack, TriniD wud have tuh go wid de WI four-prong, because there was no respite, even if dey were forced tuh bowl tuh today's rules. TriniD not sure though, just because of Warne's superiority. De man have bout 5 or 6 different changeups.

In reply to Dukes

I saw the first test in 1980.....after that he was impotent......I SEH SUH!!

I saw the other 4 tests.every ball....either on TV or live.

He came back against the indians in 1983...................yeah..............India............big deal...........!

What did he do between 1980 and then??

Huh??

Listen.......by 1980, he was a spent force...........I maintain that.

And yeah denoke...............WIndies bowled them out fuh under 300 every innings after the first test but couldn't win a test.

Listen......................if this Aussie team bowls out any team fuh under 300 in every innings, what u think the results will be???

Huh, bwooooooooooooooy??

Steeeeeuuppsssss................learn the nuances and then come talk to I, okay???

(Got to see batsman live before u could rate/assess him..............what a load of unadulterated codswallop).

How does Shane Warne's record in that spinners' paradise, India, compare with that of The Late Great Malcolm Denzil Marshall?

In reply to MarcusGarveyLives
SHRUG

So Shane Warne does poorly in India ( probably because india is used to playing quality spin.
Abdul Qadir, the premier legspinner of the 80s, also did poorly in India. Yet you you saw what he did to WI batting on a helpful pitch ( See the above scorecard).
Shane Warne can be just as devastating.

In reply to carib

Who does Aus prepare a pitch for: Warne of McGrath? If McGrath and the 4-prong bowls on the same pitch, then there's likely to be blood spilled.

How good were Kalli, Viv, Rowe, Lloyd against spin?

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie You is a real skunt looking at that series in most of deh matches only 2 plus a partial third inning were played leads me to believe play was lost due to rain etc. Maybe yuh need some Gingko biloba fuh yuh memory West Indies won deh first test in that series. So a skunt like you Spuds could look atb Bradman on film and tell me he was as good as they say carry yuh kite go and learn deh game. :D :D :D :D

In reply to Trinidave Nah nah yuh ever hear about Abdul Kadir. What Warne possesses that most leg spinners never had is his accuracy bowls very few long hops, however I notice he is bowling a bunch these days.

In reply to thefan Very very good or I may say great no spin attack on a turning track or not could consistently defeat those batsmen.

In reply to denoke

You are a jackass par excellence.

The BEST, I repeat, BEST way to judge a batsman is by watching him on film.

Anyone who disagrees is a total IDIOT.

I have seen innings live and then watched it on TV, to realise that i had no concept of what was really happening out there while watching it at the ground.

You are not only a cricketing dunce not to recognise this, but also u prove that your cerebral faculties are moribund(Look it raaaaasss up) or just non-exixtent.

Phew.................!!

Now run along and dont come back!!

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie So Spuds you could judge the pace of the bowling on TV better than live you is genuine skunt if you believe that. You know why you said that is because you just confirm you don't have a bloody clue about assessing cricketers. Based on your foolish assertion the selectors should look at video to assess players as their source for selection. Carry yuh kite and have a Merry Christmas!!! :D :D :D :D

In reply to denoke

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.............
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

Bannuh..................u aint worth responding tuh.

The apple fall far far far from the damn tree.

Peeps here would not respond to you because they thuink that u gotta be joking coming wid this crap.

Oh well..............................!!

In reply to carib

this notion of friendlier wickets back in the day is a questionable one surely

i know that wickets used to be left uncovered and there were no real quota of overs to be met for a days play but....


a lot of tests were drawn in those days as opposed to nowerdays where tests are drawn only on truly flat tracks or due to the weather interfering

In reply to carib

additionally, what i think gave the 4-prong the edge over MacWarne was the fact that batsmen regularly feared for their lives vs the 4-prong. That alone produced wickets....

In reply to carib

No I haven`t forgotten those. But our batting has been suspect though Harmy underlined what quality pace can do. that 80s one showed Imran and Quadir`s quality still.

Also, Holding blew away OZ for 76, which i think is still their lowest score ever.

So the 4 prong is the way to go.


And don`t listen spudsie about waquar and Donald who couldn`t dominate OZ in their time, the way the 4 prong did.

In reply to carib

I think if anything the power of the four prong is underplayed. Simply because you have to ask which four prong. Four played but the combinations available to West indies cricket over many years is just awesome to behold.

Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft
Marshall
Bishop
Davis
Clarke
Patterson


Even when the combo was:

Walsh
Ambrose
Benjamin
Benjamin

It was better than anything in world cricket today.

Wayne Daniel, for instance, who my typing finger refuses to put in the same list as the illustrious names above, would have been a world beater today.

it's easy to brush aside Mcwarne easily because most peeps here post rubbish specially thefan who has no clue of de game.

ah would give de edge to de 4 prong but not dat much, there were 4 quality bowlers who were all capable of winning matches at their best on their own. each bowler in de 4 prong of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner were different and dey complimented each other well.

edge would go to de 4 prong but doh write of Mcwarne that easily. it's utter BS to do so.

In reply to analyst-kid

HIGH FIVE. :D

GREAT THREAD.

In reply to Amnesiac Wickets being uncovered and bowling specific number of overs in a day was not part of the four prong era that was way before that. At the beginning of the foru prong era it was 75 overs in a day and they changed it to try to neutralise the four prong and force a different strategy. This notion that has been pushed as to flat tracks or not that four prong attack would thrive in any condition because of the sheer versatility and intelligence of those bowlers. Colin Croft for example could wake up any dead wicket, Marshall seemed to be able to swing the ball in any condition, Roberts with his change of pace and accuracy was deadly anywhere, Roberts if memory serves correct was the first fast bowler to bowl off a short and long run-up and it was off the short run-up he often destroyed batsmen. To give another example of bowling in unfavorable conditions I saw Sylvester Clarke wake up Bourda on a fourth day of a test match to have Australia reeling at 22 for 3, but they recovered to win. Ask the Indians if their wickets slowed down Roy Gilchrist!!!