Is Andy Roberts underrated?

[Harsh Thakor]

Arguably no paceman bowled more like Dennis Lillee in his era than Andy Roberts.He pioneered the formation of the Caribbean pace battery that was to emerge as the most fearsome quartet in the history of test cricket.There were paceman who were quicker and statistically better in his time but noone who could surpass Andy in terms of sheer craft.Sunil Gavaskar described how Andy made a 120 over old ball cut back at the end of the day in a test.Gavaskar and the Chappel brothers rated Andy the best pace bowler he ever faced,while Barry Richards ,Tony Greig and Ian Botham ranked him the best they ever played against with Lillee.Andy unlike nobody else posessed a slow and fast bouncer which was a thorn in the flesh of the best of batsmen.Andy was described as the 'silent assasin' with his incredible trajectory of the 2 bouncers at different speeds,the outswinger and off-cutter.He simply took skill of fast bowling to its highest depth like a professor and athelete blended into one.In the classical sense arguably Roberts was the most complete of paceman posessing speed,control and movement as well as the most subtle of bowling variations.I can never forget his dismissal of both the Chappell brothers of 2 successive deliveries at Adelaide in 1979-80 which displayed pace bowling art at it's supreme zenith.Not for nothing did Dennis Lillee rate Roberts the best pace bowler of his era.

Andy captured 100 wickets in the fastest time then in terms of years and at one stage took 5 wickets per test at less than 23.In WSC Packer cricket he was 2nd to only Lillee and was the leading paceman in 1977-78 season.In India in 1974-75 he singly spearheaded a bowling attack on flat tracks to capture 32 wickets.He was revelation in 1975-76 in Australia taking 22 wickets at 26 runs apiece.In 1983 versus India at Kingston he was the best performer with 24 scalps ,overshadowing Garner,Holding and Marshall.His match-wining effort on the final day at tea on the final day of the kingston test is unforgettable.

202 scalps in 47 tests at an average of 25.61 and a strike rate of over 55 does not compare favourably with other greats like Marshall,Hadlee or Lillee.Still figures hardly do Andy justice as often even if he did not reap the reward of scalps he inflicted the greatest wounds or was the greatest thorn in the flesh of oponents.Andy at one stage had a great strike rate of around 50 and an average of around 22-23.In some series like in Australia in 1975-76 he had to take a lot of the bowling load unlike later greats like Graner,Croft,Marshall and Ambrose.

For sheer skill Andy could join the likes of Wasim,Marshall,Lillee and Lindwall.In an overall package he was more complete than Imran,Ambrose,Mcgrath or Hadlee.On a flat pancake i would prefer having Andy in a tame than Hadlee,Ambrose or Mcgrath.

Sadly he has been excluded amongst the 100 best cricketers of all time by Cristopher Martin Jenkins and John Woodcock.However David Gower places him amongst his top 25 cricketers of all time ahead of Hadlee,Mcgrath and Holding.Geoff Armstrong ranks him at joint 65th place with Michael Holding.


If I had a gun on my head then I may pace Andy in the top dozen paceman just edging Michael Holding by a whisker.

 

[Robert]

David Gower said Roberts was the hardest bowler he ever faced - not Lillee, not Marshall, not Hadlee, not Wasim.

 

[AFM]

David Gower said Roberts was the hardest bowler he ever faced - not Lillee, not Marshall, not Hadlee, not Wasim.

I've heard Gower say the two best bowlers in history were Lillee and Marshall.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

David Gower said Roberts was the hardest bowler he ever faced - not Lillee, not Marshall, not Hadlee, not Wasim.

Thanks a lot Robert,but in 50 best choice order is Marshall,Lillee,Roberts.Still strangely places Andy above Wasim,Mcgarth and Ambrose .What is your view on Andy?

 

[Robert]

Thanks a lot Robert,but in 50 best choice order is Marshall,Lillee,Roberts.Still strangely places Andy above Wasim,Mcgarth and Ambrose .What is your view on Andy?

I never saw him bowl. My understanding is that he was very clever. He had a fast bouncer which he showed the batter, then every so often a superfast one which took the batter’s head off.

 

[Robert]

Roberts knocked 18-year-old Botham’s front teeth out.

Botham spat them out, carried on batting and won the match for Somerset.

 

[bujhee kom]

He knew how to catch a fish!

 

[Tusker]

Another old era thread with More empty words more name throwing more nostalgia induced delusional hyperbole. But never ever ever discuss anything based on actual footage.

I ask again the usual old ERA fanatics - what exactly is sooo great about these players that you drool over incessantly day after day ? Plenty of bowlers today who are faar better than Andy Roberts. I just dont get the infatuation with a long bygone era.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

He is not underrated. He isn't talked about as much because there's nothing more to talk about him than what's already been said. Anything more would be overrating and overhyping.

 

[Hasan123]

No he's rated fairly.

 

[bujhee kom]

I never saw him bowl. My understanding is that he was very clever. He had a fast bouncer which he showed the batter, then every so often a superfast one which took the batter’s head off.

Andy Roberts was a monster! Brilliant fast bowler.

 

[Tusker]

Roberts knocked 18-year-old Botham’s front teeth out.

Botham spat them out, carried on batting and won the match for Somerset.

So Botham now has fake teeth ?

 

[Robert]

Andy Roberts was a monster! Brilliant fast bowler.

Must have been very scary with Holding at the other end, back in those helmetless days.

 

[Rahul1]

Another old era thread with More empty words more name throwing more nostalgia induced delusional hyperbole. But never ever ever discuss anything based on actual footage.

I ask again the usual old ERA fanatics - what exactly is sooo great about these players that you drool over incessantly day after day ? Plenty of bowlers today who are faar better than Andy Roberts. I just dont get the infatuation with a long bygone era.

Is it necessary for you to do this in every thread? I agree, some of the older player are infact very overrated, cough 'Dennis Lillee' cough, doesn't mean every older era player is overrated.

 

[WengerOut]

Is it necessary for you to do this in every thread? I agree, some of the older player are infact very overrated, cough 'Dennis Lillee' cough, doesn't mean every older era player is overrated.

It is more about worshipping older era players by belittling modern ones by simply stating a subjective non technical statement.

Anybody can like anyone but not at the cost of belittling others . If they do , then they have to back that up with facts. Else it will all look silly.

 

[Bhaijaan]

He is not underrated. He isn't talked about as much because there's nothing more to talk about him than what's already been said. Anything more would be overrating and overhyping.

Precisely

Bhaijaan doesn’t understand the point of this. Roberts has always been a popular figure among cricket historians. If you have followed the game you know and respect him even if you haven’t seen him bowl.

Not every player makes it to the fictitious ATG XIs. Doesn’t mean they weren’t great.

You just have to be star in your playing days and win matches for your country. That’s all that matters.

 

[Tusker]

It is more about worshipping older era players by belittling modern ones by simply stating a subjective non technical statement.

Anybody can like anyone but not at the cost of belittling others . If they do , then they have to back that up with facts. Else it will all look silly.

Exactly !! People like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] and [MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION] ... go on and on about how great these players were. They constantly keep reminding us of how great things were back in the day. Thats ok but be man enough to stand up and defend that like a grown up instead of producing some stupid certificate of excellence from some ex-player which we are told is all that is necessary. Thats when I produce the exact same certificates of excellence for current era players and suddenly they go silent or start to troll like the new kid on the block and then get owned badly.

 

[Rahul1]

It is more about worshipping older era players by belittling modern ones by simply stating a subjective non technical statement.

Anybody can like anyone but not at the cost of belittling others . If they do , then they have to back that up with facts. Else it will all look silly.

What facts are you talking about?

 

[bujhee kom]

Must have been very scary with Holding at the other end, back in those helmetless days.

Add in Garner and Croft and it was a test the likes of which batting has never since seen.

These youngsters they cannot comprehend the intensity and excitement of cricket then. Not this silly pajama stuff. Real bowlers! Real batsmen sans a full kit of armour and REAL QUICK!

 

[Tusker]

What facts are you talking about?

Why does any random footage of these players that people here are gloating about does not fit the hyperbole ?

For instance the fastest bowler competition back in 1978/79 has Roberts bowling in the 130Ks IIRC. What exactly is soo terrifying about that speed ?

 

[Tusker]

Is it necessary for you to do this in every thread? I agree, some of the older player are infact very overrated, cough 'Dennis Lillee' cough, doesn't mean every older era player is overrated.

here is your answer right on cue:

Add in Garner and Croft and it was a test the likes of which batting has never since seen.

These youngsters they cannot comprehend the intensity and excitement of cricket then. Not this silly pajama stuff. Real bowlers! Real batsmen sans a full kit of armour and REAL QUICK!

 

[Rahul1]

Why does any random footage of these players that people here are gloating about does not fit the hyperbole ?

For instance the fastest bowler competition back in 1978/79 has Roberts bowling in the 130Ks IIRC. What exactly is soo terrifying about that speed ?

Maybe Roberts bowled in the 130s. But if you think that Holding is not bowling around 145ks you must be as biased as many old timers.

 

[Tusker]

Maybe Roberts bowled in the 130s. But if you think that Holding is not bowling around 145ks you must be as biased as many old timers.

https://youtu.be/bPDW7hj1yfs?t=11m49s

Max Speed 141K , Avg 135K

Again almost EVERY bowler today can match or exceed those speeds. So I ask again what exactly is soo terrifying here that Iam supposed to drool over ?

 

[Rahul1]

https://youtu.be/bPDW7hj1yfs?t=11m49s

Max Speed 141K , Avg 135K

Again almost EVERY bowler today can match or exceed those speeds. So I ask again what exactly is soo terrifying here that Iam supposed to drool over ?

You don't get it, do you?

Way back in 1936, Jesse Owens broke the world record for the 100m dash. While in 2016 olympics, almost every participant did better than Jesse's world record. So does it that Jesse Owens is overrated?

Doesn't matter if these older era players are not good enough in your book, you gotta respect history, no matter what.

The problem is that you and [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] etc go to extreme ends. You think that every older era player is thrash and every modern era player is better, no, they're not. Similarly, [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] think that every modern era player is overrated and every older era player was a viking warrior who could bowl faster than Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar combined and hit sixes where the ball would reach Perth if the six was hit from Sydney. No, they didn't.

 

[Tusker]

You don't get it, do you?

I merely posted a video with exact speed measurements (As response to your video that did not have a speed ) instead of going back and forth on what you claim is Holdings speed or what I claim is his speed.

This is the sort of proper fact based discussion that I prefer instead of the He-said-she-said nonsense that is generally the norm in these discussions. So not sure what I'am supposedly *NOT* getting.

Way back in 1936, Jesse Owens broke the world record for the 100m dash. While in 2016 olympics, almost every participant did better than Jesse's world record. So does it that Jesse Owens is overrated?

Doesn't matter if these older era players are not good enough in your book, you gotta respect history, no matter what.

The problem is that you and [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] etc go to extreme ends. You think that every older era player is thrash and every modern era player is better, no, they're not. Similarly, [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] think that every modern era player is overrated and every older era player was a viking warrior who could bowl faster than Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar combined and hit sixes where the ball would reach Perth if the six was hit from Sydney. No, they didn't.

Well you have probably not read my posts here about old ERA players ...lets just say that - I know a thing or two about respecting the past. If you notice I never say they are crap or useless. Thats purely the territory of the old era fanatics(Evidence is right here in this thread).

What I do instead is chase around the old era fanatics to substantiate their tall stories and let me assure you - it invariably ends in them running away with their tails firmly tucked between their legs. So much for the faith and conviction in the stories that they try to peddle.

Also Respect for the past does not automatically mean we ridicule the current crop. For instance Glenn McGrath was almost as fast as Holding. Try arguing that point and see if you don't get ridiculed by the usual suspects. You see facts don't matter. The deep stereotype and prejudice is just unreal.

 

[Junaids]

It’s a plain and undeniable fact that in real time in Tests Roberts was measured with high speed cameras at

159.49K
157.4K

Those are facts.

 

[Robert]

You don't get it, do you?

Way back in 1936, Jesse Owens broke the world record for the 100m dash. While in 2016 olympics, almost every participant did better than Jesse's world record. So does it that Jesse Owens is overrated?

Doesn't matter if these older era players are not good enough in your book, you gotta respect history, no matter what.

The problem is that you and [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] etc go to extreme ends. You think that every older era player is thrash and every modern era player is better, no, they're not. Similarly, [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] think that every modern era player is overrated and every older era player was a viking warrior who could bowl faster than Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar combined and hit sixes where the ball would reach Perth if the six was hit from Sydney. No, they didn't.

That’s a distortion. I believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era. Though the skill sets change with time. My position is closer to your point about the great Owens.

 

[Tusker]

It’s a plain and undeniable fact that in real time in Tests Roberts was measured with high speed cameras at

159.49K
157.4K

Those are facts.

Got any footage to go with those tall claims?

 

[Junaids]

Got any footage to go with those tall claims?

I’ve covered this in a separate thread in which I even showed the cameras used - the most accurate ones ever manufactured.

The Perth measurements were completed by the University of Western Australia, and were published scientific works.

There is no doubt whatsoever about the measurements of 159.49 and 157.4.

 

[Junaids]

Got any footage to go with those tall claims?

Try returning to this thread...

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...h-150s-(158-159-160kph)-on-a-consistent-basis

 

[Tusker]

Try returning to this thread...

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...h-150s-(158-159-160kph)-on-a-consistent-basis

I asked the same question there .... where is the footage and why did the same bowlers clock vastly lower speeds in 1979 than they did in 1976? You never answered that question in that thread. You just cannot logically explain that. Keep in mind that Michael Holding and Roberts were both still in their 20s when the 1979 competition took place.

 

[PakLFC]

He was good from what I have heard from batsmen who played in the 1970's. Much like Michael "Whispering Death" Holding Roberts for whatever reason did not get the recognition he deserved. Likes of Sunny Gavaskar say he was incredibly quick and aggressive. Amitabh Bachchan also said the same in "Amar, Akbar, Anthony"

 

[hk031992]

I merely posted a video with exact speed measurements (As response to your video that did not have a speed ) instead of going back and forth on what you claim is Holdings speed or what I claim is his speed.

This is the sort of proper fact based discussion that I prefer instead of the He-said-she-said nonsense that is generally the norm in these discussions. So not sure what I'am supposedly *NOT* getting.



Well you have probably not read my posts here about old ERA players ...lets just say that - I know a thing or two about respecting the past. If you notice I never say they are crap or useless. Thats purely the territory of the old era fanatics(Evidence is right here in this thread).

What I do instead is chase around the old era fanatics to substantiate their tall stories and let me assure you - it invariably ends in them running away with their tails firmly tucked between their legs. So much for the faith and conviction in the stories that they try to peddle.

Also Respect for the past does not automatically mean we ridicule the current crop. For instance Glenn McGrath was almost as fast as Holding. Try arguing that point and see if you don't get ridiculed by the usual suspects. You see facts don't matter. The deep stereotype and prejudice is just unreal.

you are blinded by your bias against older players just like there are people who are biased towards older players.

I am not an expert on measuring speed, but Holding was not a 135 kph bowler. Please watch footage of actual 135 kph bowlers like McGrath, and watch the video of Holding, and tell me they were bowling at a similar speed. That is well beyond absurd.

Yes, part of the fear of these bowlers was that until the early to mid 1980;s, most guys had little protection. But great quicks continued to dominate well past that.

Bowlers did not magically gain 15 kph between the 80's and 90's. If this was the case, no one from the 80's would have had any chance of playing a proven 90 mph bowler like Allan Donald. Yet guys could play him. If the 80's batsmen simply grew up facing trundlers, why did they manage to score runs vs guys like Donald who was proven to consistently bowl around 90 mph at age 32? I showed you footage of an old Javed Miandad scoring a 100 vs SA facing a rampaging Donald. This is the same Miandad that honed his skills playing trundlers like Lillee etc. If he had never seen Donalds 90mph + pace before, why did he manage to score a 100? Or any of the 80's batsmen for that matter?

What evolution did the human body go through betwen 1980's and 1990's whereby the fastest bowlers from the 90's were 15-20 kph faster than the fastest bowlers from the 80s?

 

[Adijazz1706]

you are blinded by your bias against older players just like there are people who are biased towards older players.

I am not an expert on measuring speed, but Holding was not a 135 kph bowler. Please watch footage of actual 135 kph bowlers like McGrath, and watch the video of Holding, and tell me they were bowling at a similar speed. That is well beyond absurd.

Yes, part of the fear of these bowlers was that until the early to mid 1980;s, most guys had little protection. But great quicks continued to dominate well past that.

Bowlers did not magically gain 15 kph between the 80's and 90's. If this was the case, no one from the 80's would have had any chance of playing a proven 90 mph bowler like Allan Donald. Yet guys could play him. If the 80's batsmen simply grew up facing trundlers, why did they manage to score runs vs guys like Donald who was proven to consistently bowl around 90 mph at age 32? I showed you footage of an old Javed Miandad scoring a 100 vs SA facing a rampaging Donald. This is the same Miandad that honed his skills playing trundlers like Lillee etc. If he had never seen Donalds 90mph + pace before, why did he manage to score a 100? Or any of the 80's batsmen for that matter?

What evolution did the human body go through betwen 1980's and 1990's whereby the fastest bowlers from the 90's were 15-20 kph faster than the fastest bowlers from the 80s?

The evolution was in speed guns, not humans. If the '75 and '76 guns were used in international matches, there would be no such debate

 

[shujaatraza]

well all they had to do was survive the ball.. batsman nowadays have to score as well

 

[MenInG]

Legendary West Indian fast bowler Sir Andy Roberts has pointed to a poor work ethic on the part of the region’s batsmen as a major factor in the team’s inability to take a step up to the next level.

Following the promising start but a disastrous end to the tour of England, a lot of discussions surrounding how to improve the team’s performance focused on increased technological infrastructure around the region.

The typically fiery former pace bowler was, however, quick to point out that such investment is unlikely to make a difference if the attitude and work ethics of the batsmen do not improve.

“Infrastructure will not make you a better player. You have to make yourself a better player and I don’t think the commitment is there from a lot of West Indies players,” Roberts told the Mason and Guest radio program.

“It’s not just the Test players but a lot of people who play cricket in the West Indies, I don’t think they commit themselves enough. If you did, you would not be averaging 30 in first-class cricket and that is what we are getting.”

In the recently concluded series, it was Jermaine Blackwood that averaged the most for the team with 35.17 but he was the only one to get to 30. Overall, for the series, the team averaged closer to 20. In fact, the team’s highest batting average in a Test series consisting of at least two matches since 2017 is 34.66 and that was against Zimbabwe in 2017.

“You can’t beat any quality team with that type of average. So, our guys first have to stand up in front of the mirror and think what am I doing to improve myself, because, until our players improve their batting we are not going to score runs against a strong team.”


https://www.sportsmax.tv/index.php/...s-better-infrastructure-won-t-help-wi-batsmen

 

[Bhaijaan]

This is the first time I heard Andy Roberts is underrated. He was the original leader of the pack and most batsmen of the 1970s consider him to be the greatest of his era.

What a beautiful action too.

 

[Bhaijaan]

He had the best bouncer in the game. Invented slower bouncer.

Lovely side on action.

 

[Ab Fan]

Yes, he is underrated. He was better than Garner and Holding and only behind Marshall and Ambrose.

 

[Robert]

This is the first time I heard Andy Roberts is underrated. He was the original leader of the pack and most batsmen of the 1970s consider him to be the greatest of his era.

Botham said Roberts and Lillee were the best he faced.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Botham said Roberts and Lillee were the best he faced.

Same for Gavaskar.

Gavaskar though has shown his bias towards West Indies in contrast to Aussies whom he hated for being obnoxious brats on field.

When I see old footage, it becomes perfectly clear why people speak highly of Andy Roberts. Very aggressive bowler.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Michael Holding was great but don't go by bowling averages of 1980s West Indies bowlers too much. By that time they had a formidable all round bowling attack resulting in everyone benefitting immensely statistically.

Andy Roberts bowled with less support at the other end much like Kapil and he held his own for a decade or so.

What would Roberts average if he bowled mostly in 1980s alongside Marshal, Garner, Holding, Croft, Ambrose Walsh, Patterson? He would average 19-20 something

 

[wrongun]

You don't get it, do you?

Way back in 1936, Jesse Owens broke the world record for the 100m dash. While in 2016 olympics, almost every participant did better than Jesse's world record. So does it that Jesse Owens is overrated?

Doesn't matter if these older era players are not good enough in your book, you gotta respect history, no matter what.

The problem is that you and [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] etc go to extreme ends. You think that every older era player is thrash and every modern era player is better, no, they're not. Similarly, [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] think that every modern era player is overrated and every older era player was a viking warrior who could bowl faster than Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar combined and hit sixes where the ball would reach Perth if the six was hit from Sydney. No, they didn't.

The obvious difference almost every poster I've seen on here misses, is the difference in equipment.

Take any good modern 100m runner. Then make him run without modern running spikes. His time is worse. Put them on an old fashioned track- not a modern rubberised one optimised for running. His time is worse. Starting blocks were not used in the '36 Olympics (despite being invented, use not normalised until later). A modern sprinter is WAY slower without start blocks.

The equipment in cricket hasn't changed. The ball is still round, red, leather & weights about 160 grams. So the variation between performance of a top talent in the 1970s until today really isn't very big.

There is no reason to think bowlers in the 70s & 80s didn't hit the 150s or higher. And every reason to think they did (Jeff Thompsons speed measure). The performance levels most on here quote to push the "oh every athletic performance is better now" ignore the major differences in equipment in athletic events & swimming (see plenty of "overperforming" modern costumes banned) which drive a large part of those differences are routinely ignored.

Yet a cricket ball is still round, still red & still weighs about 160 grams.

 

[Bhaijaan]

The obvious difference almost every poster I've seen on here misses, is the difference in equipment.

Take any good modern 100m runner. Then make him run without modern running spikes. His time is worse. Put them on an old fashioned track- not a modern rubberised one optimised for running. His time is worse. Starting blocks were not used in the '36 Olympics (despite being invented, use not normalised until later). A modern sprinter is WAY slower without start blocks.

The equipment in cricket hasn't changed. The ball is still round, red, leather & weights about 160 grams. So the variation between performance of a top talent in the 1970s until today really isn't very big.

There is no reason to think bowlers in the 70s & 80s didn't hit the 150s or higher. And every reason to think they did (Jeff Thompsons speed measure). The performance levels most on here quote to push the "oh every athletic performance is better now" ignore the major differences in equipment in athletic events & swimming (see plenty of "overperforming" modern costumes banned) which drive a large part of those differences are routinely ignored.

Yet a cricket ball is still round, still red & still weighs about 160 grams.

Stunning observations. Kudos.

Makes so much sense actually and puts so called evolution of sports in perspective as well.

 

[Raz]

Roberts is criminally underrated. As a fast bowler, there wasn't many deliveries that he could not bowl, but more than that it was his cricketing brain and ability to set batsmen up and seriously hurt them that made him such a fearsome prospect to face.

Holding would not have become the great fast bowler, had it not been for the guidance from Roberts. The era of West Indies domination that began in the mid to late 70s would not have happened, had Roberts not been there, as the original leader of the pace attack that later contained the likes of Holding, Croft, Garner and then Marshall in the 80s.

Finally, Roberts bowled in an era where he had to deal with disgusting racism in places like England and Australia. Yet he let the ball do the talking and made major contributions in series wins against those teams in the mid to late 70s.

The fast bowling legacy he left is a hugely significant one.

 

[Justcrazy]

However Good Roberts was , Marshal , Holding , Ambrose , garner were ahead of him , there is no doubt about that. He probably would not be among top 15 test fast bowlers evers.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

The Robinhood of Windies Cricket and the part of Deadly Four
====

Deadpan and deadly. His stock bouncer, quick and nasty, was simply a softener, a prelude to the real thing, which was close to unplayable.

It took him less than two and a half years to reach 100 Test wickets, the quickest at that point.

The great Andy Roberts turns 74 today

 

[Justcrazy]

He was good test bowler , but he was not better than Marshall and holding.

 

[Ab Fan]

He was a top bowler during his time and the first of the great Windies bowlers that flourished for next two decades.

Would he succeed in today’s time with the skills set he had back in 70s? Probably no but that is not a parameter to rate a bowler because game has evolved big time.

He also took 50 wickets in WSC cricket when he was at prime so if you include that, he probably managed to pick 250 wickets at avg under 25. Definitely a top 2 fast bowler of the 70s with Lillee being #1.