What's new

Where would Michael Holding rank in the pantheon of great fast bowlers?

Harsh Thakor

First Class Star
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Runs
3,519
Post of the Week
2
Michael Holding was simply the Rolls Royce of fast bowlers.No paceman ever posessed his silken elegance or grace resembling a ballad dancer.He could create the impact of lightning when bowling but still posessed the grace of an eagle flying through the air.In terms of consistent speed through the air he surpassed every pace bowler and for perfection in bowling action surpassed everybody.Holding blended the speed of a gazelle with the technical skill of an architect and the beauty of a rose blossoming.Holding simply took the poetry of pace bowling to a new height.

His bowling of 14-149 at the Oval in 1976 is probably the best bowling exhibition ever in the history of the game.On the flattest of tracks he skittled through the opposition with all his victims either leg before or bowled.The spell revealed cricketing art in regions of the divine.Never in the history of the game was speed.control and accuracy blended so perfectly.In england in 1976 he was the most prolific wicket taker with 28 scalps.In 1981 against England at home he bowled what was arguably the best over ever in test cricket to Geoff Boycott sending his stumps cartwheeling of the final delivery.

Sadly he was best by injury for a great part of his career but was still relatively successful in Australia and India.In WSC in West Indies in 5 supertests he had the most scalps by any bowler.In 1981-82 in Australia he was arguably the bet pace bowler in the world with 24 scalps.He seemed to have perfected the art of pace bowling more than any overseas paceman ever in Australia when at a slightly slower pace moved the ball both ways with a perfect length and line.In India in 1983-84 he was outstanding with 30p scalps displaying mastery of movement and variations at a reduced pace.Till the final test he was the most prolific bowler,ahead of the great Malcolm Marshall.Even if not as explosive and quick as Marshall from a technical point of me in my opinion Holding was the best bowler of the series.In England in 1980 and he gave flashes of his old brilliance but was beset by injury and weather.He was also hardly succcesful in a home series versus India in 1983.In 1984-5 in Australia he bowled a magnificient spell of 6-21 at Perth but sadly only played 3 tests in that series.What went against Michael was that in many series he was overshadowed by contemporary fast bowlers like Colin Croft in Australia in 1979-80,at home v England in 1981 and Garner in England in 1980.

He retired with an average of 23.68 and 249 scalps in 60 tests at a strike rate of 50.7.He was also very economical in ODI's,surpassing Andy Roberts and Malcolm Marshall.For a significant part of his career he was overshadowed by Amdy Roberts at the start and Malcolm Marshall towards the end.Many great batsmen found Andy Roberts a more daunting proposition to face like Gavaskar ,Barry Richards and the Chappell brothers.However Holding had his fans.Imran Khan ranked him the best fast bowler he ever saw in terms of bowling action while Len Hutton rated him the best of the great Indian quartet.Majid Khan and Asif Iqbal chose Holding in their all-time xi as well as Mike Procter.

In my view for pure natural ability he could have been amongst the the top 5 of all paceman and arguably the most naturally talented of the Calypso speedsters.Roberts was craftier,Marshall more innovative,Garner and Ambrose more accurate and Clarke quicker but at his best in a complete package Holding displayed perfection in pace bowling skill more than any Carribean superstar.Arguably at his very best he may have been more lethal than anyone.In WSC supertests in Australia there were games when batsmen would much rather face upto Roberts than Holding!

I would back him to have a place amongst the top dozen paceman of all.
Just marginally edged by the likes of Marshall,Lillee,Wasim ,Mcgrath ,Steyn and Ambrose and about on par with Alan Donald ,Andy Roberts or Waqar Younus.Amazingly John Woodcock ranks him the best of West Indian paceman in his 100 best cricketers but that is erroneous.Anyway a certainty amongst the top 100 cricketers of all time.
 
Only saw his last few years so I missed the explosive pace of his youth.

Latterly turned into a late-model Lillee-type, not flat out quick but more sharp FM with the odd faster delivery, thinking batters out, nipping it around, getting lift and hitting ther gloves.
 
Only saw his last few years so I missed the explosive pace of his youth.

Latterly turned into a late-model Lillee-type, not flat out quick but more sharp FM with the odd faster delivery, thinking batters out, nipping it around, getting lift and hitting ther gloves.

Ahead of Andy Roberts,Ambrose or Garner?Where does he rank amongst calypso paceman in your view?
 
Rolls Royce of fast bowling, indeed.

Just reading the names of all those magnificent fast bowlers from 70s/80s/90s era in the opening post and using the car analogy again these were all luxury cars like different models of Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Porsche, and of course only one Rolls Royce.

In comparison these days the so-called fast bowlers around resemble scooters, rickshaws, tractors and at best an Indian branded budget car with small 1 litre engine..
 
Holding along with Roberts were pioneers who provided a path for other West Indians fast bowlers. I rate him second only to Roberts. Remember without Roberts & Holding there would not be a Garner, Croft, Marshall and all the others.
 
Tier 1, wonderful bowler. Easily in top 10 bowlers of all time. Top 5 even.

Marshall
Wasim
Lillee
Holding
Waqar
 
Holding is to fast bowling what Aaron Finch is to batting.

How much would he know to commentate when everything - pitches, equipment and conditions were in his favour when he played?

No wonder his 'analysis' comes across as shallow.
 
Holding is to fast bowling what Aaron Finch is to batting.

How much would he know to commentate when everything - pitches, equipment and conditions were in his favour when he played?

No wonder his 'analysis' comes across as shallow.

Same opinion here as well,bowlers nowadays don't get their due because these bowling era bullies over analyze everything and think of themselves as demi gods.
 
If only Ind produced a bowler half as good as Mikey.

Sure, all we need is:

1. Dodgy uncovered pitches.
2. Batsmen to leave their helmets and pads at home.
3. Technology to be switched off.
4. Thinner bats, larger boundaries and only one active format of the game.

Michael Holding : Bowling :: Aaron Finch : Batting
 
Sure, all we need is:

1. Dodgy uncovered pitches.
2. Batsmen to leave their helmets and pads at home.
3. Technology to be switched off.
4. Thinner bats, larger boundaries and only one active format of the game.

Michael Holding : Bowling :: Aaron Finch : Batting

So which uncovered test pitches did Mikey play on? I know you guys are hurt because your used to Sunni's , Arun Lal etc non commentary but Mikey is amongst the 10 best fast bowlers ever to play the game.
 
So which uncovered test pitches did Mikey play on? I know you guys are hurt because your used to Sunni's , Arun Lal etc non commentary but Mikey is amongst the 10 best fast bowlers ever to play the game.

To add to my previous post, I only request that our bowler - 'half as good as Mikey' - should go by the moniker Screaming Life. It's only fair.
 
So which uncovered test pitches did Mikey play on? I know you guys are hurt because your used to Sunni's , Arun Lal etc non commentary but Mikey is amongst the 10 best fast bowlers ever to play the game.

He is among 10 best fast bowlers ever? Lol.
 
He is among 10 best fast bowlers ever? Lol.

In no particular order:

1. Steyn
2. McGrath
3. Donald
4. Anderson
5. Akram
6. Younis
7. Ambrose
8. Walsh
9. Pollock
10. Johnson (wildcard pick)

Bowlers from the 1970s and 1980s had everything in their favour and can occupy spots 11 - infinity.
 
In no particular order:

1. Steyn
2. McGrath
3. Donald
4. Anderson
5. Akram
6. Younis
7. Ambrose
8. Walsh
9. Pollock
10. Johnson (wildcard pick)

Bowlers from the 1970s and 1980s had everything in their favour and can occupy spots 11 - infinity.

These are good bowlers but i saw i cricket in the 80's. Out of these guys
1,2,3,5 and 7 would be part of my list. Add to the list Mikey, Marshall, IK, Lillee, Hadlee and Garner and you would be close to an all time list.
 
Since 1970s:-

WI:- Marshall, Ambrose, Garner
Aus:- Mcgrath, Lillee
SA:- Donald, Steyn, Pollock
Pak:- Imran, Wasim, Waqar
NZ:- Hadlee

So, 12 names are obviously ahead.
 
Holding shud be judged on the benchmark he uses to judge others - He thot 3 months back, Kohli isn't a great batsman until he scored runs in England. If that's the case, then considering Holding's average against New Zealand of 40+, he ain't a great bowler.

Problem is less to do with his greatness but more to do with his personal behavior. It takes nothing, absolutely nothing to criticise or ridicule players. After all we all do that on this forum, and we know it takes nothing to call players names. But when you are in a commentary box u can't act like rabid fans. Who gave you the authority to say pollard is not a cricketer or pandya or bumrah are no good. Criticise people but do it with some bit of maturity and grace. To say that he wud have done this or that to sehwag is cheap street talk and not a sportsman talk. After all, to build castles in the air needs no bravery.

And I haven't heard it myself but someone here mentioned he made a pretty cheap sexist comment on Isha guha. This just shows he's a pathetic person, and I can't care much how good or bad bowler he was.
 
Last edited:
Holding is no Marshall ,Akram or Ambrose but defn prides on himself being the best.
 
Steyn is the best ever test bowler. He has performed everywhere and that too in an era which is batsmen friendly.

Steyn >>> >> Michael holding or any other test bowler
 
Steyn is the best ever test bowler. He has performed everywhere and that too in an era which is batsmen friendly.

Steyn >>> >> Michael holding or any other test bowler

Don't think there was a doubt in that, Steyn was the reason for #1 ranking of Saffers.
 
:)) :)) :)) for a minute I thought a hurt Indian fan posted this thread to mock the whispering death.
 
Sure, all we need is:

1. Dodgy uncovered pitches.
2. Batsmen to leave their helmets and pads at home.
3. Technology to be switched off.
4. Thinner bats, larger boundaries and only one active format of the game.

Michael Holding : Bowling :: Aaron Finch : Batting

Didn’t bowl on uncovered pitches. As the OP notes he got 14 wickets on that Oval featherbed where even Roberts and Willis were powerless. Beat everyone for sheer pace, nearly all caught behind.

Modern tech prevents umpiring howlers but not that many per match. In those days, the umps gave the batter the benefit of the doubt.

I remember the boundaries at Lords being smaller in the eighties. There was a rope about five metres in from the fence and people sat behind it on the field.
Holding played 102 ODIs
 
Lol !!!!!!

Holding is trash, burn his fake record since he speaks non sense all the time. A terrible trundler, kicked the stumps because he was a cry baby. Definitely not a legend, Imagine him playing now, nah, you cant because he would be playing gully cricket somewhere.

The ultimate minnow basher, lucky he played in an era in which he somehow got tampered pitches and terrible batsmen, sky should hire legit legends. Ban him I say, remove him from cricket altogether.
 
For me, Holding is a top 10 fast bowler. He'd walk into a Windies all time XI and would be a 3rd or 4th choice for an all time international XI.

With Akram the pure stand out, my top ten would probably look something like this:

Akram
McGrath
Marshall
Younis
Lillee
Holding
Ambrose
Khan
Donald
Trueman

Apart from Akram, that is not an exact order, the the best 10 names around, give or take a few.
 
For me, Holding is a top 10 fast bowler. He'd walk into a Windies all time XI and would be a 3rd or 4th choice for an all time international XI.

With Akram the pure stand out, my top ten would probably look something like this:

Akram
McGrath
Marshall
Younis
Lillee
Holding
Ambrose
Khan
Donald
Trueman

Apart from Akram, that is not an exact order, the the best 10 names around, give or take a few.

Holding better than Steyn,Garner or even Anderson?
 
Sure, all we need is:

1. Dodgy uncovered pitches.
2. Batsmen to leave their helmets and pads at home.
3. Technology to be switched off.
4. Thinner bats, larger boundaries and only one active format of the game.

Michael Holding : Bowling :: Aaron Finch : Batting

Didn’t bowl on uncovered pitches. As the OP notes he got 14 wickets on that Oval featherbed where even Roberts and Willis were powerless. Beat everyone for sheer pace, nearly all caught behind.

Modern tech prevents umpiring howlers but not that many per match. In those days, the umps gave the batter the benefit of the doubt.

I remember the boundaries at Lords being smaller in the eighties. There was a rope about five metres in from the fence and people sat behind it on the field.
Holding played 102 ODIs
 
For me, Holding is a top 10 fast bowler. He'd walk into a Windies all time XI and would be a 3rd or 4th choice for an all time international XI.

With Akram the pure stand out, my top ten would probably look something like this:

Akram
McGrath
Marshall
Younis
Lillee
Holding
Ambrose
Khan
Donald
Trueman

Apart from Akram, that is not an exact order, the the best 10 names around, give or take a few.

One king to rule them all, Dale Steyn
 
Didn’t bowl on uncovered pitches. As the OP notes he got 14 wickets on that Oval featherbed where even Roberts and Willis were powerless. Beat everyone for sheer pace, nearly all caught behind.

Modern tech prevents umpiring howlers but not that many per match. In those days, the umps gave the batter the benefit of the doubt.

I remember the boundaries at Lords being smaller in the eighties. There was a rope about five metres in from the fence and people sat behind it on the field.
Holding played 102 ODIs

You'd have better luck banging your head against a brick wall.

No use in logic here. Certain posters have derailed a very interesting thread because of their own agendas and over-sensitivity.

Holding was one of the greatest bowlers to have played the game. Anyone who says otherwise, genuinely doesn't know anything about cricket.
 
A top quality test bowler Whispering death was the rolls royce of wi fast bowling

Only marshall and ambrose ahead of him for me

Legend
 
Only thing I have against Holding is that he didn't have longetivity. I feel he left the game the moment he realized his primary weapon i.e. pace was no longer there. The mark of truly great bowlers is how they adapt when their primary assets desert them.

I think he was probably someone who operating at 140-145 km/hr, his pace was never verified or officially recorded.
 
Only thing I have against Holding is that he didn't have longetivity. I feel he left the game the moment he realized his primary weapon i.e. pace was no longer there. The mark of truly great bowlers is how they adapt when their primary assets desert them.

I think he was probably someone who operating at 140-145 km/hr, his pace was never verified or officially recorded.

On the contrary how many times have we said it’s better to leave at the top when people ask why rather than when

Too many times we’ve seen players hang around well past their best spoiling their legacy Holding did well in this regard

Nobody wants to see a fast bowler looking a shadow of himself bowling medium pace
 
For me, Holding is a top 10 fast bowler. He'd walk into a Windies all time XI and would be a 3rd or 4th choice for an all time international XI.

With Akram the pure stand out, my top ten would probably look something like this:

Akram
McGrath
Marshall
Younis
Lillee
Holding
Ambrose
Khan
Donald
Trueman

Apart from Akram, that is not an exact order, the the best 10 names around, give or take a few.

A top quality test bowler Whispering death was the rolls royce of wi fast bowling

Only marshall and ambrose ahead of him for me

Legend

You guys ever heard of a bowler by the name of Joel Garner?

Number of wickets: Garner better than Holding
Avg per wkt: Garner better than Holding
Strike Rate: Garner better than Holding
Economy Rate: Garner better than Holding

Anything else?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/51876.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52063.html
 
You guys ever heard of a bowler by the name of Joel Garner?

Number of wickets: Garner better than Holding
Avg per wkt: Garner better than Holding
Strike Rate: Garner better than Holding
Economy Rate: Garner better than Holding

Anything else?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/51876.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52063.html

Garner was also a brilliant fast bowler and so were Roberts and Marshall. They was reason why the Windies ended the Aussie domination of the 70s and they along with Croft were the reason. I saw all these guys and at different times they were all the best but over the era Marshall was the daddy in all conditions.
 
You'd have better luck banging your head against a brick wall.

No use in logic here. Certain posters have derailed a very interesting thread because of their own agendas and over-sensitivity.

Holding was one of the greatest bowlers to have played the game. Anyone who says otherwise, genuinely doesn't know anything about cricket.

Our friends are not with Mikey and somehow they think that by some sort of concerted effort they can rewrite history. Guys give it a rest, Mikeys performance in 1976 is one of the greatest bowling performances in the history of the game. He was a brilliant fast bowler amongst the top 10 i have seen.
 
Only thing I have against Holding is that he didn't have longetivity. I feel he left the game the moment he realized his primary weapon i.e. pace was no longer there. The mark of truly great bowlers is how they adapt when their primary assets desert them.

I think he was probably someone who operating at 140-145 km/hr, his pace was never verified or officially recorded.

In that case Steyn is no great with his recent decline with injuries reducing his pace
 
Oh come on ,he was a very good bowler and surely an atg, he speaks trash(sometimes) but it does'nt mean that we ridicule his cricketing career for that.
Secondly,he is an atg but nowhere near top 10 fast bowlers list.
All of the following are better than him(in no particular order):
wasim
imran
marshall
ambrose
garner
lilee
mcgrath
hadlee
steyn
donald
pollock
davidson
trueman
keith miller
 
Only thing I have against Holding is that he didn't have longetivity. I feel he left the game the moment he realized his primary weapon i.e. pace was no longer there. The mark of truly great bowlers is how they adapt when their primary assets desert them.

I disagree. Even in 1983 he was not flat-out quick, he was more of a sharp FM with the odd quicker ball like Hadlee, cutting it about and getting lift. He went on for about three years in this role. After Marshall emerged and Garner quickened up, Mikey became a highly effective third seamer.
 
Oh come on ,he was a very good bowler and surely an atg, he speaks trash(sometimes) but it does'nt mean that we ridicule his cricketing career for that.
Secondly,he is an atg but nowhere near top 10 fast bowlers list.
All of the following are better than him(in no particular order):
wasim
imran
marshall
ambrose
garner
lilee
mcgrath
hadlee
steyn
donald
pollock
davidson
trueman
keith miller

Ray Lindwall?
 
Not an ATG but certainly a great of his era. What an effortless repeatable action. Can watch him bowl over and over again. Atleast on YouTube lol.

As a Caribbean bowler though I'd put him

1. Marshall
2.Amby
3. Garner
4.Roberts
5. Walsh
6. Holding
7. Bishop
 
Garner was also a brilliant fast bowler and so were Roberts and Marshall. They was reason why the Windies ended the Aussie domination of the 70s and they along with Croft were the reason. I saw all these guys and at different times they were all the best but over the era Marshall was the daddy in all conditions.

Garner is never really mentioned Marshall takes the plaudits his ODI average is 26 a tad overrated was a bit better in tests but overall both formats combined Garner and Holding have the edge.
 
Not an ATG but certainly a great of his era. What an effortless repeatable action. Can watch him bowl over and over again. Atleast on YouTube lol.

As a Caribbean bowler though I'd put him

1. Marshall
2.Amby
3. Garner
4.Roberts
5. Walsh
6. Holding
7. Bishop

Marshall at the top, then anyone of Amb, Holding, Garner, Roberts but def not Walsh. Bishop had the potential to challenge Marshall but injuries did for him. CW was a good bowler but not in the league of others although he had great stats.
 
Not an ATG but certainly a great of his era. What an effortless repeatable action. Can watch him bowl over and over again. Atleast on YouTube lol.

As a Caribbean bowler though I'd put him

1. Marshall
2.Amby
3. Garner
4.Roberts
5. Walsh
6. Holding
7. Bishop

Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding/ Roberts(hard to seperate)
Walsh
Bishop
 
Marshall at the top, then anyone of Amb, Holding, Garner, Roberts but def not Walsh. Bishop had the potential to challenge Marshall but injuries did for him. CW was a good bowler but not in the league of others although he had great stats.

Walsh may not have been as quick as holding but he was very accurate and took 500+ wickets at a very good average . That's a very impressive record.
 
Walsh may not have been as quick as holding but he was very accurate and took 500+ wickets at a very good average . That's a very impressive record.

All of which is true but i never saw him in the same league as the others. For me his 2 most memorable spells were in 1990 against England in Antigua and once again against England in 1994 in Jamaica and particular his battle with Atherton. Both times he was just beastly.
 
All of which is true but i never saw him in the same league as the others. For me his 2 most memorable spells were in 1990 against England in Antigua and once again against England in 1994 in Jamaica and particular his battle with Atherton. Both times he was just beastly.

Walsh was the workhorse of the team in the late 80s early 90s often operating as the 3rd / 4th seamer

Its only from the mid 90s where he seemed to get better and better like fine wine and was a great partner to amby
 
Just talking about West Indies bowlers I didn't see the likes of Wayne Daniel and Andy Roberts who was supposedly incredibly fast as well. Patrick Patterson didn't live up to the great expectations people had of him at the time from what I hear. I would put Holding behind Marshall for sure.

Marshall
Wayne Daniel
Roberts
Ambrose
Holding
Walsh
Garner
 
Last edited:
On the contrary how many times have we said it’s better to leave at the top when people ask why rather than when

Too many times we’ve seen players hang around well past their best spoiling their legacy Holding did well in this regard

Nobody wants to see a fast bowler looking a shadow of himself bowling medium pace

These sort of retirements really leave the fans asking for more from the guys. Sangakkara, Hussey are 2 names who left fans wanting more.
 
You guys ever heard of a bowler by the name of Joel Garner?

Number of wickets: Garner better than Holding
Avg per wkt: Garner better than Holding
Strike Rate: Garner better than Holding
Economy Rate: Garner better than Holding

Anything else?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/51876.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52063.html

Not even Garner would think Garner was better than Holding.

Even if you do (which is useless btw) they would then both rank in a top 10 because noway are there enough bowlers throughout the history of the game better than Holding, according to watching his matches and listening to what others have to say about him.

I know you Indians dislike him so whatever.
 
Holding is behind Walsh, Ambrose, Marshall and Garner.

He would barely make it into the top 20-25 bracket yet alone top 10.
 
While the Holding hero-worshipping on PakPassion is understandable (yet comical), and there is no doubt that he is an all-time great, but calling him a top 10 bowler is a stretch.
 
In Test, among WI fast bowlers, Marshall is regarded as the best almost unanimously (almost, because Sir Gary would have picked his cousin David Holford in his squad, instead of Marshall for his all-round ability & leg-spin).

After him, in 4 decades, contemporaries put their chap as 2nd - Hall in 1950s & 60s, Roberts in 70s, Holding in 80s & Ambi in 90s. In that regard, he is definitely among top 5 WIN fast bowlers in any measures. His contemporary Croft left cricket half way through his career, while Garner was more famous for his ODI career (though his Test stats are phenomenal).

Mike Holding is definitely an ATG fast bowler, for his bowling skills (& speed), his action and his achievements over a decade for that fantastic WIN side, where being an automatic choice as fast bowler over a decade itself was some achievement. Among WIN greats, I probably'll put him 2nd only after Marshall, along with Roberts and slightly ahead of Ambi.

His cricket knowledge & expertise are outstanding, but a bit lousy sometimes - can't avoid politically incorrect words. That black arm-band comment was unprofessional and disrespectful to say politely.
 
In all time bowler list he would be in outside top 10 list.
Top 5 - Marshall , Mcgrath , Ambrose , Hadlee and Steyn.
6- 10 - Donald , Akram , Truman , Imran and Lillee.
11-13 - Garner , Walsh and Waqar.
 
Not an ATG but certainly a great of his era. What an effortless repeatable action. Can watch him bowl over and over again. Atleast on YouTube lol.

As a Caribbean bowler though I'd put him

1. Marshall
2.Amby
3. Garner
4.Roberts
5. Walsh
6. Holding
7. Bishop

I would still rate Roberts and Holding above Garner.Garner was outstanding being arguably the most accurate of all paceman but basically plagued the role of the stock bower.He did not posess the speed or variations of Holding and Roberts or surpassed them at their best.The craft of Roberts and the speed through the air of Holding was more potent threat to batmen than the accuracy and bounce of Garner.Most great batsmen found Roberts the hardest to face while many experts ranked Holding as the finest because of his perfect action.Walsh was classical workhorse but to me less skilled than Holding or effective at his best.To top order batsmen Roberts and Holding were a marginally greater threat than Garner or Walsh.
 
Marshall
Ambrose
Garner
Holding/ Roberts(hard to seperate)
Walsh
Bishop

I would still rate Roberts and Holding above Garner.Garner was outstanding being arguably the most accurate of all paceman but basically plagued the role of the stock bower.He did not posess the speed or variations of Holding and Roberts or surpassed them at their best.The craft of Roberts and the speed through the air of Holding was more potent threat to batmen than the accuracy and bounce of Garner.Most great batsmen found Roberts the hardest to face while many experts ranked Holding as the finest because of his perfect action.

Otherwise good ranking.In terms of pure all-round skill perhaps Roberts and holding ahead of even Ambrose who was not at his best on flat or slow tracks and did not have as much of a variety.Many great batsmen felt Andy was the hardest to face like Gavaskar or the Chappell brothers and Lille rated him the most complete paceman of them all.Imran Khan ranked Holding as the best he ever saw.Arguably at his besrt Holding was at no 1.
 
In Test, among WI fast bowlers, Marshall is regarded as the best almost unanimously (almost, because Sir Gary would have picked his cousin David Holford in his squad, instead of Marshall for his all-round ability & leg-spin).

After him, in 4 decades, contemporaries put their chap as 2nd - Hall in 1950s & 60s, Roberts in 70s, Holding in 80s & Ambi in 90s. In that regard, he is definitely among top 5 WIN fast bowlers in any measures. His contemporary Croft left cricket half way through his career, while Garner was more famous for his ODI career (though his Test stats are phenomenal).

Mike Holding is definitely an ATG fast bowler, for his bowling skills (& speed), his action and his achievements over a decade for that fantastic WIN side, where being an automatic choice as fast bowler over a decade itself was some achievement. Among WIN greats, I probably'll put him 2nd only after Marshall, along with Roberts and slightly ahead of Ambi.

His cricket knowledge & expertise are outstanding, but a bit lousy sometimes - can't avoid politically incorrect words. That black arm-band comment was unprofessional and disrespectful to say politely.

At his best arguably at the Top.The best spell and over in the history of the game bowled By Miky.No pace ma ever had as perfcet and action or conjured up as much consistent speed through the air.More natural skill than any of them.
 
Holding is behind Walsh, Ambrose, Marshall and Garner.

He would barely make it into the top 20-25 bracket yet alone top 10.

It is not all bout figures.Morally Holding was close to the top 5 let alone top 10 and at his best was right up there with the very best .No bowler had as perfect an action or as consistent speed through the air.Read what Imran Khan said about him.Many experts included Holding in their all-time xi who for sheer skill like Andy Roberts surpassed the likes of even Imran,Donald and Ambrose.
 
Such threads eventually become a waste with hardly any objective analysis as biases take over. Most indians wud try to put holding down to 25 or 35 or 45, while Pakistanis at the moment would like to project holding as the best ever was and the best ever will be. We all know truth lies somewhere in between.
 
I would still rate Roberts and Holding above Garner.Garner was outstanding being arguably the most accurate of all paceman but basically plagued the role of the stock bower.He did not posess the speed or variations of Holding and Roberts or surpassed them at their best.The craft of Roberts and the speed through the air of Holding was more potent threat to batmen than the accuracy and bounce of Garner.Most great batsmen found Roberts the hardest to face while many experts ranked Holding as the finest because of his perfect action.Walsh was classical workhorse but to me less skilled than Holding or effective at his best.To top order batsmen Roberts and Holding were a marginally greater threat than Garner or Walsh.


I think garner is massively underrated as a test bowler. He was tall ,strong and very athletic for his height and of course those long levers. Got extreme bounce, had a mean yorker and was probably the most difficult bowler to hit. In fact, boycott is on record saying that nobody could hit him in county, including Viv. Also I don't understand why he considered more of an ODI bowler . His test stats are astounding . He may not have run through lineups often but he took around 4.5 wickets a match at less than 21. Those are extremely impressive numbers. Maybe because he was the quietest of the lot and did not have an aggressive demeanour like a holding,Marshall or Roberts and did not behave like a typical fast bowler is probably why he isn't rated as high as others imo. Just speculation on my part though. They all retired before I was born.
 
It is not all bout figures.Morally Holding was close to the top 5 let alone top 10 and at his best was right up there with the very best .No bowler had as perfect an action or as consistent speed through the air.Read what Imran Khan said about him.Many experts included Holding in their all-time xi who for sheer skill like Andy Roberts surpassed the likes of even Imran,Donald and Ambrose.

Can you list a few ATXI which include Holding?
 
I think garner is massively underrated as a test bowler. He was tall ,strong and very athletic for his height and of course those long levers. Got extreme bounce, had a mean yorker and was probably the most difficult bowler to hit. In fact, boycott is on record saying that nobody could hit him in county, including Viv. Also I don't understand why he considered more of an ODI bowler . His test stats are astounding . He may not have run through lineups often but he took around 4.5 wickets a match at less than 21. Those are extremely impressive numbers. Maybe because he was the quietest of the lot and did not have an aggressive demeanour like a holding,Marshall or Roberts and did not behave like a typical fast bowler is probably why he isn't rated as high as others imo. Just speculation on my part though. They all retired before I was born.

JG was outstanding fast medium bowler - probably the best ever support bowler; but he wasn’t the strike pacer you would like to open with (he did share the new ball with Marshall).

He was extremely economical and mean - won’t give too many boundary balls. But, two factors goes against him against Marshall, Holding & Roberts. He had like 7/8 Five wicket hauls in around 60 Tests with no 10for, and once I calculated, around 45% of his wickets (~120) are from bottom 5/6 batsmen.

He had 18 Four wicket innings against 7 Five for - that ratio is significantly low for most fast bowling greats. In fact most of them had more 5fors than 4fors - the main reason is, on rhythm, great pacers should run through a batting line up.

These stats are complimentary actually. What often happened is that Marshall & Holding did the job of bringing a side 4/5 down, then Garner will clean the bottom half cheap - and he hardly had enough wickets left for a 5 for, often ended with 3/4 wickets. 259 wickets in 58 Test (around 4.5/Test), is an excellent return - outstanding if you consider that wickets were shared by 4 giants of the game and at an average below 21; but often JG ended up picking couple of wickets here and there, rather winning a Test of his own.

An outstanding fast bowler without any doubt, but his similar type Ambi was far more menacing - which makes Ambi a better strike bowler. Marshall, Holding & Roberts were just bit ahead - may be they were aesthetically pleasing as well; 3 of the best ever fast bowling run up & action.

A complete different story for ODI though.
 
JG was outstanding fast medium bowler - probably the best ever support bowler; but he wasn’t the strike pacer you would like to open with (he did share the new ball with Marshall).

He was extremely economical and mean - won’t give too many boundary balls. But, two factors goes against him against Marshall, Holding & Roberts. He had like 7/8 Five wicket hauls in around 60 Tests with no 10for, and once I calculated, around 45% of his wickets (~120) are from bottom 5/6 batsmen.

He had 18 Four wicket innings against 7 Five for - that ratio is significantly low for most fast bowling greats. In fact most of them had more 5fors than 4fors - the main reason is, on rhythm, great pacers should run through a batting line up.

These stats are complimentary actually. What often happened is that Marshall & Holding did the job of bringing a side 4/5 down, then Garner will clean the bottom half cheap - and he hardly had enough wickets left for a 5 for, often ended with 3/4 wickets. 259 wickets in 58 Test (around 4.5/Test), is an excellent return - outstanding if you consider that wickets were shared by 4 giants of the game and at an average below 21; but often JG ended up picking couple of wickets here and there, rather winning a Test of his own.

An outstanding fast bowler without any doubt, but his similar type Ambi was far more menacing - which makes Ambi a better strike bowler. Marshall, Holding & Roberts were just bit ahead - may be they were aesthetically pleasing as well; 3 of the best ever fast bowling run up & action.

A complete different story for ODI though.

Thanks for the detailed explanation bro. That was fantastic. Of course I have only seen these bowlers on YT and I was judging based on that. :).
 
Thanks for the detailed explanation bro. That was fantastic. Of course I have only seen these bowlers on YT and I was judging based on that. :).

Garner started off as FM but by 1983 had speeded up, and so got the new ball ahead of Holding who had lost a bit of pace.
 
Thanks for the detailed explanation bro. That was fantastic. Of course I have only seen these bowlers on YT and I was judging based on that. :).

Must also be mentioned that Garner never bowled in India like Roberts or Holding and thus never proved himself on flat decks.
 
Garner started off as FM but by 1983 had speeded up, and so got the new ball ahead of Holding who had lost a bit of pace.

In 1984 to me the best fast bowler in the world,even ahead of Hadlee.At his best in England in 1980.Never proved himself on the subcontinent like Holding or Roberts.Overshadowed by Croft in Australia in 1979-80 and at home g England in 1981.
 
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION].

Eagerly awaiting a youtube clip showing that the Whispering Death was bowling at 115 km per hour instead of 140 to 145.
 
Holding is amongst the all-time greats.

Beautiful action, fast and aggressive.

What a brilliant bowler he was, better than anything there is at the moment.
 
I would still rate Roberts and Holding above Garner.Garner was outstanding being arguably the most accurate of all paceman but basically plagued the role of the stock bower.He did not posess the speed or variations of Holding and Roberts or surpassed them at their best.The craft of Roberts and the speed through the air of Holding was more potent threat to batmen than the accuracy and bounce of Garner.Most great batsmen found Roberts the hardest to face while many experts ranked Holding as the finest because of his perfect action.

Otherwise good ranking.In terms of pure all-round skill perhaps Roberts and holding ahead of even Ambrose who was not at his best on flat or slow tracks and did not have as much of a variety.Many great batsmen felt Andy was the hardest to face like Gavaskar or the Chappell brothers and Lille rated him the most complete paceman of them all.Imran Khan ranked Holding as the best he ever saw.Arguably at his besrt Holding was at no 1.

Fair enough. What will be your ranking of top 7-8 WI bowlers of all-time??
 
Back
Top