Yes sah, mi proud to be a West Indian!!

[Stonigut]

You are right about the dropped catches, however what I am saying is that the caliber of bowlers we have do not match the batsmen that we have and in no way shape or form do we even have the equal of even one of the following Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Marshall or Walsh, which is the weakest amongst those I am not sure but we currently don't have one today that can meet even 75% of any one of those above.

BTW here is my four, Holding, Garner, Croft and Marshall.

When we can get even two close to those above then we can really start winning some matches consistently, right now the game is about competing and being able to extend for a draw and hoping for some good conditions and good fielding to have a chance to win like the 1st test or the other team comes in with a dose of complacency, the bottom line is the batting has improved, the bowling have a long way to go and the fielding needs to improve significantly as well.

[Baddaz]

the weakest among those is croft... and btw, when you mention the four... you leaving out arguably the best of the group, andy roberts and including croft who was clearly the weakest is a cause for questioning your credibility on the cricket of that era... ... anyway just dis one time, yuh get a mulligan... nuh mek dem deh mistake again...

[Stonigut]

No Baddaz is you I mus question bout dis, look like sey yuh figget how it did guh.

Here are the stats.
1. Of the six mentioned only two have a better runs per wicket average ratio than Croft, that is Garner and Marshall both already on my side.
2. You mention Andy Rob, well him take 202 wickets when the competition to get a chance to get a wicket was not as intense as during Croft's time, even with that if Croft played the same number of tests Andy played he would have had at least 30-40 more wickets that Andy, as it stand Croft played in only 27 tests and Andy in 47, Croft had 125 wickets Andy had 202 per test Andy work out to 4.3 wickets per test and Croft almost 5 per test and Croft played in a far more competitive cauldron than Andy relative to his peers and for pretty much the whole time he played.
3. Croft step out of test cricket at his peak when he made the mistake to play in South Africa he was just 29 in him prime and by the time the ban was lifted he was 36, time had passed him by. He would have probably pulled in at least another 100-125 wickets by 35.
4. Croft has the best perfomance of any West Indian fast bowler in a test 8 for 29 vs Pakistan, so all them things combined say he should be in the four.
5. Oh one last thing Andys per wicket average was 25.61, Croft have him on this figure by 2.3 runs per wicket taken that is very significant.

Sorry bout that Bredrin.

[Stonigut]

One last comment, is funny how I pick the four with the lowest runs per wicket average without even looking at any stats, bwoy look like sey mi bettah than I thought BDL (Big dutty laugh)
Here are the figs
1. Marshall 20.94
2. Garner 20.97
3. Croft 23.3
4. Holding 23.68
5. Walsh 24.44
6. Roberts 25.61

BTW I had the distinct pleasure of being a part of the Calabar Sunlight team in 1981-2 when we reached the Sunlight and Tappin Cup final and lost both (bwoy that was tough) and in one regular Sunlight match we played excelsion with Walsh bowling from one end and Patterson from the other, well them man deh was a zing it, never see anything like it so I can just imagine what Croft, Marshall Garner was like, must have been pure fire!!

[Exile]

Patto was the fastest of the lot...got a bad deal by the selectors...at his peak...then crashed...a real good guy.

[Baddaz]

stonigut... i like da debate yah... anyways, runs per wicket by itself cyaan tell wi who iz de better bowler... still mi like how yuh drop stats fi back up yuh awgiment... except it nuh tell de whole story... of de 6 yuh name,

1. roberts
1. holding
3. marshall
4. garner
5. walsh
6. croft

a suh mi wudda put it... hard fi separate holding and roberts... on any given day eida one can be de best...