Originally Posted by Richard
People were saying that about MSP barely a couple of years ago. I don't doubt Swann is a bit better than Giles and certainly far, far more reliable than Tufnell (I'd still imagine Tufnell's best bowling on the exceptionally rare occasion he produced it is better than anything Swann can produce but he's got time to show otherwise yet) but I seriously dispute he's significantly if at all better Croft and even the county-spectator's favourite Such. He is currently better than MSP but I do still think MSP could potentially outdo him in the long-run, though that's looking less likely as time goes on.
I've never yet been truly familiar with how good or otherwise the Embureys and Edmundses were (obviously they didn't have the uncovered wickets advantage that their predecessors Illingworth and Underwood enjoyed for the first part of their careers) so I'll gladly not currently try to compare there, but I realise you may be calling Swann the best since Emburey so it may not be important anyway.
Yes I did have E&E in mind actually. Although Croft and Such were good bowlers too, and certainly of comparable quality to Swann.
Either way, Swann has been a relevation at Test level and the contrast with Panesar (not least re his all-round game) is so stark it's not funny.