• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best Bowling-line up that played togather

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
i agree, but i'm saying that there is no use picking four, or even two or three, of the same type of mediums. if you look at that south african attack, guys like klusener and elworthy and pollock (although pollock was of higher class) are similar bowlers. so when there is a bowling change, batsman are already in a pattern of playing these same sort of guys, and especially when one of less class comes on (and even of the same) they find it a lot easier to play than if for example a swing bowler, or a tall rangy bouncy bowler comes on, instead of another skiddy medium pacer.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
#1 : Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft
#2 : Imran, Wasim,Waqar and Qadir
#3 : Marshall, Bishop,Ambrose and Walsh
#4 : Lindwall,Miller,O'Reiley and Johnston
#5 : Wasim,Waqar,Saqlain and Akhtar
How ofen did Imran, Wasim, Waqar & Qadir all play? Apologies for being too lazy to check, but I'm guessing that Imran would have been well past his peak by then.

Thinking about it, a Pakistan attack of Wasim, Waqar, Mushtaq and Saqlain must have appeared at some stage.
 

C_C

International Captain
from 89-92 or so or about a dozen or so tests....and Imran bowled sparingly near the end but by no means was he done....his stats prove that.

Actually strike Miller-O'Reiley-Lindwall-Johnston from that list....O'Reiley never playd with them.....
slot in McGrath-Gillespie-Warne-Fleming under Wasim,Waqar,Saqlain and Akhtar
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
slot in McGrath-Gillespie-Warne-Fleming under Wasim,Waqar,Saqlain and Akhtar
Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, Akhtar is another team which never really played with all the players at their best. Waqar was WELL past his best by the time Akhtar was established in the team, so much so that he was in fact quite an average bowler. Wasim was still good, but not as good as he used to be.

And, Mcgrath/Gillespie/Warne/Fleming only played together in ONE test, the first against India in 2000 when Fleming took 1/99 for the match and was dropped in the next test for Brett Lee to make his test debut, and Warne was in awful form and Gillespie was returning from injury. I don't see how they qualify.

The best bowling lineups obviouslu have all the players at their best or close to it, and I'd say the current McGrath/Gillespie/Warne/Kasprowicz lineup would have to go fairly close in that regard. McGrath's best periods were 98-2001 and now, and in 98-2001 Warne was at the lowest point of his career with injury and form problems. He didn't really come back until after the 2001 Indian tour. Gillespie has streadily improved as a bowler since his injury in 99 took him out for a while, and Kasprowicz is definately at the best point in his career.

A lot of the others suggested here (including by myself) also had players not at their best, eg Davidson/Lindwall/Benaud. A great team, but Davidson was young and Lindwall was at the end of his career, so not realistically a top 5 lineup. Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir was great, but Imran was far from his most lethal. Same with Holding/Roberts/Garner/Marshall.

I'd say your number one choice is a pretty good one though. My top five would probably be:

1: Holding/Roberts/Garner/Croft
2: Trueman/Bedser/Bailey/Lock/Laker
3: McGrath/Gillespie/Kasprowicz/Warne
4: Marshall/Ambrose/Bishop/Walsh
5: This one is hard. Probably Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir, even if Imran was far from his best.

Three and four are probably interchangable. I rated Marshall and co a bit lower because their peaks didn't really co-incide. Ambrose and Bishop were close to their best then and Marshall was still great, but Walsh wasn't the bowler he would later become. I think the Australian lineup currently could get even better if Lee returns and regains his 2000 period form. We'll see.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
vic_orthdox said:
i agree that in principle, it doesnt matter how many pace bowlers you have. however, first of all - variety helps, and that includes having a spinner. and in the case of having all pace bowlers, you need different type of pace bowlers - something that i think this current aus pace attack has and what i'm told that the wi pace attack of the 70s and 80s had - and not necessarily something that south african attack had.
The South African attack had all sorts:
Donald, wide of the crease, spearing the ball in one ball, darting it away the next, with a vicious Bouncer. And at a much, much higher pace than the rest.
Pollock, as close to the stumps as you can get, not as quick as Donald, but rarely moving from his one spot, and nipping it both ways when the pitch helped. And with a deadly quicker-ball Bouncer which, due to being so close to the stumps, many batsmen find impossible to Hook comfortably.
Kallis, with his both-ways swing, capable of bowling that "come-and-get-me" line and length when neccessary, but also capable of banging it in.
Klusener, with his almost stupifyingly wide angle of delivery, sometimes bowling all-sorts, sometimes bowling unplayable away-swingers, but the next fastest after Donald.
De Villiers, well, I don't really know what he bowled, I never saw him.
McMillan, never really saw him bowl, either.
Cronje, the impossibly underrated bowler - if ever you needed an end tied-down, there was a good chance he was your man. And he could swing the ball, too. He was also about 7 or 8 mph slower than Kallis and Pollock, in the mid-70s.
Then, if you really wanted variety, you always had Frog-In-A-Blender waiting in the wings.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
And, Mcgrath/Gillespie/Warne/Fleming only played together in ONE test, the first against India in 2000 when Fleming took 1/99 for the match and was dropped in the next test for Brett Lee to make his test debut, and Warne was in awful form and Gillespie was returning from injury. I don't see how they qualify.
I think you might be mixing-up things here... Lee made his debut in the 1999\2000 series, in which Fleming played all 3 games... took 8 for 100 in The First Test, too. Lee made his debut after Kasprowicz was dropped after 17-85-0 (Warne got 6 for 113) in the same game as Fleming's 8-100...
Fleming's Test with Gillespie, McGrath and Warne was The First Test in Mumbai the following season... in which he did indeed take 1 for 99 and get dropped for the next game... but for Kasprowicz again, not Lee (who was recovering from the surgery after which he has never been the same).
 

C_C

International Captain
Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, Akhtar is another team which never really played with all the players at their best.
True but i considered the situation based on how good they were during their playing time....they dont have to have most bowlers at their peak to beat out another lineup...
pretty sure that Imran well past his best is light years ahead of the likes of Kasprowicz,Lee,Zaheer Khan, Pathan(as he is now), etc.
So at his best or not, the PAK attack of Imran,Wasim,Qadir and Waqar was definately better than McGrath Gillespie Warne and Kaspa.....
OTOH, you bring up a very valid order of Trueman,Bailey,Lock and Laker but i wouldnt consider them on the same page as Marshall-Ambrose-Bishop and Walsh, let alone the others...yes, Laker and Trueman were damn fine but Bailey and Lock were nothing more than just decent.....neither would have much hope of making the first XI of the WI team from the 70s till mid 90s so i dont see how that unit is superior.

Richard, you are trying hard and the RSA attack in the 90s was a good one....but they were nowhere close to being the best...Donald-Pollock-Fanie were really excellent but the 4th/5th bowler is woefully short.
And to answer your previous questions, no, i rate the RSA attack from the 70s and 80s highly but they were unproven at test level and therefore they dont have any business being considered.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
pretty sure that Imran well past his best is light years ahead of the likes of Kasprowicz,Lee,Zaheer Khan, Pathan(as he is now), etc.
Zaheer sure, and Lee and Pathan based on what we have seen so far of course, but Kasprowicz? I don't think so. Kasper is a world class bowler and I'd rather have him in my team than any bowler on the verge of retirement, regardless of who they were. Warne is also a better spinner than Qadir, and McGrath today is at least a match for one of Wasim or Waqar at their peak, and while Gillespie isn't as good he's not THAT much worse. So, I'd rate the current Australian lineup slightly ahead, as lethal as the Wasim/Waqar opening pair was, because of the backup which wasn't of the same class.

C_C said:
OTOH, you bring up a very valid order of Trueman,Bailey,Lock and Laker but i wouldnt consider them on the same page as Marshall-Ambrose-Bishop and Walsh, let alone the others...yes, Laker and Trueman were damn fine but Bailey and Lock were nothing more than just decent.....neither would have much hope of making the first XI of the WI team from the 70s till mid 90s so i dont see how that unit is superior.
You forget Bedser, who was another all-time great, who Bradman called the toughest bowler he had ever faced. Bailey wasn't of the same class but he was an all-rounder, and Bedser/Trueman is one of the all-time great opening pairs. A top quality fast bowling pair, a good all-rounder and a pair of spinners or a spinner and a third seamer is about the perfect bowling lineup in my view, and England had that. Amazing to think that England also had Statham and Tyson playing around then - truly awesome bowling stocks.

And, how about this for the greatest pair of bowling lineups ever seen in a match? The only challenges I could think of offhand would be WI vs Pakistan in around 88-89 or West Indies vs Australia in the mid to late 70s.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0376

The batting lineups aren't half bad either, with Hasset, Morris, Miller and Harvey on one side and Hutton, Edrich, May, Compton and Graveney on the other.
 

C_C

International Captain
Zaheer sure, and Lee and Pathan based on what we have seen so far of course, but Kasprowicz? I don't think so. Kasper is a world class bowler and I'd rather have him in my team than any bowler on the verge of retirement, regardless of who they were.
I've seen Imran near the verge of his retirement and he was atleast as good as Dizzy is right now.... Unlike others, he didnt lose much potency in his bowling- he just bowled less as he was playing predominantly as a batsman since 1989.

Kaspa is worldclass right now but still overall ordinary, as worldclass really depends on your immediate competition right now.
Wasim, Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Imran,Marshall etc. were better bowlers than Kaspa even into their last innings IMO.

Warne is also a better spinner than Qadir, and McGrath today is at least a match for one of Wasim or Waqar at their peak, and while Gillespie isn't as good he's not THAT much worse. So, I'd rate the current Australian lineup slightly ahead, as lethal as the Wasim/Waqar opening pair was, because of the backup which wasn't of the same class.
I agree to an extent but i think McGrath is better than Akram but Waqar is significantly better than Dizzy (especially THAT Waqar- Waqar before 95 was a tour de force who makes almost every alltime great look like dibbly dobbly), Warne is better than Qadir but Imran a few leaps ahead of Kaspa.

You forget Bedser, who was another all-time great, who Bradman called the toughest bowler he had ever faced. Bailey wasn't of the same class but he was an all-rounder, and Bedser/Trueman is one of the all-time great opening pairs.
Bedser was an alltime great but more of a stock bowler than a strike bowler.... remarkably accurate but not very frequent wickets. But yes, that is a formidable bowling lineup but i would rate em behind the pakistani/WI attack- Waqar IMO was better than Bedser, Qadir and Lock are debatale,Imran a few streets ahead of Bailey and Trueman and Wasim is debatable...

That example you gave of two great bowling attacks going head-on might very well be one of the top 3 best cases...the only challenger i can think of that is man-for man better PAK vs WI in the late 80s with Wasim-Waqar-Qadir-Imran/Wasim-Imran-Qadir-Iqbal Qasim vs Marshall-Garner-Walsh-Bishop/ Marshall-Bishop-Ambrose-Walsh.

wouldnt slot AUS vs WI in late 70s in that category- Australia's backup to Lillee and Thommo wasnt in the same league IMO.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
I've seen Imran near the verge of his retirement and he was atleast as good as Dizzy is right now.... Unlike others, he didnt lose much potency in his bowling- he just bowled less as he was playing predominantly as a batsman since 1989.
Right, and I think the fact that when he played with Wasim/Waqar/Qadir he was playing more as a batsman hurts the overall potency of that bowling lineup compared to others across history with four or five full-time bowlers of class.

C_C said:
Kaspa is worldclass right now but still overall ordinary, as worldclass really depends on your immediate competition right now.
Wasim, Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Imran,Marshall etc. were better bowlers than Kaspa even into their last innings IMO.
They might be better than him overall, but not as much as you seem to think. Kasprowicz is not an all-time great but he is certainly a top class player worthy of a third seamer role in just about any Australian attack throughout history.

C_C said:
I agree to an extent but i think McGrath is better than Akram but Waqar is significantly better than Dizzy (especially THAT Waqar- Waqar before 95 was a tour de force who makes almost every alltime great look like dibbly dobbly)
Agreed. I wouldn't even bother mentioning Waqar in the late 90s and 2000s, which is why I don't rate the Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain attack very highly, he was quite an average bowler. Early in his career he was simply amazing.

C_C said:
Warne is better than Qadir but Imran a few leaps ahead of Kaspa.
He was still better at that point, but not enough to outweigh the Warne/Qadir gap and the fact that Kasprowicz is still at his peak, in my view.

C_C said:
Bedser was an alltime great but more of a stock bowler than a strike bowler.... remarkably accurate but not very frequent wickets. But yes, that is a formidable bowling lineup but i would rate em behind the pakistani/WI attack- Waqar IMO was better than Bedser, Qadir and Lock are debatale,Imran a few streets ahead of Bailey and Trueman and Wasim is debatable...
I'd say Trueman is definately better than Wasim. They were both greats, but Trueman for me is in the top 10 pacers since WW2 and Wasim isn't. Waqar better than Bedser is a big call, but at that stage you may be right. Lock and Qadir might be debatable, but Laker and Qadir isn't by a LONG way. And yes, Imran was much better than Bailey, but the English side had the advantage of a second spinner when needed.
 

C_C

International Captain
Right, and I think the fact that when he played with Wasim/Waqar/Qadir he was playing more as a batsman hurts the overall potency of that bowling lineup compared to others across history with four or five full-time bowlers of class.
mmm i dont think it hurts the PAK...not in most circumstances...ofcourse in a potential matchup with a great team,Imran would have to bowl atleast 15 overs and he did against the WI..its just that instead of opening, he came 1st change/after Qadir and the sheer potency of Akram-Waqar-Qadir usually had little left for the great Khan.

They might be better than him overall, but not as much as you seem to think. Kasprowicz is not an all-time great but he is certainly a top class player worthy of a third seamer role in just about any Australian attack throughout history.
I disagree... i think Kaspa is behind quiete a few OZ bowlers- he wouldnt get a look at the Lindwall-Miller-Davidson-Johnston lineup...and i rate bowlers like Lawson,Pascoe, Hogg, Alderman, McDermott, Hughes,Fleming,Reiffel,Yadley,Reid,Miller etc. to be better bowlers than Kaspa.

Agreed. I wouldn't even bother mentioning Waqar in the late 90s and 2000s, which is why I don't rate the Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain attack very highly, he was quite an average bowler. Early in his career he was simply amazing.
Well the reason i would rate that attack slightly ahead is because Waqar still was better than Kaspa, Wasim slightly behind McGrath, Shoaib-Gillespie debatable and Saqlain was a tour-de force before his doosra was figured out.

He was still better at that point, but not enough to outweigh the Warne/Qadir gap and the fact that Kasprowicz is still at his peak, in my view.
Disagree... i think Imran-Kaspa gap is considerably bigger than Warne-Qadir...Qadir near the end of his career was a very good bowler....

I'd say Trueman is definately better than Wasim. They were both greats, but Trueman for me is in the top 10 pacers since WW2 and Wasim isn't. Waqar better than Bedser is a big call, but at that stage you may be right. Lock and Qadir might be debatable, but Laker and Qadir isn't by a LONG way. And yes, Imran was much better than Bailey, but the English side had the advantage of a second spinner when needed.
I rate fiery fred as the best ENG pacer ever but i dont think he is better than Akram... for me its other way round- i would slot in Akram in top 10 pacers ever but not Trueman...who is probably in top 15. And i think Laker-Qadir is debatable as well.... remember that IND has been the bane of foreign spinners since 70s.... before that, they were good but simply another good team against spin....plus Laker's stats have a huge anomaly from one particular game...Qadir was a better spread and he operated in the era which is arguably the least spin-friendly: the 1980s.
Besides, i dont think Trueman-Bedser-Laker-Lock played much together.....if my memory serves me correctly, Bedser was gone very soon after Trueman came along and Laker's injuries conspired to keep him away from that lineup most of the time..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
Richard, you are trying hard and the RSA attack in the 90s was a good one....but they were nowhere close to being the best...Donald-Pollock-Fanie were really excellent but the 4th/5th bowler is woefully short.
I know - I didn't consider them amongst the best, I was just saying that I don't think the lack of a spinner means anything - nor could the bowlers be considered similar.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
You forget Bedser, who was another all-time great, who Bradman called the toughest bowler he had ever faced. Bailey wasn't of the same class but he was an all-rounder, and Bedser/Trueman is one of the all-time great opening pairs. A top quality fast bowling pair, a good all-rounder and a pair of spinners or a spinner and a third seamer is about the perfect bowling lineup in my view, and England had that. Amazing to think that England also had Statham and Tyson playing around then - truly awesome bowling stocks.
Bedser was dropped to keep Tyson in duing the series where Tyson swept all before him.
You can have Statham-Trueman-Tyson-Lock-Laker or Bedser-Statham-Trueman-Lock-Laker but not all 6.
 

Top