Which Aussie Bowling Attack Was Better?

[gunner]

Like the title says,
The one in 2004 on the one in the recent 5-0 ashes?
some people get their times mixed up and think gilelspie and kaspa werent good then but their decline actually started in 2005 ashes.

2004-
Mcgrath
Gillespie
Kasprowicz
Warne

2006-
Mcgrath
Lee
Clark
Warne

In 2004 the Mcgrath, Gillespie and Kaspa combination was at its best and had been for a couple of years.
It was actually in mid 2005 when Gillespies and Kaspa's decline started.

 

[Richard]

More early 2005 that the decline of Gillespie and Kasprowicz started.

Yes, the 2004 attack was clearly supior IMO. No real doubt about it.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Richard, the 2004 attack was not clearly superior to Ashes 06. It's not as though McGrath or Warne had declined dramatically between these periods. Clark was bowling every bit as good as I've seen Gillespie bowl. I would take a 2004 Kasprowicz over Lee any day of the week however.

 

[GIMH]

2004, but just. I'd have Clark bowling like he did in the Ashes before I would choose Kaspa/Gillespie 04, but I'd have them over Lee I guess. Not much between them for me.

 

[Richard]

Richard, the 2004 attack was not clearly superior to Ashes 06. It's not as though McGrath or Warne had declined dramatically between these periods. Clark was bowling every bit as good as I have ever seen him bowl. I would take a 2004 Kasprowicz over Lee any day of the week however.

The presence of Lee in one attack instantly puts it out of the league of the other.

 

[GIMH]

Hehe, I thought that would be your response

 

[Pup Clarke]

Why?.

 

[Richard]

Because my thoughts on Lee are well-documented.

 

[Pup Clarke]

What?. Let me guess...economy rate too high, strike rate too high, poor accuracy. Yes Richard he was all of these things pre Ashes 2005 tbh. After that series he's been a pretty good test match bowler with accecptable figures.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Kasprowicz of that time was bowling really well, and Gillespie wasn't too bad.

 

[Richard]

What?. Let me guess...economy rate too high, strike rate too high, poor accuracy. Yes Richard he was all of these things pre Ashes 2005 tbh. After that series he's been a pretty good test match bowler with accecptable figures.

Not really. He's bowled reasonably in a couple of series (West Indies and South Africa away on very seam-friendly pitches). He was massively, massively flattered by his figures in the second half of The Ashes.

 

[Pup Clarke]

He didn't bowl "reasonably" in those two series. If you actually probably watched the series you will appreciate that he bowled very, very well for the majority of that time. I seem to remember him bowling well in a home series against SA at the beginning of 2006 as well...

 

[Richard]

And I seem to remember him not doing. As I say - he bowled no more than reasonably in those 2 series in question. Clark was clearly massively better in SA and showed just what sort of figures you could get on those pitches, an average of 22 was nothing more than reasonable, and against West Indies, well... as we've seen, even Stephen Harmison and Liam Plunkett can get the odd haul against them.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Lee's record vs SA December 05/ Febuary 06

O M R W Average Economy
133 29 421 13 32.3 3.17

You might have a point. Seem to remember him bowling much better than those stats suggest tbh...

 

[iamdavid]

If I had to choose between these two I'd take the ' 04 attack, the 2006-07 bunch did the job but they were efficient rather than spectacular, in '04 McGrath was a couple of years younger and Gillespie/Kasprowics were still firing. All four front line bowlers were putting in dominant performances and demanded selection.

Although tbh I'd probably prefer the attack of December 2000-July2001 to either of the above, as this is when Gillespie was right at his peak bowling in the mid 140's regularly and back when Lee averaged 17 in test cricket.
Gillespie's inspirational efforts in India despite the loss, Warne's vintage 2001 ashes performance, Lee's terrorising the West Indians in the first 2 tests of that whitewashed series...and McGraths brilliant performances throughout this period...Plus matchwinning contributions from those on the sidelines like Stuart MacGill, Andy Bichel and Collin Miller who all took 5 wicket hauls during this period yet werent in the best team. I dont think an Australian attack has ever been more dominant.

 

[R_D]

2004 for me as well. Gillespie was in good form and Kasper wasn't half bad either/

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I'd have the 2004 attack, and by a decent margin, too. Clark, despite his superior record at this stage, really is not a vastly superior bowler to Kasprowicz IMO, and Gillespie is quite obviously better than Lee by a fair amount. Then there's the fact that McGrath was at his best in 2004, where he was at slightly (emphasis on the slightly here) reduced capacity in 2007.

 

[Richard]

Although tbh I'd probably prefer the attack of December 2000-July2001 to either of the above, as this is when Gillespie was right at his peak bowling in the mid 140's regularly and back when Lee averaged 17 in test cricket.
Gillespie's inspirational efforts in India despite the loss, Warne's vintage 2001 ashes performance, Lee's terrorising the West Indians in the first 2 tests of that whitewashed series...and McGraths brilliant performances throughout this period...Plus matchwinning contributions from those on the sidelines like Stuart MacGill, Andy Bichel and Collin Miller who all took 5 wicket hauls during this period yet werent in the best team. I dont think an Australian attack has ever been more dominant.

Nice try, but said time didn't actually coincide with Warne being fit and Lee being in the swing as it were.

Gillespie, of course, missed 1999\2000 with injury - Warne had his finger operated on and missed the WI series of 2000\01, and of course Lee had his elbow operated on midway through said WI series.

I don't think there was ever a time before The Ashes 2001 when those 4 all played together, and by that time Lee was a serious weak-link.

 

[andmark]

5-0 Ashes

 

[honestbharani]

If I had to choose between these two I'd take the ' 04 attack, the 2006-07 bunch did the job but they were efficient rather than spectacular, in '04 McGrath was a couple of years younger and Gillespie/Kasprowics were still firing. All four front line bowlers were putting in dominant performances and demanded selection.

Although tbh I'd probably prefer the attack of December 2000-July2001 to either of the above, as this is when Gillespie was right at his peak bowling in the mid 140's regularly and back when Lee averaged 17 in test cricket.
Gillespie's inspirational efforts in India despite the loss, Warne's vintage 2001 ashes performance, Lee's terrorising the West Indians in the first 2 tests of that whitewashed series...and McGraths brilliant performances throughout this period...Plus matchwinning contributions from those on the sidelines like Stuart MacGill, Andy Bichel and Collin Miller who all took 5 wicket hauls during this period yet werent in the best team. I dont think an Australian attack has ever been more dominant.

yeah, too much credit is held back simply because they lost to India. PPl forget it took a colossal innings and one of the best ever spin bowling displays in a single series for Australia to lose that series and even then they came decently close to winning the series, inspite of all their short comings in those conditions.