Best Bowling Attack

[Perm]

Confused TBH. Dont quite see why Pak would be considered as having a good attack.

I assume he's talking about ODI cricket, in which case Asif, Shoaib, Gul, Afridi and Hafeez is a pretty good attack.

 

[The Sean]

Brett Lee better than Bond? Pull the other one. Malinga and Asif are both far better than Lee for a start. never mind Bond.

I certainly don't think Malinga can yet be called better than Lee - Asif might be, I'd need to see a little more of him at Test level, but he's been mightily impressive. I'd have Bond ahead of Lee, and Ntini ahead of all of them.

 

[The Sean]

riiiiight...next down at 15? Oh thats right you cant read your own fricking stats.

Stuart Clark, number 7.

But come on those stats are useless. I would take Brett Lee in my team over nearly all those bowlers.

Kyle Mills? Hahahaha joke. Lets put this in perspective.

This chart tells people that Kyle Mills is a better bowler than Shane Bond.

Dont worry about all the other better bowlers, but i will look at purely the NZ team.

Shane Bond is their best bowler in years, he has a guaranteed spot in their team.

Anyway I cannot see one fast bowler on that list who is better than Brett Lee. Shane Bond maybe on a good day, but i mean Ntini? Malinga?

Both of them have flawed as hell actions, Ntini almost falls over when he bowls, and Malinga has a slingy action and bowls relatively slow.

Any team would take Hoggard in their team over most of them, oh why isnt he on the list? Oh thats right, noone listens to stats.

Go look up the "official" ICC greatest fast bowlers in history based on STATS and POINTS.

Sure, Lillee is a shoe in at number 1 right? No, hes not even in the top 15.


Another major flaw with stats. Sure Muraly is a good bowler, but he goes around to bangladesh and all those 2nd rate cricketing countries and gets a bag full.

Basically, stats are completely worthless in picking the best bowlers in the world. So many flawed ways to do it. Michael Clarke had the best average in test cricket history for a while cause he demolished India.

You could have your best bowlers bowling at the best batsman, then some part timers cleaning up the tail and getting higher wicket tallys on the scoresheet. Does that mean they bowled better? NO.

Mate I think you've got some fair points but you're doing yourself no favours with all the rage and the black and white absolutes you cling to. Unless that's the persona you're aiming for?

And yes - Murali plays a lot of Tests against second rate opposition and usually takes a bagful.

But you know what? He also plays a lot of Tests against first rate opposition. And he usually takes a bagful.

 

[Matt79]

Brett Lee better than Bond? Pull the other one. Malinga and Asif are both far better than Lee for a start. never mind Bond.

Who would you rather have on your team though? Bond is certainly a superior bowler when he's fit, but you'd have to seriously consider whether you'd be better having Lee in your team 80-90% of the time or Bond 50%. Bond in Test cricket remains a case of demonstrated enormous potential but that potential sadly being somewhat unrealised. This isn't helped by the lack of Test cricket NZ play

EDIT: directed at NZ administration, not you.

 

[Prince EWS]

Confused TBH. Dont quite see why Pak would be considered as having a good attack.

Theoretically they do at full strength. They just never all seem to play together.

 

[pup11]

When variety is concerned i think the Australian attack is still right up there, without Warne and Pidge Australian attack doesn't look that lethal but still they are more than dangerous, Lee, Tait, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, MacGill and Clark are all different types bowlers who provide tremendous depth and variety to the Aussie attack, and then there is Watto too who can keep one end tight (hopefully)!
Indian and Pakistani bowling attacks are pretty close to the Aussie attack too, India has likes of RP, Zaheer, Sreesanth, Pathan and Kumble who can do the job on most tracks around the world and Pakistan form a potent attack with Asif, Gul, Tanvir (i think this lad has got potential) and Kaneria backed by Afridi.
Sri lanka is another team which has got potentially a very fiery attack with Malinga, Fernando, Vass and the great Murali in their arsenal, and somebody like Jayasuriya can always make a breakthrough here and there.
South African attack looks pretty impressive too with Pollock, Ntini, Nel, Styen, M.Morkel and Kallis the problem with them is that they can be really menacing on a fast and bouncy track but the moment they are put on a slowish, lowish sub-continental track their attack starts to look really ordinary.
As far as England are concerned, i don't know what to say about them, two years ago i would have said that they are the best bowling attack in the world but now things are different, all their bowlers are most of the times on the injury list which has kept on adding extra pressure and workload on Freddie due to which his own fitness has got effected.
There is nothing much to say about the New Zealand attack which revolves basically around Bond and Vettori.
So this is my list of top 5 bowling attacks (in test cricket) :-
1.Australia
2.India
3.Pakistan
4.South Africa
5.Sri Lanka

 

[Matt79]

Possibly a bit premature to be labelling the Indian pace attack as superior to South Africa and Pakistan.

 

[pup11]

No Matt, i am not rating the Indian team on the basis of T20 or anything, i am rating them because of their performances in test series away from home and at home in the last 2 years.
As i said South African attack on bouncy and fast pitches is on par with any attack in the world but on sub-continental tracks they can look really poor and ordinary.
I don't think there is much to choose between the Pakistan and Indian bowling attacks especially with Akthar out of the equation, but i have rated India ahead of Pakistan on their current bowling form.

 

[Matt79]

Fair enough - I wasn't suggesting you were basing it on the 20/20 - I try to pretend it doesn't exist as much as possible anyway.

I'm sure I've seen less of India in that time than you, but I would have thought that players like Zaheer, Pathan and Sreesanth were a little too up and down to rate them ahead of Pollock, Ntini, etc. Although I know part of your comments were based on the greater variety in the Indian attack and Kumble's presence.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In answer to the original question, I think it's too early to say.

Last year it was Australia by a fairly clear margin IMO, as shown in the Ashes. You can't really suggest that Australia are the best test attack in the world right now though, because only 2 of the 4 who will play this summer were in the last test side, and we don't even know who McGrath's replacement will be yet, or how MacGill will go in test cricket given he hasn't played in that form for some time, or who the 5th bowling option will be, if any.

In terms of the others, Pakistan haven't fielded a fully fit test attack for some time so can't really be judged, India are rapidly improving and will get a fair test this summer, and England never have the same attack from one series to the next.

Among the rest, I'd rate South Africa on top, then Sri Lanka, with New Zealand and the West Indies currently behind all the others mentioned, assuming New Zealand actually still play test cricket. Australia and Pakistan both have the potential to be alongside South Africa once we get a better look at them, and if Zaheer continues his rebirth and gets some quality support India could have a good test attack for the first time in a while too, though it'll probably still be behind South Africa, Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

We've had a year dominated by ODIs with very little test cricket played, and the test landscape is a bit hard to judge right now because of that and the retirements from the top side, IMO.

 

[pup11]

Faaip, mate in a way you are trying to say this wasn't the best time to start a thread with a debate like this, because almost every top team is going through a transition period.

 

[Richard]

Teams are almost always going through bloody "transition" periods. Cricket is ever-changing, sadly.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, a few teams are. I think South Africa, England, New Zealand and Sri Lanka are pretty stable, injuries aside, but Australia, Pakistan and India are certainly changing a lot at the moment, for different reasons. In terms of bowling, that is.

 

[Goughy]

I assume he's talking about ODI cricket, in which case Asif, Shoaib, Gul, Afridi and Hafeez is a pretty good attack.

Well if its ODIs then Shoaib has barely played for nearly 2 years. Asif, Hafeez and Afridi all average well over 30 with the ball. That leaves Gul as a good, reliable front line bowler at ODIs. Now Asif may improve his average but he is still ATM far from a proven ODI player.

That attack (if it ever gets on the field together, I have no idea if they have ever bowled as a unit in history) isnt really going to terrify to many teams.

Compare that with SA who have eg Pollock, Nel, Hall, Ntini as experienced players that all average well under 30 with the ball and young players coming through that also early in their careers average under 30 such as Morkel and Steyn.

SAs attack is far deeper and more talented than Pakistans.

 

[Rajeev]

Voted for Canada because i hope this selective and dire thread which we've seen 192971291 times before dies a horrible death. my 2 cents.

You are mocking Canadians, canucks can spin it on ice.

But again, the thread doesn't make sense anyways

 

[neville cardus]

That, Rajeev, is the finest avatar that I've yet seen on this forum.

 

[Pup Clarke]

 

[Richard]

Well, a few teams are. I think South Africa, England, New Zealand and Sri Lanka are pretty stable, injuries aside, but Australia, Pakistan and India are certainly changing a lot at the moment, for different reasons. In terms of bowling, that is.

England have never, ever been "stable" for more than a few Tests at a time, or a couple of series at the absolute best.

New Zealand don't even play, so they can't really be stable.

 

[Richard]

You are mocking Canadians, canucks can spin it on ice.

Yeah, but... you met C_C.

 

[Flem274*]

How come Aus is winning when their probable test attack will be Lee, Tait, Clark, Watson and McGill? I'd be a tad concerned sending that attack out to bowl actualy.

I like the Sri Lanka attack, Malinga, Vaas and Murali alone are so deadly that you hardly need the support from the likes of Fernando and Jayasuria.

Englands is looking OK. Harmison, Hoggard, Sidebottom, Flintoff and Panesar looks quite dangerous apart from Harmison.

Don't realy know much about SA bowling

NZ needs to change the line up of Bond, Martin, Franklin, Oram and Vettori IMO. Make it Bond, Mills/O'Brien, Franklin, Gillespie/Patel, Vettori.

I know next to nothing about India, Pakistan and West Indies bowling so I can't really comment.