Best Top 7 ever?

[Richard]

Kaz is right about the SA attack of the Australian leg of that unofficial WC series though.

No, he's not, but I've said all that before, and am not going to do so again.

 

[_Ed_]

England in batting order - 1st test Nov 1928,

1. Hobbs (57.0)
2. Sutcliffe (60.7)
3. Mead (49.4)
4. Hammond (58.5)
5. Jardine (48.0)
6. Hendren (47.6)
7. Chapman (28.9)

WOW !

Extraordinary.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Over the year of 1993 (possibly some of early 1994) this must run it close:
Taylor
Slater
Boon
Mark Waugh
Border
Stephen Waugh
Healy

I'll let you work it out. But start from the New Zealand tour of 1992/93 and finish with Border's final game.

Certainly IMO containing better batsmen.

I'd have S. Waugh , Border and Slater in there instead of Jaques, and whoever else was in the respective slots in the opening post. Jaques isn't proven at opener yet, whereas Slats was very good for a number of years. Would throw Slats or Taylor in with Hayden. Would have Ponting over Boon. Waugh could take Clarke's spot as well as Border or S.Waugh. Would have Healy out. Gilchrist is a much better bat.

I know it's all from the one era though!

 

[Richard]

Ay, likewise a combined West Indes '76-'86 would probably go:
Fredericks
Greenidge
Kallicharran
Richards
Richardson
Lloyd
Dujon
Never played however.

 

[Son Of Coco]

CG Greenidge
DL Haynes
IVA Richards
HA Gomes
CH Lloyd
AL Logie
PJL Dujon

This one's not bad...the exception being Logie.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

B Hartland
B Pocock
D Murray
B Young
R Latham
C Harris
L Germon

I bet you can't beat these brave young men.

 

[Richard]

CG Greenidge
DL Haynes
IVA Richards
HA Gomes
CH Lloyd
AL Logie
PJL Dujon

This one's not bad...the exception being Logie.

This one was the best for my money:
Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Kallicharran
Rowe
Lloyd
Murray

I'm pretty sure this one played very briefly too. Only very, very, though.
Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Gomes
Lloyd
Dujon

 

[tooextracool]

Pollock and Kallis were in the form of their lives and Donald was on a slight decline.

And Hayden averaged...100+. Only a hate so red-hot can be so ignorant.

Pollock, along with virtually every other fast bowler from the period between 2000-2006, suffered from the fact that the conditions in Australia offer virtually nothing for swing and seam. Pollock, who had already lost a bit of pace, essentially relied on there being something either in the wicket or in the air, neither of which was available in said series. As such, he was cannon fodder for any of the numerous flat track bullies on the Australian side. As i have said before, line and length without penetration is very rarely going to get quality players out.
Regarding the other 2 bowlers, Kallis at any point of his bowling career, has only ever been an average bowler. Good all rounder, but an average bowler and as such expecting him to create problems for anyone, let alone in the conditions that were offered in that series, is subject to hilarity. Regarding Donald, him being past his prime in said series, is an understatement. Essentially we saw a fast bowler who had made many a batsmen flinch for nearly a decade, run in like a medium pace trundler.

 

[tooextracool]

back in 2005 when i first became a member of this site i am sure that comment was thrown about along with by either him or TEC that he was total crap againts quality bowling or againts the moving ball.

He was also termed a FTB, that i am sure of.

that Hayden was total crap against seam and swing bowling before 2005 is without doubt as emphasized by both series in England. That he has since improved is also beyond doubt as it is fairly obvious that Hayden now is a far better player than he was in the Ashes 2005. That he is now arguably one of the best batsmen in the world and also the best opener in the world is also beyond doubt.

 

[Ikki]

Pollock, along with virtually every other fast bowler from the period between 2000-2006, suffered from the fact that the conditions in Australia offer virtually nothing for swing and seam. Pollock, who had already lost a bit of pace, essentially relied on there being something either in the wicket or in the air, neither of which was available in said series. As such, he was cannon fodder for any of the numerous flat track bullies on the Australian side. As i have said before, line and length without penetration is very rarely going to get quality players out.

Australian conditions offer nothing for seam? What's McGrath then, a swing bowler? S.African batsman scored a total of 1 century in the whole series. 2 of Hayden's 3 centuries are lone in his own side too. This series, if you had saw it, was simply a case of a great side demolishing a very good side. Same destruction occured, but to a lesser degree in the series in S.Africa where Hayden averaged 61.

Regarding the other 2 bowlers, Kallis at any point of his bowling career, has only ever been an average bowler. Good all rounder, but an average bowler and as such expecting him to create problems for anyone, let alone in the conditions that were offered in that series, is subject to hilarity. Regarding Donald, him being past his prime in said series, is an understatement. Essentially we saw a fast bowler who had made many a batsmen flinch for nearly a decade, run in like a medium pace trundler.

Average or not, Kallis was striking at 58 and averaging a tick under 25 for the year until Australia. If that is your 3rd strongest bowler, then your team is doing fine. I remember Goughy making an analysis where the team bowling average of S.Africa was in the mid 20s? Which is quite amazing. Donald goes into the series averaging just under 25 and striking at 57 too. But Pollock was clearly on form when he met Australia averaging 19 and striking at 53 balls per wicket. This is not a weak attack. This is a strong attack. Averaging 50 against such an attack is notable. Averaging 100 is legendary. Hayden and Martyn simply took them apart.

 

[Top 6 on paper]

This current England one.

- Alex.

 

[tooextracool]

Australian conditions offer nothing for seam? What's McGrath then, a swing bowler? S.African batsman scored a total of 1 century in the whole series. 2 of Hayden's 3 centuries are lone in his own side too. This series, if you had saw it, was simply a case of a great side demolishing a very good side. Same destruction occured, but to a lesser degree in the series in S.Africa where Hayden averaged 61.

There is without a doubt in my mind that Australia were the better side. There is also without a doubt in my mind that SA were not only not a 'very good side', they were 'very poor'. Their decline had been coming for a while given that they had lost the likes of Cronje, Cullinan, Rhodes and essentially Donald.
As far as the argument that Australia conditions offer something for seam, have you been watching cricket in Australia at all over the last decade? There is of course a reason why countless quality fast bowlers have come to Australia over the last decade and have failed miserably. The likes of Akram, Walsh, Akthar, Cairns, Caddick, Pollock, Flintoff are all quality pace bowlers and for them to all end up with not just average but desperate figures, it cant just all be good batting, it is a case of having nothing in the conditions to work with. Bar the SA series in 2006 and maybe the recent India series, Australian conditions have offered virtually nothing except for consistent bounce which has meant that good batsmen can easily get in, trust the bounce and essentially score as many runs as they want. The reason why Mcgrath has done so well is another issue, the fact that he is comfortably the best fast bowler of the last decade is but one of them. The fact that touring batsmen were nowhere near as good at scoring runs and scoring big runs on flat pitches is but another reason.

Average or not, Kallis was striking at 58 and averaging a tick under 25 for the year until Australia. If that is your 3rd strongest bowler, then your team is doing fine. I remember Goughy making an analysis where the team bowling average of S.Africa was in the mid 20s? Which is quite amazing. Donald goes into the series averaging just under 25 and striking at 57 too. But Pollock was clearly on form when he met Australia averaging 19 and striking at 53 balls per wicket. This is not a weak attack. This is a strong attack. Averaging 50 against such an attack is notable. Averaging 100 is legendary. Hayden and Martyn simply took them apart.

I couldnt care less what Kallis accomplished against the 2 worst teams at the time in Zimbabwe and West Indies during that year. The fact of the matter was that he was striking at nearly 70 over his career before Australia and averaging nearly 30 while doing that. No Kallis has essentially gone from being an ordinary bowler who bowled far more often back in his day to an ordinary bowler who bowls virtually nothing at the present time.
As far as the rest of the attack is concerned, i couldnt care less about statistics, talking up Donald is essentially like bringing back Mcgrath from retirement and expecting him to gather 5 wicket hauls. An attack is only as good as the conditions offered to them, and in Australia pace bowlers have suffered for over a decade.

 

[Ikki]

There is without a doubt in my mind that Australia were the better side. There is also without a doubt in my mind that SA were not only not a 'very good side', they were 'very poor'. Their decline had been coming for a while given that they had lost the likes of Cronje, Cullinan, Rhodes and essentially Donald.
As far as the argument that Australia conditions offer something for seam, have you been watching cricket in Australia at all over the last decade? There is of course a reason why countless quality fast bowlers have come to Australia over the last decade and have failed miserably. The likes of Akram, Walsh, Akthar, Cairns, Caddick, Pollock, Flintoff are all quality pace bowlers and for them to all end up with not just average but desperate figures, it cant just all be good batting, it is a case of having nothing in the conditions to work with. Bar the SA series in 2006 and maybe the recent India series, Australian conditions have offered virtually nothing except for consistent bounce which has meant that good batsmen can easily get in, trust the bounce and essentially score as many runs as they want. The reason why Mcgrath has done so well is another issue, the fact that he is comfortably the best fast bowler of the last decade is but one of them. The fact that touring batsmen were nowhere near as good at scoring runs and scoring big runs on flat pitches is but another reason.

Most of the bowlers you just named played their final matches in the 2000s. That's probably one major reason they didn't do well.

The reasoning that touring batsmen can't score on flat tracks flies flat in the face of the argument that the reason most batsmen are scoring more runs these days are on flat tracks. You've seemed to sum up the reason bowlers have done poorly is the pitches, disregarding the fact that in this time frame Australia was very dominant and beat anyone regardless whether they were good or bad, regardless of pitch.

I couldnt care less what Kallis accomplished against the 2 worst teams at the time in Zimbabwe and West Indies during that year. The fact of the matter was that he was striking at nearly 70 over his career before Australia and averaging nearly 30 while doing that. No Kallis has essentially gone from being an ordinary bowler who bowled far more often back in his day to an ordinary bowler who bowls virtually nothing at the present time.
As far as the rest of the attack is concerned, i couldnt care less about statistics, talking up Donald is essentially like bringing back Mcgrath from retirement and expecting him to gather 5 wicket hauls. An attack is only as good as the conditions offered to them, and in Australia pace bowlers have suffered for over a decade.

Kallis follows that year up and plays another 9 or so test matches in the following year averaging about 27 and striking at about 44. He destroys Sri Lanka and does well against Pakistan too. Whether Kallis was a front-line bowler is not the issue here. It is that he was in the best form of his career. To have your 3rd best bowler with these kinds of figures illustrates the power of the attack.

And Donald may not have been Donald, but Donald was still one of the best bowlers in the world at the time. Group him with Pollock and Kallis in the form of their lives and you have a good attack. Not a 'very poor' one.

The argument that pace attack does poorly in Australia hence pitches didn't help is a flawed one. Spin bowling also does poorly here, that doesn't mean there isn't anything for spin. So if pace and spin bowling have fared poorly, then everyone has fared poorly. This has nothing to do with pitches.

Australia has been Australia because they have smashed everybody at home. Their own bowlers and batsmen being capable in these 'bad bowling conditions' is a testament that the pitches offered more than enough.

 

[Richard]

And Donald may not have been Donald, but Donald was still one of the best bowlers in the world at the time.

No, he was not. I couldn't care less about the rest of that post really, I'm sick of doing that with you, but the Donald of 2001/02 was completely and totally meaningless to the Donald of the rest of his career.

 

[Ikki]

No, he was not. I couldn't care less about the rest of that post really, I'm sick of doing that with you, but the Donald of 2001/02 was completely and totally meaningless to the Donald of the rest of his career.

No one is judging Donald and saying he was like Donald - i.e. the best part of his career. In fact, the very post you quote shows me dispelling such a notion.

My judgement of Donald was based on the bowlers of the day - If you average 25 and strike at 57 you are one of the best bowlers in the world currently. Such an attack with those 3 figuring the way they did would be ranked as one of the best of all time, even with Donald in his trough.

 

[Richard]

Donald was not remotely close to being one of the best bowlers in The World in 2001/02. He was awful, and should not have been playing.

 

[Ikki]

Donald was not remotely close to being one of the best bowlers in The World in 2001/02. He was awful, and should not have been playing.

Says who? You? The only poor record he has post 2000 - near his retirement - are his performances against Australia.

This is Donald's record post 2000:

This is Donald's record post 2000 without his Australia tests:

 

[Richard]

Yes, and his Tests against Australia came after yet another injury, and 8 months after his previous ones.

Given the bowler, not the batsman, controls the game, we can deduce that it was a reduction in Donald's calibre over time, noting to do with the batsmen, that made him do so awfully in 2001/02.