Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[silentstriker]

West Indies in England 2012: David Saker rates attack as good as great Australians | Cricket News | England v West Indies | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[uvelocity]

England
James Anderson: 267 Test wickets at 30.05
Stuart Broad: 161 at 30.42
Tim Bresnan: 52 at 25.46
Graeme Swann: 188 at 28.12
Australia
Glenn McGrath: 563 at 21.64
Brett Lee: 310 at 30.81
Jason Gillespie: 259 at 26.13
Shane Warne: 708 at 25.41

they made it pretty easy

 

[Red]

Anderson's average is still over 30. McGrath's was 22.

Seriously Saker, get real.


McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Swanna


Australia's attack during the recent period of dominance was probably the best attack ever. Balanced and brilliant.

 

[Jager]

England's attack is very good, but there's a big difference between the two attacks. Here we have sustained brilliance being compared to fleeting excellence. Of course, England could continue for another three or more years, and then we'd need to reconsider, but at this stage they are ridiculous claims.

 

[Ruckus]

^yeh agreed. I don't think their bowling attack is even as good as SA's let alone one of the all time great attacks.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I don't think any serious cricket observer would take Saker...seriously. Even the second string of Aussie bowlers from that era would give these English bowlers a run for their money.....Bichel, Kasper, Macgill, Fleming. They'd probably outperform them too.

 

[uvelocity]

saker kind of gives the game away when he says finn and onions could come in but they wouldn't lose much

 

[GIMH]

The averages don't mean a lot really but obviously none of our bowlers are up there with Warne and McGrath. I would take any I our first string seamers over Lee and I'd say Anderson and Broad now match up to Gillespie.

 

[robelinda]

Next up - Saker says Aldi is as good as Coles.

 

[Howe_zat]

Bowling coach says he rates his attack, oh no!

Seriously Saker, get real.

Why should he?

 

[intcricket]

Time for new imports from South Africa, Mr.Saker?

 

[silentstriker]

Bowling coach says he rates his attack, oh no!



Why should he?

It's like this: you can rate your batsmen without saying they'd give Bradman a run for his money. One is expected and shows confidence, the other gets you ridicule.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

England's attack is very good, but there's a big difference between the two attacks. Here we have sustained brilliance being compared to fleeting excellence. Of course, England could continue for another three or more years, and then we'd need to reconsider, but at this stage they are ridiculous claims.

This, best attack we have had in my lifetime and could go down as a great one but only if they carry on like this for a sustained period. I do think that England have more depth in pace than the Aussies did but they didn't need them very often anyway.

Anyone trying to compare Swann to Warne needs new glasses.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Funnily enough, reckon Australia's bowling depth was almost better when they weren't, comparatively, as strong, in the late 1990s and then just pushing into the early 2000s. Reiffel, Fleming, Kasprowicz and Bichel struggled massively to get into the side around that stage.

And you had Miller and MacGill as spin cover.

Compare it with the vintage of 2004 (Bracken as a Test bowler, Williams) urgh.

 

[Valer]

I'd say Anderson and Broad now match up to Gillespie.

How??

Gillespie on song was just as good and has a much better overall.

 

[Jono]

The averages don't mean a lot really but obviously none of our bowlers are up there with Warne and McGrath. I would take any I our first string seamers over Lee and I'd say Anderson and Broad now match up to Gillespie.

Broad has the potential to be as good or better than Dizzy but not yet. Needs to do what he's doing for longer.

Anderson though is gun.

 

[zaremba]

Obviously the England bowling attack isn't as good as Warne, McGrath, Gillespie and AN Other, but I'm not sure that Saker was really saying that it is, when you consider his comments as a whole. Makes a good headline, though.

 

[Cabinet96]

I think you have to take Saker's comments with a touch of jest, obviously this attack isn't as good as Australia's one of the early noughties. However, I think that's only because McGrath and Warne were that good. England aren't likely to ever get any one that good. I think, for instance, if Lee came into England's attack tomorrow, he'd be the weakest bowler, and Gilespie wouldn't be the strongest IMO. I think if you took away McGrath and Warne, this England attack would be better, although I do admit that's kinda irrelevant.

 

[Jager]

I think you have to take Saker's comments with a touch of jest, obviously this attack isn't as good as Australia's one of the early noughties. However, I think that's only because McGrath and Warne were that good. England aren't likely to ever get any one that good. I think, for instance, if Lee came into England's attack tomorrow, he'd be the weakest bowler, and Gilespie wouldn't be the strongest IMO. I think if you took away McGrath and Warne, this England attack would be better, although I do admit that's kinda irrelevant.

Lee took 310 wickets at 30 apiece from memory, surely that rates well compared to Broad and especially Bresnan?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Actually, if there was a bowler that I'd compare Broad to right now, it's Gillespie. Tall, wobbles the ball a lot and gets it to move off the deck, and prepared to bowl full enough to drag the batsman forward all the time.