The bowler of the 90s and 00s

[weldone]

I remember that despite Pakistan having wasim, Waqar, shoaib, Saqlain, and mushy I was always dreading them to come up against the aussie batting juggernaut. Gilchrist, slater, hayden, waughs, Ponting, martyn, lehmann, langer. The list seemed never ending

Yes, I think their bowling were not as good as the Windies of the 70s and the 80s.

(Garner+Roberts+Marshall+Holding)>(McGrath+Gillespie+Warne+Lee) in spite of the variety

Australia's batting was better. W.I. didn't haver huge depth, while Aus had Gilly at 7.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yes, I think their bowling were not as good as the Windies of the 70s and the 80s.

(Garner+Roberts+Marshall+Holding)>(McGrath+Gillespie+Warne+Lee) in spite of the variety

Australia's batting was better. W.I. didn't haver huge depth, while Aus had Gilly at 7.

Yeah, but Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall played just 6.

However, Holding-Roberts-Garner-Croft played 11 tests together, and Marshall-Walsh-Ambrose-Patterson/Bishop/Benjamin played 25 tests together.

 

[weldone]

Yeah, but Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall played just 6.

(McGrath+Gillespie+Lee+Warne) didn't play many either IIRC. Damien Fleming / Michael Kasprowicz were regulars before Lee came in.

 

[Slifer]

That's because of the depth WI had in bowling and that's not even to mention the potential greats that didn't get extended runs: Wayne Daniel, Sylvers, Moseley, Gray etc. Any combo of WI of the 80s was better than their Oz counterparts. Whether it be MM, Holding, Garner, Walsh or MM, Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh etc etc etc. More often than not, WI usually fielded at the very least 2 ATG fast bowlers and frequently 3 and on a few occasions 4.

 

[Jassy]

DWTA

Australia's batting depth was a lot stronger than its bowling depth in those years. I'm not sure how problematic removing Ponting actually would have been.

Having batting depth is not the be all and end all - there was no one as good as Ponting there. That he was the most important component of that Aussie side along with McG, Warne and Gilly is not in doubt.

The Aus team of the early 2000s were the winningest team of all time and it's not even close. So the results were much, much better.

I don't even....

 

[bagapath]

Marshall, Holding and Garner played together in 26 tests, and they lost only one of them. Fuelled by a freak performance from Bob Holland and an out of the skin century by Kepler Wessels in a dead rubber test (which was Lloyd's farewell game in Border's first series as skipper) Australia beat them in 84-5 at SCG. It was the only match they lost together. For any three bowlers to have played so many games and remain virtually unbeatable is just mind boggling.

 

[Furball]

McGrath-Gillespie-Lee-Warne can't have played many Tests together either tbh. Lee had been binned for 2 years prior to the Ashes in 2005, and Gillespie basically didn't play again after that series. Then you've got Warne's drug ban and a McGrath injury prior to that.

 

[Dan]

16 matches for all four of them. 10 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses.

McGrath/Gillespie/Warne gives 47 matches with 30 wins, 7 draws, 10 losses.

 

[Valer]

Having batting depth is not the be all and end all - there was no one as good as Ponting there. That he was the most important component of that Aussie side along with McG, Warne and Gilly is not in doubt.

How is he remotely important as the other 3? I'd rather bench Ponting than Gillespie*.

Is Ponting more useful to the average side... Sure. That Australian side's strength was so heavily skewed to a strong batting line-up coupled with a thin bowling attack that it changes relative worth to the sides.


*Career timeline issues ignored.

 

[watson]

The best bowling trios in Test cricket

Blogs: The best bowling trios in Test cricket | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

For what it's worth, Warne-McGrath-Lee claim first spot in the above survey

 

[Burgey]

Lee was ****in terrible from the time he hurt his elbow after about 18 months up til the post-McWarne era when he fired up for another season or two. He consistently failed to hit a decent length, and for years didn't get much, if any, movement.

If he's part of the most successful bowling trio in history, the other two are carrying him.

 

[GIMH]

How is he remotely important as the other 3? I'd rather bench Ponting than Gillespie*.

Is Ponting more useful to the average side... Sure. That Australian side's strength was so heavily skewed to a strong batting line-up coupled with a thin bowling attack that it changes relative worth to the sides.


*Career timeline issues ignored.

Rather bench Ponting than Gillespie? Absurd

 

[Red]

DWTA

Australia's batting depth was a lot stronger than its bowling depth in those years. I'm not sure how problematic removing Ponting actually would have been.

McGrath was the irreplaceable.

Warne could be replaced with MacGill.

Ponting could've been replaced by Law, Love, Lehmann and a few others. Obviously he was a cut above them but the disruption caused by him not playing to the team would've been far less than McGrath's loss.

McGrath was the key to the team IMO.

 

[Blocky]

McGrath - wickets in all conditions.

 

[watson]

Lee was ****in terrible from the time he hurt his elbow after about 18 months up til the post-McWarne era when he fired up for another season or two. He consistently failed to hit a decent length, and for years didn't get much, if any, movement.

If he's part of the most successful bowling trio in history, the other two are carrying him.

My enduring memory of Brett Lee was his ability to 'soften up' the batsman so that they were ready for McGrath and Warne. And this he did remarkably well on Australian pitches. For example, during his 8 Tests against India he took 45 wickets at 27 runs each.

Overall Brett Lee played 76 Tests and finished with 310 wickets at 31. His SR was an excellent 53.

Interestingly enough, this is comparable to Stuart Broad who I see as a similar sort of aggressive fast bowler. So far Broad has played 73 Tests and has 261 wickets at 30. His SR is 59.

So no, I don't think that Brett Lee's skill level or record are as ordinary or dire as you imply Burgey.

 

[smash84]

McGrath was the irreplaceable.

Warne could be replaced with MacGill.

Ponting could've been replaced by Law, Love, Lehmann and a few others. Obviously he was a cut above them but the disruption caused by him not playing to the team would've been far less than McGrath's loss.

McGrath was the key to the team IMO.

MCGRATH and the batting depth imo. With steve waugh coming at 6 and Ponting at 3 you had 2 top tier ATG batsmen in the same team. Add to that the mental toughness of guys like warne and waugh and you have an invincible side.

 

[OverratedSanity]

My enduring memory of Brett Lee was his ability to 'soften up' the batsman so that they were ready for McGrath and Warne. And this he did remarkably well on Australian pitches. For example, during the Indian tour of 2007/08 he took 24 wickets at 23 runs each.

That series was after McWarne retired so you can't use that as an example of his softening batsmen up for the others. He was the leader of the attack that series and imo the best he's ever bowled. He was only consistently brilliant in his first season and in 2007/08. Otherwise he flattered to deceive.

 

[Red]

MCGRATH and the batting depth imo. With steve waugh coming at 6 and Ponting at 3 you had 2 top tier ATG batsmen in the same team. Add to that the mental toughness of guys like warne and waugh and you have an invincible side.

The whole team was ****ing gun. But if you had to isolate one guy whose absence would most dramatically effect the team, it's Pidge.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Just love how you can say "flatterred to decieve" about a guy with over 300 wickets at a decent average, great strike rate and high wpm.

 

[OverratedSanity]

McGrath, Warne and Gilly the three biggest reasons for their dominance in that order imo. Having Gilchrist was a massive plus... Teams would sometimes get Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Waugh out and then Gilchrist would come in and smash 75 (70) and undo all that work in an hour.