• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Which 4 are better?

FBU

International 12th Man
Caddick, Gough, Cork and White or Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones?

Caddick and co played 187 games taking 653 wickets (30 5fers)
Harmison and co played 200 games taking 686 wickets (20 5fers)
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones generally. The other 4 might be better in damp, bowler friendly conditions but everything else I'd go with Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones. Caddick is a bit like a Harmison, Gough was good but nothing special, Cork is massively over-rated and White was decent enough. Caddick, Gough and Cork all bowled in more bowler friendly conditions than the present lot and so their figures flatter them.
 

wpdavid

International Coach
The presence of Flintoff & Jones at their peak probably gives the 2005 lineup the edge. However, with the new ball Gough probably > Hoggard and Caddick maybe = Harmison.
 

FBU

International 12th Man
Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones generally. The other 4 might be better in damp, bowler friendly conditions but everything else I'd go with Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones. Caddick is a bit like a Harmison, Gough was good but nothing special, Cork is massively over-rated and White was decent enough. Caddick, Gough and Cork all bowled in more bowler friendly conditions than the present lot and so their figures flatter them.

Harmison and co played 100 Tests at home and 83 away
Caddick and co played 99 Tests at home and 106 away.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
The inclusion of White in the first group means that no other reason is needed to choose the 2nd
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
2005 Ashes, by so far it's untrue.

Caddick's ridiculous performances, in the first innings, when it really matters, made him a negligible bowler, so Harmi beats him, for me, despite his ****e bowling ATM.

Cork was just an average county trundler, one of the biggest goldenarms I've ever seen. Hoggard has proving his class on pitches that don't do everything, for him.

Gough lacked height and bounce for a fast bowler, and never seamed it, whole-hearted trier though. Jones was quicker in that series, and had the height to cause problem with bounce as well as swing.

White was great for that series, quick and swung it, but Freddie was world-class in 2005, and troubled a much better batting side.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Caddick's ridiculous performances, in the first innings, when it really matters, made him a negligible bowler
That's so ridiculous it's untrue. Caddick played a massive part in winning many matches for England. It's perfectly possible to influence the game in the second-innings, otherwise there'd be no point playing it. Saying that it has to have been in the first-innings to matter is one of the most stupid things anyone has ever said.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Caddick, Gough, Cork and White or Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones?

Caddick and co played 187 games taking 653 wickets (30 5fers)
Harmison and co played 200 games taking 686 wickets (20 5fers)
The thing about this is, it's a case of times. Caddick, especially, had a very up-and-down career. His 1993-1998 spell was, by-and-large, less good than poor; his 1999-May2001 one was superb; and his June2001-2002 one was pretty average with the odd good bit mixed in.

Caddick, simply, was a volatile bowler. You never really knew what was going to turn-up.

Gough, Jones, White and maybe now Flintoff, are all bowlers who had their careers damaged seriously by injury. Cork had it damaged by other factors, mostly relating to poor selection.

Harmison is simply rubbish, and White is IMO massively underrated. He had the ability to do more with the ball - and at 90mph pace - than most bowlers ever do. Sadly, the injuries took their toll.

In 2000 and 2000\01, however, that attack (with the addition of Giles and Croft when spin was neccessary) bowled better than I've ever seen any attack bowl, including Flintoff and Jones (and that's virtually all it was, with Hoggard making a belated contribution) in 2005. Both attacks had conditions that suited them, whether that be seam in the pitch, good balls (and outfields) for conventional or reverse swing, whatever. Sadly, neither attack has ever really had the chance to prove themselves in other conditions, because none stayed together for more than a year.

Combined figures, TBH, don't really tell you anything (not least because the latter includes games against substandard sides, which none of the former ever played against - the last Test any played in was 2002\03, just before England played their first series against substandard opposition, Zimbabwe in 2003). It's the figures - and the team feats they engineered (both, for instance, were playing alongside powerful but brittle batting-line-ups) in those two short periods which count. May 2000 to May 2001 (14 Tests), and March 2004 to September 2005 (17 Tests). Everything else relates to different parts of said bowlers' careers.
 
The thing about this is, it's a case of times. Caddick, especially, had a very up-and-down career. His 1993-1998 spell was, by-and-large, less good than poor; his 1999-May2001 one was superb; and his June2001-2002 one was pretty average with the odd good bit mixed in.

Caddick, simply, was a volatile bowler. You never really knew what was going to turn-up.

Gough, Jones, White and maybe now Flintoff, are all bowlers who had their careers damaged seriously by injury. Cork had it damaged by other factors, mostly relating to poor selection.

Harmison is simply rubbish, and White is IMO massively underrated. He had the ability to do more with the ball - and at 90mph pace - than most bowlers ever do. Sadly, the injuries took their toll.

In 2000 and 2000\01, however, that attack (with the addition of Giles and Croft when spin was neccessary) bowled better than I've ever seen any attack bowl, including Flintoff and Jones (and that's virtually all it was, with Hoggard making a belated contribution) in 2005. Both attacks had conditions that suited them, whether that be seam in the pitch, good balls (and outfields) for conventional or reverse swing, whatever. Sadly, neither attack has ever really had the chance to prove themselves in other conditions, because none stayed together for more than a year.

Combined figures, TBH, don't really tell you anything (not least because the latter includes games against substandard sides, which none of the former ever played against - the last Test any played in was 2002\03, just before England played their first series against substandard opposition, Zimbabwe in 2003). It's the figures - and the team feats they engineered (both, for instance, were playing alongside powerful but brittle batting-line-ups) in those two short periods which count. May 2000 to May 2001 (14 Tests), and March 2004 to September 2005 (17 Tests). Everything else relates to different parts of said bowlers' careers.
I knew you wouldn't be able to get through a post of that length without eventually bringing out that annoying "said" thing you use in seemingly every said post.
 

FBU

International 12th Man
The thing about this is, it's a case of times. Caddick, especially, had a very up-and-down career. His 1993-1998 spell was, by-and-large, less good than poor; his 1999-May2001 one was superb; and his June2001-2002 one was pretty average with the odd good bit mixed in.

Caddick, simply, was a volatile bowler. You never really knew what was going to turn-up.

Gough, Jones, White and maybe now Flintoff, are all bowlers who had their careers damaged seriously by injury. Cork had it damaged by other factors, mostly relating to poor selection.

Harmison is simply rubbish, and White is IMO massively underrated. He had the ability to do more with the ball - and at 90mph pace - than most bowlers ever do. Sadly, the injuries took their toll.

In 2000 and 2000\01, however, that attack (with the addition of Giles and Croft when spin was neccessary) bowled better than I've ever seen any attack bowl, including Flintoff and Jones (and that's virtually all it was, with Hoggard making a belated contribution) in 2005. Both attacks had conditions that suited them, whether that be seam in the pitch, good balls (and outfields) for conventional or reverse swing, whatever. Sadly, neither attack has ever really had the chance to prove themselves in other conditions, because none stayed together for more than a year.

Combined figures, TBH, don't really tell you anything (not least because the latter includes games against substandard sides, which none of the former ever played against - the last Test any played in was 2002\03, just before England played their first series against substandard opposition, Zimbabwe in 2003). It's the figures - and the team feats they engineered (both, for instance, were playing alongside powerful but brittle batting-line-ups) in those two short periods which count. May 2000 to May 2001 (14 Tests), and March 2004 to September 2005 (17 Tests). Everything else relates to different parts of said bowlers' careers.
I have to agree that Caddick and co were better. White was the only all rounder that could replace Flintoff when he was injured or out of form although White's batting wasn't up to much. These days there is no one and England have to play the extra batsman. Injuries have affected all the bowlers except Hoggard and this is only his second injury in seven years.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I honestly think there isn't a hell of a lot between White and Flintoff as batsmen. White, indeed, undoubtedly helped take the pressure off Flintoff - in the 5 years when he was utterly hopeless, he played less than he otherwise might have due to White's excellence around that time.

I've always said that Flintoff's batting is just a little overestimated by some - only on three occasions has he done well against particularly good bowling-attacks. White, too, did such a thing, and had precious little opportunity to face the seriously average attacks that Flintoff has several times gorged himself on.

People who looked at White purely on his overall career averages would get the misleading impression that he was a very, very average all-rounder. But that's far from the truth. He was no Botham, but neither, IMO, is Flintoff.
 

Top