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.
Bing Lee, reported.The latter by far, of course.
Which will be further endorsed when Richard inevitably appears and picks the former.
Already done it, pal - the Big Bad Banners have evidently been a bit busy these last couple of days.Bing Lee, reported.
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.Caddick's ridiculous performances, in the first innings, when it really matters, made him a negligible bowler
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, 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)
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.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.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.