The most balanced bowling attack at the WC.

[Richard]

As far as balance goes, NZ for mine. Pace and swing from Bond, seam and accuracy from Mason, bounce from Oram, spin from Vettori, spin the other direction from Patel, and Styris's change-up mediums for backup. Not saying they have the best attack by any means, but they have the most balanced one IMO - especially if they pick Patel.

Mason? Accurate?

Maybe sometimes, but the man went for 60 off 8 overs against the might of Canada. His accuracy is certainly not a given.

Oram is probably the best line-and-length bowler in the side, with Bond a close 2nd.

Like Fuller, though, I don't really think balance is too important - it's quality that's the key, and while NZ might have more variety, Australia and Lanka both have more quality IMO. Though it might be different if Tuffey and Mills were fit and bowling well.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Mason? Accurate?

Maybe sometimes, but the man went for 60 off 8 overs against the might of Canada. His accuracy is certainly not a given.

Oram is probably the best line-and-length bowler in the side, with Bond a close 2nd.

Like Fuller, though, I don't really think balance is too important - it's quality that's the key, and while NZ might have more variety, Australia and Lanka both have more quality IMO. Though it might be different if Tuffey and Mills were fit and bowling well.

Surely you just mean Mills there Rich

 

[Richard]

Nah, not at all, Tuffey's been a damn good bowler when fit and bowling well. Which hasn't been a once-in-a-blink-of-an-eye occurrance, either.

I'd really like, sometime in the near future (can't imagine Bond, for example, will be around much longer) to see a Bond-Tuffey-Mills-Oram-Vettori attack. Would be right up there IMO. And it's a bit of a shame it hasn't happened this Cup.

 

[TT Boy]

If Sri Lanka recall Dilhara Fernando then their bowling attack for me becomes considerably better. Farveez Maharoof maybe able to take apart the West Indies and Bangladesh but Dilhara is leaps and bounds a different class and it was a mistake on the part of Sri Lanka to drop Fernando for the South African game. Maharoof was never going to trouble the South Africans, bowls back of a length (on a wicket with no pace) at a lick which the South Africans would find immensely enjoyable. Whereas Fernando as he showed against the Indians (and over the course of his career) is real and constant threat when on song, as he was in the Indian game.

Personally, I feel Sri Lanka have a bowling attack which has something for everyone, South Africa’s does not, Australia have a few weak back up bowlers whereas New Zealand have Mason and Franklin who are pretty darn mediocre. England’s attack is not overtly awful and in my opinion if it was not for the Bond factor, a 'better' bowling unit than that of the New Zealanders.

Though, if we are talking about the worst bowling line-up then look no further than what the West Indies fielded yesterday, Dwayne Smith taking the new ball?

 

[Richard]

Fernando's never exactly troubled too many people, either - least of all the SAfricans. 6.36-an-over at 70. Maharoof might be wholly ordinary most of the time but he's still produced 3 or 4 sensational spells throughout his career.

Smith taking the new-ball somewhat baffled me, though. What on EARTH has Bradshaw done to be left-out?

 

[TT Boy]

Fernando's never exactly troubled too many people, either - least of all the SAfricans. 6.36-an-over at 70.

Smith taking the new-ball somewhat baffled me, though. What on EARTH has Bradshaw done to be left-out?

Did not bother to check the stats and I concede they do not look particularly impressive but as a wicket taking option I would still take Dilhara over Farveez, for the fact that Fernando has shown in patches in his career his a dangerous and difficult bowler to face when firing. He also bowled well to the South Africans on their visit to Sri Lanka last summer, in conditions very similar to those seen in Guyana.

 

[TT Boy]

Fernando's never exactly troubled too many people, either - least of all the SAfricans. 6.36-an-over at 70. Maharoof might be wholly ordinary most of the time but he's still produced 3 or 4 sensational spells throughout his career.

Smith taking the new-ball somewhat baffled me, though. What on EARTH has Bradshaw done to be left-out?

But usually against the Mickey Mouse brigade.

 

[pup11]

I think lot of people underrate the importance of Nathan Bracken who i consider one of the best odi bowlers going around for the last 3 seasons.


He is probably Australia most steady bowler after McGrath, he swings the new ball and his cutters and slower deliveries are superb once the bowl gets old.

 

[pup11]

I think Maharoof is selected in the Sri Lankan side due to his ability to use the long-handle to good effect in the last 10 overs of the game.

 

[Richard]

But usually against the Mickey Mouse brigade.

Not neccessarily. And in any case, 10-19-1, 10-9-3, 5-20-4, 10-24-3 and 9-14-6 are hardly to be sniffed at regardless of being against England or West Indies. Not to mention that one of said games was against India.

 

[Richard]

Did not bother to check the stats and I concede they do not look particularly impressive but as a wicket taking option I would still take Dilhara over Farveez, for the fact that Fernando has shown in patches in his career his a dangerous and difficult bowler to face when firing. He also bowled well to the South Africans on their visit to Sri Lanka last summer, in conditions very similar to those seen in Guyana.

IMO Ferndando is impossibly overrated. He doesn't often take wickets with good bowling. And the occasions when he does bowl well are even rarer than those when Shahid Afridi bats well.

One of if not the worst player to play 100 ODIs for me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I consider anything over 140km/h on average as FAST.

If you compare everybody to Tait then you might aswell put Tait in a higher speed bracket and call him SUPER FAST

I doubt whether Bond has been over 140km/h on average in this World Cup, it he has been over it's only just. Personally I'd say the mark is 90mph anyway with generally 85-90 being fast medium.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I doubt whether Bond has been over 140km/h on average in this World Cup, it he has been over it's only just. Personally I'd say the mark is 90mph anyway with generally 85-90 being fast medium.

So 135km/h is only medium pace?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Heard of medium fast?

 

[Tim]

If New Zealand had Kyle Mills at the World Cup, I think our attack would definately be the next best behind Australia.

I think the overall balance of our side would be right up there too as Mills has the ability to score a good amount of runs down at #9 or #10.

Mills has proven himself over the last 18 months and he really would have made our attack dangerous. Not that it isn't too bad right now, but Mills definately > Mason, Tuffey, Martin. Im hoping Gillespie gets some game time soon as well.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Heard of medium fast?

Yeah, but I think that its the most stupid term ever invented in cricket. I mean, come on, you swap the 2 words around and it makes a difference??

Fast
Fast-Medium
Medium
Slow-Medium
Slow

None of this Fast-Medium or Medium-Slow bull****. Its either one or the other.

 

[pup11]

I think the Kiwi bowling attack hasn't been tested yet against a good batting side in this WC so far.


I mean we all have been having a go at the Aussie bowling before the WC, for their inability to defend the 300+ totals but we tend to overlook the fact that Kiwi bowlers have also let the batting teams score huge totals against them before the WC.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Tuffey was in the team then, and Styris and Oram werent bowling very well.

So you have Bond, Vettori, Styris, Oram. With Franklin/Mason/Gillespie just on the average side. Really missing Mills.

NZ bowling certainly aint the most quality, but this whole thread is about balance mate

 

[Fiery]

If New Zealand had Kyle Mills at the World Cup, I think our attack would definately be the next best behind Australia.

I think the overall balance of our side would be right up there too as Mills has the ability to score a good amount of runs down at #9 or #10.

Mills has proven himself over the last 18 months and he really would have made our attack dangerous. Not that it isn't too bad right now, but Mills definately > Mason, Tuffey, Martin. Im hoping Gillespie gets some game time soon as well.

mmm....using the Mills what if/but/if only argument is a little passe now sorry to say Tim. It's as bad the Simon Jones Ashes thing

 

[FBU]

I would say Sri Lanka.
Malinga
Vaas
Fernando
Murali
Jayasuriya