-
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.
Best Bowling Attack
- Thread starter Unattainableguy
- Start date
shortpitched713
International Captain
Well out of those listed, Australia's is the most unproven, so its hard to compare with them.
Out of the others SA's is the best, closely followed by Pakistan and then Sri Lanka. Pakistan's seems to be a bit underrated actually. A first choice attack would probably include Asif, Akhtar, Kaneria, and Gul and thats nothing to scoff at. This is of course making the Test assumption. Our ODI attack is considerably weaker.
Out of the others SA's is the best, closely followed by Pakistan and then Sri Lanka. Pakistan's seems to be a bit underrated actually. A first choice attack would probably include Asif, Akhtar, Kaneria, and Gul and thats nothing to scoff at. This is of course making the Test assumption. Our ODI attack is considerably weaker.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In a way it's a hypothetical situation. If Shoaib, Asif, Gul, Hafeez and Afridi bowled together as a unit, then that bowling attack would be one of the strongest going around. Unfortunately they have never played together as a unit due to injuries, suspensions and selection issues.
At the current point in time Mohammad Asif isn't a proven ODI player, I agree. However, the problem he has, which is reflected in his average and economy rate, is bowling at the end of the innings. He doesn't have a very good yorker, or many variations, so it quite succeptible to being slogged during the death overs. If he bowled out for a start, or finished off his overs during the middle, then he'd be far more successful, but Pakistan have tried to use him in a role he is clearly not suited for.
Shahid Afridi has been a pretty good ODI bowler over the last while, and has generally been pretty good at keeping the runs down. There was a stage not that long ago where he almost merited selection as a specialist spinner who could bat at #9, given how well he'd been performing with the ball. Also, despite being a crap batsman in the 50-over game, Mohammad Hafeez has proven himself a very, very capable bowler who almost deserves selection as a specialist spinner. His figures aren't that dis-similar to Daniel Vettori and Harbhajan Singh, although he does have a slightly higher economy rate. Certainly if all 5 of those bowlers were able to play together, with support from Shoaib Malik, they'd be a very good bowling attack.
Shaun Pollock and Makhaya Ntini are fantastic ODI bowlers, no doubt about it, and their prescence alone makes the South Africans a formidable team to bat against. Andrew Hall and Andre Nel are solid bowlers, which Morne Morkel also has the potential to be once he sorts out his problem of over-stepping, which I'm sure you also find frustrating. Dale Steyn is rubbish in ODI cricket at the moment, an average of 29 would be good if he had a decent economy rate, but he leaks his runs at 6.36 an over, which is appaling. Given that South Africa also pick bowlers like Charl Langeveldt and Robbie Petersen I would hardly call their attack far deeper. Obviously they have been blessed that their main bowlers have all been fit and out of trouble, allowing them to play together.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Because Australia haven't played a test series where they struggled with the ball yet, so a lot of people are going to be voting based on Australia's recent test performances with the ball, which are fine. I don't think Australia's attack is likely to be bad, but it is certainly an unknown quantity at this time, Clark and Lee aside.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
I'd say England are fairly stable aside from injury. For a fair while now their attack has been Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar, Flintoff and another seamer, assuming fitness, which is why I said "injuries aside". If all their players were fit today, England would pick those 4.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I really don't see why Harmison should make the team ahead of Tremlett at full strength.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He shouldn't, but he would.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Saying "injuries aside" just makes no sense with England though. There has been no more than a few months - 7 or 8 at best - where no-one or next to no-one has been injured for the last 6 years.
And it was the exact same story for the previous decade, and most of the previous two again.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Flem274*
123/5
I'd take Anderson. Tremlett is a joke from what I've seen. Anderson is a quality swing bowler.
Kabir Ali is tempting though
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Tremlett can be a joke; Anderson can be a joke. It's really something of a toss-up as to what they'll be on any given day.
Anderson > Tremlett in ODIs by far so far, obviously. In Tests, though, Tremlett has the edge and while I can't see him offering that much of a wicket-taking threat in Sri Lanka he's made a promising start to his Test career as of the moment and right now I'd have him ahead of Anderson if only because his accuracy has been (surprisingly) good and that could be valuable in Lanka (and is obviously better than being expensive)
Anderson > Tremlett in ODIs by far so far, obviously. In Tests, though, Tremlett has the edge and while I can't see him offering that much of a wicket-taking threat in Sri Lanka he's made a promising start to his Test career as of the moment and right now I'd have him ahead of Anderson if only because his accuracy has been (surprisingly) good and that could be valuable in Lanka (and is obviously better than being expensive)
Flem274*
123/5
You mentioned accuracy and Tremlett in the same sentence? Wow!
In SL wouldn't it be worth using two spinners?
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
No, there's no point playing two spinners for the sake of it.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Have you actually seen Tremlett play any of his test matches? He has been nothing short of horrible in ODIs thus far, but his bowling in test matches has been infinitely better.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not if one of those spinners is Richard Dawson \ Gareth Batty standard, really. I'd prefer one and three (or four if you must) seamers.
And yeah, Tremlett in his Tests so far has mostly bowled with excellent (and, as I say, judging by his domestic FC career to date, somewhat surprising) accuracy. Whether that will continue we wait to see with great anticipation. To date, he's ahead of Anderson in that particular.
EDIT: FFS, beaten to both points by 2 different posters!
Flem274*
123/5
I remember watching him bowl a reasonable spell against someone. However I have to admit I have mainly seen him in the one day game.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I was hugely impressed with Tremlett in the English summer. Very fine bowler when the ball is doing a bit. Not sure how he'll go on roads, but he's got plenty of time to improve.
I wasn't suggesting that Harmison should be picked ahead of anyone, but he would be.
I wasn't suggesting that Harmison should be picked ahead of anyone, but he would be.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well it could only have been in the previous India series, 'cos 'e ain't played any others yet!
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
India
Flem274*
123/5
Ok then. I'll have to agree with you on that, or are you filtering the West Indies out of your test stats now?Well it could only have been in the previous India series, 'cos 'e ain't played any others yet!