Best bowling attack you can think of

[Perm]

I see I've become tec again

I honestly don't know that they do, TBH. I think Davidson is routinely considered automatically inferior to the likes of Lindwall and Miller who had relatively similar tallies. While this may be true, it also may not be.

Miller was an all-rounder, much more so than Davidson, so that certainly comes into play. Also, I've heard many people say that they consider Davidson to be better than Miller as a pure bowler. Lindwall is acknowledged as a better bowler because of his qualities though, something that his 'lack' of Test wickets make up for. He can often be seen in Australian all-time teams, because he was the better bowler.

I think the main reason virtually no-one ever remembers Davidson is that, apart from taking wickets at a phenominal rate, there wasn't really that much to remember him for. If Glenn McGrath had been as quiet as him, he might well be suffering a similar fate in 40 years' time.

Possibly, I'm not denying that Davidson was a fantastic bowler, because he undoubtedly was, but I think Wasim is better. Davidson probably does suffer from being a quiet acheiver, especially when he was surrounded by stars during his time playing Test cricket.

I only mentioned spinners because I couldn't think of another left-arm seamer than Wasim or Vaas (and I don't want to use them as I've argued in the past that both have qualities superior to McGrath).

Ruchira Perera? Ryan Sidebottom? Zaheer Khan?

Either way - I just think there were bowlers capable of that bit more than Wasim, who'd cause that bit more trouble than him, not because they bowled with the left-arm, but because they bowled with that bit more relentlessness.

Again, possbibly. There are better bowlers than Wasim who haven't made people's lists, that's for sure. But I feel that the people that did select him used the reasoning that his angle would help to add variety to the attack, without losing a great deal of effectiveness.

The trouble the SAfricans have had is nothing to do with a spinner and everything to do with the inconsistency of their seamers. Pollock was oft-written-off as gone until last season; Ntini has still to convince most people on all surfaces; Nel has still to hold down an undisputed Test place for long. They never had anything like these troubles when they had Donald, de Villiers, Matthews and McMillan, nor Donald, Pollock, Kallis and Klusener, because these 4 were all top-class.

TBF, this weakness has become more evident in ODI cricket, especially when the surfaces don't suit their four right-arm fast-medium bowlers, on pitches that are low and slow. That's when a spinner can add variety to the attack and turn an average attack into a good one, because it takes away from the monotonous nature of the bowling attack. Imagine if South Africa had a top class spinner when they had Donald, de Villiers, Matthews and McMillan. Their attack would have been far more potent.

Of course variety can aid an attack, but it can do no more than turn a potent one into that bit more potent. A rubbish left-arm seamer is a rubbish left-arm seamer, and his variation will do far more harm than good. The same applies to fingerspinners and wayward wristspinners.

It all depends on the quality of the bowler, of which I'm sure you are aware. If you have three good right-arm fast bowlers and a good left-arm fast bowler, he'll instantly make the attack more potent because of that variety. However, if he isn't as good as the right-arm fast bowler he's keeping out of the attack, then the attack's effectiveness will be primarily bbecause of the angle he brings, not the quality of his bowling.

 

[Matt79]

The Lindwall/Miller > Davidson thing also comes from the fact that Davo came up through the team as a junior player when those two were in their prime and was a markedly inferior player to them in that time. He dramatically improved as he matured and got a chance with the new ball, but no doubt people remembered the direct comparison. Nostalgia would have affected their evaluation of Davo's peak - he lived in the shadow of Lindwall and Miller undoubtedly, and there was probably a touch of "you're prospering in their absence". The other factor is that Lindwall/Miller were part of a champion team that took all before it - in Davidson's period the team didn't do quite as well - losing the Ashes for the first time since Bodyline, etc...

Finally, Davidson was probably a bowling purist's dream to watch, but as Rich alluded to Lindwall and Miller were both by all accounts faster, more explosive and varied bowlers who were more entertaining for the average viewer, as well as in the case of Lindwall also being a purist's delight. Miller had a Lillee/Warne-like level of charisma etc and that affected his standing without a doubt, but the fact is as well that his bowling record is statistically every bit as good as Davidson's.

 

[Matt79]

With the variety thing, I can see what Rich is saying in that taking a bad bowler purely for the sake of variety is a poor idea, but he's taken that idea too far in terms of saying that you're better having 5 McGraths rather than 3 McGraths, an Akram and a Warne - or even 3 McGraths, a Vaas, and a Monty. Other things being equal if you have 3 excellent bowlers of one type, I'd hold that a decent bowler of a different type is better to have than a 4th very good bowler of the same type. Some batsman have pronounced strengths against a particular style of bowling, others have definite weaknesses against that same style. Some batsmen take whatever you throw at them with aplomb, and aren't disconcerted by a change from fast to slow, or from right hand to left hand. Those batsmen are rare - most batsmen will at least have to adjust, and that provides a vulnerability. SA would have been a vastly superior team if they'd had a better spinner than Boje, even if that spinner wasn't Murali/Warne - there's no shadow of doubt in my mind.

 

[Ikki]

People want variety, of the left-arm style. Obviously you don't agree that variety is necessary in a bowling attack, but others probably do. Wasim Akram, being the best left-arm fast bowler in Test history, fits the bill perfectly. It has to be said Alan Davidson wouldn't be too far off Wasim.

That's a good observation and 70% of the reason I chose Wasim. The other reason is the sheer amount of trouble he will give batsmen. Yes, we can measure wickets taken and runs leaked but we cannot mention those "Oh crap, that was close" balls and Wasim has them in spades. Then I have Lillee, right-handed, coming back with his speed and his swing/cutters and I think batsmen will have migraines. Then either Marshall in there to compound that effect, or Barnes who will give them bowls they've never seen; and of course Warne to trample all over them with his guile. And McGrath will probably look the most simplest and easiest to hit yet I bet he'd end up scalping most the wickets.

Lol, for some funny reason I can just imagine batsmen knocking over there own wickets and sledging themselves and happily getting back to the pavilion.

 

[Richard]

Miller was an all-rounder, much more so than Davidson, so that certainly comes into play. Also, I've heard many people say that they consider Davidson to be better than Miller as a pure bowler. Lindwall is acknowledged as a better bowler because of his qualities though, something that his 'lack' of Test wickets make up for. He can often be seen in Australian all-time teams, because he was the better bowler.

I've honestly never heard anyone say Davidson > Miller as a bowler (not that I've heard that many direct comparisons, mind). I do think Lindwall probably was a bit better, but I certainly don't think it's a clear-cut thing, the way the fact that Davidson is seemingly never mentioned (wrongly so) when talking of Australia's best, and Lindwall (rightly) invariably is.

Possibly, I'm not denying that Davidson was a fantastic bowler, because he undoubtedly was, but I think Wasim is better. Davidson probably does suffer from being a quiet acheiver, especially when he was surrounded by stars during his time playing Test cricket.

Wasim may have been the more multi-dimensional bowler, as (for example) Herschelle Gibbs was probably a more multi-dimensional batsman than Graham Gooch. I think it'd be plain madness to suggest Gibbs > Gooch TBH, and while I don't think it's complete madness to suggest Wasim > Davidson, I do think it's purely based on judgement of extravagance rather than output.

Ruchira Perera? Ryan Sidebottom? Zaheer Khan?

I meant those who are something other than few-Test-wonders or proven crap (and\or proven chuckers of times). To mention any instead of a McGrath would seem a bit insane.

Again, possbibly. There are better bowlers than Wasim who haven't made people's lists, that's for sure. But I feel that the people that did select him used the reasoning that his angle would help to add variety to the attack, without losing a great deal of effectiveness.

I think accuracy (+ suffocation) > variety TBH. Either way, it's all something of a MOO, there's no way to be conclusive on it, it just boils-down to "I think this, you think that".

TBF, this weakness has become more evident in ODI cricket, especially when the surfaces don't suit their four right-arm fast-medium bowlers, on pitches that are low and slow. That's when a spinner can add variety to the attack and turn an average attack into a good one, because it takes away from the monotonous nature of the bowling attack.

A good seamer can bowl brilliantly on a slow, low surface, because he'll be difficult to get away on it. I don't think being monotonous or not will change much; if the monotonous bowlers are all good, they'll go well; if they're all poor, they won't. Nor will the presence of a spinner make poor seamers any better - just ask Manan and his Indian-seamers tirade.

Imagine if South Africa had a top class spinner when they had Donald, de Villiers, Matthews and McMillan. Their attack would have been far more potent.

Well they had Symcox... who's almost certainly their best since readmission.

It all depends on the quality of the bowler, of which I'm sure you are aware. If you have three good right-arm fast bowlers and a good left-arm fast bowler, he'll instantly make the attack more potent because of that variety. However, if he isn't as good as the right-arm fast bowler he's keeping out of the attack, then the attack's effectiveness will be primarily bbecause of the angle he brings, not the quality of his bowling.

The thing is, though, the effectiveness will almost certainly be reduced, not increased, due to the fact that the lesser left-armer has ousted the superior right-armer. The remaining right-armers might still do perfectly fine, but the attack as a whole would be lesser than it would have been had they been partnerered by another bowler of higher calibre.

 

[Richard]

Miller had a Lillee/Warne-like level of charisma etc and that affected his standing without a doubt, but the fact is as well that his bowling record is statistically every bit as good as Davidson's.

It is, which suggests he should be considered pretty much equal to Davidson. But he's not; Miller is routinely talked, even purely as a bowler, as being among Australia's best; Davidson is not. This is not to say Miller shouldn't be, just that if Miller is, so should Davidson.

 

[Manee]

My view of the best five bowlers to work together goes like so:

Tests

Glenn Mcgrath
Waqar Younis (check the test strike rate)
Wasim Akram
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan

Wasim and Waqar together are deadly and Waqar's fantastic test strike rate seals him in my fantastic five. Warne says Waqar feeds of Wasim, so lets have both in there. The other three need no explanation IMO. Before people say SF Barnes, to be honest, if you can spin balls from a acre outside leg to knock off out of the ground before the ball back spins and takes the other two stumps out, the pitches have to be brought into question.

ODIs

Glenn Mcgrath
Shane Bond
Muttiah Muralitharan
Shaun Tait
Brett Lee

I feel the wicket taking trio of Bond, Tait and Lee could destroy a team in the blink of an eye whilst Muralitharan and Mcgrath are in a class of their own in ODIs.

 

[Athlai]

My view of the best five bowlers to work together goes like so:

Tests

Glenn Mcgrath
Waqar Younis (check the test strike rate)
Wasim Akram
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan

Wasim and Waqar together are deadly and Waqar's fantastic test strike rate seals him in my fantastic five. Warne says Waqar feeds of Wasim, so lets have both in there. The other three need no explanation IMO. Before people say SF Barnes, to be honest, if you can spin balls from a acre outside leg to knock off out of the ground before the ball back spins and takes the other two stumps out, the pitches have to be brought into question.

ODIs

Glenn Mcgrath
Shane Bond
Muttiah Muralitharan
Shaun Tait
Brett Lee

I feel the wicket taking trio of Bond, Tait and Lee could destroy a team in the blink of an eye whilst Muralitharan and Mcgrath are in a class of their own in ODIs.

Personally think there are a lot better options than Tait out there, Malinga for one, yet still better options than him. Pollock for example and I'd probably want Bracken more too personally.

 

[Manee]

Personally think there are a lot better options than Tait out there, Malinga for one, yet still better options than him. Pollock for example and I'd probably want Bracken more too personally.

You raise good points, I feel that this neglectance to go with anyone from the modern era is wrong though and Shaun Tait with an ODI strike rate of 26.46 and similar List A strike rate is just about as good of a wicket taker as you need.

 

[Richard]

My view of the best five bowlers to work together goes like so:

Tests

Glenn Mcgrath
Waqar Younis (check the test strike rate)
Wasim Akram
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan

Marshall would surely get the new-ball ahead of Wasim and Waqar, who really don't especially need it, nor are they as good at using it as Marshall (or McGrath).

Before people say SF Barnes, to be honest, if you can spin balls from a acre outside leg to knock off out of the ground before the ball back spins and takes the other two stumps out, the pitches have to be brought into question.

No-one's really said he could do that, just that he could bowl leg-breaks at a pace no-one else could. Warne himself has spun balls so far that the HawkEyes have refused to process it, which is conclusive enough evidence that frightening spin can be achieved without anything but a few footholds.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't personally buy the fact that you have to have a left armer. Variety helps, but I'll still stick with McGrath, Marshall, Barnes, Imran/Warne, Sobers. There is enough variety in there to keep anyone guessing. No sense in having variety for the sake of variety.

 

[Richard]

BTW, do you believe McGrath > Marshall?

 

[silentstriker]

BTW, do you believe McGrath > Marshall?

Yes.

 

[Richard]

You and me must have the Donald-vs-McGrath discussion sometime...

 

[silentstriker]

You and me must have the Donald-vs-McGrath discussion sometime...

Why? Harmison vs Donald would be more interesting.

 

[Richard]

WTF? &%$£-stirring is poor conduct from a Mod.

 

[silentstriker]

WTF? &%$£-stirring is poor conduct from a Mod.

Haha

 

[Richard]

Seriously though - it's common knowledge that you don't speak ill of McGrath in your presence. It's equally common that you don't speak ill of The Great AAD in mine and my namesake "Langers".

Let alone when it's the worst of the worst, the comparison to Harmison.

 

[Perm]

Meh, can't be bothered having the big quote argument again Richard BTW, I'm not of the opinion that it is necessary to have a left-armer, but I was arguing the advantages of having one.

 

[silentstriker]

It's equally common that you don't speak ill of The Great AAD in mine

Didn't know that actually.

Let alone when it's the worst of the worst, the comparison to Harmison.

Well considering his successes in Ashes '05, I thought it common knowledge that AD was just a slightly inferior version of Harmison.