Best bowling attack you can think of

[Richard]

Harmison and "success in The Ashes '05" do NOT go together.

Nor, by-and-large, do Harmison and "success", except for one very short period in early 2004.

Donald and "success", however, are pretty much inseparable bywords, regardless of pretty much anything until his very last 3 games.

AAD probably had more talent in 3 fingers than Harmison has ever had in his whole miserable 6"6'.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The talent for Harmison was always there, though - he just never had it together mentally, except for that golden-summer-and-a-bit. It's not like his body's deteriorated significantly since then.

Unless you're counting mental strength as a talent.

 

[The Sean]

Going with the old theory that an ideal XI consists of 5 batsmen, 5 bowlers and a keeper (screw the all rounders!), my best 5-man bowling attack ever would be:

Malcolm Marshall
Dennis Lillee
Sydney Barnes
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne

Paddles or Lillee could be replaced by Pidge with no discernible decrease in quality - really nothing between them IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Going with the old theory that an ideal XI consists of 5 batsmen, 5 bowlers and a keeper (screw the all rounders!), my best 5-man bowling attack ever would be:

Malcolm Marshall
Dennis Lillee
Sydney Barnes
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne

Paddles or Lillee could be replaced by Pidge with no discernible decrease in quality - really nothing between them IMO.

Well, your tail actually isn't bad as Hadlee, Warne and Marshall could all hold a bat. So with that tail, you could very conceivably get away without an all rounder. And I'd assume you'd probably have Sobers as a batsman anyway.

 

[Richard]

The talent for Harmison was always there, though - he just never had it together mentally, except for that golden-summer-and-a-bit. It's not like his body's deteriorated significantly since then.

Unless you're counting mental strength as a talent.

I'm not. I've said it 100,000 times - Harmison's problem is not lack of mental strength, it's lack of skill at the art of bowling. He just doesn't possess the required accuracy, nor can he do enough with the ball to cause problems even on the rare occasions he does get it in the right areas.

It wasn't even a golden summer he had, it was a golden spring plus half-summer.

People who say Harmison lacks mental strength are, to me, just making excuses to cover the fact they wildly misjudged him. It's far easier to bash him for lacking mental strength than it is to bash themselves for mistaking his ability.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

Then what is Sobers doing in the bowling attack?

 

[silentstriker]

Then what is Sobers doing in the bowling attack?

He is there as a batsman. If he can bowl a few overs, it's a plus.

 

[Richard]

He is there as a batsman. If he can bowl a few overs, it's a plus.

Post corrected.

 

[silentstriker]

Post corrected.

Saj Mahmood = Alan Donald

 

[Richard]

You're dead to me, Shah.

Sorely tempted to do a million puns now too.

 

[The Sean]

Well, your tail actually isn't bad as Hadlee, Warne and Marshall could all hold a bat. So with that tail, you could very conceivably get away without an all rounder. And I'd assume you'd probably have Sobers as a batsman anyway.

Indeed - Bradman's all time XI followed the same path with 5 batsmen (including Sobers) and 5 bowlers. Means that you've got 5 all time great bowlers and then one very good, very versatile on as your 6th.

 

[silentstriker]

Indeed - Bradman's all time XI followed the same path with 5 batsmen (including Sobers) and 5 bowlers. Means that you've got 5 all time great bowlers and then one very good, very versatile on as your 6th.

The only problem is that I don't like having five specialist bowlers unless one of them is there as an all rounder. Your team I wouldn't mind as two of those five can bat, but otherwise I think the tail is way too big.

 

[The Sean]

The only problem is that I don't like having five specialist bowlers unless one of them is there as an all rounder. Your team I wouldn't mind as two of those five can bat, but otherwise I think the tail is way too big.

Fair call mate - Bradman's team had far too long a tail for my liking:

Morris
Richards (Barry)
Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Tallon
Lindwall
Lillee
Bedser
Grimmett
O'Reilly

My team we're discussing here would have been

Hobbs
Grace
Bradman
Richards (Viv)
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Lillee
Barnes

Which I'd back against DGB's side nine times out of ten.

 

[Richard]

You'd have Viv Richards an an all-time World XI?

I mean, he'd be an automatic pick in a West Indies one, but I'd still have him behind Headley, Weekes, Sobers and Lara of his countrymen.

 

[Matt79]

I would have Viv ahead of ALL WI batsmen. Every day and twice on Sunday.

Lara isn't in my all time WI team.

 

[Goughy]

You'd have Viv Richards an an all-time World XI?

I mean, he'd be an automatic pick in a West Indies one, but I'd still have him behind Headley, Weekes, Sobers and Lara of his countrymen.

How is it possible to be shocked by that?

Headley maybe, but the rest you would reasonably expect Richards to be ahead.

Growing up in the 80s there was a lot of talk of Richards being the best since Bradman. He is clearly superior to Lara so I can see how anyone is shocked by that at all.

Its probably because you generally ignore the mental aspects of cricket and Richards dominated attacks and opponents as well as just scoring runs.

 

[Matt79]

plus had an absolutely massive and prolonged peak before his eye eventually let him down and returned his career stats to merely normal 'great' levels...

 

[Richard]

This was in the final 20 or so Tests of his career, which affected his average by something like a whole 3 points...

 

[Richard]

I would have Viv ahead of ALL WI batsmen. Every day and twice on Sunday.

Lara isn't in my all time WI team.

How is it possible to be shocked by that?

Headley maybe, but the rest you would reasonably expect Richards to be ahead.

Growing up in the 80s there was a lot of talk of Richards being the best since Bradman. He is clearly superior to Lara so I can see how anyone is shocked by that at all.

Its probably because you generally ignore the mental aspects of cricket and Richards dominated attacks and opponents as well as just scoring runs.

I know, and at the end of the day I don't place too much stall by dominance of attacks, because it's perfectly possible to win cricket matches without it. In any case, Lara was hardly completely sans-dominance.

Either way, it's output that matters infinitely more, and Sobers and Lara were better and equal respectively in this respect.

I've barely heard anyone claim Richards > Sobers anyway, and I've heard plenty claim Lara was the better, and not just those of my own generation.

I find it greatly annoying, in fact, when people put dominance of an attack as more important than output, and this is the only reason one can rank Richards so absurdly (IMO) highly as 2nd-best batsman in history. Because there were many greater run-scorers than he.

 

[The Sean]

You'd have Viv Richards an an all-time World XI?

Yes. Yes I would.