How would you rank the bowling attacks in world cricket as of today ?

[G.I.Joe]

Ravens? Cricsim?

In seriousness, I did make an account there during the CW Invasion to laugh about the flaming done, I read some of the intro as well and could not understand head or tail of the concept of simming and the comps though, really. So did not stick around.

Try again.

 

[Teja.]

Try again.

Link to a detailed explanation of the entire process tbh.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Silentstriker is a member there too, I hear

 

[G.I.Joe]

Link to a detailed explanation of the entire process tbh.

Register your player, then enter into negotiations for a club Here.

Don't join the Crusaders. They suck.

 

[Teja.]

Register your player, then enter into negotiations for a club Here.

Don't join the Crusaders. They suck.

The simming procedure, I meant.

 

[Eds]

Don't join the Crusaders. They suck.

Word on the street is that the Crusaders are the best club going.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The simming procedure, I meant.

There's simming?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Word on the street is that the Crusaders are the best club going.

No comment. Don't divert the thread please.

 

[Prince EWS]

If these same people who say India is #1 because of its batting only, and have a #5 or #6 bowling attack ever denounce India's batting as having lots of weaknesses I'll call them on it. Gambhir, Sehwag are FTBs, Dravid is past it and not having a 6 etc.

It's so inconsistent. Otherwise people are suggesting India are #1 on the back of Laxman and Sachin only. But then Sachin never wins his team games, and Laxman isn't a great.

****, India must be #1 because of the BCCI. It's the only explanation

I normally agree with you about how India are stupidly over-criticised but I think this is a pretty poor post. Do you actually think that India have a better bowling attack than South Africa, England or Australia? Or do you not think the form of Dravid or the inexperience/lack of anything so far from Pujara are potential weaknesses?

You've gone at pains to point out to aussie that you don't have to dominant to be #1, and yet you can't accept that it's possible for a team with the best batting lineup in the world (in spite of one or two weaknesses) and the fourth best attack could be the best team in the world if all the the other teams are inconsistent and have problems of their own. All the other teams other the last couple of years have had weaknesses too (which is why I got so excited by England in the other thread when I concluded they'd all but removed theirs, promptly before Collingwood retired), and you can't just have no number one team - that's why India are #1; not because they have a top-three bowling attack or seven undeniably world class batsmen.

Really, I think the main thing that has set India apart from the other top teams so far has been their ability to perform at key moments. This has nothing to do with how well they bowl overall, or even whether or not their batting can cover it - they are a fine example of how a team is more than batting lineup + bowling attack + catching. If they're only slightly behind in a game, they draw it. If they're ahead, they'll win more often than not, or at least draw. To beat India in a game you have to completely outplay them, because when it gets close they pull together as a team and generally get a favourable result.

The recent series against South Africa is a perfect example - their batting lineup was averaging 29 per wicket while South Africa's averaged 37. They played worse than their oponents overall, but as Test cricket doesn't really work like that and the timing of your performances matters, they drew the series (in fact, they were the only team in a position to win it late on Day 4 of the final test!). India are the masters of this in general, and it's an overall team thing rather than something tied to their batting or their bowling. Similarly, they drew 1-1 in Sri Lanka despite averaging 45 to Sri Lanka's 59. When South Africa toured in 2007 they averaged 41 to India's 33.. and it was a draw. There are countless examples - they've probably even won series where they barely performed better their opposition overall, but they performed when it matters, and that's what counts.

In fact, over the last two years, India are only third on the overall performance index:

		Bat	Bwl	Index

England		36.99	31.24	1.18
South Africa	39.37	33.37	1.18
India		43.56	39.89	1.09
Australia	34.86	32.96	1.06
Sri Lanka	44.22	42.97	1.03
Pakistan	26.77	37.06	0.72
New Zealand	29.60	45.24	0.65
West Indies	30.28	49.22	0.62

But again, cricket doesn't work like that. When you perform matters - India are masters are getting results that flatter their overall efforts in series by performing when it counts. It's not a criticism and it's not a fluke; it's one of the major reasons they're such a good team, and it's a great attribute to have.

Does it mean they have a top three bowling attack? No.
Does it mean Dravid and Pujara aren't potential weaknesses? No.

It means they have an almost intangible quality as a team that sees them get results beyond their situation-unbiased performances. It means they'll always be under-rated, but it does not mean it's unfair for people to say they have a middle of the road bowling attack.


EDIT: Also, cue people to see my table, not read the rest of my post and respond by saying they get results or have the best W/L% or something like that, completely missing the fact that it was precisely my point. Because that's CW these days.

 

[Teja.]

I

It means they have an almost intangible quality as a team that sees them get results beyond their situation-unbiased performances. It means they'll always be under-rated, but it does mean it's unfair for people to say they have a middle of the road bowling attack.

I fully agree re India having a 5-6 level bowling attack but this intangible quality you talk about is largely in it's bowling, IMHO. Sree and Harby may get hammered in a loss or an Innings defeat but they suddenly become world-beaters on occasion when they smell a victory around. While It's fair to say India has a middling or even poor bowling attack, Looking from a purely win perspective, It's incredibly unfair to say India is winning despite it's bowling. You can check from most of India's test wins in the recent period, They are almost invariably not score 600 and plug away wins, they are wins where the bowling suddenly come together in the middle of the match to take away the game when they're evenly matched by the other team by the bat unlike some of say, England's wins where the batting is awesome enough to eliminate the negative result into the second day itself.

 

[vcs]

Also, can't see too many reasons to rank Australia's attack over India's.

 

[Prince EWS]

I fully agree re India having a 5-6 level bowling attack but this intangible quality you talk about is largely in it's bowling, IMHO. Sree and Harby may get hammered in a loss or an Innings defeat but they suddenly become world-beaters on occasion when they smell a victory around. While It's fair to say India has a middling or even poor bowling attack, Looking from a purely win perspective, It's incredibly unfair to say India is winning despite it's bowling. You can check from most of India's test wins in the recent period, They are almost invariably not score 600 and plug away wins, they are wins where the bowling suddenly come together in the middle of the match to take away the game when they're evenly matched by the other team by the bat unlike some of say, England's wins where the batting is awesome enough to eliminate the negative result into the second day itself.

I said India wins series despite its bowling; not wins games despite its bowling. To win a game you generally need to bowl pretty decently, particularly in India. When India bowl poorly they usually draw though; a luxury that a team with less awesome batting or less general aptitude for performing at key moments wouldn't have. England, South Africa and Australia simply bowl well more often.

I think Indian fans are focusing far too much on the results of games in this thread, tbh - no-one asked who had the best team. Winning series and having a top three attack are not the same thing. It's getting to a stage where you can't debate any facet of India's cricket of people getting defensive and pointing out that they win a lot of series - it doesn't mean they're beyond criticism as a team and are #1 in every facet of cricket. Some areas of their game make up for others, because every team in world cricket has had weaknesses over the past two years.

 

[Teja.]

Also, can't see too many reasons to rank Australia's attack over India's.

I'd rate Harris/Bollinger, Johnson, Siddle and random spinner to be better than Zak, Harbhajan, Sharma and Sree atm tbh.

 

[vcs]

I'd rate Harris/Bollinger, Johnson, Siddle and random spinner to be better than Zak, Harbhajan, Sharma and Sree atm tbh.

That's because your irrational love for Johnson rivals your irrational love for Sree, TBH.

 

[Bun]

I'd rate Harris/Bollinger, Johnson, Siddle and random spinner to be better than Zak, Harbhajan, Sharma and Sree atm tbh.

Well that didn't show in the results of recent games though.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, I agree they haven't been great. They are woefully inconsistent - when they are bad, they are very bad; but when they are good, they often ensure a win (Centurion and Durban tests for example). And remember, they have had the worst of the conditions in recent times, thanks to Dhoni's record (?) losing streak with the toss.

I agree with the general consensus here by the way - India's bowling is about fourth or fifth best. I have them fourth currently simply because of Pakistan's relatively inexperienced attack. That will definitely change when Asif and Aamer return though.

But India has also the best W/L record among all teams as well.

Since 2008,

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

It is shocking how India's bowling numbers are dire and third from the bottom, only WI and Ban having even worse numbers. But equally shocking is that they've also managed to win so many test matches as well, which suggests their bowling has done enough and the numbers may be looking ugly as a result of the pitches they've been playing in. Or maybe that they do well just enough to win/tie test series but in the games they lose/draw they tend to be absolutely horrible. I am not sure.

Here are my rankings (assuming Pak spearheads are available)

1. Pakistan (Asif, Amir, Ajmal - These guys can run through perhaps any attack in the world and likely do so more than any team in the world)
2. South Africa - (Steyn, Morkel - They are a deadly combo and Lopsy is becoming a reliable 3rd pacer as well. They also have Kallis. Their current spinner is dire though)
3. England - Jimmy Anderson and Graeme Swann have been consistently good performers in the last 2 years. Although one can argue majority of their good performances came against weaker sides like Bangladesh, WI, Pakistan and then against a palpably out of sorts Australia, they would feel confident to replicate their form against other sides as well, especially at home. Their acid test would be the upcoming series against India though.
4. India - Their numbers may look horrible but those are actually a product of their environment more than their direness. Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh are still top of the class performers while Sreesanth as mercurial as he is, is capable of running through top class sides on his day.
5. Australia - They have a world class bowler in Mitchell Johnson but he is woefully inconsistent especially without backup performances from other bowlers. If his last 2 years are anything to go by, he is slipping than improving as a bowler
6. Sri Lanka - I would definitely rate them above India if they had Murali. But now they don't. Their pace spearhead Malinga has played very few tests in the last 5 years as well. Even with Murali they have struggled away from home, and now they are vulnerable even at home.
7. West Indies - Kemar Roach is an interesting and exciting prospect but till they start winning series they cannot claim for a higher position.
8. New Zealand - Not much to write about here. Vettori still stands tall among the mediocre bowlers around him.
9. Bangladesh - Shakib Al Hasan is the only test class bowler they have unearthed in a decade of top drawer cricket. Says it all.

Top notch post.

If these same people who say India is #1 because of its batting only, and have a #5 or #6 bowling attack ever denounce India's batting as having lots of weaknesses I'll call them on it. Gambhir, Sehwag are FTBs, Dravid is past it and not having a 6 etc.

It's so inconsistent. Otherwise people are suggesting India are #1 on the back of Laxman and Sachin only. But then Sachin never wins his team games, and Laxman isn't a great.

****, India must be #1 because of the BCCI. It's the only explanation

Jono I expect better from you. I wanted to answer you on this but went ahead and saw that PEWS has written almost exactly what i wanted to say. We have argued so many times that you don't have to be completely dominant to be #1 so it was quite a surprise that you brought this up.

I normally agree with you about how India are stupidly over-criticised but I think this is a pretty poor post. Do you actually think that India have a better bowling attack than South Africa, England or Australia? Or do you not think the form of Dravid or the inexperience/lack of anything so far from Pujara are potential weaknesses?

You've gone at pains to point out to aussie that you don't have to dominant to be #1, and yet you can't accept that it's possible for a team with the best batting lineup in the world (in spite of one or two weaknesses) and the fourth best attack could be the best team in the world if all the the other teams are inconsistent and have problems of their own. All the other teams other the last couple of years have had weaknesses too (which is why I got so excited by England in the other thread when I concluded they'd all but removed theirs, promptly before Collingwood retired), and you can't just have no number one team - that's why India are #1; not because they have a top-three bowling attack or seven undeniably world class batsmen.

Really, I think the main thing that has set India apart from the other top teams so far has been their ability to perform at key moments. This has nothing to do with how well they bowl overall, or even whether or not their batting can cover it - they are a fine example of how a team is more than batting lineup + bowling attack + catching. If they're only slightly behind in a game, they draw it. If they're ahead, they'll win more often than not, or at least draw. To beat India in a game you have to completely outplay them, because when it gets close they pull together as a team and generally get a favourable result.

The recent series against South Africa is a perfect example - their batting lineup was averaging 29 per wicket while South Africa's averaged 37. They played worse than their oponents overall, but as Test cricket doesn't really work like that and the timing of your performances matters, they drew the series. India are the masters of this in general, and it's an overall team thing rather than something tied to their batting or their bowling. Similarly, they drew 1-1 in Sri Lanka despite averaging 45 to Sri Lanka's 59. When South Africa toured in 2007 they averaged 41 to India's 33.. and it was a draw. There are countless examples - they've probably even won series where they barely performed better their opposition overall, but they performed when it matters, and that's what counts.

In fact, over the last two years, India are only third on the overall performance index:

		Bat	Bwl	Index

England		36.99	31.24	1.18
South Africa	39.37	33.37	1.18
India		43.56	39.89	1.09
Australia	34.86	32.96	1.06
Sri Lanka	44.22	42.97	1.03
Pakistan	26.77	37.06	0.72
New Zealand	29.60	45.24	0.65
West Indies	30.28	49.22	0.62

But again, cricket doesn't work like that. When you perform matters - India are masters are getting results that flatter their overall efforts in series by performing when it counts. It's not a criticism and it's not a fluke; it's one of the major reasons they're such a good team, and it's a great attribute to have.

Does it mean they have a top three bowling attack? No.
Does it mean Dravid and Pujara aren't potential weaknesses? No.

It means they have an almost intangible quality as a team that sees them get results beyond their situation-unbiased performances. It means they'll always be under-rated, but it does mean it's unfair for people to say they have a middle of the road bowling attack.


EDIT: Also, cue people to see my table, not read the rest of my post and respond by saying they get results or have the best W/L% or something like that, completely missing the fact that it was precisely my point. Because that's CW these days.

A very good answer to Jono's concerns.

 

[Furball]

If these same people who say India is #1 because of its batting only, and have a #5 or #6 bowling attack ever denounce India's batting as having lots of weaknesses I'll call them on it. Gambhir, Sehwag are FTBs, Dravid is past it and not having a 6 etc.

It's so inconsistent. Otherwise people are suggesting India are #1 on the back of Laxman and Sachin only. But then Sachin never wins his team games, and Laxman isn't a great.

**** me Jono, I thought you were far more intelligent than that.

PEWS has rebuked this well enough so there's no point in more or less duplicating what he said, but the first paragraph looks suspiciously like a ******** interpretation of an argument I made a couple of days ago.

FTR though, if India's bowling attack was better, they'd be approaching a stage of Australian or West Indian style dominance for as long as their middle order sticks together. India's bowling attack is the difference between them being number 1 in a tight pack (albeit with a bit of daylight between yourselves and South Africa and England) and being comprehensively number 1.

 

[Furball]

But again, cricket doesn't work like that. When you perform matters - India are masters are getting results that flatter their overall efforts in series by performing when it counts. It's not a criticism and it's not a fluke; it's one of the major reasons they're such a good team, and it's a great attribute to have.

Interestingly, England have two recent examples of this as well - Ashes 2009 and South Africa 2009/10. England in the Ashes however, have taken a step beyond just winning key moments and completely outplayed Australia for the majority of the series - which is why I'm optimistic we'll get the job done in summer.

 

[silentstriker]

Do you actually think that India have a better bowling attack than South Africa, England or Australia?

Yup.

 

[Teja.]

I said India wins series despite its bowling; not wins games despite its bowling. To win a game you generally need to bowl pretty decently, particularly in India. When India bowl poorly they usually draw though; a luxury that a team with less awesome batting or less general aptitude for performing at key moments wouldn't have. England, South Africa and Australia simply bowl well more often.

.

Yeah, clarified.