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

[Uppercut]

Interestingly, England have two recent examples of this as well - Ashes 2009 and South Africa 2009/10.

I'm dubious though. Having a number eleven bad enough to miss several late-evening deliveries rather than edge them isn't what makes a good cricket team.

Not to take anything away from them because they showed a lot of guts (unlike MS Dhoni or Daren Powell did while still managing to save their respective matches). But coming out on top in those spots really isn't something you can rely on to give you an edge over the opposition.

 

[shankar]

India's method is simple: On flat or slow pitches their bowlers are ineffective and concede large totals. But their batsmen are consistently good enough to overhaul whatever the opponents make. But, whenever there's help avaiable, their bowlers don't fail to turn up and consistently exploit whatever help is available. Also they have bowlers who can exploit availabale help in the form of seam, conventional swing, reverse swing or spin. Their batsmen, though individually possessing weaknesses, collectively perform well even under bowler friendly conditions.

The statistics from jan 2008:

Hence India's bowling strength cannot be appraised by looking at the overall statistics. Look at the statistics in matches which India win and compare it to the stats when India lose or draw the match. Compare with the relevant statistics for the other top teams.

Team   Bowling average when match was
          Won    Drawn/Lost

India      27.02    55.03

England    23.98    41.78

S.Africa   23.80    42.73

Australia  24.69    45.12

Considering India did not play the weakened Pakistan batting line-up and the fact that even the result-oriented pitches in the subcontinent are more batter-friendly than in say England or South Africa, their bowling average in wins is not very different from the other teams. But on flat/slow pitches they perform exceptionally badly which brings down their overall average.

If you look at Indian losses, they occur on batting friendly pitches where one of the opposition bowlers takes the pitch out of the equation by bowling an amazing spell - eg: Mendis in 2008, Steyn's spells in India, Malinga's reverse swing in 2010.

The losses do not occur on bowling friendly pitches where their bowlers fail to perform. The centurion loss is the only example of the latter, but there were mitigating circumstances there. If the Indian bowling was just ordinary overall, then you would expect more examples of the latter.

 

[Cruxdude]

India's method is simple: On flat or slow pitches their bowlers are ineffective and concede large totals. But their batsmen are consistently good enough to overhaul whatever the opponents make. But, whenever there's help avaiable, their bowlers don't fail to turn up and consistently exploit whatever help is available. Also they have bowlers who can exploit availabale help in the form of seam, conventional swing, reverse swing or spin. Their batsmen, though individually possessing weaknesses, collectively perform well even under bowler friendly conditions.

The statistics from jan 2008:

Hence India's bowling strength cannot be appraised by looking at the overall statistics. Look at the statistics in matches which India win and compare it to the stats when India lose or draw the match. Compare with the relevant statistics for the other top teams.

Team   Bowling average when match was
          Won    Drawn/Lost

India      27.02    55.03

England    23.98    41.78

S.Africa   23.80    42.73

Australia  24.69    45.12

Considering India did not play the weakened Pakistan batting line-up and the fact that even the result-oriented pitches in the subcontinent are more batter-friendly than in say England or South Africa, their bowling average in wins is not very different from the other teams. But on flat/slow pitches they perform exceptionally badly which brings down their overall average.

If you look at Indian losses, they occur on batting friendly pitches where one of the opposition bowlers takes the pitch out of the equation by bowling an amazing spell - eg: Mendis in 2008, Steyn's spells in India, Malinga's reverse swing in 2010.

The losses do not occur on bowling friendly pitches where their bowlers fail to perform. The centurion loss is the only example of the latter, but there were mitigating circumstances there. If the Indian bowling was just ordinary overall, then you would expect more examples of the latter.

A good post.

 

[r3alist]

it imo can be argued that in terms of overall attack, spinners + quicks india can be no.1.


SA have steyn, but who else turned up against india?

and is their lack of a decent spinner not a gaping hole? - which was exposed in the third test?


india are not actually outstanding, but they have a very effective combination of tight spinners who pick up wickets and zak who also picks up key wickets.

the advantage of having the spinners is that they can also take the workload - this is a really handy combination and i think makes them a more rounded attack than SA.

england with swann are perhaps the most rounded.



i hope the pak selectors are looking at the next big thing ala amir, because they need it right now.

 

[TumTum]

India's method is simple: On flat or slow pitches their bowlers are ineffective and concede large totals. But their batsmen are consistently good enough to overhaul whatever the opponents make. But, whenever there's help avaiable, their bowlers don't fail to turn up and consistently exploit whatever help is available. Also they have bowlers who can exploit availabale help in the form of seam, conventional swing, reverse swing or spin. Their batsmen, though individually possessing weaknesses, collectively perform well even under bowler friendly conditions.

The statistics from jan 2008:

Hence India's bowling strength cannot be appraised by looking at the overall statistics. Look at the statistics in matches which India win and compare it to the stats when India lose or draw the match. Compare with the relevant statistics for the other top teams.

Team   Bowling average when match was
          Won    Drawn/Lost

India      27.02    55.03

England    23.98    41.78

S.Africa   23.80    42.73

Australia  24.69    45.12

Considering India did not play the weakened Pakistan batting line-up and the fact that even the result-oriented pitches in the subcontinent are more batter-friendly than in say England or South Africa, their bowling average in wins is not very different from the other teams. But on flat/slow pitches they perform exceptionally badly which brings down their overall average.

If you look at Indian losses, they occur on batting friendly pitches where one of the opposition bowlers takes the pitch out of the equation by bowling an amazing spell - eg: Mendis in 2008, Steyn's spells in India, Malinga's reverse swing in 2010.

The losses do not occur on bowling friendly pitches where their bowlers fail to perform. The centurion loss is the only example of the latter, but there were mitigating circumstances there. If the Indian bowling was just ordinary overall, then you would expect more examples of the latter.

Don't understand this part, so you're saying we shouldn't look at India's performance when they don't win because their batsman are too good?

I thought we were only examining the bowling attacks.

 

[Jono]

I normally agree with you about how India are stupidly over-criticised but I think this is a pretty poor post.

Jono I expect better from you.

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

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.

See, here is a key point. You can't just separate this quality you speak of from their bowling performances.

And for the record, saying India has a #4 bowling attack, and saying India has a #5 or #6 bowling attack are seriously different views. My post specifically referred to people saying India's attack was ranked #5 or #6 or lower (which is plain wrong).

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.

This is misleading. This has nothing to do with the dominance #1 debate.

This has to do with people looking at individual bowlers in isolation and deciding what they think makes up a good bowling attack. To them, seeing people who look like they should bowl well together, i.e. Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus/Harris/Bollinger and Hauritz/Doherty/Beer,Smith may seem like they should be a better attack than India's... but they're not. Why? Because as a unit they aren't anywhere near as drilled as Zaheer, Sree, Harbhajan, Ojha/Ishant. They're just not.

A bowling attack is a team. Hence you assess it as a team. You don't assess it by putting three/four individuals who you think are good but just aren't performing, and then saying "well their attack is better".

If anyone, anyone at all, thinks India would have conceded 500 in a first innings three times against England like Australia did, I think you're crazy.

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.

That's wrong. And if such a post were made in context to a Kallis against Lara or Ponting or whomever a few posters would (rightfully imo) throw a tantrum.

This is about results of games. Because that's what teams bowl to. India's bowling in recent times works as a unit. Ojha comes out with ordinary figures sometimes, but he's intentionally bowling a tight line to ensure that there is pressure on the other end for Zaheer who is reversing it.

Dhoni (for all my hate of his captaincy recently) knows when an Indian pitch is dead. So he'll change the fields, and this will result in some bowlers figures looking worse than they are.

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.

See, this is a different point. You're here suggesting Indias' batting lineup is very very good. So clearly my post wasn't in reference to you.

Clearly my post was saying that either India's batting lineup is comfortably the best, or it's the best among other good ones, and the bowlers do the job.

For mine it's the second. I don't think India's batting lineup is too much better than South Africa's or England. But it works well with its bowlers. It doesn't compensate for its bowlers. If anything that often occurs the other way around (see Durban).

India's method is simple: On flat or slow pitches their bowlers are ineffective and concede large totals. But their batsmen are consistently good enough to overhaul whatever the opponents make. But, whenever there's help avaiable, their bowlers don't fail to turn up and consistently exploit whatever help is available. Also they have bowlers who can exploit availabale help in the form of seam, conventional swing, reverse swing or spin. Their batsmen, though individually possessing weaknesses, collectively perform well even under bowler friendly conditions.

The statistics from jan 2008:

Hence India's bowling strength cannot be appraised by looking at the overall statistics. Look at the statistics in matches which India win and compare it to the stats when India lose or draw the match. Compare with the relevant statistics for the other top teams.

Team   Bowling average when match was
          Won    Drawn/Lost

India      27.02    55.03

England    23.98    41.78

S.Africa   23.80    42.73

Australia  24.69    45.12

Considering India did not play the weakened Pakistan batting line-up and the fact that even the result-oriented pitches in the subcontinent are more batter-friendly than in say England or South Africa, their bowling average in wins is not very different from the other teams. But on flat/slow pitches they perform exceptionally badly which brings down their overall average.

If you look at Indian losses, they occur on batting friendly pitches where one of the opposition bowlers takes the pitch out of the equation by bowling an amazing spell - eg: Mendis in 2008, Steyn's spells in India, Malinga's reverse swing in 2010.

The losses do not occur on bowling friendly pitches where their bowlers fail to perform. The centurion loss is the only example of the latter, but there were mitigating circumstances there. If the Indian bowling was just ordinary overall, then you would expect more examples of the latter.

Yeah good stuff here.

 

[Jono]

Don't understand this part, so you're saying we shouldn't look at India's performance when they don't win because their batsman are too good?

I thought we were only examining the bowling attacks.

But the point is, people often have a go at the Indian batting.

They can't have it both ways.

And ftr, a lot of Indian losses in recent times have been due to its batting.

 

[TumTum]

But the point is, people often have a go at the Indian batting.

They can't have it both ways.

And ftr, a lot of Indian losses in recent times have been due to its batting.

I probably haven't been up to date with this, can you explain further?

Also just on that point that India usually don't bowl well where they don't win, the opposition averages 39.75 against them. So you can't say it's because they get to bowl on flat wickets.

 

[GotSpin]

I probably haven't been up to date with this, can you explain further?

Also just on that point that India usually don't bowl well where they don't win, the opposition averages 39.75 against them. So you can't say it's because they get to bowl on flat wickets.

It's because India on one hand get criticised for having an ageing and weak batting attack and then on the other hand their bowling also gets criticised.

 

[TumTum]

It's because India on one hand get criticised for having an ageing and weak batting attack and then on the other hand their bowling also gets criticised.

Weak batting attack? Yeah sure it's ageing but...

Although they are still susceptible to collapses.

 

[GotSpin]

Weak batting attack? Yeah sure it's ageing but...

Although they are still susceptible to collapses.

Sehwag - Flat track bully
Gambhir - Can't handle bounce
Dravid - Old man river
Tendulkar - Doesn't win matches
Laxman - Not a great

those are the typical attacks on the batting line up. Not that I agree with them all

 

[Ruckus]

This kallisball meme is the most dire thing I've witnessed on the Internet, ever.

There is so much truth to this post.

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.

Yeah the Ashes 2009 series was a perfect example. Australia had 6 of the top 7 leading runs scorers and the top 3 wicket takers for the series, yet still managed to lose. As a side note as well, only 2 of the English batsmen scored centuries in the series, compared to 6 of the Aus batsmen (which really goes against the point you were making in the other thread about how crucial it is to score centuries).

 

[Spark]

Except four of them came in one match... which we should have won.

In fact Lord's, the one case where we had a century in a losing cause, is an excellent case of centuries setting up a match. Beyond Strauss's 160-odd and Cook's 95 (IIRC) - which is close enough to a hundred to not make any significant difference - their batsmen all in all didn't do great. Their middle order basically folded. However because they scored two centuries, enough people made minor contributions (the kind that in a lower score would look like irritating failures) that they got a 400+ score which set up the match nicely for them.

 

[shankar]

Don't understand this part, so you're saying we shouldn't look at India's performance when they don't win because their batsman are too good?

I thought we were only examining the bowling attacks.

Forget the stats. I needn't have included them. The essential point I'm making is this: The Indian bowling attack is (cliche) a story of two halves (/cliche). On a slow wicket with not much help for the bowlers, they lack the extra pace or the exceptional accuracy that other bowling line-ups might have. So they get slaughtered on these wickets. But the batting is good enough on these wickets to save the game. But, when there is substantial help in the wicket for spinners or pacers, the Indian bowlers rarely fail to turn up. So the usual pattern is: 2 Flat wicket - draws followed by a single result wicket where India win.

Where this method is broken up is when on a flat wicket, you get a Dale Steyn who dismisses the Indian batting for a score far less than the pitch deserved. The Indian bowling has no cards to play when this happens, to get India back into the game.

None of this is to say that the Indian bowling is not worse overall than that of the other top teams. It is just to add some perspective to their raw figures.

 

[Ruckus]

Except four of them came in one match... which we should have won.

In fact Lord's, the one case where we had a century in a losing cause, is an excellent case of centuries setting up a match. Beyond Strauss's 160-odd and Cook's 95 (IIRC) - which is close enough to a hundred to not make any significant difference - their batsmen all in all didn't do great. Their middle order basically folded. However because they scored two centuries, enough people made minor contributions (the kind that in a lower score would look like irritating failures) that they got a 400+ score which set up the match nicely for them.

I'm not arguing that centuries aren't useful, my point is they are not crucial for success. All that matters in the end is the total a team puts up (which is not dependant on centuries).

Bringing that idea back to the topic of the thread though, a similar thing can be said for the bowling side - as others have already mentioned, a bowling unit can still be successful despite not having the best averages, best figures etc. All that matters is how the bowlers peform as a group and how well they complement each others performances. E.g. in one of the Ashes tests Siddle had awesome figures of 6 for 70-odd, yet because the rest of the bowlers failed to contribute England built a massive innings total.

 

[Spark]

Centuries make a big total significantly easier though, as that shows. A big hundred, a hundred that wasn't, and the rest of the team can more or less be poor and you still get a big score on the board.

 

[NasserFan207]

Comparing the Indian and Australian bowling attacks is interesting. I think the Indian is more versatile, and better disciplined, but the Australian one is more immediately destructive. Its difficult to really seperate them.

A great batting line up really does effect a bowling line up though. Australia's bowlers during the Ashes were constantly attempting to do things far beyond their powers due to the pressure forced on them by their inept batsmen, and the result was they basically melted under pressure.

The Indian attack looks a lot more disciplined, but with the batting power behind them, its a lot easier to appear that way. Less pressure to perform etc.

Certainly they generally get the job done though.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I agree with all of that. The problem with trying to compare them at this moment is because, as you said, the Australian batting has been woeful of late. That's especially relevant considering two of our key bowlers seem to be confidence players, Johnson in particular, and Siddle to a lesser extent.

 

[smash84]

Comparing the Indian and Australian bowling attacks is interesting. I think the Indian is more versatile, and better disciplined, but the Australian one is more immediately destructive. Its difficult to really seperate them.

A great batting line up really does effect a bowling line up though. Australia's bowlers during the Ashes were constantly attempting to do things far beyond their powers due to the pressure forced on them by their inept batsmen, and the result was they basically melted under pressure.

The Indian attack looks a lot more disciplined, but with the batting power behind them, its a lot easier to appear that way. Less pressure to perform etc.

Certainly they generally get the job done though.

A point well made

 

[Teja.]

India's method is simple: On flat or slow pitches their bowlers are ineffective and concede large totals. But their batsmen are consistently good enough to overhaul whatever the opponents make. But, whenever there's help avaiable, their bowlers don't fail to turn up and consistently exploit whatever help is available. Also they have bowlers who can exploit availabale help in the form of seam, conventional swing, reverse swing or spin. Their batsmen, though individually possessing weaknesses, collectively perform well even under bowler friendly conditions.

The statistics from jan 2008:

Hence India's bowling strength cannot be appraised by looking at the overall statistics. Look at the statistics in matches which India win and compare it to the stats when India lose or draw the match. Compare with the relevant statistics for the other top teams.

Team   Bowling average when match was
          Won    Drawn/Lost

India      27.02    55.03

England    23.98    41.78

S.Africa   23.80    42.73

Australia  24.69    45.12

Considering India did not play the weakened Pakistan batting line-up and the fact that even the result-oriented pitches in the subcontinent are more batter-friendly than in say England or South Africa, their bowling average in wins is not very different from the other teams. But on flat/slow pitches they perform exceptionally badly which brings down their overall average.

If you look at Indian losses, they occur on batting friendly pitches where one of the opposition bowlers takes the pitch out of the equation by bowling an amazing spell - eg: Mendis in 2008, Steyn's spells in India, Malinga's reverse swing in 2010.

The losses do not occur on bowling friendly pitches where their bowlers fail to perform. The centurion loss is the only example of the latter, but there were mitigating circumstances there. If the Indian bowling was just ordinary overall, then you would expect more examples of the latter.

Gun post.