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

[MrPrez]

SA
Aus
Eng
NZ
WI
IND
ZIM
SL
BAN
PAK

 

[smash84]

SA
Aus
Eng
NZ
WI
IND
ZIM
SL
BAN
PAK

Brilliant......it just confirms my hunch of your cricketing sense lol...

 

[Woodster]

Interesting to see Australia have shot up people's rankings in the bowling department. What a difference 6 months makes.

 

[smash84]

tbf Australian bowlers have looked top notch this summer

 

[Viscount Tom]

tbf Australian bowlers have looked top notch this summer

Lets be fair most teams that have played against India in the past year or so have looked top notch.

 

[Woodster]

tbf Australian bowlers have looked top notch this summer

Lets be fair most teams that have played against India in the past year or so have looked top notch.

No disputing the Australian attack have looked good this summer, as Viscount Tom says, if the ball's swinging around India these days will make most attacks look a handful. They bowled well against New Zealand and made the most of some very bowler-friendly conditions in South Africa. They've done most of what has been asked of them so far, but taking the above factors into consideration is it really enough to propel them from mid-table to the best in the world ?

I think they've some very promising bowlers, no doubt about it, but would like to see them in less helpful conditions, against strong in-form batting teams, and over a longer period of time. These young lads will have a drop in form at some point, as all newcomers to Test cricket do, it's then about how they react and improve.

 

[MrPrez]

Brilliant......it just confirms my hunch of your cricketing sense lol...

 

[Uppercut]

No disputing the Australian attack have looked good this summer, as Viscount Tom says, if the ball's swinging around India these days will make most attacks look a handful. They bowled well against New Zealand and made the most of some very bowler-friendly conditions in South Africa. They've done most of what has been asked of them so far, but taking the above factors into consideration is it really enough to propel them from mid-table to the best in the world ?

I think they've some very promising bowlers, no doubt about it, but would like to see them in less helpful conditions, against strong in-form batting teams, and over a longer period of time. These young lads will have a drop in form at some point, as all newcomers to Test cricket do, it's then about how they react and improve.

Come off it, it's easy to tell the difference between good bowling and bad batting. Pattinson and Hilfenhaus could have been bowling to imaginary batsmen all summer and it still would have been obvious that they constitute a quality attack. Just like when the English attack demolished Pakistan at home- the opposition batted badly but the English bowling was still obviously exceptional to anyone who bothered to watch them.

It makes sense to want to see batsmen tested against tough bowling before making a judgment but with bowlers it's just a bad excuse to dampen the enthusiasm of opposing fans.

 

[Woodster]

Come off it, it's easy to tell the difference between good bowling and bad batting. Pattinson and Hilfenhaus could have been bowling to imaginary batsmen all summer and it still would have been obvious that they constitute a quality attack. Just like when the English attack demolished Pakistan at home- the opposition batted badly but the English bowling was still obviously exceptional to anyone who bothered to watch them.

It makes sense to want to see batsmen tested against tough bowling before making a judgment but with bowlers it's just a bad excuse to dampen the enthusiasm of opposing fans.

So to assess a batsman it makes sense to see him against tough bowling, yet it doesn't matter who the bowler bowls to in order to make an assessment of whether he's any good ? Do me a favour. The pressure that is put back onto a bowler when they realise the margins for error are so small against in-form batsman in good conditions make a huge difference, especially in the cases of inexperienced players.

I'm not disputing how well this Australia attack have done of late, and how promising the likes of Pattinson and Cummins look. Also the form of both Siddle and Hilfenhaus, I've always liked the look of Harris, but I don't think you can make them the best bowling attack in the world based on a few month period, no matter how promising they look. Let's not forget both Hilfenhaus and Siddle were being lambasted just 12 months ago!

 

[MrPrez]

AWTA. Stacks of potential, but still need to prove themselves.

 

[Uppercut]

IIRC the Indian batting lineup was thought to be one of the greatest to play the game until it faced the English and Australian attacks. It then magically turned to poo. Apparently. Because it definitely didn't have anything to do with the quality of the bowling.

 

[GIMH]

IIRC the Indian batting lineup was thought to be one of the greatest to play the game until it faced the English and Australian attacks. It then magically turned to poo. Apparently.

Don't be an idiot, we softened them up, thus enabling even the likes of Hilfenhaus to get them out

 

[Daemon]

Don't be an idiot, we softened them up, thus enabling even the likes of Hilfenhaus to get them out

Don't flatter yourself. Somerset was the one who softened us up for you guys.

 

[Woodster]

IIRC the Indian batting lineup was thought to be one of the greatest to play the game until it faced the English and Australian attacks. It then magically turned to poo. Apparently. Because it definitely didn't have anything to do with the quality of the bowling.

This Indian line-up was one of the finest around, and will probably still more than hold their own when they return to the sub-continent, it has still required good disciplined bowling to clean them up so not sure why you think otherwise.

 

[Uppercut]

It's just classic cricketing circular logic.

"That attack needs to take wickets against a better batting lineup."
"Isn't that batting lineup packed with cricketing legends?"
"But they're actually crap, we know this because that attack took wickets against them."

It happened to England this time last year too. When you perform well enough, you damage the reputation of your opponents, and thus devalue your own achievement.

 

[Woodster]

It's just classic cricketing circular logic.

"That attack needs to take wickets against a better batting lineup."
"Isn't that batting lineup packed with cricketing legends?"
"But they're actually crap, we know this because that attack took wickets against them."

It happened to England this time last year too. When you perform well enough, you damage the reputation of your opponents, and thus devalue your own achievement.

There is a bit of that thrown in for sure. But I don't think anyone is saying Australia, or England, didn't bowl well against India ? They bowled very well, and despite India's obvious frailties against swing bowling they will still punish poor bowling.

 

[Uppercut]

Hmm, so basically the attack needs to prove itself against one of them batting lineups that isn't vulnerable to fast, full, late swinging deliveries consistently in the off-stump channel. I see.

 

[Woodster]

Hmm, so basically the attack needs to prove itself against one of them batting lineups that isn't vulnerable to fast, full, late swinging deliveries consistently in the off-stump channel. I see.

Hmm, think you're missing the point.

Fact is I don't believe, as well as this Australia attack have done in recent Tests, they've not done enough to warrant the claim as having the best attack in the world. If you still think India are an invincible batting force, despite England doing exactly the same to them as Australia in similar conditions, then it's upto you if you think Australia have the best bowling attack.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

England
South Africa
Australia
Pakistan
New Zealand
West Indies
India
Sri Lanka

 

[Strike!]

In subcontinent conditions Pakistan has the best bowling attack in the world without a doubt, Probably 3rd or 4th in seam friendly conditions.