stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You had two points Dan. Your first is that list of bowlers. The first set were bowlers who were the fourth best bowlers in the team. A 30 average for the 4th bowler is neither here nor there really. A fourth bowler isn't going to take many wickets from your most important bowlers. I don't think you'd find Australia would have done very well if any of those guys were the second pick bowlers. I'm fact I do remember a couple of tests where they were - the 2005 Ashes where Warne was the only decent bowler and Australia were fielding Kasper, Lee and a way past it Gillespie add the pacers. Warne took 8 wpm that series. Those guys took virtually nothing.
The next guys are associated with extended periods of mediocrity in Australian cricket. The period with Hilfenhaus/Johnson/Siddle as our attack was the worst since the 80s. And much as I love McDermott, Hughes and Warne were just as important in the early 90s.
Your second point was about Morkel. I watched plenty of Morkel. For most of the time he was like a worse version of Gillespie. Always looked good because he always bowled too short and didn't take the edge. Morkel did well to improve in the last few years of his career - the years Steyn largely spent injured. I mean he only got his career average under 30 at the end of 2014, some 70 odd tests into Steyn's career.
Steyn was that good that he made South Africa's attack fearsome and match winning in spite of Kallis being the second or third best bowler for a number of years. Philander coming along was massive for the overall quality of the SA attack and really improved their overall effectiveness when he was present.
This was probably the weakest period for the SA attack if you don't count Steyn:
www.espncricinfo.com
The next guys are associated with extended periods of mediocrity in Australian cricket. The period with Hilfenhaus/Johnson/Siddle as our attack was the worst since the 80s. And much as I love McDermott, Hughes and Warne were just as important in the early 90s.
Your second point was about Morkel. I watched plenty of Morkel. For most of the time he was like a worse version of Gillespie. Always looked good because he always bowled too short and didn't take the edge. Morkel did well to improve in the last few years of his career - the years Steyn largely spent injured. I mean he only got his career average under 30 at the end of 2014, some 70 odd tests into Steyn's career.
Steyn was that good that he made South Africa's attack fearsome and match winning in spite of Kallis being the second or third best bowler for a number of years. Philander coming along was massive for the overall quality of the SA attack and really improved their overall effectiveness when he was present.
This was probably the weakest period for the SA attack if you don't count Steyn:
IND vs SA Cricket Scorecard, 1st Test at Nagpur, February 06 - 09, 2010
Get cricket scorecard of 1st Test, IND vs SA, South Africa tour of India 2009/10 at Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium, Jamtha, Nagpur dated February 06 - 09, 2010.
www.espncricinfo.com
