• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jones-Flintoff-Hoggard-Harmison vs Jamieson-Boult-Southee-Wagner

Which bowling attack is better?

  • Jones - Flintoff - Hoggard - Harmison

    Votes: 11 68.8%

  • Jamieson - Wagner - Southee - Boult

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Total voters
    16
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
I guess the NZ quartet probably did perform better. New ball swing, Jamieson a great first change threat, and Wagnerball to come. Very complimentary skills and a huge threat in NZ conditions.

The English quartet is maybe less complimentary and feels a bit more like they all are most dangerous with the new ball.

Flintoff and Jones had such huge ceilings imo but we rarely got to see them at the peak of their powers.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Athlai said:
I guess the NZ quartet probably did perform better. New ball swing, Jamieson a great first change threat, and Wagnerball to come. Very complimentary skills and a huge threat in NZ conditions.

The English quartet is maybe less complimentary and feels a bit more like they all are most dangerous with the new ball.

Flintoff and Jones had such huge ceilings imo but we rarely got to see them at the peak of their powers.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's really close as individual bowlers. Jamieson over Jones, Boult over Flintoff, Wagner over Hoggard and Southee over Harmison are all significant upgrades
 
Bijed

Bijed

International Regular
Athlai said:
The English quartet is maybe less complimentary and feels a bit more like they all are most dangerous with the new ball.
Click to expand...
I agree that the NZ quartet works better in this regard (mostly due to Wagner's uniqueness), but Jones had his reverse swing and Flintoff rarely opened the bowling IIRC, and could do some nice hostile short-stuff spells (not marathon ones like Wagner, mind), so I don't think they're that unbalanced wrt new ball/old ball

On the whole, the NZ quartet is better and had/have better careers, but if they played each other, whilst you'd expect them to perform better, it wouldn't be a massive shock if the English 4 outbowled them
 
Bijed

Bijed

International Regular
On a slight tangent, and I know the era plays a part in this, the next generation of cricket fans is probably going to be quite confused when they discover that English quartet as one that gets talked about and romanticised, then look them up and discover that 3 of them average over 30 and the one who didn't played 18 tests.

Then maybe they'll think "oh, perhaps they also had a really solid spinner who made them an efficient unit" and, erm...
 
Kenneth Viljoen

Kenneth Viljoen

International Regular
It's close but I have chosen the English quartet,
The 2000's era was rough for bowlers especially the English who played long series against the best of the best (Think Ponting, Kallis,Lara,Dravid,Tendulkar etc) ..
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Bijed said:
On a slight tangent, and I know the era plays a part in this, the next generation of cricket fans is probably going to be quite confused when they discover that English quartet as one that gets talked about and romanticised, then look them up and discover that 3 of them average over 30 and the one who didn't played 18 tests.

Then maybe they'll think "oh, perhaps they also had a really solid spinner who made them an efficient unit" and, erm...
Click to expand...
What did they collectively average when all playing together?
 
Bijed

Bijed

International Regular
GIMH said:
What did they collectively average when all playing together?
Click to expand...
26.88 if I've worked it out right (do we say the impact of playing in a batting-friendly era is roughly cancelled out by 2 of their 16 tests together being against Bangladesh?). Which is very solid but probably worse than people would generally imagine they'd averaged together?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top