What are the 5 greatest bowling attacks ever fielded?

[OverratedSanity]

If you've got 3 McGrath's and a Murali, or 2 of each, you're winning everything. The benefit of that bowling outweighs a stronger tail by so much it's not even funny

What if you replace the 3 Mcgraths with two Hadlees and one Imran

 

[OverratedSanity]

Unless you're talking about a bowling attack that is only a tiny, tiny bit worse but can bat a lot better, which would be irrelevant to the discussion

That is actually what the argument is

 

[OverratedSanity]

My god, @kyear2 are you still going on about how bowling is more important than runs in lower scoring games? Give it up mate, that's an argument you are never going to be able to twist in your favour

 

[TheJediBrah]

What if you replace the 3 Mcgraths with two Hadlees and one Imran

I'd still go the 3 McGrath's but I'm not going to argue with the opposite view, it's more than reasonable, unlike "Murali and McGrath from positions 8 to 11 means an instant loss"

 

[subshakerz]

Unless you're talking about a bowling attack that is only a tiny, tiny bit worse but can bat a lot better, which would be irrelevant to the discussion

That's what I am referring to.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That might be my bad, think I got this thread confused with the other one

You're still wrong though

 

[subshakerz]

I'd still go the 3 McGrath's but I'm not going to argue with the opposite view, it's more than reasonable, unlike "Murali and McGrath from positions 8 to 11 means an instant loss"

To be clear, I said Murali and McGrath tail means instant loss if the top 7 fails. They aren't going to even possibly stretch or bail out the rest.

 

[kyear2]

This is all irrelevant. Nobody is comparing lower order runs to slips except you.

It's never an either/or situation.

But to answer your question, no they wouldnt switch their quality slip to an actively bad one for better lower order batting.



This is his trick. Derail us into meaningless tangents.

it's not meaningless, you are telling me how crucial it is, while mind you, telling me how much less important the other one is.

I'm showing you it's not nearly as critical as you believe, while coincidentally showing how the other is just as important, if not more so.

And using practical applications, that's all. No trick.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm showing you it's not nearly as critical as you believe, while coincidentally showing how the other is just as important, if not more so.

I think you are arguing against a strawman.

Nobody wants to compromise on anything less than ATG bowling quality. Nobody wants a poor slip cordon.

We see a tail of some degree of lower order batting as ranging from essential to useful to irrelevant depending on the quality of side we are facing. If we expect to face an ATG side we can't afford weaknesses. You agree with this.

We just disagree on whether Imran vs Steyn and Hadlee vs McGrath are acceptable tradeoffs.

Our differences are thus:

- You perceive a tail of useful tailenders as sufficient

- You think that compromising on any top tier bowling quality is more likely to lead to defeat than not having a strong tail

 

[Bolo.]

I never said they are related in any way, I asked a simple question which no one wants to answer...

It is important, no one is questioning that, it's not the silver bullet to success that some of u guys are purporting it to be. Wasn't as even as crucial to other secondary skills that you'll want to dismiss out of hand.

That's why it's brought up.

I assume the question you mean is what percentage of win is a strong tail affecting? There isn't the info to answer it neatly. A godly tail compared to 4 genuine 11s would turn most reasonably tight losses into wins, and swing a minority of heavy losses. They may have upped RSAs number of wins by 50% or so, but the number would be lower in a more complete team that is winning a bunch of these games anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

I assume the question you mean is what percentage of win is a strong tail affecting? There isn't the info to answer it neatly. A godly tail compared to 4 genuine 11s would turn most reasonably tight losses into wins, and swing a minority of heavy losses. They may have upped RSAs number of wins by 50% or so, but the number would be lower in a more complete team that is winning a bunch of these games anyway.

Depends on the quality of opposition they face.

I can imagine, if they are facing a similar ATG team with a bunny tail, it will matter at least 1 game per series in changing a potential loss to a draw/win.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

I'd still go the 3 McGrath's but I'm not going to argue with the opposite view, it's more than reasonable, unlike "Murali and McGrath from positions 8 to 11 means an instant loss"

I agree but the 3 McGraths option is not reasonable IMO. With two Hadlees and an Imran (or vice versa), you would lose little, if anything, in the bowling. In fact, you might even be better off. With three McGraths, you have three metronomes which isn't necessarily a bad thing but there's something to be said for a bowling combination which offers you much more variation like a mixture of conventional swing, reverse swing, genuine pace and express pace. Also, both Imran and Hadlee had extraordinary peaks as bowlers:



They were also excellent on all types of wickets and could conjure up an unplayable ball from time to time which might be required to dislodge a well-set great batsman.

And the extra batting they would add is significant:

McGrath: 641 runs in 138 innings x 3 = 13.9 runs/innings

Hadlee: 3124 runs in 134 innings = 23.3 runs/innings

Imran: 3807 runs in 126 innings = 30.2 runs/innings

2H + I = 76.8 cf. 13.9 for 3M, an extra 62.9 runs/innings

H + 2I = 83.7 cf. 13.9 for 3M, an extra 69.8 runs/innings

So an extra 60-70 runs/innings.

Another point: Hadlee did an excessive amount of bowling for NZ and I suspect his batting suffered as a result. In a stronger team, I think he would have been more productive with the bat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I agree but the 3 McGraths option is not reasonable IMO. With two Hadlees and an Imran (or vice versa), you would lose little, if anything, in the bowling.

False

even more so in an ATG scenario. No one was better against the best batsmen than McGrath, and his unmatched record in the best era for batting and playing on generally batting-friendly conditions.

Career averages are just a poor metric in general, though they can be a guideline, and while I respect your attempt at calculating the comparisons it's fundamentally flawed. No 2 players experienced the same conditions or scenarios throughout a career

If McGrath was English his career average could be 17-18

 

[capt_Luffy]

False

even more so in an ATG scenario. No one was better against the best batsmen than McGrath, and his unmatched record in the best era for batting and playing on generally batting-friendly conditions.

Career averages are just a poor metric in general, though they can be a guideline, and while I respect your attempt at calculating the comparisons it's fundamentally flawed. No 2 players experienced the same conditions or scenarios throughout a career

If McGrath was English his career average could be 17-18

Doesn't McGrath have a mixed record against both Sachin and Lara?? And McGrath do have minor blemishes which gets overlooked generally; his home record against the second best he faced, SA, isn't great, as is his home record against NZ. Though I will say his performance against an ATG Indian batting lineup is probably better than any bowler against such a lineup, even when Warne faltered.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

False

even more so in an ATG scenario. No one was better against the best batsmen than McGrath, and his unmatched record in the best era for batting and playing on generally batting-friendly conditions.

Career averages are just a poor metric in general, though they can be a guideline, and while I respect your attempt at calculating the comparisons it's fundamentally flawed. No 2 players experienced the same conditions or scenarios throughout a career

If McGrath was English his career average could be 17-18

Where are you getting this figure from? Is it from McGrath's average of 19.34 in England?

If Hadlee had been Australian, his career average could have been 16-17. After all, he averaged 17.83 there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Where are you getting this figure from? Is it from McGrath's average of 19.34 in England?

it's more a function of McGrath's utility in English conditions, with the duke ball. Almost all seam bowlers would do a lot better in England than they would in Australia, I would think. There's a bit of guesswork involved, but a fair assumption would be if McGrath had every summer to attune to English pitches, balls etc. and bowling to touring batsmen not used to those conditions rather than against locals, his bare stats would look a lot better than what he ended up with playing half his cricket in Australia.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

it's more a function of McGrath's utility in English conditions, with the duke ball. Almost all seam bowlers would do a lot better in England than they would in Australia, I would think. There's a bit of guesswork involved, but a fair assumption would be if McGrath had every summer to attune to English pitches, balls etc. and bowling to touring batsmen not used to those conditions rather than against locals, his bare stats would look a lot better than what he ended up with playing half his cricket in Australia.

OK, good points. Leaving figures out of it, Bradman said that he had never seen a bowler with better control of seam and swing than Hadlee. If Hadlee passed Bradman's eye test with that sort of superlative compliment (and Bradman was a very analytical man), I doubt that McGrath was really all that much better than Hadlee (if at all). Bradman might have made that comment before McGrath was at his zenith though, I'm not sure!

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Pakistan attack is also only in Pakistani conditions. Qadir is useless outside of them.

Qadir is also useless in Pakistani conditions. He's dead.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

False

even more so in an ATG scenario. No one was better against the best batsmen than McGrath, and his unmatched record in the best era for batting and playing on generally batting-friendly conditions.

Career averages are just a poor metric in general, though they can be a guideline, and while I respect your attempt at calculating the comparisons it's fundamentally flawed. No 2 players experienced the same conditions or scenarios throughout a career

If McGrath was English his career average could be 17-18

OK, I'm not sure whether you're talking about bowling or batting here but you mention my comparisons so I'm guessing it's perhaps the runs/innings stuff I posted (I don't mention career bowling averages, just their peaks). If so, given that Hadlee and Imran were from more of a bowling era than McGrath, wouldn't the extra runs/innings from them be even greater?

 

[TheJediBrah]

OK, I'm not sure whether you're talking about bowling or batting here but you mention my comparisons so I'm guessing it's perhaps the runs/innings stuff I posted (I don't mention career bowling averages, just their peaks). If so, given that Hadlee and Imran were from more of a bowling era than McGrath, wouldn't the extra runs/innings from them be even greater?

It's more of a general thing. You can't calculate value of bowling v batting based on career stats like that. Personally I don't think that sort of analysis holds up at all in a practical setting.

Anyway when it comes to batting I don't think the era makes a difference, McGrath is pretty useless either way.