Best bowling attack ever (4 bowlers)

[iamdavid]

The Australian attack in India 2004 was very effective, I recall South Africa having some pretty handy bowling sides around 1999 aswell, although probably not with the same quality of backup bowlers.

Had the Australian selectors prefered Damien Fleming to Lee in the 2001 Ashes tests I think they would've had a very strong case.

 

[Richard]

Wasim Akram
Waqar Younis
Imran Khan
Abdul Qadir

from around 1990 may not be the best, but worth a mention

Not sure Qadir was still playing by the 1990s, but Imran and Waqar never bowled well together. By the time Waqar became the deadly phenomenon he was for a time (1990/91) Imran's best days had already gone (the last time he was a truly phenomenal bowler was 1988/89).

Pakistan's best, I've always maintained, was probably when Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib Akhtar, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmed toured Australia in 1999/2000. Bar Wasim, none had a particularly good time of it, and never did all five play together, but they were all fairly or very skilled bowlers at that time.

 

[Richard]

South Africa vs Australia 1957-58

1. Adcock
2. Heine
3. Tayfield
4. Goddard

South Africa in Australia 1963

1. Peter Pollock
2. Eddie Barlow
3. Trevor Goddard
4. Joseph Partridge

South Africa mid to late sixties

1. Pollock
2. Proctor
3. Barlow
4. Goddard

There are so many terrific attacks to chose from. Let me try to list some.

ENGLAND : mid 1880's to mid 1890's's

1. George Lohmann
2. Tom Richardson
3. Bobby Peel
4. Johnny Briggs

The problem with that lot : only three of them actually played in a test match together.

ENGLAND : 1909

1. SF Barnes
2. George Hirst
3. Colin Blythe
4. Wilf Rhodes

ENGLAND : 1932-33

1. Larwood
2. Tate
3. Verity
4. Bowes/Voce

It also had Gubby Allen.

ENGLAND : 1955-56

1. Tyson
2. Statham
3. Trueman
4. Laker
5. Bedser

In support : Trevor Bailey, Tony Lock, Johnny Wardle

Take your pick

Those are the best England attacks I could think of.

Other countries later

Always find it impossible to look past that 1954/55 tour to Australia as our best attack ever TBH, and likewise the 1969/70 one for South Africa (Pat Trimborn to add there). Though fair to say Adcock, Heine, Goddard and Tayfield was hardly shabby either.

And who knows how good that attack of the 19th-century was? Certainly not me, and nor I suspect anyone else either. Cricket wasn't quite the same game back then.

 

[Richard]

AUSTRALIA : 1946

1. Lindwall
2. Miller
3. Orielly
4. Johnston

AUSTRALIA : early 1950's

1. Lindwall
2. Miller
3. Davidson
4. Benaud

Johnson and Johnston in addition

AUSTRALIA : 1970's

1. Lillee
2. Thomson
3. Ashley Mallet
4. Max Walker
5. Gary Gilmour

AUSTRALIA : start of the 21st century

1. McGrath
2. Brett Lee
3. Jason Gillespie
4. Shane Warne

Trouble with all of these (Fuller mentioned it with the lattermost) was that there was never a time they were all good bowlers at the same time. O'Reilly didn't play a genuine Test after WWII (that one game was an apology of a match against New Zealand) and by the time Davidson and Benaud became true forces Lindwall and Miller had faded. Still, Lindwall-Miller-Johnston was kinda handy for a time.

Australia's best of recent times was undoubtedly the one from 2004 of McGrath-Gillespie-Kasprowicz-Warne.

 

[Indipper]

Jack Gregory
Ted McDonald
Charles Kelleway
Arthur Mailey
Warwick Armstrong

Australia's attack in the early 20s does deserve to be mentioned, even if it's five bowlers.

 

[Manee]

AUSTRALIA : 1970's

1. Lillee
2. Thomson
3. Ashley Mallet
4. Max Walker
5. Gary Gilmour

I've seen Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Gilmour bowl on youtube and they all look like fine bowlers. I could imagine Lillee and Thomson on a bouncy pitch being hell for an opening batsman or Walker and Gilmour destroying a team in swinging conditions.

 

[Richard]

To complement the top 7 thread.

Hard to go past:

Holding
Marshall
Roberts
Garner

(how many tests did these four play together, I wonder?)

Loads of posts have mentioned this so I'll only quote the one... this is something that's long fascinated me.

Marshall played his first genuine Test (had had a few irrelevant games during the Packer Schism) in 1980 in England. But even now, he wasn't a first-choice. Between the end of the Schism and the series in Australia in 1981/82 the first-choice was Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft. Marshall, however, played 5 games (out of 10) against England in 1980 and 1981 when various bowlers were injured, and also the full series in Pakistan in 1980/81 when Roberts and Holding both withdrew.

It wasn't until Croft was dropped in 1983 for the home series against India that Marshall became a first-choice. However, by this time Roberts was about to retire. So for just 2 series (this in 1983 and the next against the same opposition away in 1983/84) Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall could be said to be the attack of choice. And unfortunately, Roberts missed 4 of these 11 games, and Garner 7 of them. Their places were taken by Wayne Daniel (like Croft potentially as good as the big four, but who ended-up with a very short career) and Winston Davis (who was several classes below).

So the reality is that Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall was virtually a fantasy. Never were they a constant presence in the West Indies attack.

In fact, there was never any real consistency in West Indies' fast-bowling between 1976 and 1986. Except for one thing: almost everyone they picked (bar the odd Winston Davis and Milton Small game) was damn good. It was depth, not injury-free-ness, that made them so good.

 

[The Masterplan]

Panesar, Mahmood, Plunkett and Anderson

What an awsome line up...

 

[Engle]

Panesar, Mahmood, Plunkett and Anderson

What an awsome line up...

As opposed to awesome ?
As in ' Aw shucks '.
I like

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Willis, Botham, Hendrick, Underwood.

Maybe not overly fearsome at first glance but in terms of total wickets taken in Tests it's fairly impressive.

 

[Burgey]

Not sure Qadir was still playing by the 1990s, but Imran and Waqar never bowled well together. By the time Waqar became the deadly phenomenon he was for a time (1990/91) Imran's best days had already gone (the last time he was a truly phenomenal bowler was 1988/89).

Pakistan's best, I've always maintained, was probably when Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib Akhtar, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mushtaq Ahmed toured Australia in 1999/2000. Bar Wasim, none had a particularly good time of it, and never did all five play together, but they were all fairly or very skilled bowlers at that time.

Yeah - I recall when they arrived thinking it was a good line up and would cause us plenty of strife. And in fairness, despite the ultimate result in Hobart, they did cause strife for the majority of that test. Shoaib also bowled a searing spell in Perth on that tour iirc, to Langer and Ponting.

 

[Slifer]

Loads of posts have mentioned this so I'll only quote the one... this is something that's long fascinated me.

Marshall played his first genuine Test (had had a few irrelevant games during the Packer Schism) in 1980 in England. But even now, he wasn't a first-choice. Between the end of the Schism and the series in Australia in 1981/82 the first-choice was Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft. Marshall, however, played 5 games (out of 10) against England in 1980 and 1981 when various bowlers were injured, and also the full series in Pakistan in 1980/81 when Roberts and Holding both withdrew.

It wasn't until Croft was dropped in 1983 for the home series against India that Marshall became a first-choice. However, by this time Roberts was about to retire. So for just 2 series (this in 1983 and the next against the same opposition away in 1983/84) Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall could be said to be the attack of choice. And unfortunately, Roberts missed 4 of these 11 games, and Garner 7 of them. Their places were taken by Wayne Daniel (like Croft potentially as good as the big four, but who ended-up with a very short career) and Winston Davis (who was several classes below).

So the reality is that Roberts-Holding-Garner-Marshall was virtually a fantasy. Never were they a constant presence in the West Indies attack.

In fact, there was never any real consistency in West Indies' fast-bowling between 1976 and 1986. Except for one thing: almost everyone they picked (bar the odd Winston Davis and Milton Small game) was damn good. It was depth, not injury-free-ness, that made them so good.

Good observation that!! I think the best WI lineups that acutally played together would be those composed of either:

Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft

Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

Marshall
Ambrose
Bishop
Walsh/Patterson

 

[Ikki]

I am fairly sure wasim, waqar, shoaib and saqlain played together at least once...

Twice. Once with Australia (loss) and another with Zimbabwe (drawn).

 

[rodzilla1010]

I am fairly sure wasim, waqar, shoaib and saqlain played together at least once...

they did in the world cup of 2003..Pakistan had a first round exit.LOL

 

[social]

In general, it's any combination of about 6 WI bowlers in the 80s

Remember watching the combo of Garner, Marshall, Holding and Walsh play Oz at the WACA in 1984 and thinking what a mismatch it was.

BTW, Garner was the quickest and fiercest of the lot for a couple of years and that is really saying something when you consider that Marshall and Patterson were at their quickest

 

[Richard]

Which matches were you watching for that then, given that Patterson and Garner played 1 series together, and that was in West Indies, not Australia, and there was little TV coverage at home, never mind to neutral countries? Were you in the Caribbean to watch West Indies vs England?

And for that matter, how did you work-out who was fastest when speedguns didn't exist?

 

[social]

Which matches were you watching for that then, given that Patterson and Garner played 1 series together, and that was in West Indies, not Australia, and there was little TV coverage at home, never mind to neutral countries? Were you in the Caribbean to watch West Indies vs England?

And for that matter, how did you work-out who was fastest when speedguns didn't exist?

Not rocket science - fastest bowler gets the wind

Guess they dont mention that in statsguru

 

[Richard]

Nope, flimsy rules like that are nought but conjecture. Often the wind will be given to the more senior bowler - like Garner over Patterson. And that's just one of several reasons it's completely unreliable. In any case - which matches do you know for certain Patterson was given the breeze over Garner?

 

[Beleg]

Twice. Once with Australia (loss) and another with Zimbabwe (drawn).

during the 99-00 series?

I still can't believe Pakistan lost the Hobart test.

 

[social]

Nope, flimsy rules like that are nought but conjecture. Often the wind will be given to the more senior bowler - like Garner over Patterson. And that's just one of several reasons it's completely unreliable. In any case - which matches do you know for certain Patterson was given the breeze over Garner?

Richard, if you'd been watching cricket at that time (not your fault, btw), you'd realise that Garner dramatically changed his approach to bowling at about that time - some said it was ego related because Marshall started getting the headlines as supposed "world's fastest bowler"

Anyway, he changed his runup from a lumbering, measured approach to a positive sprint to the wicket with dramatic increase in pace

Patterson, btw, was virtually always bowled downwind because pace was the only thing at his disposal. However, he also bowled a lot at first change