Best pace trios (outside of WI of 70's and 80's)

[fredfertang]

Lindwall-Miller-Johnston

Agreed, although a new ball every 55 overs gave them a distinct advantage

 

[watson]

Tyson-Trueman-Statham played a together a few times.

But surprisingly with little success due to some big centuries by Colin McDonald.

 

[watson]

Agreed, although a new ball every 55 overs gave them a distinct advantage

I didn't know that. An unfair advantage IMO.

 

[benchmark00]

That extra 6 or so less overs of wear is crucial, no doubt.

 

[kyear2]

Wasn't that only during the '48 series?

 

[fredfertang]

Wasn't that only during the '48 series?

Yes

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Hall, Gilchrist and Atkinson in late 50s, only in one series though

 

[watson]

That extra 6 or so less overs of wear is crucial, no doubt.

That's right, they were 8 ball overs. I forgot. I take it back then, kind of.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Donald, Pollock and De Villiers sounds pretty bloody good.

 

[fredfertang]

That's right, they were 8 ball overs. I forgot. I take it back then, kind of.

In England between 1946 and 1948 in First Class/Test cricket the fielding side could have a new ball every 55 six ball overs

 

[watson]

In England between 1946 and 1948 in First Class/Test cricket the fielding side could have a new ball every 55 six ball overs

If it's an overly generous 55 6-ball overs till the new ball then I take it back again-again.

It's a wonder that spinners bothered playing at all.

Just out of interest, during what period were 8-ball overs the norm in Test cricket?

 

[Debris]

JJ Ferris
Charlie Turner
Fred Spofforth

They would be hard to beat for career averages.

 

[ankitj]

JJ Ferris
Charlie Turner
Fred Spofforth

They would be hard to beat for career averages.

Wow, those 3 played together? That would probably be the first great pace trio in test cricket.

EDIT: They did, including in the famous debut match of Turner and Ferris where they skittled England for 45, and Spofforth didn't even have to bowl!

 

[kingkallis]

Donald, Pollock and De Villiers sounds pretty bloody good.

Yeah, people missed it though.

 

[wpdavid]

Donald, Pollock and De Villiers sounds pretty bloody good.

Yes, but how often did they play together? I thought that Pollock effectively replaced De Villiers.

EDIT
Twice - against Pakistan in 1998. Not an enjoyable experience for the Pakistanis afaics.

 

[NUFAN]

Donald, Pollock and De Villiers sounds pretty bloody good.

Interesting matchup versus Steyn, Philander and Morkel.

I suspect the 90s SA attack to get more votes, but I think it's extremely close.

 

[Debris]

Interesting matchup versus Steyn, Philander and Morkel.

I suspect the 90s SA attack to get more votes, but I think it's extremely close.

Donald and Pollock would still be the best 2 bowlers there. Steyn may pass them but not yet . Those three are considerably better than the other 3 which is why the 90s attack would get my vote.

 

[bagapath]

if you include the windies (with apologies to the OP) then marshall, holding and garner should trump all other combos including the other combos from the windies. played together in 26 tests and lost only once.

 

[uvelocity]

Donald and Pollock would still be the best 2 bowlers there. Steyn may pass them but not yet . Those three are considerably better than the other 3 which is why the 90s attack would get my vote.

if you compared them at the current point in their careers, not by comparing current steyn to complete career donald and pollock, steyn is on top. It's Philander who needs more time to prove himself imo. Morkel is obviously support, but he's a great foil for them.

 

[ankitj]

if you include the windies (with apologies to the OP) then marshall, holding and garner should trump all other combos including the other combos from the windies. played together in 26 tests and lost only once.

Will Marshall, Walsh and Ambrose be a contest?