How would you rank the bowling attacks in world cricket as of today ?

[Prince EWS]

But then people also say Dravid is past it, Gambhir, Dhoni and Sehwag are flat-track bullies who aren't worth **** away from home, no one at No. 6...

Yes, and those are the people who are wrong. The people who say India win despite their bowling and not because of it are largely right, IMO. You can certainly be #1 and have a #5 attack; it's not like anyone is ranking them #8 in bowling.

 

[Furball]

The number of people ranking South Africa's attack over England's is mind boggling.

 

[Ikki]

Maybe it's just the trauma of having had to watch a month of dire bowling; but I'd place the Indian bowling above even ours. Heck; they win hard matches.

 

[Teja.]

Yes, and those are the people who are wrong. The people who say India win despite their bowling and not because of it are largely right, IMO. You can certainly be #1 and have a #5 attack; it's not like anyone is ranking them #8 in bowling.

Thing is SA has a case to be the No.1 batting line-up considering Dravid's shaky and we don't have a no.6 and 3 of their 6 bats are in insane form. At worst, 2. The South African bowling line-up again is at worst, 2nd. Then how if not for the entire killer instinct and taking wickets when it matters explanation would you explain a Team which is 5-6th in bowling and 1-2nd in batting having better results over a reasonable period than a team which is 1-2 in bowling and 1-2 in batting?

 

[Uppercut]

The number of people ranking South Africa's attack over England's is mind boggling.

They were miles better last time the teams played each other tbf.

 

[Uppercut]

Thing is SA has a case to be the No.1 batting line-up considering Dravid's shaky and we don't have a no.6 and 3 of their 6 bats are in insane form. At worst, 2. The South African bowling line-up again is at worst, 2nd. Then how if not for the entire killer instinct and taking wickets when it matters explanation would you explain a Team which is 5-6th in bowling and 1-2nd in batting having better results over a reasonable period than a team which is 1-2 in bowling and 1-2 in batting?

Mmm, you could argue over whether South Africa have the best top six but I don't think they have a case for having the best batting lineup.

 

[Migara]

Little bit worried of SL attack at the moment. Malinga's fragility is one issue. Thilan Thushara has been struggling with fitness and fast medium at the moment. SL has to go back to Kulasekara, and new guys like Prasad and Lakmal. Mathews also struggling with the knee injury. Spin department is quite good ATM, there are few spinners who'll get in to few sides in the world.

SL will be in the top half if a fully fit Malinga, Thushara, Fernando and Mathews could be presented. First three are quite sharp, and Mathews to do the L & L stuff. Any one from Randiv, Senanayake, Herath or Mendis is servicable. SL pitches are changing ATM. The newly laid wickets at RPS, Pallekele and Hambantota offer seam bowlers plenty. We can expect SL attack to change in to a pace heavy one in the future.

 

[Furball]

Thing is SA has a case to be the No.1 batting line-up considering Dravid's shaky and we don't have a no.6 and 3 of their 6 bats are in insane form. At worst, 2. The South African bowling line-up again is at worst, 2nd. Then how if not for the entire killer instinct and taking wickets when it matters explanation would you explain a Team which is 5-6th in bowling and 1-2nd in batting having better results over a reasonable period than a team which is 1-2 in bowling and 1-2 in batting?

I'd still put India's batting ahead of South Africa's.

 

[Migara]

The number of people ranking South Africa's attack over England's is mind boggling.

Harris is the weak link there, and I'd agree that England possibly are better. But replace Harris with Tahir and the balance now critically changes.

 

[Teja.]

I'd still put India's batting ahead of South Africa's.

Yes, but still 2.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thing is SA has a case to be the No.1 batting line-up considering Dravid's shaky and we don't have a no.6 and 3 of their 6 bats are in insane form. At worst, 2. The South African bowling line-up again is at worst, 2nd. Then how if not for the entire killer instinct and taking wickets when it matters explanation would you explain a Team which is 5-6th in bowling and 1-2nd in batting having better results over a reasonable period than a team which is 1-2 in bowling and 1-2 in batting?

Both South Africa's batting and South Africa's bowling are a bit over-rated, IMO. Their bowling lineup is inherently inconsistent because they rely on so much on Steyn (and Morkel at home) and their batting has the same holes as India's (one unproven player and one player in decline) with slightly less class in basically every position.

I'll also add of India, this:

Haha, I think that's a great example of what I was saying though! Across the series, South Africa played the better kallisball as their win in the first Test was more impressive than India's in the second, and the third Test ended up quite even by the end. Yet despite that, it was a drawn series and India were the only team that really had a proper chance to win it halfway through Day 4. India are good at performing in those key moments to make that happen - they played worse overall but they still managed to get themselves into by far the better position in the series with a day and a half to go.

I think you're misinterpreting me when I say South Africa played the better kallisball. I'm saying that excluding the factor of performance-timing (for lack of a better word), because India's timing of performance was precisely the factor I was trying to isolate and comment on. They'd played worse overall but were still in the better position because they played better at key moments - it's not a fluke and it's not a criticism of them; it's a compliment. That's part of what makes them so hard to beat in a series.. you have to really outplay them or it just doesn't happen.

That's a big strength of the team as a whole, but I think it mainly relates to the batting lineup and the intangible team cohesion. I don't think it's a factor when rating rating the bowling attack as such. A team is more than its bowling attack + its batting lineup, and that's a major reason behind why India have gone so well.

I'll also add (and this may be a controversial position) that result-orientated home pitches tend to lead to more series draws/losses at home by nature. Good teams rarely get absolutely hammered at home, but if you have a relatively close game in India it will end in a draw a lot more often which then puts more series emphasis on the game they comfortably win (which South Africa do once every series at home as well, lol), whereas South Africa can lose that close game rather than draw it and finish 1-1 where it would've been 1-0 in India. I think both teams have convincing home Test wins as often as the other, but both India's team overall and their home conditions are more geared towards getting series draws even when they haven't played the better kallisball and winning close series, which is why they're a better team. I don't think it's really a function of their attack, though.

 

[Furball]

This kallisball meme is the most dire thing I've witnessed on the Internet, ever.

 

[Blaze 18]

this year India won 3 tests after conceding 450 by bowling first and then chasing 200+ on a 5th day sub cont tracks not sure many teams an win after conceding 450 first up Indian bowlers do get underrated over here but they are definetley a support cast to a monster batting line up.

The bolded part is absolutely correct, I am not denying that. However, there have been times when the Indian bowling have restricted oppositions to middling totals after being made to bowl first (Kolkata test vs South Africa immediately comes to mind). The insinuation that it is only scoreboard pressure that helps Indian bowlers get wickets is, therefore, incorrect.

 

[Uppercut]

Then how if not for the entire killer instinct and taking wickets when it matters explanation would you explain a Team which is 5-6th in bowling and 1-2nd in batting having better results over a reasonable period than a team which is 1-2 in bowling and 1-2 in batting?

There hasn't actually been a reasonable period. To avoid horribly offending everyone I'll first need to re-emphasise a clear distinction between quality (who PEWS expects to achieve more) and actual achievements (in which India are undoubtedly number one).

Basically, if PEWS was to hypothesise that South Africa have a better quality attack than India, the disparity in results over the past couple of years is nowhere near sufficient to disprove that hypothesis. You can disagree with it for sure but you're not presenting any evidence here that forces him to change his opinion.

 

[Prince EWS]

There hasn't actually been a reasonable period. To avoid horribly offending everyone I'll first need to re-emphasise a clear distinction between quality (who PEWS expects to achieve more) and actual achievements (in which India are undoubtedly number one).

Basically, if PEWS was to hypothesise that South Africa have a better quality attack than India, the disparity in results over the past couple of years is nowhere near sufficient to disprove that hypothesis. You can disagree with it for sure but you're not presenting any evidence here that forces him to change his opinion.

Yes, there is the difference between my first list and the second list in my post.

 

[vcs]

There hasn't actually been a reasonable period. To avoid horribly offending everyone I'll first need to re-emphasise a clear distinction between quality (who PEWS expects to achieve more) and actual achievements (in which India are undoubtedly number one).

Basically, if PEWS was to hypothesise that South Africa have a better quality attack than India, the disparity in results over the past couple of years is nowhere near sufficient to disprove that hypothesis. You can disagree with it for sure but you're not presenting any evidence here that forces him to change his opinion.

That is one ****ing confusing post. Translation in words of one syllable?

 

[Prince EWS]

That is one ****ing confusing post. Translation in words of one syllable?

There's not enough evidence to either prove or disprove my opinion given it was of perceived quality rather than of perceived achievements. I think that sums it up.

 

[silentstriker]

Love the lack of Harby love. The man was 4/10 at one point and took a 7-fer in South Africa.

Hopefully that extends to pitch-making, and India begin to get raging turners abroad. Please? Pretty please?

 

[smash84]

The bolded part is absolutely correct, I am not denying that. However, there have been times when the Indian bowling have restricted oppositions to middling totals after being made to bowl first (Kolkata test vs South Africa immediately comes to mind). The insinuation that it is only scoreboard pressure that helps Indian bowlers get wickets is, therefore, incorrect.

Who said that scoreboard pressure is the only factor that helps india win??? where did i say that??? But as PEWS very articulately pointed out that India win despite their bowling and not because of it. If you want to see a team who win because of their bowling it is Pakistan. Their batting is absolute ****. Even in the 90s the Pak batting was very inconsistent but the bowling was top notch. Which was why Pakistan won a lot of matches when it shouldn't have.

And as Xuhaib pointed out how many teams win after conceding 450+ in the first innings??? The FACT is that the Indian batting line-up is just outstanding. Their bowling though is not very good.

 

[silentstriker]

Anyway, as of today:

1. South Africa
2. Pakistan (depends on who is not banned - could be anywhere)
3. England
4. India
5. Australia
6. Sri Lanka
7. West Indies
8. New Zealand
9. Bangladesh

If/when Tahir makes the SA side and if he's nearly as good as his hype (or at least, an improvement on Harris), SA will increase the distance between #1 and #2.