***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Scaly piscine]

If the question of Australia never having to face a quality attack is being presented:

In the subcontinent:

India and Sri Lanka have a good attack

Outside the subcontinent (the more arguable case which may well have been presented - not going to go back the pages)

South Africa
New Zealand with Bond

Those aren't quality attacks apart from India at in the subcontinent - because they can wheel away with Kumble and the turbanator most of the time (although personally I don't rate the turbanator that highly, I think he's a bit toothless once players stop overattacking him, but then that's not a problem against Australia). Against the other sides you get a release of pressure because there's not the consistent quality throughout the attack like England have and Australia used to have.


link for the Shoaib stats:

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

 

[greg]

If the question of Australia never having to face a quality attack is being presented:

In the subcontinent:

India and Sri Lanka have a good attack

Outside the subcontinent (the more arguable case which may well have been presented - not going to go back the pages)

South Africa
New Zealand with Bond

Seeing as New Zealand without Bond is one of the most toothless attacks in world cricket, it's a bit of a push to say that NZ with Bond are a quality attack, isn't it?

 

[Pratters]

Those aren't quality attacks apart from India at in the subcontinent -

Please explain first why South Africa was not a quality attack!

 

[greg]

He had a phse in South Africa where he had South African batsen - good players of pace struggling. Then he got injured. Any one who saw him then agreed he had made an impact and was one talented bloke. The Calcutta test was also a match where he made an impact. Also I would be glad if you could link me to the stats.

He had had an 'impact' in the sense that he had showed potential. Nobody could suggest he was anything like the finished product though.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Please explain first why South Africa was not a quality attack!

From when exactly? Certainly nothing particularly strong in the last few years.

 

[Langeveldt]

Please explain first why South Africa was not a quality attack!

uh, lack of a matchwinning spinner? Reliance on Pollock?

 

[Pratters]

uh, lack of a matchwinning spinner? Reliance on Pollock?

From when exactly

1996 onwards..

The attack did not rely solely on Pollock. Only in the past 2 years has the trend come up of a weak attack.

Also despite a quality spinner not being there, South Africa did manage to win a test series in India.

 

[Pratters]

Nobody could suggest he was anything like the finished product though.

Speaking for myself I will ay I did at least. When I met the Pakistani players before the Kolkata test, I was most eager to meet Akhtar. Any one who could have South Africa grappling for pace like Akhtar did initially had to be special!

 

[Scaly piscine]

1996 onwards..

The attack did not rely solely on Pollock. Only in the past 2 years has the trend come up of a weak attack.

Also despite a quality spinner not being there, South Africa did manage to win a test series in India.

They still only had 2 quality bowlers, albeit very good ones, you'd still get half of the bowling in an average day that was mediocre stuff from the others.

 

[Pratters]

you'd still get half of the bowling in an average day that was mediocre stuff from the others.

Well explain to me how they won against most teams except Australia in the period then.

Shocking that people forget so easily so fast that South Africa had a top notch attack earlier.

 

[greg]

They still only had 2 quality bowlers, albeit very good ones, you'd still get half of the bowling in an average day that was mediocre stuff from the others.

Kallis was a very good bowler.

EDIT: Pretty good.

 

[Shoaib]

uh, lack of a matchwinning spinner? Reliance on Pollock?

Wasn't Pat Symcox a good spinner?Even if he wasn't,they r spoiling another quality SLA spinner i.e Paul Adams.

 

[Dasa]

What does being "hostile" have to do with it? As if that is the only criteria by which an attack could be any good? Anyway, so far as hostility goes, I guess the Windies team from 2003 which contained Tino Best and Jermaine Lawson was fairly "hostile". Donald and Hayward are also quite a "hostile" pair. Variation? Well Australia faced Indian teams relatively recently which had a leg-spinner, an off-spinner, and a left and right arm seamer... that's quite varied. Sri Lanka presented a similar team on occasion as well.

Now, as far as quality goes, which is actually a relevant issue, well Australia has faced quality attacks from Pakistan (Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain, Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain/Kaneria, which were far better than you seem to think), India, Sri Lanka and South Africa over the last few years. Of course, there haven't been that many great attacks in international cricket of late (not that there are ever many!), but when confronted with good bowlers Australia's batsmen have shown themselves to be more than adequate.

It was inevitable of course than fans of X team, whereupon that team broke Australia's long unbeaten run, would claim that Australia were in fact never any good and just never faced opposition as good as said team X, but really there's no evidence to suggest it. Each of Australia's batsmen (excluding perhaps those newest to the team) had significant past success against good bowlers, including against those significantly better than most in England's current team. And while England's bowling attack is very good and does indeed take strength from being a five man attack with some variety, it is not anywhere near as good as you would have to believe to mark it SO FAR ahead of the attacks Australia has thrashed in the past that Australia would be brought down from being utterly dominant to completely exposed. You will find that it is some remarkably good bowling and some uncharacteristically poor performances from certain Australian batsmen as well as some level of age-related decline that led to Australia making moderate totals in the series, rather than being exposed as overrated hacks by the God-like English attack that puts all others to shame.

Excellent post.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Kallis was a very good bowler.

EDIT: Pretty good.

Him when he was a good bowler and Donald while he was at still going strong didn't coincide much tho.

Especially against Australia.

I should also add them being fit together as a pre-requisite as well.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Him when he was a good bowler and Donald while he was at still going strong didn't coincide much tho.

Especially against Australia.

I should also add them being fit together as a pre-requisite as well.

It did when you added in Pollock, and Kluesener wasn't bad either. Then in 2001/02 you can add in Ntini and probably drop off Donald.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think RSA's bowling was the problem when they played Australia. Their batters weren't able to play Warne and got out for low scores which put a lot of pressure on the bowlers. As an attack, theirs was amongst the best in the 90s and not as bad as people make it out to be from stats. This English attack may be better, but that doesn't suggest that "that" attack was not quality. For eg., if I were to say that only Shane Warne signifies quality amongst leg spinners, then guys like Kumble can be called as poor quality. But that isn't and SHOULDN'T be the case. Warne is better than quality leg spinner, Kumble is a quality, perhaps a little less than quality leg spinner. Similarly, for me, this 5 man variety attack of England is better than quality and that RSA bowling side was pretty close to quality. And honestly, you expect most batters to fail against bowling that is better than quality.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It did when you added in Pollock, and Kluesener wasn't bad either. Then in 2001/02 you can add in Ntini and probably drop off Donald.

I was including Pollock, first it was Pollock & Donald, which became Pollock & Donald/Kallis, now it's Pollock & Ntini. They've never really had 3 going at once in the majority of a series against Australia. Klusener was always straight up & down in my opinion.

 

[tooextracool]

I meant in ODI's, but cant u tell marc that dhoni has enormous amount of talent?

i love it when i read hilarious posts like this at the start of my day.....

 

[tooextracool]

no the attack that Pakistan took to Australia in 99 & 96 were had equal all-round strength but it lacked discipline....

and how many members of the 96 aussie batting lineup is in the current batting lineup?
0
and the attack in 99 consisted essentially of bowlers past their prime.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I was including Pollock, first it was Pollock & Donald, which became Pollock & Donald/Kallis, now it's Pollock & Ntini. They've never really had 3 going at once in the majority of a series against Australia. Klusener was always straight up & down in my opinion.

Donald (albeit past his best), Pollock, Kallis and Kluesener (first one only) in 2001/02:
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1596
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1599

Donald, Ntini, Kallis and Nel, same season:
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1607

And further back, Donald, Pollock, Kallis and Kluesener
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1403
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1404

And again in South Africa:
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1367
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1370

Australia faced Donald and Pollock and their quality support bowlers as much as anyone else did really, they just did better against them. In fact, to find a test in which Donald, Pollock and company bowled together against Australia and Australia lost, you have to go back to 94 when Petrus De Villiers was playing as well, and that's obviously irrelevant as almost none of the same batsmen were involved.