Pratyush said:
It is a very subjective issue what people may or may not define good. It is very difficult to have 4 good (bowlers who can perform consistently) test quality bowlers in one team. Any team with such an attack would be very strong.
Australia with 2 great, 1 good (The not Recent Gillespie) and a Kasporwicz (a stock bowler in most cases who can fill the role well ) or a Lee (ranging from poor to just below good) proved a potent attack.
So support bowlers who are not that good but just okay can also form a good attack with two great bowlers. In the Ashes apart from McGrath and Warne there wasnt a lot of support specially with Gillespie being spooked by some English ghosts.
I said
poor bowlers though. Pre-Ashes Gillespie and Kasprowicz were not poor at all - I'd in fact put them in the "good" category.
So the Australian attack consisted of 2 great ones, and 2 good ones. Come Ashes time, Kasprowicz and Gillespie basically just didnt show up, and McGrath was injured for part of the tour, so left Australia with an attack primarily comprised of one great bowler (Warne), one okay bowler (Lee) and two rubbish ones (combination of Gillespie/Kaspa/Tait). When McGrath played, and was 100% fit, the attack improved substantially, but not enough.
My point was, West Indies have six okay-good bowlers (when all fit) in Collymore, Edwards, Powell, Lawson, Bravo and Collins, while New Zealand have 2 world class bowlers (for arguement's sake, I didnt even dispute the fact that Bond only plays once in a blue moon and Vettori's average is poor...) in Bond and Vettori, one okay-good one in Franklin, and two poor ones in Mills and Martin. Their best bowlers are superior to that of the Windies, but their support is weak, and their depth is non-existant.
But whatever.
