What are the 5 greatest bowling attacks ever fielded?

[Migara]

WI of 80s
Australia in 95-2015
Current India
If you expand it to ODIs
Pakistani attack in late 90s
Aussie attack in 2000s
SL attack in 2000s can be considered.

 

[number11]

^ At somepoint in the mid 80s, Imran, Wasim and Qadir played together in what was a fine line-up. The best must be the Aussies in the mid 50s and the WI at various points from 1975-1994.

 

[Qlder]

For Australia, obviously the 2000's unit stands out.

The mid-70's we had Lillee, Thomson, Walker, Gilmour and Mallett. Not sure all 5 of them played together but if they did it would've looked handy. Even 4 would be good.

All 5 played vs West Indies '75. For some reason the only Test they lost that series

AUS vs WI Cricket Scorecard, 2nd Test at Perth, December 12 - 16, 1975

Get cricket scorecard of 2nd Test, AUS vs WI, West Indies tour of Australia 1975/76 at Western Australia Cricket Association Ground, Perth dated December 12 - 16, 1975.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[ataraxia]

All 5 played vs West Indies '75. For some reason the only Test they lost that series

AUS vs WI Cricket Scorecard, 2nd Test at Perth, December 12 - 16, 1975

Get cricket scorecard of 2nd Test, AUS vs WI, West Indies tour of Australia 1975/76 at Western Australia Cricket Association Ground, Perth dated December 12 - 16, 1975.

www.espncricinfo.com

It's because lower-order batting matters iirc

 

[kyear2]

It's because lower-order batting matters iirc

So serious and legitimate question. If your top order consistently fails, what kind of percentage of the time do you believe a "strong" lower order will legitimately save you...

Think you would be sorely disappointed.

 

[ataraxia]

So serious and legitimate question. If your top order consistently fails, what kind of percentage of the time do you believe a "strong" lower order will legitimately save you...

Think you would be sorely disappointed.

Well I suppose that's why your lower order needs to be good: if not, it will fall to pieces when it matters.

 

[Bolo.]

So serious and legitimate question. If your top order consistently fails, what kind of percentage of the time do you believe a "strong" lower order will legitimately save you...

Think you would be sorely disappointed.

If the other team's batting is firing? Not often. Specialists are better bats for a reason.

If the game is just a low scorer? Plenty. Tail end runs probably swing more tight low scoring games than not.

For an example look at RSA late 90s/early 2000s. They had an impressive run of results. Briefly took the number one ranking off AUS a few times, despite AUS having significantly better specialists. The runs their bowlers scored swung just about every tight win. More debateably, some of the bigger wins too (hard to know). And secured some draws.

 

[kyear2]

It's because lower-order batting matters iirc

If you're losing by an innings and 87 runs, this has morning to do with lower order batting.

Well I suppose that's why your lower order needs to be good: if not, it will fall to pieces when it matters.

If you're actively relying on your lower order to be good, it means your top order isn't good enough.

If the other team's batting is firing? Not often. Specialists are better bats for a reason.

If the game is just a low scorer? Plenty. Tail end runs probably swing more tight low scoring games than not.

For an example look at RSA late 90s/early 2000s. They had an impressive run of results. Briefly took the number one ranking off AUS a few times, despite AUS having significantly better specialists. The runs their bowlers scored swung just about every tight win. More debateably, some of the bigger wins too (hard to know). And secured some draws.

There's no doubt that having someone like Pollock, who's one of your best bowlers who is also handy with the bat is an advantage, but in lower scoring marches the level of bowling is also extremely impactful, so is taking all of your chances, so that's a 50/50.

 

[ataraxia]

If you're actively relying on your lower order to be good, it means your top order isn't good enough.

Sure, whatever. Most top orders aren't "good enough".

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you're losing by an innings and 87 runs, this has morning to do with lower order batting.


If you're actively relying on your lower order to be good, it means your top order isn't good enough.



There's no doubt that having someone like Pollock, who's one of your best bowlers who is also handy with the bat is an advantage, but in lower scoring marches the level of bowling is also extremely impactful, so is taking all of your chances, so that's a 50/50.

Again, your level of bowling and batting are always important, but in low scoring matches; RUNS are at premium not wickets.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

If you're losing by an innings and 87 runs, this has morning to do with lower order batting.


If you're actively relying on your lower order to be good, it means your top order isn't good enough.



There's no doubt that having someone like Pollock, who's one of your best bowlers who is also handy with the bat is an advantage, but in lower scoring marches the level of bowling is also extremely impactful, so is taking all of your chances, so that's a 50/50.

If you have a lower order that can score runs you can overcome more scenarios than a team with 4 rabbits. I also feel that it is a good sign of a teams chemistry when everyone is fighting for each other with the bat since everyone has the opportunity to do so.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Without repeating more than one bowler, on paper 11 best attacks (considering home/away):

1. Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...es-vs-india-4th-test-63338/live-cricket-score


2. Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Winston Benjamin and Roger Harper

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...west-indies-4th-test-63487/live-cricket-score


3. Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Abdul Qadir

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...an-vs-india-3rd-test-63515/live-cricket-score

4. Dale Steyn, Vernon Philander, Kagiso Rabada, Morne Morkel and Keshav Maharaj

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-india-1st-test-1122276/live-cricket-score


5. Ray Lindwall, Allan Davidson, Keith Miller, Richie Benaud and Ian Johnson

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-england-5th-test-62781/live-cricket-score

6. Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Fanie de Villiers, Jacques Kallis and Paul Adams

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...vs-pakistan-3rd-test-63791/live-cricket-score


7. Fred Trueman, Brian Statham, Jim Laker, Johnny Wardle and Trevor Bailey (in England)

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...s-australia-2nd-test-62812/live-cricket-score


8. Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Jason Gillespie, Stuart MacGill and Shane Watson

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...vs-pakistan-3rd-test-64115/live-cricket-score


9. Ravichandran Ashwin, Jasprit Bumrah, Ravindra Jadeja, Mohammad Shami and Axar Patel (in India)

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...sri-lanka-2nd-test-1278683/live-cricket-score


10. Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Max Walker, Gary Gilmore and Ashley Mallett

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...s-australia-3rd-test-63148/live-cricket-score


11. Ian Botham, Bob Willis, Derek Underwood, Mike Hendricks and Tony Greig

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...s-australia-3rd-test-63192/live-cricket-score

 

[subshakerz]

Without repeating more than one bowler, on paper 11 best attacks (considering home/away):

1. Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...es-vs-india-4th-test-63338/live-cricket-score


2. Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Winston Benjamin and Roger Harper

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...west-indies-4th-test-63487/live-cricket-score


3. Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Abdul Qadir

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...an-vs-india-3rd-test-63515/live-cricket-score

4. Dale Steyn, Vernon Philander, Kagiso Rabada, Morne Morkel and Keshav Maharaj

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-india-1st-test-1122276/live-cricket-score


5. Ray Lindwall, Allan Davidson, Keith Miller, Richie Benaud and Ian Johnson

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-england-5th-test-62781/live-cricket-score

6. Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Fanie de Villiers, Jacques Kallis and Paul Adams

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...vs-pakistan-3rd-test-63791/live-cricket-score


7. Fred Trueman, Brian Statham, Jim Laker, Johnny Wardle and Trevor Bailey (in England)

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...s-australia-2nd-test-62812/live-cricket-score


8. Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Jason Gillespie, Stuart MacGill and Shane Watson

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...vs-pakistan-3rd-test-64115/live-cricket-score


9. Ravichandran Ashwin, Jasprit Bumrah, Ravindra Jadeja, Mohammad Shami and Axar Patel (in India)

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...sri-lanka-2nd-test-1278683/live-cricket-score


10. Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Max Walker, Gary Gilmore and Ashley Mallett

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...s-australia-3rd-test-63148/live-cricket-score


11. Ian Botham, Bob Willis, Derek Underwood, Mike Hendricks and Tony Greig

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...s-australia-3rd-test-63192/live-cricket-score

I'm sorry but Australia 2000s is waay too low

 

[kyear2]

Sure, whatever. Most top orders aren't "good enough".

But if they're not, your lower order batting isn't going to make you a good team.

I don't for a second think it's not important, but it seems to elevated here to a place where it's not.

Like all of the other 2 secondary skills, it's complimentary but not going to make your team even competitive on its own.

 

[kyear2]

Again, your level of bowling and batting are always important, but in low scoring matches; RUNS are at premium not wickets.

This makes no sense. If your bowling level is below theirs in an attempt to boost the batting, you've already lost the battle.

In low scoring battles the better bowling team wins, not the ones with the better batsmen among the bowlers.

In low scoring games, the lower order is also failing. But to carry it to the ultimate extreme, it's believed that Bradman and the top order struggled and Lindwall and crew are going to win you the game. That's twice in a career tops type ****.

You do want some guys down there that are competent, ideally two, but hopefully being the better bowling options as much as possible.

Yes lower order runs can be vital, but you're not giving up the bowling upper hand to get them. Especially not in a low scoring game, that's when the bowlers show out.

 

[kyear2]

If you have a lower order that can score runs you can overcome more scenarios than a team with 4 rabbits. I also feel that it is a good sign of a teams chemistry when everyone is fighting for each other with the bat since everyone has the opportunity to do so.

The one referenced?

If you're consistently losing because you are scoring enough runs, it's because the top order needs to be improved, not how the bowlers bat.
If the 4 rabbits are 3 McGrath's and Murali, I'll take it. Becuse they will bowl out the teams for low enough scores that it shouldn't come down to the tail enders to win it.

 

[kyear2]

I'm sorry but Australia 2000s is waay too low

Agree

 

[capt_Luffy]

This makes no sense. If your bowling level is below theirs in an attempt to boost the batting, you've already lost the battle.

In low scoring battles the better bowling team wins, not the ones with the better batsmen among the bowlers.

In low scoring games, the lower order is also failing. But to carry it to the ultimate extreme, it's believed that Bradman and the top order struggled and Lindwall and crew are going to win you the game. That's twice in a career tops type ****.

You do want some guys down there that are competent, ideally two, but hopefully being the better bowling options as much as possible.

Yes lower order runs can be vital, but you're not giving up the bowling upper hand to get them. Especially not in a low scoring game, that's when the bowlers show out.

Quite the opposite really. These are games in which a down the order 40 runs from the tail can be the decider more often than slight change in bowling difference.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm sorry but Australia 2000s is waay too low

The other bowling units looks more balanced to me.

 

[kyear2]

Quite the opposite really. These are games in which a down the order 40 runs from the tail can be the decider more often than slight change in bowling difference.

Who says they are getting 40 runs, in a low scoring match when the bowlers are on top.

That's my point.....