What are the 5 greatest bowling attacks ever fielded?

[capt_Luffy]

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

That's my point.....

They are getting 30-40 tail runs quite ofen with a good tail actually.

 

[subshakerz]

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

This is an assumption. If good bowling conditions or bowlers all having the luxury of playing in packs, it tends to level the playing field among different levels of bowlers.

Same with good batting conditions too leveling it for different level batting units.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

This is where your take becomes unhinged from actual cricket reality.

Defending Marshall and Warne is one thing, but a tail of four bunnies is not worth whatever marginal difference ATG bowler difference you are suggesting.

Any opposition ATG bowler is going to run through your last four wickets like a hot knife through butter.

Murali and McGrath from positions 8 to 11 means an instant loss the moment your top 7 fails without any possibility of recovering. They aren't even capable of staying at the crease to stretch an innings. It's such a huge risk that it's not worth it against a team of similar quality.

 

[AndrewB]

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

And Australia 1955 is too high, on the grounds that Benaud and Davidson didn't become world class bowlers for another couple of years. At the end of that match Davidson had taken 11 Test wickets @ 39, Benaud 23 @ 37. The best Australian bowlers in that series (going by their figures) were in fact Archer, Johnston, Miller and Johnson (Lindwall had an OK series but was slightly past his peak by then).

 

[subshakerz]

And Australia 1955 is too high, on the grounds that Benaud and Davidson didn't become world class bowlers for another couple of years. At the end of that match Davidson had taken 11 Test wickets @ 39, Benaud 23 @ 37. The best Australian bowlers in that series (going by their figures) were in fact Archer, Johnston, Miller and Johnson (Lindwall had an OK series but was slightly past his peak by then).

He mentioned attacks on paper.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And Australia 1955 is too high, on the grounds that Benaud and Davidson didn't become world class bowlers for another couple of years. At the end of that match Davidson had taken 11 Test wickets @ 39, Benaud 23 @ 37. The best Australian bowlers in that series (going by their figures) were in fact Archer, Johnston, Miller and Johnson (Lindwall had an OK series but was slightly past his peak by then).

It's on paper.

 

[kyear2]

I asked this question a few months ago, can't recall how it was phrased, and this wasn't it but here we go.

Let's take the two best teams of all time.

Bowling attacks of

Marshall / Holding / Garner / Walsh

Warne / Lee / Gillespie / McGrath

For funsies let's add

Philander / Steyn / Morkel

Or even the ATG attack trio just selected

Hadlee / Marshall / Warne / McGrath

All of them were really good attacks, and while the top three lack the all rounders we are so fond of referencing all 3 were solid in the lower order.

Keeping the teams as is, would either team switch out the batting talents of their no 8 & 9 for lets say Imran and Wasim if it meant swapping out their slip fielding talents for let's say the Pakistan unit of the 90's.

Even for the ATG team, and with that specific bowling attack, and batting lineup, would they rather give up Hadlee's batting for say another McGrath or ... Give up that cordon for Sachin, Kohli and Shafique.

Or to be much more succinct, would either of those three teams have given up their elite slip cordons for as stronger tail.

I wouldn't only suggest no, but dare say it wouldn't be a close decision.

I say all of that to basically say that somehow we've over rated the impact of lower order batting. Yes it has real value, no where near what's being suggested though. We've had teams achieve tremendous success without them.

 

[kyear2]

They are getting 30-40 tail runs quite ofen with a good tail actually.

Not in low scoring matches, not compared to how many times you don't.

 

[kyear2]

This is where your take becomes unhinged from actual cricket reality.

Defending Marshall and Warne is one thing, but a tail of four bunnies is not worth whatever marginal difference ATG bowler difference you are suggesting.

Any opposition ATG bowler is going to run through your last four wickets like a hot knife through butter.

Murali and McGrath from positions 8 to 11 means an instant loss the moment your top 7 fails without any possibility of recovering. They aren't even capable of staying at the crease to stretch an innings. It's such a huge risk that it's not worth it against a team of similar quality.

You keep referencing Marshall and Warne where they themselves have had innings where they helped their teams save or even win matches...

And yes, having 4 bunnies is never preferred, and I've said as much. But there's a difference between 4 bunnies and 3 bowling all rounders in your lineup. The West Indies did good enough in their hey day.

And I said a few posts ago, ideally two competent guys would be a preference.

 

[ma1978]

I think stats wise the Kohli / Sharma era Indian bowling may be the best (looking at raw numbers); It may not have the galacticos of the others but the net effect shows up in the numbers

 

[kyear2]

I think stats wise the Kohli / Sharma era Indian bowling may be the best (looking at raw numbers); It may not have the galacticos of the others but the net effect shows up in the numbers

This is away as well?

 

[ma1978]

This is away as well?

yes on absolute bowling averages. I realize this is not ideal but relative averages have their flaws as well

 

[Bolo.]

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.

OFC bowling is important. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

I'm giving an example of how runs scored by bowlers can also have an impact. It was a big impact for RSA. Took them from what would have been fairly middling results due to some serious holes in the team, to being somewhat comparable with a GOAT team candidate in terms of results.

You don't need to bring up catching every time we discuss lower order batting. They are seperate issues. And if they are related in any way, the better bats are more typically better fielders as well. Stuff like concentration and hand-eye coordination play a role in both.

 

[kyear2]

OFC bowling is important. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

I'm giving an example of how runs scored by bowlers can also have an impact. It was a big impact for RSA. Took them from what would have been fairly middling results due to some serious holes in the team, to being somewhat comparable with a GOAT team candidate in terms of results.

You don't need to bring up catching every time we discuss lower order batting. They are seperate issues. And if they are related in any way, the better bats are more typically better fielders as well. Stuff like concentration and hand-eye coordination play a role in both.

I never said they are related in any way, I asked a simple question which no one wants to answer...

It is important, no one is questioning that, it's not the silver bullet to success that some of u guys are purporting it to be. Wasn't as even as crucial to other secondary skills that you'll want to dismiss out of hand.

That's why it's brought up.

 

[Coronis]

Pakistan attack is also only in Pakistani conditions. Qadir is useless outside of them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

SL attack in 2000s can be considered.

I guess technically anything can be "considered"

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.

Actually agree with this. The overall point that bowling quality is far more important then lower order batting holds, but if any game is going to favour the importance of tail end runs it's probably going to be the lower scoring ones. The more bowler-friendly the conditions the more effective a lesser bowler can be in comparison to a better one

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is where your take becomes unhinged from actual cricket reality.

Defending Marshall and Warne is one thing, but a tail of four bunnies is not worth whatever marginal difference ATG bowler difference you are suggesting.

Any opposition ATG bowler is going to run through your last four wickets like a hot knife through butter.

Murali and McGrath from positions 8 to 11 means an instant loss the moment your top 7 fails without any possibility of recovering. They aren't even capable of staying at the crease to stretch an innings. It's such a huge risk that it's not worth it against a team of similar quality.

This is just rubbish

If you've got 3 McGrath's and a Murali, or 2 of each, you're winning everything. The benefit of that bowling outweighs a stronger tail by so much it's not even funny

 

[subshakerz]

Keeping the teams as is, would either team switch out the batting talents of their no 8 & 9 for lets say Imran and Wasim if it meant swapping out their slip fielding talents for let's say the Pakistan unit of the 90's.

This is all irrelevant. Nobody is comparing lower order runs to slips except you.

It's never an either/or situation.

But to answer your question, no they wouldnt switch their quality slip to an actively bad one for better lower order batting.

You don't need to bring up catching every time we discuss lower order batting. They are seperate issues.

This is his trick. Derail us into meaningless tangents.

 

[subshakerz]

This is just rubbish

If you've got 3 McGrath's and a Murali, or 2 of each, you're winning everything. The benefit of that bowling outweighs a stronger tail by so much it's not even funny

You missed the point. I am talking about a game against another ATG side. McGrath and Murali aren't a guarantee if you are facing Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, Warne.

The more bowler-friendly the conditions the more effective a lesser bowler can be in comparison to a better one

Totally agree, but @kyear2 rejects this basic point. In his view, bowlers matter more in lower scoring games. It should be the obvious. When things are tougher, quality matters more.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You missed the point. I am talking about a game against another ATG side.

No I didn't. It's still wrong. McGrath x 3 + Murali is superior in every scenario to a measurably worse bowling attack that can bat better

Unless you're talking about a bowling attack that is only a tiny, tiny bit worse but can bat a lot better, which would be irrelevant to the discussion