What are the 5 greatest bowling attacks ever fielded?

[kyear2]

Dude that's an exaggeration. Nobody is picking Shaun Pollock. They are all basically talking about Wasim, Imran and Hadlee., basically ATG pacers


That is progress then.


Not against an ATG bowling lineup.



As long as Hadlee exists, you will need to explain McGrath. Just accept that it is no slam dunk in his case.


My friend, let me enlighten you to my thinking.

I think between ATG pacers, it is very hard to tell in an actual ATG games what their difference in output would be. Especailly since we dont know which version of the bowler we are discussing will turn up in the game.

I can speculate McGrath would do a bit better than Imran in England and Australia but I think Imran still ends up with quality returns, just not McGrath excellent. I imagine Imran doing notably better in Pakistan or SL. I don't see enough for us to base with confidence that Imran or Steyn or Ambrose doing significantly worse than Hadlee, Marshall or McGrath overall in terms of games and series won.

Yes, I back Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath overall to do a bit better, but I think we can agree this is a speculative exercise and the extent to which they will be better and how much it will affect games is also highly debatable.

On the other hand, I dont think there is any doubt whatsoever that Imran and Hadlee are going to be giving a lot more runs per game than the other options, and that those runs mean more if scores are lower. So why not take the definite over the much harder to speculate?


You gave that example.

I already gave me reasons for Hadlee, I'll address this part separately.

This is where we disagree. I think it's fairly easy to determine who would be more successful as we have a career of stats and matches to fall back on. We have skill sets, traits, tendencies and performances.

Imran, even during his peak averaged a consistent 5 runs better home vs away, you will disagree as to why, but it's clear to most. Is he producing as much with less permissive umpires? And his away record isn't stellar.
Steyn leaked runs like a sieve at times and despite his immense upside wasn't as consistent as the others, and his radar was most likely to go off.
Ambrose didn't require pace per say, but if he wasn't getting assistance, in the 2nd half of his career he could pull back his length a bit, as he didn't have alternative options and his pace was less.

That took 15 seconds. Steyn could be a liability, Imran got ridiculous reverse, but was less effective without it and how did he get it. That doesn't even factor in the umpiring. Ambrose according to you was less tested in the SC.

The runs bit, again my eternal argument, if Bradman and co we're struggling it's a fool's errand to rely on the lower order to upstage and be more consistent that the top order ATGs. They're struggling as well. So a lot more runs is a bit much.

 

[subshakerz]

That just confirms what I was thinking in that every bowler thread seems to be derailed into a tail batting ability debate lately.

Edit: and below derail initiator still ignores thread topic and just keeps it going on his agenda of tail batting ability

He has literally done three or four threads on this topic, but still brings it up in every thread too.

 

[kyear2]

He has literally done three or four threads on this topic, but still brings it up in every thread too.

I was responding to you. So try again.

 

[subshakerz]

If you're choosing the 3rd best pacer from a bowling era, along with the two above him, all because they can bat, over at least one other from less conducive eras who were in McGrath's case better, and in Steyn's just as effective, then yes, you're choosing them based on batting.

Yeah but Imran and Steyn are still ATG pacers. We have a bottomline.

We can agree to disagree, they all had talent with the bat, just some were more required to apply it on a more consistent basis. Neither of the two were useless.

I literally called them useful.

McGrath vs Hadlee, both great stats and similar styles, one did it playing in primarily 3 pace friendly countries his entire career in a bowling era, while one did the same if not better in the flat pitch era. One's bounce and accuracy took the pitch out of the equation, relying on swing considerably less.
So while batting may factor in for some, intangibles and traits are more important to me.

McGrath didn't do as well vs SA, the next best side against pace in his time, or as well in Pak/SL. He has blemishes which makes it a toss-up between him and Hadlee.

 

[Qlder]

Not sure if mentioned as too many pages of off-topic to read, but this actual attack would have to be up there:

Starc - Hazlewood - Cummins - Lyon - Green - Marsh - (Labuschagne - Head)

 

[subshakerz]

This is where we disagree. I think it's fairly easy to determine who would be more successful as we have a career of stats and matches to fall back on. We have skill sets, traits, tendencies and performances.

Imran, even during his peak averaged a consistent 5 runs better home vs away, you will disagree as to why, but it's clear to most. Is he producing as much with less permissive umpires? And his away record isn't stellar.
Steyn leaked runs like a sieve at times and despite his immense upside wasn't as consistent as the others, and his radar was most likely to go off.
Ambrose didn't require pace per say, but if he wasn't getting assistance, in the 2nd half of his career he could pull back his length a bit, as he didn't have alternative options and his pace was less.

Interesting, you seem to have taken my positions on Steyn and Ambrose now.

Anyways, you are missing the point. Even I say Marshall/Hadlee/McGrath will do better, but it is very hard to quantify if 'better' is really that significant between the 1-3 pacers and the 4-6 pacers. You may be overstating the degree. It is speculation as to how much better it will be and what this translates into actual scorelines. Especially since we don't know how Hadlee or McGrath would do as 3rd seamer or whether Marshall/Hadlee/Imran is a more effective attack for all conditions than Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee.

Whereas, I think we can conservatively say Imran + Hadlee are giving us at least an extra 30-40 runs on average an innings which means a fair bit in a low-scoring contest., along with many more opportunities for partnerships from the top order to stretch the innings or to save games,

 

[subshakerz]

I was responding to you. So try again.

Dude, we can all read. This is the post below that restarted your topic of choice, not in response to me.

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.

 

[kyear2]

Dude, we can all read. This is the post below that restarted your topic of choice, not in response to me.

Read back, I didn't start it.

 

[kyear2]

Interesting, you seem to have taken my positions on Steyn and Ambrose now.

Anyways, you are missing the point. Even I say Marshall/Hadlee/McGrath will do better, but it is very hard to quantify if 'better' is really that significant between the 1-3 pacers and the 4-6 pacers. You may be overstating the degree. It is speculation as to how much better it will be and what this translates into actual scorelines. Especially since we don't know how Hadlee or McGrath would do as 3rd seamer or whether Marshall/Hadlee/Imran is a more effective attack for all conditions than Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee.

Whereas, I think we can conservatively say Imran + Hadlee are giving us at least an extra 30-40 runs on average an innings which means a fair bit in a low-scoring contest., along with many more opportunities for partnerships from the top order to stretch the innings or to save games,

You give yourself too much credit, but at least not as stubborn as you, lol.

Watched closely all of Ambrose's career, and most of Steyn's. What you ignore is that Ambrose and Imran had very similar s/r's.

You have clearly only read my takes on Ambrose and Steyn, and ignored the other, and all were fair and well reasoned.

The point that the bat deep brigade refuses to acknowledge is that you're choosing 3 bowlers from the same bowler era. That's like choosing 3 batsmen from the 30's. Imran by comparison to his peers was poor away from home during that era, not even adding the astrix attached.
You have better bowlers from more difficult eras, one who performed better and equally well home and away.
And let's be honest, they're not allowed to prepare the ball for reverse like they used to, who says they will be as effective.

The two parts of this argument that is crazy though is that you are absolutely certain that these matches will be low scoring, and even more ridiculous, that in a low scoring series, you're convinced that those two will consistently score an additional 40 runs an innings, not match, innings. The ATG batsmen are struggling but the guy who averages 27 is going to score his average every game.

Please....

 

[Qlder]

If only we had some moderators to wipe all this off-topic crap from the thread.

 

[kyear2]

If only we had some moderators to wipe all this off-topic crap from the thread.

Like you bitching about who wasn't included in polls?

Please don't pretend that this is the first thread to ever go off topic.

 

[Qlder]

Like you bitching about who wasn't included in polls?

Please don't pretend that this is the first thread to ever go off topic.

Not at all, most of the off-topic threads I've seen do start derailing because of you though.

I need to stop reading anything you post or better yet just log out

 

[kyear2]

Not at all, most of the off-topic threads I've seen do start derailing because of you though.

I need to stop reading anything you post or better yet just log out

Thank you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not at all, most of the off-topic threads I've seen do start derailing because of you though.

I need to stop reading anything you post or better yet just log out

Maybe watch some One Nation ads in between as a palate cleanser

 

[AndrewB]

It's on paper.

By "on paper" do you mean "assuming they're all about at their average level"? Then it's probably fine. (If it means "assuming the're all at their peaks", that Aus mid-50s attack would probably rank even higher).

 

[Coronis]

Not sure if mentioned as too many pages of off-topic to read, but this actual attack would have to be up there:

Starc - Hazlewood - Cummins - Lyon - Green - Marsh - (Labuschagne - Head)

They are definitely the most statistically successful attack (the 4 main bowlers at least)

 

[capt_Luffy]

By "on paper" do you mean "assuming they're all about at their average level"? Then it's probably fine. (If it means "assuming the're all at their peaks", that Aus mid-50s attack would probably rank even higher).

Yeah, I meant assuming around average level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure if mentioned as too many pages of off-topic to read, but this actual attack would have to be up there:

Starc - Hazlewood - Cummins - Lyon - Green - Marsh - (Labuschagne - Head)

Consistently failing to bowl teams out in the 4th innings though

 

[subshakerz]

The point that the bat deep brigade refuses to acknowledge is that you're choosing 3 bowlers from the same bowler era. That's like choosing 3 batsmen from the 30's. Imran by comparison to his peers was poor away from home during that era, not even adding the astrix attached.
You have better bowlers from more difficult eras, one who performed better and equally well home and away.

Actually, the same era argument is usually why they select either Imran or Hadlee. It's more of a preference but logically no reason that the most suitable pacers can't be from the same era.

And let's be honest, they're not allowed to prepare the ball for reverse like they used to, who says they will be as effective.

Marshall and Hadlee won't be able to pick the seam either. I guess we should assume they can't adjust.

The two parts of this argument that is crazy though is that you are absolutely certain that these matches will be low scoring, and even more ridiculous, that in a low scoring series, you're convinced that those two will consistently score an additional 40 runs an innings, not match, innings. The ATG batsmen are struggling but the guy who averages 27 is going to score his average every game.

No. We have agreed already they they will tend to be low scoring. We can be more relatively more certain of that than knowing how exactly better your bowler specialist attack will be.

And I said 30-40 runs on average moreso, based on Imran and Hadlee taking substantial hits in their run output. Imran for example I suspect will average 25-30 max, Hadlee around 20. Marshall and Warne around 10 each.

And of course Imran and Hadlee can stick at the crease much longer, which may be even more useful.

 

[kyear2]

Actually, the same era argument is usually why they select either Imran or Hadlee. It's more of a preference but logically no reason that the most suitable pacers can't be from the same era.


Marshall and Hadlee won't be able to pick the seam either. I guess we should assume they can't adjust.


No. We have agreed already they they will tend to be low scoring. We can be more relatively more certain of that than knowing how exactly better your bowler specialist attack will be.

And I said 30-40 runs on average moreso, based on Imran and Hadlee taking substantial hits in their run output. Imran for example I suspect will average 25-30 max, Hadlee around 20. Marshall and Warne around 10 each.

And of course Imran and Hadlee can stick at the crease much longer, which may be even more useful.

Yes, as evidenced from their stark home and away records and loads of reverse swing.

No, you agreed there would be. I assume there would be a mix, normal cricket. Great attacks, but great batsmen as well. Need to stop with this we.

I like how Marshall's and Warne's got cut in half and Imran's and Hadlee's are still up there. The fact is we don't know.

But even the vote on the other thread still has McGrath ahead, dint know why you pretend like I'm the odd man out.