What's new

Is this England's best-ever Test bowling-attack?

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
218,132
England need eight West Indies wickets on the final day of the third #raisethebat Test to clinch a 2-1 series win. Arguably, they have their best-ever bowling attack to get the job done.

James Anderson is England's leading Test wicket-taker of all time, with 589, while Stuart Broad's brilliant four-wicket burst on day three at Emirates Old Trafford - earning him an 18th Test five-for - and two strikes late on took him to 499, just one shy of that magic 500 mark.

The pair have long been touted as England's best-ever opening partnership and yet, backing them up, Chris Woakes' record in home conditions - averaging 22.90 per wicket prior to this Test - trumps the pair of them (Broad 26.53, Anderson 23.85).

Added to the mix is the X-factor of Jofra Archer, his extra pace, effortless action and pure, God-given talent that has seen him become almost one of the first names on the team-sheet within a year of his sensational debut against Australia at Lord's.


Stuart Broad moved to within one wicket of 500 in Tests as England maintained complete control on day three of the third #raisethebat Test.
In fact, England's mistake in dropping Broad for the first Test of the series at The Ageas Bowl said more about their desperation to find a spot for Archer in the side than it did about any waning faith in Stuart's skills - skills he has emphatically proven he still possesses, with 14 wickets at 10.50 since.


Broad was the star of the show on the third morning of the Test, taking all four remaining West Indies first-innings wickets to fall, as the others looked a little off form, but all four were certainly firing prior to tea on day two.

In the first 25 overs of their reply to England's 369, the West Indies stumbled their way to 59-3 in the face of some supremely skilful spells from England's fearsome foursome; Anderson, Broad and Archer all chipping in with a wicket but, all of them, as well as Woakes, could conceivably have taken many more.

It prompted Sky Sports' Nasser Hussain to say, "in these conditions, these four seamers, I can't think of a better attack.

"In 2005, maybe, but even in 2005, they needed a bit of reverse swing with Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff."

Earlier in the year, during lockdown, Steve Harmison - part of that famous Ashes-winning attack in 2005 - said he believed that unit of himself, Flintoff, Jones and Matthew Hoggard to be the best.

"I think the best team England have ever had is Andrew Strauss' team that won in Australia [in 2010/11]," said Harmison. "That was the best team, but our bowling attack was the best, I thought, by a decent way - because of who we came up against, that Australian side in 2005."

Hussain, later clarifying his comments, added that while the England attacks of 2005 and 2010 have a rightful claim to the crown, in typically English, overcast conditions like those we have seen for this series, he would take England's current quartet.

"I compared this attack to the 2005 one at tea, while a couple of people rightly mentioned the 2010 attack that Strauss had that won the Ashes down under," Hussain added.

"[But] I just like this one in these conditions. The one Michael Vaughan had in 2005, on dry pitches in a dry summer, Flintoff and Jones reversing it [was very good].

"In these conditions, with no reverse, a green outfield, lights on; Anderson, Broad, Woakes and Archer, [even] as a seasoned English-type batsman, you wouldn't want to play against those four."

The West Indies batsmen will certainly, stubbornly be looking to deny that England attack on the final day of the Test - their cause aided by a day four washout - as they try to tie the series and retain the Wisden Trophy.

But if this is truly England's best-ever attack, they can prove it by leading the team to victory on Tuesday. Their best chance of doing that would be by replicating those 25 first-innings overs up to tea on Saturday afternoon.

They need Archer at his fiery best, bowling the type of vicious, surprise short ball right into the rib cage like the one that had a leaping John Campbell uncomfortably splicing to gully.

They need the metronomic Anderson skilfully working away outside off stump, moving it in and away from the batsmen, like the deliveries that led to the wickets of Shai Hope and Shamarh Brooks first time round.

They need the underrated Woakes relentlessly plugging away, nibbling the ball off the seam and hopefully getting greater reward than his first-innings efforts earned.

And, most importantly, they need Broad to continue precisely where he left off on Sunday evening, hitting that fuller length that has brought him such reward, not only in this series but in the past two years since a sit down with skipper Joe Root in New Zealand.

Stuart Broad looked back on his big-hitting innings of 62 on day two of the third #raisethebat Test
Broad, chatting to Sky Sports earlier in the Test, pointed to a dismissal of Windies opener Campbell last week as symbolic of how that change of approach has paid off.

"Rooty sat me down in 2018 in Hamilton, I think, and said, 'we want to try a slightly different style with the new ball'," recalled Broad. "'We don't mind going for a few more runs, if we can make a couple more breakthroughs'.

"The last couple of years, we've taken a little bit more of a risk. Campbell, in the last game, was the prime example of that.

"I got driven through the off side and five years ago I'd have kicked the turf, saying 'too full', but actually I was clapping, thinking that's exactly the sort of shot I want to see to a brand new ball.

"I had another go and fortunately got the nick."

Broad got Campbell again with exactly that perfect, fuller length in the second innings on Sunday and then added nightwatchman Kemar Roach, nicking off, in his next over. It was almost too easy.

What else would you expect from 'England's best-ever bowling attack'?

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/n...tack-as-stuart-broad-closes-in-on-500-wickets
 
The best England attack I ever saw was Willis-Hendrick-Botham-Old-Emburey in 1981. Pace and bounce, accuracy, massive swing, moderate swing and throttling off spin.

Gough-Caddick-Cork-White really hit the straps in 2000.

Then Harmison-Hoggard-Flintoff-Jones defeated the mighty Aussies in 2005.

Any attack with Swann was very handy so I will say Anderson-Finn-Broad-Swann.

The current one is pretty good but Anderson is fading, Archer green, Stokes creaking and no attacking spinner is being picked.

I look forward to seeing Broad lead the attack with Archer, Wood and a rejuvenated Stokes in Australia. Fight fire with fire.
 
The best England attack I ever saw was Willis-Hendrick-Botham-Old-Emburey in 1981. Pace and bounce, accuracy, massive swing, moderate swing and throttling off spin.

Gough-Caddick-Cork-White really hit the straps in 2000.

Then Harmison-Hoggard-Flintoff-Jones defeated the mighty Aussies in 2005.

Any attack with Swann was very handy so I will say Anderson-Finn-Broad-Swann.

The current one is pretty good but Anderson is fading, Archer green, Stokes creaking and no attacking spinner is being picked.

I look forward to seeing Broad lead the attack with Archer, Wood and a rejuvenated Stokes in Australia. Fight fire with fire.

That attack of gough caddick cork white was a complete seem attack, it had every base covered in all conditions hence England won in pakistan and Sri Lanka.
 
Going back in time..... Trueman-Bedser-Laker-Lock all averaged under 25.

Statham-Tyson-Bedser-Bailey-Wardle must have been spectacular.
 
No
They would have fielded attacks with 4 bowlers out of:
Lock
Laker
Waddle
Statham
Tyson
Bedser
Trueman

That would be their greatest attack
 
The peak for me was probably at the Old Trafford and Trent Bridge Tests against Australia in 2005, when Harmison-Flintoff-Hoggard-Simon Jones were all at the peak of their respective powers, all bringing something different to the table and all running in relentlessly, and the Australian batsmen had no answers.
 
England actually did field:

Trueman
Statham
Bailey
Laker
Lock

This team hasn’t even got a Shadab-quality spinner!
 
That attack of gough caddick cork white was a complete seem attack, it had every base covered in all conditions hence England won in pakistan and Sri Lanka.

I don’t think Corky was on that tour. By then his pace had dropped due to injury and he needed English conditions to take wickets.

England went in with two spinners IIRC. Those wins on top of beating WI 3-1 were Nasser’s finest hour and showEd what you can do if he got a good attack bowling for a few tests in a row.
 
Johnny Wardle should have played a lot more tests but was kept out by Laker and Lock. Imagine a mystery fingerspin/wristspinner averaging 21 not being able to force his way into the side. The golden age of English spin.
 
They need a quality spinner. Also, need to see more of Archer and Wood overseas.

Archer generally is a hit or miss while Wood is mediocre at home.
 
They need a quality spinner. Also, need to see more of Archer and Wood overseas.

Archer generally is a hit or miss while Wood is mediocre at home.

Concur. Probably both overdoing short stuff.

Wish we had a leggie but they never seem to come through in England.
 
Best fast bowling attack, but not the best overall due to a lack of a quality spinner.
 
2005 ashes attack was the best English Attack I've seen as it beat the Greatest Test Side of All time. Also leading up to the ashes, they probably won 6-7 series consecutively.

Gough-Caddick-White-Cork attack was butchered by Aussies both home & away(4-1 in both series with englands wins coming in dead rubbers).
Though I agree this attack had to face the best version of Aussies as by 2005, Aussies conquered India, probably lacked motivation & were starting to show sign of decline.

England under Strauss was probably the greatest english side as they won in both Australia & India. But that pace attack again would've been butchered by 2000s Aussies & Indians. By the Time Anderson led attack faced them, both teams were over the hills.

So for me 2005 attack was the best as it beat the best side of all time albeit a declining one.
 
2005 ashes attack was the best English Attack I've seen as it beat the Greatest Test Side of All time. Also leading up to the ashes, they probably won 6-7 series consecutively.

Gough-Caddick-White-Cork attack was butchered by Aussies both home & away(4-1 in both series with englands wins coming in dead rubbers).
Though I agree this attack had to face the best version of Aussies as by 2005, Aussies conquered India, probably lacked motivation & were starting to show sign of decline.

England under Strauss was probably the greatest english side as they won in both Australia & India. But that pace attack again would've been butchered by 2000s Aussies & Indians. By the Time Anderson led attack faced them, both teams were over the hills.

So for me 2005 attack was the best as it beat the best side of all time albeit a declining one.

The Australia team around the millennium was right at its peak, hence England and every other team got hammered bar India in india, 2005 Australia team was on the decline as both warne and McGrath Gillespie were over the hill
 
The Australia team around the millennium was right at its peak, hence England and every other team got hammered bar India in india, 2005 Australia team was on the decline as both warne and McGrath Gillespie were over the hill

Disagree about Warne and McGrath being over the hill. Warne was as good as ever, in fact he was the only one performing to type, while McGrath stepped on a cricket ball after blowing England away in the first test. Gillespie was past his peak, yes.

However, the major issue was the batsmen couldn't handle the sustained quality of the English bowlers, they had never come across such a challenge before and consequently were unprepared.
 
Disagree about Warne and McGrath being over the hill. Warne was as good as ever, in fact he was the only one performing to type, while McGrath stepped on a cricket ball after blowing England away in the first test. Gillespie was past his peak, yes.

However, the major issue was the batsmen couldn't handle the sustained quality of the English bowlers, they had never come across such a challenge before and consequently were unprepared.

Mgrath warne were not the same as they were around the millennium, they were right at their peak, Gillespie, also lee was a scatter gun
 
Mgrath warne were not the same as they were around the millennium, they were right at their peak, Gillespie, also lee was a scatter gun

Nope, Warne rarely bowled better or more accurately than he did in 2005. McGrath had not regressed either, apart from fitness I guess. It was the batting that lost Australia that series.

Agree on Gillespie, Lee, and Kasprowicz.
 
Warne had his best ever series in 2005, he said so himself. 40 (!) wickets and many vital lower order runs, particularly his big knock at Old Trafford which saved the match for Australia.
 
In ancient days, some ENG bowlers had freakish figures - Lohman, Barnes, Briggs, Peel, Blythe, Tom Richardson, JJ Ferris.... Since second WW, I think on papers best ENG attack had been in middle of 1950s - can't say about which quartret played in which series without lookimng at CI, but that entire decade ENG had tremendous attack - one express pacer (F Tyson), couple of ATG seemers (Bedsar, Truman), a fantastic metronome (Statham), and three very good spinners - Laker, Lock, Wardle. Add to that, they had a very capable all-rounder in Trevor Bailey and one of the best ever part-timers - Ted Dexter. In fact, their back-up bowlers like Tattersal, Freddi Brown, Appleyard or Peter Loader averaged around or under 25 (Appleyard probably U20).

That was a low scoring decade and England was blessed with few series with newly independent IND, PAK, WIN as well as that pathetic NZ team, but still those were remarkable figures.

I'll take Willis, Botham, Old & Hendricks backed by Underwood any day over current attack. In fact PAK tour of 2001 had seen better attack than this one.
 
Other than Broad i dont think any of the bowlers look too threatening at the moment.
Remember ordinary batting line ups like WI n Pak can make any attack look like ATG
 
Mgrath warne were not the same as they were around the millennium, they were right at their peak, Gillespie, also lee was a scatter gun

Remember that McG missed two matches in 2005 and England won the both.

In the second test, England hit scattergun Lee and fading Gillespie for 400 in a day.

Lee was a huge factor in England’s win because they scored off him so fast.
 
Mgrath warne were not the same as they were around the millennium, they were right at their peak, Gillespie, also lee was a scatter gun

Both Mcgrath & Warne were phenomenal till they retired. They had an invincible aura about themselves especially Mcgrath who used to predict whitewashes before the series & shrug off opponents as not worthy enough. You can either call it arrogance or sheer self-belief but the guy more often than not used to back up his word. I don't think England would've won the ashes in 05 if Mcgrath played all the tests bcause we have to remember england's margin of victory were 2runs & 3wickets in the two test they won.
 
Lol of this is England's best ever attack then they have some very low standards. All of these. "quick" bowlers are ineffective in Asia and Aus. Archer has played just 9 tests and averages a laughable 30.11(keep in mind he has played most of his tests in English conditions). Anderson and Broad have longevity and are excellent in England but they dont even average 4 wickets a match which is a standard for top bowlers. Dom Bess is'nt really a quality spinner who can run through a side on day 5. He is just a ordinary hold up bowler. Woakes again is brilliant in Eng but poor outside
 
They need to perform over a consistent period together before we start saying best attack.
 
Both Mcgrath & Warne were phenomenal till they retired. They had an invincible aura about themselves especially Mcgrath who used to predict whitewashes before the series & shrug off opponents as not worthy enough. You can either call it arrogance or sheer self-belief but the guy more often than not used to back up his word. I don't think England would've won the ashes in 05 if Mcgrath played all the tests bcause we have to remember england's margin of victory were 2runs & 3wickets in the two test they won.

Warnes self belief and experience was seeing him through in his final years and he admitted, bar the great leg break he couldn't ball the wrong nor the flipper as his shoulder was not the same.

By 2005 the Australia team had cracks creeping in which they hadn't when England had to play them in 01 -02, the bowling was not the same and the England attack completely out did them, yes warne did save them from a total hammering but a combo of pontings poor captaincy and England bats taking it to their bowlers was a Hugh factor, ok McGrath missed a few tests but he played at old Trafford where really England should have won and at the oval they couldn't win.
 
Warnes self belief and experience was seeing him through in his final years and he admitted, bar the great leg break he couldn't ball the wrong nor the flipper as his shoulder was not the same.

By 2005 the Australia team had cracks creeping in which they hadn't when England had to play them in 01 -02, the bowling was not the same and the England attack completely out did them, yes warne did save them from a total hammering but a combo of pontings poor captaincy and England bats taking it to their bowlers was a Hugh factor, ok McGrath missed a few tests but he played at old Trafford where really England should have won and at the oval they couldn't win.

They were definitely declining as most players were on the wrong side of 30s. By 2005, Australia hugely depended on Mcgrath to deliver as Gillespie was done by then(he had his best series in India & then rapidly declined) & Lee never was a great test bowler. Warne was huge but a spinner cant win a series in England alone. Mcgrath's injury was a huge setback. Yes he played 3rd & 5th test of the series but cant expect a 35 year old just to recover from an injury & instantly hitting best form.
 
They were definitely declining as most players were on the wrong side of 30s. By 2005, Australia hugely depended on Mcgrath to deliver as Gillespie was done by then(he had his best series in India & then rapidly declined) & Lee never was a great test bowler. Warne was huge but a spinner cant win a series in England alone. Mcgrath's injury was a huge setback. Yes he played 3rd & 5th test of the series but cant expect a 35 year old just to recover from an injury & instantly hitting best form.

Yes, and it showed Australia were no longer formidable, to many cracks in their armour , the aussy team that toured in summer 2001 were rampant
 
Disagree about Warne and McGrath being over the hill. Warne was as good as ever, in fact he was the only one performing to type, while McGrath stepped on a cricket ball after blowing England away in the first test. Gillespie was past his peak, yes.

However, the major issue was the batsmen couldn't handle the sustained quality of the English bowlers, they had never come across such a challenge before and consequently were unprepared.

England made them look bad. Saying australia was declining post 2005 is absolute fallacy. Australia post 07 were as still a complete side capable of given their 03 team a good fight in home conditions.
 
Had there been Swann in place of Giles, they would have drawn/won test series India 2001.

No,Gough and Thorpe were only enough to win the series because these two played a good role in winning in Pakistan and in Srilanka.
 
We are discussing English bowling attack of 2001, it was near perfect in 2001-2002 if you include Swann. India could not have won a test series in Aus even if Shami and Bumrah were present. We had a bit of luck when we won against them in 2001 home series. They nearly whitewashed us in 2004 series.
 
Sl and Pak batting line ups were thin as compared to batting lineup of Tenda, VVS, Dravid, Saurav etc., you probably need 2 quality spinners against them. Gaughs and Caddicks cant do Mcgraths or Steyns in subcontinent.
 
We are discussing English bowling attack of 2001, it was near perfect in 2001-2002 if you include Swann. India could not have won a test series in Aus even if Shami and Bumrah were present. We had a bit of luck when we won against them in 2001 home series. They nearly whitewashed us in 2004 series.

we would have beaten them comfortably at home had shami and bumrah played. Away I don't know but wirh calibre of batsmen india had at the time, would not be surprised.

take mcgrath out of australia and then you will see their true aukat.

Anyway had india played ashwin in 2001 then England wouldn't have a single test. I can also arbitrarily choose a player to strengthen my team if you decide to include swan.

Besides all of those indian players who went on to become greats inn the future (batsmen) were in their early pre prime stage except maybe sacchhu bhai.

Laxman dravid etc all hit their primes post 2003.
 
we would have beaten them comfortably at home had shami and bumrah played. Away I don't know but wirh calibre of batsmen india had at the time, would not be surprised.

take mcgrath out of australia and then you will see their true aukat.

Anyway had india played ashwin in 2001 then England wouldn't have a single test. I can also arbitrarily choose a player to strengthen my team if you decide to include swan.

Besides all of those indian players who went on to become greats inn the future (batsmen) were in their early pre prime stage except maybe sacchhu bhai.

Laxman dravid etc all hit their primes post 2003.

Agree, mgrath was a massive presence in the Australia attack, even more so than warne.
 
Mcgrath was ATG but the bowler who had impact in 2001 and 2004 serieses in India was Gillespie.Warne did alright in 2004 tour.
Despite Harb and Laxman, Aus nearly won 3 rd test.Dighe and Harb with bit of luck got us home. Imagine one of Dighe's edge of Miller had gone straight to slip, would Harbhajan alone was enough if we had to make 25 runs more? Thats why they were called unbeatable team.
We were good but nowhere near Aussies either home or away. They could have won 2 nd test with bit of luck. Also, in 2004 series in India, they nearly whitewashed us. And in 2004 Aus tour, had Mcgrath and Warne played, we could have lost 4-0 or 3-0 irrespective of Bumrah and Shami played or not on that tour.
 
Last edited:
Aus tour of Ind 2001, Ind won 2-1.
Ind tour of Aus 2004, drawn 1-1.
Aus tour of Ind 2004, Aus won 2-1.
Scorecard would suggest both the teams dominated but thats not true.
In 2001 tour, with a bit of luck(getting Dighe or Harb), they could have won the series 2-1 or 2-0, had they not thrown their wickets in last session of 3 rd test.
On Aus tour 2003-04, they didnt have Mcgrath and Warne for full series, they could have won 4-0 or at least 3-0 if both were present.
On Aus tour of Ind, they could have won 3-0 or 4-0 again, remember last test Ind won by 13 runs, Nathan Hauritz LBW to Kumble going down leg, a couple of 4s, and Aus were home. Also in 3rd test, Ind needed 235 on last day, which had very less chances of happening, we were batting poorly that series, more likely would have fold to 180-190.
In those 3 serieses, margin of Aus win, 10 wickets (Mumbai), 9 wickets(Aus venue dont remember), 200+runs (Nagpur), another comprehensive victory in that series.
Margins of Ind win were, 2 wickets, 170 runs(thats impressive), 4 wickets, 13 runs.
Now that clarifies the picture.
 
Also forget to mention, we lost test in 2004 home series by 342 runs, that is minnowestique margin at Nagpur.
 
Last edited:
How to explain margins of 342, 217, 10 wickets, 8 wickets etc? Margins of 2 wickets, 4 wickets, 16 runs can go either way with a bit of luck. Can you win by 200+ or 300+ runs by being lucky?
 
Concur. Probably both overdoing short stuff.

Wish we had a leggie but they never seem to come through in England.

Matt Parkinson is a good prospect, he would have played in Sri Lanka had covid not hit. He will definitely debut when eng tour india in the near future.
 
Also forget to mention, we lost test in 2004 home series by 342 runs, that is minnowestique margin at Nagpur.

because our bowling was trash at the time?

india became strong post 2004 to about 2010. Then a lean match between 2011 to 2013. Strong again post 2014.

in 2004, sachhu and ganguly missed 2 tests. India would have won the series at home in 04 had they both played all tests
 
Tenda, yes. Ganguly opt out from Nagpur test seeing a green top seeing Gillespie, Mcgrath swinging the ball from day 1.
 
because our bowling was trash at the time?

india became strong post 2004 to about 2010. Then a lean match between 2011 to 2013. Strong again post 2014.

in 2004, sachhu and ganguly missed 2 tests. India would have won the series at home in 04 had they both played all tests

Victory margins of australia were huge in the won tests. India barely looked like competing in those tests. That was the thing about that aussie side though. They used to butcher sides. Oppositions had to assemble great sides of their playing history to beat that Aussie team.

In 2001, Australia won the 1st test by 9 wickets. It took probably the greatest innings of all time to beat Aussies in the 2nd after India had to follow on. In the third test India won by 2 wickets.

In 2004, India won a dead rubber by 13 runs. Australia won two tests by the margin of 200+ & 300+ runs.

In the ashes 05 series, England won by the margin of two runs & three wickets. Australia won their match by 150+ runs.

Australia of 2000 statistically is the greatest side of all time be it ODIs or Tests for a reason. They were just too good for everyone. That's why I rate performances against them very highly because not many stood up to them & fought.
 
we would have beaten them comfortably at home had shami and bumrah played. Away I don't know but wirh calibre of batsmen india had at the time, would not be surprised.

take mcgrath out of australia and then you will see their true aukat.

Anyway had india played ashwin in 2001 then England wouldn't have a single test. I can also arbitrarily choose a player to strengthen my team if you decide to include swan.

Besides all of those indian players who went on to become greats inn the future (batsmen) were in their early pre prime stage except maybe sacchhu bhai.

Laxman dravid etc all hit their primes post 2003.

You would be whitewashed even with bumrah & Shami if I add Steve Smith to that 2000 aussie team. Hack even Martyn instead of Ponting would be enough for Australia to win.
 
Victory margins of australia were huge in the won tests. India barely looked like competing in those tests. That was the thing about that aussie side though. They used to butcher sides. Oppositions had to assemble great sides of their playing history to beat that Aussie team.

In 2001, Australia won the 1st test by 9 wickets. It took probably the greatest innings of all time to beat Aussies in the 2nd after India had to follow on. In the third test India won by 2 wickets.

In 2004, India won a dead rubber by 13 runs. Australia won two tests by the margin of 200+ & 300+ runs.

In the ashes 05 series, England won by the margin of two runs & three wickets. Australia won their match by 150+ runs.

Australia of 2000 statistically is the greatest side of all time be it ODIs or Tests for a reason. They were just too good for everyone. That's why I rate performances against them very highly because not many stood up to them & fought.

I completely agree about the 2000 Australia team, be it test or limited overs but boy they were a formidable outfit and comfortably the strongest team I've seen .
 
You would be whitewashed even with bumrah & Shami if I add Steve Smith to that 2000 aussie team. Hack even Martyn instead of Ponting would be enough for Australia to win.

I can add Kohli and Ashwin to that team too. Add pujara in the mix too. Pujara actually plays well in bouncy conditions and is a monster at home.

Its all conjecture. We dont know who would win. India would be firm favourites to smash Australia at home and vice versa for Australia in their country.

That Indian team of old only needed a couple of pace bowlers to complement their batting. They would have shami bumrah along with prime zaheer. More than capable of beating any version of australia at home comfortably.

The only australia were even that good was due to their athleticism which other teams lacked due to not taking fitness seriously.

Everything has changed post 2010. Fitness is taken seriously due to advancement in training methods etc.
 
Last edited:
Pre 2010, India and most cubcontinent teams never implement proper fitness training regimens. It was believed that strength and conditioning training would actually slow down your reflexes and bowling ability which is absolute fallacy.

Australia were the only team along with perhaps, new Zealand and south Africa that focused on sport specific training methods for cricket. These nations also happened to be rugby playing countries hence they had a major advantage in terms of having access to superior training routines which translated seamlessly into cricket.
 
Pre 2010, India and most cubcontinent teams never implement proper fitness training regimens. It was believed that strength and conditioning training would actually slow down your reflexes and bowling ability which is absolute fallacy.

Australia were the only team along with perhaps, new Zealand and south Africa that focused on sport specific training methods for cricket. These nations also happened to be rugby playing countries hence they had a major advantage in terms of having access to superior training routines which translated seamlessly into cricket.

If it was all down to fitness & Athleticism, Australia would've still been the best side in the world. India is still behind Australia in that regard. Current Aussie side is more athletic compared to the 2000s Aussie side & yet they are no where near the side they had 15 years ago. Any amount of fitness, Athleticism & strength training wont produce players like Gilchrist, Warne & Mcgrath. They were just too good. World Cricket havent seen a kind of them even after years of their retirement because they were so amazing & freakish in their performances.
 
I can add Kohli and Ashwin to that team too. Add pujara in the mix too. Pujara actually plays well in bouncy conditions and is a monster at home.

Its all conjecture. We dont know who would win. India would be firm favourites to smash Australia at home and vice versa for Australia in their country.

That Indian team of old only needed a couple of pace bowlers to complement their batting. They would have shami bumrah along with prime zaheer. More than capable of beating any version of australia at home comfortably.

The only australia were even that good was due to their athleticism which other teams lacked due to not taking fitness seriously.

Everything has changed post 2010. Fitness is taken seriously due to advancement in training methods etc.

How do you plan to destroy the GOAT side with a bowler who's yet to bowl a ball in India? Pujara wont get into the side ahead of Dravid. India would prepare rank turners against Australia so indian pacers wont really matter.
I would still back 2001 version of Australia to beat India with two changes.
Hayden
Langer(No slater)
Smith(Time machined)
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Martyn(Ponting benched)
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Kasprowitch
Mcgrath
 
If it was all down to fitness & Athleticism, Australia would've still been the best side in the world. India is still behind Australia in that regard. Current Aussie side is more athletic compared to the 2000s Aussie side & yet they are no where near the side they had 15 years ago. Any amount of fitness, Athleticism & strength training wont produce players like Gilchrist, Warne & Mcgrath. They were just too good. World Cricket havent seen a kind of them even after years of their retirement because they were so amazing & freakish in their performances.


Nope. current Australian side's bowling is not fitter than india who play more games than any other team. Indian bowlers have to toil harder on much tougher conditions at home.

I agree however their 2000 team was exceptional. Again that was only due to their fitness levels at the time. Indian and most Asian players never focused on fitness regimens. You don't know how good they would have been. It's all pure conjecture. If india could compete well with them in 2000 era (test matches) with poor fitness levels then I am certain they would be able to match them with superior fitness training advancements.
 
How do you plan to destroy the GOAT side with a bowler who's yet to bowl a ball in India? Pujara wont get into the side ahead of Dravid. India would prepare rank turners against Australia so indian pacers wont really matter.
I would still back 2001 version of Australia to beat India with two changes.
Hayden
Langer(No slater)
Smith(Time machined)
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Martyn(Ponting benched)
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Kasprowitch
Mcgrath

I highly doubt it. Shami and even umesh averages under 22 in india. I don't think any team in the world stands a chance vs india in India especially an ATG level indian side.

vice versa for india in australia but like I said, had india take physical training seriously back in 2000 era then I am positive the results would be a lot closer especially away.

india were the only team to draw away vs a peak Australian side in the 2000 era albeit without mcgrath for 2 of the tests.
India were the only team to stop them twice be defeating the Aussies in 2001 and ending their streak again a few years later
 
This team would whitewash India with or without Bumrah, Shami, Pujara, Ashwin etc in a 4 test series. At best Ind could eke out 1 draw.
 
At India's home itself, they would whitewash. At best we can get away with 1 draw in a series.That team nearly whitewashed everyone even away.
 
Brett Lee couldnt do much in Ind because of Sehwag, Dravid, Tenda, VVS etc. He would be very effective against likes of Saha, Ashwin etc. Non existant lower order.
Warne lost to the genious of Tenda, VVS, Dravid, Ganguly and their flawless techniques to counter spin.Today he could bambalooze any batsman in our lineup apart Kohli.
If they get us something like 40/3 in morning session these Sahas, Ashwins would get you to 180-190 at best.
 
Current Indian team has to put their 100% even at home series to keep defeat margins <100 runs or 5 wickets in every test.
 
Dont think so. The bowling attack of 2012-13 was the greatest. Won a test series in India
 
How?
Gillespie bowled in Ind to one of the best batting lineup and averaged in 20s. Cant imagine what he can do to these guys apart from Kohli?
Kasprowich was very good too, he would do well even now.
Most changed factor would be this batting facing Warne. Our legends managed that, do you think these kids have same techniques to play spin?
2-3 wickets in morning session an at tea, batting greats Ashwin, Saha etc would be against Brett Lee.
 
Dont think so. The bowling attack of 2012-13 was the greatest. Won a test series in India

Hmm, so Cowans, Ellison, Cowdrey, Edmonds and Pocock was also the best attack for winning in 1984/5 ?
 
How?
Gillespie bowled in Ind to one of the best batting lineup and averaged in 20s. Cant imagine what he can do to these guys apart from Kohli?
Kasprowich was very good too, he would do well even now.
Most changed factor would be this batting facing Warne. Our legends managed that, do you think these kids have same techniques to play spin?
2-3 wickets in morning session an at tea, batting greats Ashwin, Saha etc would be against Brett Lee.

all the batsmen from india are far too good in Asian conditions.

warne would do jack squat.

Brett lee was trash in india as always. kasprowicz was a mediocre bowler in Asia as well.

India would absolutely annihilate them. You got to think of indian conditions. Indian batsmen in Indian conditions are far too good to get neutralized by even the best of bowlers.

India also have the best Asian condition bowlers
 
Last edited:
Lee and Kasprawich were not trash. They were rendered useless by our greats upto no 7.
Warne could certainly fox likes of Rahane, Agarwal, Pant, Agarwal etc.
I honestly dont see how Saha, Rahane, Ashwin etc could dominate Warne.
 
Brett lee even in non helpful conditions would be a major challange to our no 8,9,10, 11.

no he woudlnt. They would be both rendered ineffective in Indian conditions. They couldn't even dominate the indian batsmen in 03 at their own home.

warne was always a dud in india. He was never a threat.
 
I think We can agree the current Indian Pitches are lot more conducive to fast bowling than the 2000s. Yes Shami & Co are great in India but then, Their counterpart Mcgrath averaged below in India 20 against Sachin, Shewag, Dravid, VVS, Saurav & Sachin and in the current version of Indian Pitches, he would be deadly. I can imagine Mcgrath targeting Rohit & Virat (Like he did in every series) and winning easily against Rohit. Mcgrath v Kohli would be out of the world battle. Warne would do better against Indian tail. With no Sachin & VVS, Warne would do wonderfully against rahane & other middle order players.
 
Hmm, so Cowans, Ellison, Cowdrey, Edmonds and Pocock was also the best attack for winning in 1984/5 ?

Difference between India of 1984 and 2012-13. That attack won an Ashes too with almost same players and was No 1 test side too. This English bowling attack is one dimensional.
 
Can't remember yesteryear England attacks. This one is right up there with the best.
 
<B>I think We can agree the current Indian Pitches are lot more conducive to fast bowling than the 2000s</B>. Yes Shami & Co are great in India but then, Their counterpart Mcgrath averaged below in India 20 against Sachin, Shewag, Dravid, VVS, Saurav & Sachin and in the current version of Indian Pitches, he would be deadly. I can imagine Mcgrath targeting Rohit & Virat (Like he did in every series) and winning easily against Rohit. Mcgrath v Kohli would be out of the world battle. Warne would do better against Indian tail. With no Sachin & VVS, Warne would do wonderfully against rahane & other middle order players.

So, the modern era overseas fast bowlers are not good enough, they struggle to take 20 wickets at home.
 
This is in the Top Five England attacks that I have seen. Just about.
 
Trueman Statham Bailey Laker Lock

Snow Willis Lever Underwood Illingworth

Willis Botham Dillley Old Willey

Foster Dilley Botham Emburey Edmonds

Harmison Hoggard Jones Flintoff Giles

Anderson Broad Archer Woakes Bess
 
Difference between India of 1984 and 2012-13. That attack won an Ashes too with almost same players and was No 1 test side too. This English bowling attack is one dimensional.

India in 1984 were arguably better with Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhar and Kapil.

Botham came back for the Ashes.
 
Last edited:
Trueman Statham Bailey Laker Lock

Snow Willis Lever Underwood Illingworth

Willis Botham Dillley Old Willey

Foster Dilley Botham Emburey Edmonds

Harmison Hoggard Jones Flintoff Giles

Anderson Broad Archer Woakes Bess

I would put

Gough Cork Fraser Tufnell

and

Gough Caddick Cork White Giles

in there too.
 
I think We can agree the current Indian Pitches are lot more conducive to fast bowling than the 2000s. Yes Shami & Co are great in India but then, Their counterpart Mcgrath averaged below in India 20 against Sachin, Shewag, Dravid, VVS, Saurav & Sachin and in the current version of Indian Pitches, he would be deadly. I can imagine Mcgrath targeting Rohit & Virat (Like he did in every series) and winning easily against Rohit. Mcgrath v Kohli would be out of the world battle. Warne would do better against Indian tail. With no Sachin & VVS, Warne would do wonderfully against rahane & other middle order players.

in Indian conditions the current batsmen would absolutely destroy any bowling attack. Not to mention India also have the 2 best spinners in Asian conditions. Add 3 of the best pacers for indian conditions and it makes it a perfect team. India's depth for Asian conditions makes them very hard to beat. Anything less than a whitewash vs any version of the Aussies would be surprising.
 
in Indian conditions the current batsmen would absolutely destroy any bowling attack. Not to mention India also have the 2 best spinners in Asian conditions. Add 3 of the best pacers for indian conditions and it makes it a perfect team. India's depth for Asian conditions makes them very hard to beat. Anything less than a whitewash vs any version of the Aussies would be surprising.

Hayden
Katich
Bradman
Smith
Harvey
Martyn
Gilchrist
Benaud
Gillespie
O'Reilly
McGrath

Would be worth a shout.

Guarantee that the bloke who averages a hundred should ensure that they get at least 1 draw. I would say 2-0 to this team vs current India, who have major weaknesses comparatively at 6 and 7
 
How do you know if you have nothing to compare it with?

I remember some English bowlers who performed in tandem. You can't expect fans who were not alive to witness English attacks from before their time. The famous 1981 Wiliis-Botham attack versus Australia was a good one.
 
I remember some English bowlers who performed in tandem. You can't expect fans who were not alive to witness English attacks from before their time. The famous 1981 Wiliis-Botham attack versus Australia was a good one.

No but he can expect one to do some degree of due diligence before rating something highly in a historical sense
 
Back
Top