Australian Attack vs English Attack

[Rachael]

In another thread (here) a poll revealed how most of us think England and Australia match up "player for player". That poll had limitations though.. and in two seperate polls I'd like to see how the English and Australia attacks square up as bowling units and how the England and Australian batting line ups measure up as units.

This thread is for the attacks..

For Australia.... McGrath + Gillespie + Kasprowicz + Warne are supported by Lehman and Clarke.

For England... Harmison + Hoggard + Jones / Anderson + Flintoff + Giles are supported by Trescothick, Butcher and Vaughan.

The question is simple: which attack brings the most to the party.. and by how much?

[Maranello]

Each of the Australian four would walk into any Test team in the world, including England.

Harmison is the only England bowler who could be selected for the Aussie team. Yes, he has undoubted class, and in a totally different way, is a match for McGrath. But he will only be bowling 20-25 overs a day, and the support act, though able, is not in the class of Gillespie and Kaspa, let alone Warne.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Each of the Australian four would walk into any Test team in the world, including England.

Agreed. Kasprowicz is the supposed "weak link".. and it's true that he's not in the class of Gillespie, McGrath and Warne... but he's better than any other Test team's 1st change seamer: he'd certainly get into the English side ahead of Jones / Anderson.

Point is.. the Aussies have three bowlers who are at least as capable as Harmison... and worthy of discussion for a place in a world XI.. and we have Harmison alone.

Blance wise... I think England were actually better off when Gough, Caddick, White and Croft were all on song together... because the responisbility of leading the attack and winning a match were more evenly spread: these days the England team have the luxury of a 5 man attack, enabling them to hide anyone having a bit pof a bad day.. or of using the form men sparingly, purely as strike bowlers... but that doesn't take away from the fact that we're short of a geneuinely world class new ball bowler to open with Harmison.

Originally Posted by Maranello

Harmison is the only England bowler who could be selected for the Aussie team.

Yup.. on his day Harmison is perhaps (time will tell) going to earn the right to be classed alongside the likes of Gillespie... and even (however unlikely) McGrath... but let's get this in perspective: he's had 6 months of mixed performances that have included SOME really electric spells... and some very ordinary stuff - right now the Aussies would surely rather take the known, proven and consistent quality of McGrath and Gillespie.

I do actually think that Hoggard has it in him to edge Kasprowicz for class... if only just... and on that basis I think he'd be in with a shout for a place in the Aussie team.. but he's not up against Kasprowicz: man for man he's up against Gillespie... and there's only ever going to be one winner of that contest.

[vosser]

This argument also really comes into a bigger perspective when taking the Aussie second string bowlers into account, all of Brett Lee, Nathan Hauritz, Shane Watson, Stuart MacGill, Andy Bichel and Ashley Noffke. Of these I reckon you would struggle to find an argument against replacing all but Harmison with the likes of the above.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by vosser

This argument also really comes into a bigger perspective when taking the Aussie second string bowlers into account, all of Brett Lee, Nathan Hauritz, Shane Watson, Stuart MacGill, Andy Bichel and Ashley Noffke. Of these I reckon you would struggle to find an argument against replacing all but Harmison with the likes of the above.

Not sure I follow what you are saying here: do you mean that Brett Lee, Nathan Hauritz, Shane Watson, Stuart MacGill, Andy Bichel and Ashley Noffke would all be about on a par with the likes of Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones, Anderson and Giles?

That MacGill could step in for Giles and that Lee could step in for Jones / Anderson seems fair enough comment

Much as I admire Giles... he's got a way to go to start rivalling MacGill... and to be honest... what we want from Jones / Anderson is ideally a new ball bowler to partner Harmison (so that Hoggard can take on the Kasprowicz role at 1st change, looking to swing the ball as the shine comes off it)... and evn though I don't particularly rate him... Lee looks a better new ball prospect than either Jones OR Anderson.

I'd defend the other English bowlers though: the characterisation of Hoggard as "a poor man's Pollock" may well be spot on.. but it hides the fact that he's much improved as a workhorse.. and when conditions suit he is actually as unplayable as any bowler in world cricket. Likewise, Flintoff may not be very subtle... and lack the guile to pose real threat... but he does a very useful job of piling on pressure through being difficult to get away - he may not deliver that many overs in a day.. but those overs do help England get through those difficult periods of play when the opposition batsmen are on top.

Bottom line: England don't have a BAD attack.. not by any stretch of the imagination. One only has to look back to the attacks fielded since the Gough / Caddick / White trio broke up to see that far worse have been fielded. It's just that you are putting up a solid English attack with one outstanding bowler up against an exceptional Aussie attack with three outstanding bowlers.

Add in the fact that the Aussie attack generally has the luxury of having runs to play with... attacking field placings.. and lots of time to bowl their opponents out.. and (hence) the easier job).. and I'd rather be in Ponting's shoes than Vaughan's shoes!

[Beny]

I still think that McGrath is the wepon. Harmison is, in my opinion far away from McGrath as far as reliability and skill is concerned. Gillespies main problem is that he does too much with the bowl otherwise I would say that at the end of both bowlers carrers they might be rememberd as being of a simmiler class. Warne of course is of immersuable importance and Kaspa is also a class bowler.

The English attack is getting better and when our guys are gone in perhaps 3-4 seasons then England will probebly be the best in the world.

[Ernest]

Beny, you have an excuse for your views that Australias attack is still the greatest, you are an Aussie, and as such you have seen great success, and that to a point with respect has blinkered your thinking, you can't imagine Australia being anything other than on top in every department.
With all due respect to Rachael, what can she be thinking, can she not see a changing world, cricket is passing her by, as she clings on to fond memories of Graham Pollock, and Glen McGrath.
Rachael wallows in their past glories, missing what the likes of the new order have to offer, still clinging to the hope that McGrath and Pollock, are still the great players they were.
I really do feel sorry for Rachael, she is missing so much, and Beny I feel for you when I think what it will be like for you in 2005, I for one will be magnanimous should England prevail with a larger margin than expected, and Beny Australia will be great again.

Ern

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

With all due respect to Rachael, what can she be thinking, can she not see a changing world, cricket is passing her by, as she clings on to fond memories of Graham Pollock, and Glen McGrath.

I'm not averse to the merits of younger bowlers, Ernest... it's just that I look for those who can carry on the subtle cricketing skills of McGrath, (Shaun) Pollock and co (the craftsmen) rather than the successors to Holding and his ilk (who seem to offer little other than aggression).

I'm actually seeing very positive signs for world bowling right now.. especially in the subcontinent... where a focus on speed machines for conditions hostile to seam bowling seems to be giving way to a focus on medium paced swing and seam bowling... something we've seen a lot of this year ON the subcontinent... from Sri Lanka (who prepared green tops to play Australia) plus India (who bowled well on a green top in Pakistan earlier this year)... and Pakistan (who actually revealed a bevy very promising young medium paced seamers over the year).

Add in the likes of Collymore, Pedro Collins and Dwain Bravo doing well in the WI and I see much to be encouraged by.

I'm probably more encouraged by the English situation than you are, actually: the likes of Lewis finally breaking through suggests we've abandoned the block on developing medium pace talents over here at last (shame that's happened 10 years too late for Bicknell, but you can't have everything).

[Beny]

Ern,

If we look at the PWC ratings, Glenn's best ever rating was 3 years ago in 2001 when he got 914 against England. He did not crack the 900 until 2000 and then maintined it until 2002. After that he has come back from injury and produced proformances simmiler to the period between 1996 and 2000.

He is as fit as a fiddle and his carrer is not limited until his 36th birthday but rather until his body gives out. At the momment he is as fit or fitter than anybody in the English side.

Originally Posted by Kumble

"England's biggest challenge is to see off the new ball, it's as simple as that," he says. "McGrath is almost as good as he ever was. Physically I think he's in great shape. Some people say he's not as fast as he was, but maybe they're just looking at his age and making assumptions.

Originally Posted by Dravid

You have no chance against them without putting runs on the board. They will invariably make a lot of runs with their batting line-up, so you must match that to have any chance of causing an upset.

Originally Posted by Dravid

"The thing about Glenn is that he's always appeared quicker than he really is because of the way he bowls, a little short of a length and with plenty of bounce. "And Gillespie is probably better than ever. They're very mean, and patience is absolutely vital. As for Shane Warne, he has more variation than ever and is virtually bowling at his best.

[Beny]

BTW if you look at the ratings you will notice that one Shaun Pollock is second in the ratings.