Is the ‘Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins’ pace attack better than ‘McGrath, Lee and Gillespie’ attack?

[AmreekanDesi]

I genuinely think there is a case.

 

Lets compare like to like.

 

McGrath > Hazelwood. Ok no questions here. McGrath bests him hands down even though Hazelwood is great in his own right.

 

Starc > Lee. This is definitely close in Odis but in tests, Lee was never the same threat and didn’t play a lot either. Starc is streets ahead of Lee here imo

 

Cummins >> Gillespie. This is a clincher. No competition here.

 

Genuinely the current Aussie pace attack has claims to be better than the early 2000s one. 

[Vijy]

20 minutes ago, AmreekanDesi said:

I genuinely think there is a case.

 

Lets compare like to like.

 

McGrath > Hazelwood. Ok no questions here. McGrath bests him hands down even though Hazelwood is great in his own right.

 

Starc > Lee. This is definitely close in Odis but in tests, Lee was never the same threat and didn’t play a lot either. Starc is streets ahead of Lee here imo 

 

Cummins >> Gillespie. This is a clincher. No competition here.

 

Genuinely the current Aussie pace attack has claims to be better than the early 2000s one. 

gillespie is underrated although cummins is better than him - his bowling fell off badly towards the end, but for most of his career he was very good, especially in SC. I believe that the 2000s trio was slightly better than the current batch. even the mid-to-late 2000s Oz had good bowlers like stuart clark, ryan harris and bollinger (before injuries).

 

one also has to remember that pacers benefit from spinner and vice-versa. hence, even though we are talking about pace, the warne effect cannot be ignored. and warne was much better than lyon.

[Insidious]

There is no way Cummins >> Gillespie. Gillespie is an underrated fast bowler. It is just a shame he is not bowling against these modern batsman with so poor defensive technique. At best Cummins = Gillespie.

It is laughable to say starc>lee.Those who have seen Brett Lee at his peak would admit that Brett Lee was better than starc. He was perfect foil for McGrath and can rattle even the best through pace. Yes he has massively underachieved in Tests. He was n't just a tailender bully like starc. I also fear starc's average will go back to the late 30's , due to his inability to get reverse swing post sand paper saga, which will make him statistically inferior to Lee.

And Lastly, Hazelwood is not even comparable to McGrath. On a fast bouncy Dharmashala surface Hazlewood and Cummins was out bowled by Umesh Yadav and Bhuvi. We all know what Mc Grath could have done to us in Dharmashala.

 

According to me.

Cummins (currently the best Australian fast bowler )= Gillespie

Brett Lee > starc

McGrath >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hazlewood

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Insidious

[R!TTER]

Gillespie was the best of the lot in India - better than Mcgrath. Also Lee, although a LO superstar, wasn't that good in tests however he wasn't Starc level. He was better IMO, so Mcgrath>Cummins JG>JH Lee>Starc in that order.

 

Obviously these guys haven't reached the end of their career, however at their respective peak the (past) bowlers I compared are easily better than their counterparts today.

[Bigg Brother]

Lee was different beast...

 

He was Australia's test cricketer for 2007 and major tormentor of India in controversial series down under..

Edited January 2, 2019 by Bigg Brother

[R!TTER]

Yes better than spray gun Starc, Mitch at his best is a tailender killer but even then he struggles to pick top order wickets. The SL series away excepted, now Lee was a better test bowler at his peak & overall.

Edited January 2, 2019 by R!TTER

[Clarke]

McGrath stands heads & shoulders above all other names. One on one comparisons appear irrelevant with an outlier like him.

 

Another name that comes to mind is Damien Fleming, a terrific swing bowler who added variety to their bowling attack. Maybe it was injuries that shortened his career.

[Vijy]

Just now, Clarke said:

McGrath stands heads & shoulders above all other names. One on one comparisons appear irrelevant with an outlier like him.

 

Another name that comes to mind is Damien Fleming, a terrific swing bowler who added variety to their bowling attack. Maybe it was injuries that shortened his career.

yes, injuries associated partly with his action and his body led to career shortening. fleming didn't play in most of the 2000s though; the ind tour in 2001 was his last in tests I think. in the 90s, reiffel was a useful support bowler as well, although of a much lower ability than the names we've discussed hitherto. plenty of other solid oz bowlers in the 2000s - ryan harris, stuart clark to name a couple (bollinger was also good in his short career).

[Clarke]

1 minute ago, Vijy said:

yes, injuries associated partly with his action and his body led to career shortening. fleming didn't play in most of the 2000s though; the ind tour in 2001 was his last in tests I think. in the 90s, reiffel was a useful support bowler as well, although of a much lower ability than the names we've discussed hitherto. plenty of other solid oz bowlers in the 2000s - ryan harris, stuart clark to name a couple (bollinger was also good in his short career).

Agree, I was only referring to the all conquering era. From what I recall, Kasprowicz & Bichel were the fill in type bowlers, Gillespie/Fleming were great, Lee was the key tearaway & McGrath the god. And then if u manage to survive the quicks they had the wizard of spin 

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Agree, I was only referring to the all conquering era. From what I recall, Kasprowicz & Bichel were the fill in type bowlers, Gillespie/Fleming were great, Lee was the key tearaway & McGrath the god. And then if u manage to survive the quicks they had the wizard of spin 

kaspy had a poor start to tests from what I remember, but did quite well later. in contrast, he was always a damn good bowler in odis - lot of variety for that era.

[The Dark Horse]

I think Lee and Cummins are comparable (Cummins has to prove longevity) also Gillespie and Hazelwood. McGrath was better than Starc.

Overall, both attacks are even or one slightly better than the other.

[Rightarmfast]

Those who are comparing the 2 bowling attacks dont seem to have seen Mcgrath, Lee and Gillespie bowl together. The top batsmen of all teams used to shiver at the prospect of facing these 3 bowlers. Comparing Hazelwood to Mcgrath is ridiculous. Either one is humiliating Mcgrath or just overoveroverhyping hazelwood. 

[Nonbeliever]

Atleast we are not comparing Lyon and warne

[rkt.india]

That 99-2000 Indian batting line was a joke

[Stan AF]

Preposterous comparison. 

[rtmohanlal]

i think this comparison makes no sense what so ever .  those 5  mainly Mcgrath-Gillespie-Lee-Warne  & Feliming at times  worked so effectively  as a brilliant all round  unit .  Just don't look at stats because the current lot have not even played  half the no: of matches those guys collectively played. So one-one comparisons of avg:es is plain non sense. And Brett lee's utility was to  go  on all out attack

despite leaking runs, so don't rate him just by avg: alone.His str: rate was just brilliant for a fast bowler.In my book Mcgrath group was 1 or 2 levels better to the current group. 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, rtmohanlal said:

i think this comparison makes no sense what so ever .  those 5  mainly Mcgrath-Gillespie-Lee-Warne  & Feliming at times  worked so effectively  as a brilliant all round  unit .  Just don't look at stats because the current lot have not even played  half the no: of matches those guys collectively played. So one-one comparisons of avg:es is plain non sense. And Brett lee's utility was to  go  on all out attack

despite leaking runs, so don't rate him just by avg: alone.His str: rate was just brilliant for a fast bowler.In my book Mcgrath group was 1 or 2 levels better to the current group. 

Other than McGrath, all other fast bowlers were not any notch above these current Aussie fast bowlers.

[Sandeep99]

Yes it is*

 

 

 

 

 

* if sandpaper is allowed into the cricket field

[JourneyMan]

I'm actually leaning towards what @AmreekanDesi and @rkt.india are saying. I think we are romanticizing the abilities of many 90s/00s cricketers (seems to happen in every thread)

 

The Australian team as a whole was extremely strong and McGrath is an ATG test bowler. This is quite clear. However on a one to one basis, Cummins and Starc for me are clearly more capable test bowlers bowlers than anyone apart from McGrath. Through Pattinson into the mix and you have one of the most lethal attacks ever. 

 

 

 

 

[Sandeep99]

I was watching highlights of our 1998 New Zealand tour and boy we had a bad team. What a joke of a team. The ineptness of our lower order was beyond measure. Shami, I guess, is a better batsman than Nayan Mongia who was unable to clear 30 yard circle against Chris Harris. No wonder we sucked against legendary bowling line up of Australia.