Which edition of world cup had the best bowling attack for India?

[MechEng]

7 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Sehwag smasehd 2 sixes of  Mcgrath in one over. Won't read too much into bowling in that match. Australia got away that day because of India's pathetic toss decision. India could have buried their bowling attack on that pitch.

 

Those guys were not Scott Boland and Hazlewood bowling 130 kph short stuff. Peak McGrath and Lee at his fastest were virtually impossible to handle.

[singhvivek141]

17 hours ago, Austin 3:!6 said:

From 1990s - 

 

1992 - Kapil, Prabhakar, Srinath, Raju and Tendulkar

 

1996 - Srinath, Prasad, Prabhakar, Kumble and Raju

 

1999 - Srinath, Prasad, Mohanty, Kumble and Robin

 

2003 - Srinath, Zaheer, Nehra, Harbhajan and Kumble

 

2007 - Zaheer, Munaf, Agarkar, Harbhajan and Yuvraj

 

2011 - Zaheer, Munaf, Nehra, Harbhajan and Yuvraj

 

2015 - Shami, Umesh, Mohit, Ashwin and Jadeja

 

2019 - Bumrah, Bhuvi, Shami, Kudeep and Chahal

 

2023 - Bumrah, Siraj, Pandya, Kuldeep and Jadeja

 

 

Please discuss which was the most complete bowling attack

 

For me 2003 was best, all 3 quicks were bowling quick (albeit on inflated speed guns) and were lethal throughout the tournament.

We were downplayed by only one team, which undoubtedly was a beast and probably one of the best teams in the modern day cricketing history.

 

2011 one was experienced and restrictive, we also had the best batting lineup across all teams in that WC.

 

2015 one was inexperienced and punched above their weight..no one expected Umesh & Shami to perform like a beast in those conditions, Mohit supported them very well till we again faced Aus.

 

2019 bowling was our stronger suit, but our joke level batting ensured we couldn't chase even an average score.

 

1996 was mediocre, only Kumble & Srinath were the two threatening bowlers, though Mohanty & Prasad made their mark (Prasad especially against Pak)

 

1999 one has more or less same impact as 1996..plus we had fixers playing as well.

 

2007 was horrible, don't want to talk about it. 1992 was too young to conclude anything.

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

 

Those guys were not Scott Boland and Hazlewood bowling 130 kph short stuff. Peak McGrath and Lee at his fastest were virtually impossible to handle.

 

Mcgrath was bowling at 135 at best. Even conceding Brett Lee and Mcgrath were there , that flat wicket was hardly conducive to any bowler.  We just had no idea how to chase such a total. They had no warne. They had not so threatening 3/4/5 bowlers. India after all got to 240 in 40 overs. India succumbed due to scoreboard pressure.

[Mesky99]

1999 we had a good attack, prasad and mohanty were tailor made for those conditions, agarkar as backup, Nikhil chopra was a decent odi spinner, lacked a strong lower middle order and a genuine all rounder.

[Vijy]

probably 2023 and 2019. 2023 would be even better if prasidh were in the mix

[Rightarmfast]

2003 was hands down the best bowling attack we had. More than our batters, it was our fast bowlers who made news. 

[sandeep]

On 10/3/2023 at 1:35 PM, Majestic said:

2023 is the best followed by 2019.

Boomrah was injury free in 2019.  And Bhuvi was still effective both as a new ball threat and as a closer at the death.  Marginally better than Siraj, especially at the death. Chahal too was very effective.  and we had a younger Shami to back them up.   

 

India failed at the 2019 WC because the batting failed to score 240.  That, in a 50 over game, for batting talent rich country like India, is inexcusable.

[Lord]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Boomrah was injury free in 2019.  And Bhuvi was still effective both as a new ball threat and as a closer at the death.  Marginally better than Siraj, especially at the death. Chahal too was very effective.  and we had a younger Shami to back them up.   

 

India failed at the 2019 WC because the batting failed to score 240.  That, in a 50 over game, for batting talent rich country like India, is inexcusable.

 

Bhuvi was ineffective whole WC with new ball. Siraj is much more penetrative. Kuldeep is better than Chahal.Pandya has improved as bowler too.

 

This attack is slightly better. Though yeah we lost because of batting and that musical chairs strategy at no. 4.

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, sandeep said:

Boomrah was injury free in 2019.  And Bhuvi was still effective both as a new ball threat and as a closer at the death.  Marginally better than Siraj, especially at the death. Chahal too was very effective.  and we had a younger Shami to back them up.   

 

India failed at the 2019 WC because the batting failed to score 240.  That, in a 50 over game, for batting talent rich country like India, is inexcusable.

no, in no way are siraj and bhuvan comparable in ODIs. former is far better. I also like bhuvi, especially as a horses-for-courses bowler when he played tests (could also bat usefully), but equating him with siraj is not warranted.

[putrevus]

On 10/3/2023 at 11:31 PM, singhvivek141 said:

For me 2003 was best, all 3 quicks were bowling quick (albeit on inflated speed guns) and were lethal throughout the tournament.

We were downplayed by only one team, which undoubtedly was a beast and probably one of the best teams in the modern day cricketing history.

 

2011 one was experienced and restrictive, we also had the best batting lineup across all teams in that WC.

 

2015 one was inexperienced and punched above their weight..no one expected Umesh & Shami to perform like a beast in those conditions, Mohit supported them very well till we again faced Aus.

 

2019 bowling was our stronger suit, but our joke level batting ensured we couldn't chase even an average score.

 

1996 was mediocre, only Kumble & Srinath were the two threatening bowlers, though Mohanty & Prasad made their mark (Prasad especially against Pak)

 

1999 one has more or less same impact as 1996..plus we had fixers playing as well.

 

2007 was horrible, don't want to talk about it. 1992 was too young to conclude anything.

2011 was won by bowling not by outbatting any team. 260, 260 and 274 were the scores which were were good enough to win world cup. Strong batting did not win anything.

 

2019 bowling should have been lot better given the conditions.under 200 was the right score but Indian bowler never could get wickets in top order.

[Kron]

On 10/4/2023 at 1:25 PM, MechEng said:

 

Those guys were not Scott Boland and Hazlewood bowling 130 kph short stuff. Peak McGrath and Lee at his fastest were virtually impossible to handle.

Yea without mcgrath 100% we could beat australia. If he played we just cant handle him. 

 

I am sorry. Thats the truuth. Our batsmen barring Sehwag had major issues vs mcgrath. 

 

Pant would do well vs mcg.

Edited February 22 by Kron

[Vijy]

4 hours ago, Kron said:

Yea without mcgrath 100% we could beat australia. If he played we just cant handle him. 

 

I am sorry. Thats the truuth. Our batsmen barring Sehwag had major issues vs mcgrath. 

 

Pant would do well vs mcg.

Sehwag had issues too. Dunno where you came up with this notion. Look at the only time Sehwagger faced McG in tests: the 2004 series. He made a 150, but failed in the other innings, got out often to McG

[Kron]

3 hours ago, Vijy said:

Sehwag had issues too. Dunno where you came up with this notion. Look at the only time Sehwagger faced McG in tests: the 2004 series. He made a 150, but failed in the other innings, got out often to McG

In that game i mean hah. In the final. But yes we were bad vs accuracte bounce based bowlers who can seam the ball

[Vijy]

7 hours ago, Kron said:

In that game i mean hah. In the final. But yes we were bad vs accuracte bounce based bowlers who can seam the ball

Sehwag would have been eaten up by Ambrose or Garner, who got even more bounce.

[Kron]

18 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Sehwag would have been eaten up by Ambrose or Garner, who got even more bounce.

Believe it or not, we handled ambrose pretty well in tests. Very surprisingly. Its walsh who troubled us.

[Vijy]

31 minutes ago, Kron said:

Believe it or not, we handled ambrose pretty well in tests. Very surprisingly. Its walsh who troubled us.

As a team, yes. I am referring to sehwag as an individual. Most WI bowlers would have posed issues: WI pace quartet, Patterson, Walsh, Bishop, Amby

[Kron]

11 hours ago, Vijy said:

As a team, yes. I am referring to sehwag as an individual. Most WI bowlers would have posed issues: WI pace quartet, Patterson, Walsh, Bishop, Amby

Oh yea for sure.

 

Pant would be comfortable vs anyone

I think sachin would do fine vs any of those with modern tech. So many times he was misjudged to be out

[Jaydev_Unadkat]

2011

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, Kron said:

Oh yea for sure.

 

Pant would be comfortable vs anyone

I think sachin would do fine vs any of those with modern tech. So many times he was misjudged to be out

Pant would have struggled against classic swing bowlers quite a lot. someone like Angus Fraser for instance.

[AKane]

1983 and 2011 were the best bowling attacks. Reason - we won the world cup. The bowlers were winners just like the batsmen.

 

Among the two easily 1983 was the best as we won overseas. We also beat the Windies twice in that WC and they had never lost a WC game before. It was a pleasure watching Marshall face down crying. Cry Malcolm cry!

 

In all others we were one of the losers and the bowlers were losers just like the batsmen.