Who is the best fast bowler in test cricket now?

[Lord]

Guys - lets get one thing straight. We are talking about the here and now. Not about 2006 or back in 1996. OK? SA does not have variety in their attack. Just different options of pace and medium pace.

n how does that matter?we have great variety in our attack.but are good?no SA has done well in Eng,Aus,India,WI.u cant argue with the results

[thevortex]

Well second best' date=' but calling the Pakistani bowling attack as the best is even more hilarious. In their last 15 test matches, they have taken 20 wickets a grand total of 6 times. :giggle:[/quote'] You can giggle all you want, Outsider. After you understand that I am talking about the personnel playing currently for Pakistan. Do I really need to lay it out for you and ask if Asif, Aamer and Gul along with Ajmal/Kaneria were playing in those last 15 Tests? Numbers cannot come at the expense of actual cricketing facts.

That attack had Harmison, Flintoff, Anderson, Panesar, and Swann. This one has Anderson, Broad, Finn, and Swann. Yeah, surely this attack is so much better than the one which bowled in Chennai!

Another extrapolation. I was not the one comparing those attacks. Just about the here and now. That is all.

[thevortex]

n how does that matter?we have great variety in our attack.but are good?no SA has done well in Eng,Aus,India,WI.u cant argue with the results

Variety alone is not the distinguishing factor. I am not dissing the SA attack, Lord. Just pointing out its weak aspects.

[f.b.m]

SA has preferred functionality over the applause and praise of 'pundits'. While the third seamer is hardly convincing (Parnell or Tsotsobe have done nothing yet) they have found a working combination that wins them matches in all sorts of conditions. And as much as people would disagree with me for being a 'disgrace to spin bowling' and all that, I think Paul Harris plays a crucial role in their attack. The difference was seen in the two tests that they played against us.

[The Outsider]

You can giggle all you want, Outsider. After you understand that I am talking about the personnel playing currently for Pakistan. Do I really need to lay it out for you and ask if Asif, Aamer and Gul along with Ajmal/Kaneria were playing in those last 15 Tests? Numbers cannot come at the expense of actual cricketing facts.

Huh? Asif, Amir, Gul, Kaneria, and Ajmal have played pretty much all their tests over the last year. And Pakistan have played a lot of test cricket. 3 tests each in SL, NZ, and Aus and 4 in England till now. That's 13 test matches in which they have taken 20 wickets 6 times in some of the most bowling friendly conditions in the world. Heck Australia declared 4 times out of 6 when they were down there. :hysterical:

Another extrapolation. I was not the one comparing those attacks. Just about the here and now. That is all.

What here and now? In these bowling conditions, anyone can take wickets specially against the Paki batting lineup. Wait for them to get dismantled down under in a few months and come back and tell me whether they are the second best bowling attack.

[Lord]

Variety alone is not the distinguishing factor. I am not dissing the SA attack, Lord. Just pointing out its weak aspects.

avery attack has its weaknesses.but if despite those weaknesses,u can deliver u gotta be good,no?

[Karan114]

But in all earnestness' date=' this result is more a factor of how well the home teams were at playing pace bowling rather than any versatility on the part of the SA attack.[/quote'] If an attack is good enough to win in England, Australia, Pakistan, WI and draw twice in India, I couldn't care less about its supposed lack of versatility.

[thevortex]

Huh? Asif' date=' Amir, Gul, Kaneria, and Ajmal have played pretty much all their tests over the last year. And Pakistan have played a lot of test cricket. 3 tests each in SL, NZ, and Aus and 4 in England till now. That's 13 test matches in which they have taken 20 wickets 6 times in some of the most bowling friendly conditions in the world. Heck Australia declared 4 times out of 6 when they were down there. :hysterical:[/quote'] I did not know that SL was a bowler friendly place?!!!! Outsider, please.... Also make up your mind. Are you saying that in these 13 or is that 15 Tests, this is the combination that they played? This exact combination?

What here and now? In these bowling conditions, anyone can take wickets specially against the Paki batting lineup. Wait for them to get dismantled down under in a few months and come back and tell me whether they are the second best bowling attack.

Really? And since when would the Pakistani bowlers bowl to their own batting lineup? If you want to wait, please do. But you cannot discredit their bowling unit like this.

[thevortex]

avery attack has its weaknesses.but if despite those weaknesses' date='u can deliver u gotta be good,no?[/quote'] I never said SA's attack was bad. But I only said I will not rate SA's attack as the best one or even the 2nd best one today. And I explained myself. That is all.

If an attack is good enough to win in England' date=' Australia, Pakistan, WI and draw twice in India, I couldn't care less about its supposed lack of versatility.[/quote'] Sounds logical, yes. :)

[The Outsider]

I did not know that SL was a bowler friendly place?!!!! Outsider, please.... Also make up your mind. Are you saying that in these 13 or is that 15 Tests, this is the combination that they played? This exact combination?

It was during the Pakistani tour there. Kulasekhara was man of the series FFS! And yes, in these 13 tests starting from the SL tour last year at least 3 out of those 5 have played in all matches.

Really? And since when would the Pakistani bowlers bowl to their own batting lineup? If you want to wait, please do. But you cannot discredit their bowling unit like this.

I was talking about the English bowlers in that part of the post. Pakistani bowling unit has already been discredited when Australia declared on them 4 out of 6 times down under. :hysterical:

[Lord]

I never said SA's attack was bad. But I only said I will not rate SA's attack as the best one or even the 2nd best one today. And I explained myself. That is all.

no u didnt explain.all u were doing is harping on versatility.while clearly ignoring England's lack of left arm bowler. I never said u dissed SA's attack.but u havent given one solid reason for England to be rated ahead.if SA has its weaknesses,so do England.but SA r performing.

[thevortex]

It was during the Pakistani tour there. Kulasekhara was man of the series FFS! And yes, in these 13 tests starting from the SL tour last year at least 3 out of those 5 have played in all matches.

3 of those 5? Now at least I am sure you would realize that you are not on the same page. You have gone back on almost every one of your claims in this regard, Outsider. Are you even trying to say that SL is a bowler friendly place?

I was talking about the English bowlers in that part of the post. Pakistani bowling unit has already been discredited when Australia declared on them 4 out of 6 times down under. :hysterical:

The English bowlers - this set - has performed against Australia too. What do you make of that? About the Pakistan bowling unit, really? And it was this bowling unit, you say? And you figure this set of bowlers cannot be rated because all of them performed poorly against Australia in Australia?

[thevortex]

no u didnt explain.all u were doing is harping on versatility.while clearly ignoring England's lack of left arm bowler. I never said u dissed SA's attack.but u havent given one solid reason for England to be rated ahead.if SA has its weaknesses,so do England.but SA r performing.

I did explain, Lord. SA bowling does not have any spinner worth his salt. And as far as their seam attack goes, Morne Morkel can bowl as fast as he wants. He is not a bowler who bowls wicket taking lengths. And after that their bowling tails off. Parnell is talented. But he is far from established. Kallis is still their reliable work horse. And does earn respect from all and sundry. This is just not enough for their attack to be crowned as the top one. As for England being better than SA, just take the fact that England can have either one of Sidebottom or Anderson spearhead their attack. That alone is a significant point. That apart they have Broad, Finn and Swann. This combination just takes this attack far above SA. In all kinds of conditions. And definitely Swann tipped the final balance.

[The Outsider]

3 of those 5? Now at least I am sure you would realize that you are not on the same page. You have gone back on almost every one of your claims in this regard, Outsider.

Let me break this down : 1. Pakistan plays 4 bowlers as part of their bowling attack. 2. In Sri Lanka, they played 3 of them were part of their 4 man bowling attack. 3. In New Zealand, England, and Australia 4 of them were part of their 4 man bowling attack. Are we clear now that the same lot have not been able to bowl out sides twice on 7 out of the last 13 occasions.

Are you even trying to say that SL is a bowler friendly place?

There is no such rule, and the pitches in the last Sri Lanka - Pakistan series were bowling friendly. From the first test commentary :

Toss and teams: Younis calls heads and he has won the toss and Pakistan will bowl. A brave decision, say the experts but I guess Younis reckons the moisture will help the seamers.

Teams don't elect to bowl in batting conditions. 968 runs were scored in the test for the loss of 40 wickets @ 24/wicket From the second test report :

Kulasekara acknowledged the bowlers received some help from the first-day pitch. "In the morning the wicket seamed as it did in Galle when we were bowling. I made use full use of the conditions and was rewarded with four wickets," he said. "After assessing the pitch I stuck to my basics by pitching the ball in the right places. If you do the right things you get wickets. "Only Yousuf got out to a loose shot when he played a ball outside his off stump but the others got out to good deliveries. The wicket seams here in the first two hours and I got wickets by making use of the conditions. I don't think the Pakistani batsmen got out to any rash shots."

821 runs were scored for the loss of 33 wickets @ 24/wicket From the third test commentary :

Pitch: Plenty of rain on Thursday and Friday, so there is moisture. So the seamers won't mind that. A bit of grass as well just to spice things up. Shehan: "Chamara Kapugedera must be given a chance in place of Malinda Warnapura and also Ajantha medis must be dropped as he is not performing." One wish granted. Toss: Younis calls and loses. Sri Lanka will bowl. Vaas comes in for Mendis - a four-seam attack for the hosts. "We've got a lot of pride at stake here", says Sangakkara though the quote is more pertinent to the Pakistanis. Not a surprising call by Sanga in these overcast conditions.

1348 runs were scored for 33 wickets @ 40/wicket. Overall 29 runs/wicket. Some batting tracks these were! :hysterical:

The English bowlers - this set - has performed against Australia too. What do you make of that?

That they perform well in English conditions. They'll come a cropper in Australia, India, and Sri Lanka. Note it down.

About the Pakistan bowling unit, really? And it was this bowling unit, you say? And you figure this set of bowlers cannot be rated because all of them performed poorly against Australia in Australia?

They cannot be rated because they have taken 20 wickets 6 times in their previous 13 attempts and it will be 6 times out of 15 attempts by the time this series is done if the sun is out at Oval and Lords.

[thevortex]

Outsider - allow me to simplify this. 3 out of 4 bowlers does not an attack make. Period. And one look at those numbers tells me that SL was far from a bowlers' paradise. Do you believe they were wonderful conditions for bowling? Your averaging it to 29 is indeed extremely simplistic. I wish cricket were played like that. But thankfully it is not! :) This English attack is relatively young. We will see how they go about facing future challenges when those come up. As of now - the key phrase is that - they are one of the top attacks. By my reckoning the 2nd best.

[The Outsider]

Outsider - allow me to simplify this. 3 out of 4 bowlers does not an attack make. Period. And one look at those numbers tells me that SL was far from a bowlers' paradise. Do you believe they were wonderful conditions for bowling? Your averaging it to 29 is indeed extremely simplistic. I wish cricket were played like that. But thankfully it is not! :)

They had 4 out of 4 in NZ, Australia, and England. What was the showing there? 20 wickets anyone? No! They took 20 wickets in 4 out of 9 tests in which they fielded 4 out of 4. Same crappy performance. And in today's game it will be pretty much impossible for a team to field it's first choice attack in all matches. If a team is able to field 75% of it's first choice attack in today's game that is pretty good. What simplistic! I watched the quite a bit of the series and the highlights are still available online. Feel free to watch them and tell me if the ball was not swinging and turning for most part during the series.

This English attack is relatively young. We will see how they go about facing future challenges when those come up. As of now - the key phrase is that - they are one of the top attacks. By my reckoning the 2nd best.

Baah.....anyone can bowl and take wickets in these conditions against the Paki line up. They don't have any results to back themselves up in alien conditions. They'll be slaughtered in Australia. You just form these crazy notions in your head like Amir is the world's best bowler, Paki attack is the best in the world, English attack is the 2nd best, India should play 5 crappy bowlers etc. etc. and show nothing to back them up. All results point to the contrary and then you come up with some inane phrase like 'cricket is a funny game, so Munaf can pick up a 5 fer at Columbo', 'cricket is played like this and that'. I know how cricket is played as well. You are not the only gyaani around here. Just learn to back away when all facts are showing you results to the contrary. For starters explain to me how teams can average 29 runs/wicket over an entire series in batting friendly conditions? What is simplistic about my assertion that the conditions were not batting friendly on the whole when I saw the ball swing and turn with my own eyes and wickets fell at 29/wicket?

[Karan114]

As for England being better than SA' date=' just take the fact that England can have either one of Sidebottom or Anderson spearhead their attack. That alone is a significant point. That apart they have Broad, Finn and Swann. This combination just takes this attack far above SA. In all kinds of conditions.[/quote'] Sidebottom has played four Test matches in the last two years. Anderson is one of the biggest home track bullies around, averaging 27 at home and 43 away. Neither is in even the same galaxy as Dale Steyn. The choice between Anderson and Sidebottom is not a "significant point" in the slightest, leave alone when compared to a bowler like Steyn. As for Finn - the dude has played Bangladesh and a Pakistani batting line-up that is even worse than Bangladesh. He is no better or worse than the similarly young Parnell right now, as Parnell has come up against strong Indian and English batting line-ups. Broad - again, you dismiss Morkel as "not a bowler who bowls wicket taking lengths". In that case can you explain why you rate Broad, because Morkel has 92 wickets at 30 as compared to Broad's 92 at 34 and both are of fairly similar ages and experience levels. I'll give you that Swann is better than any spinner SA has, but it is not enough to overcome the huge advantage Steyn gives SA. And until England actually wins all around the world like SA, the statement that "this combination just takes this attack far above SA. In all kinds of conditions" is utterly meaningless.

[vvvslaxman]

Broad has more chances to do well in subcontinent coz of his cutters and hit the deck line. Infact he bowled better than any English bowler when England last toured India.

[thevortex]

They had 4 out of 4 in NZ, Australia, and England. What was the showing there? 20 wickets anyone? No! They took 20 wickets in 4 out of 9 tests in which they fielded 4 out of 4. Same crappy performance. And in today's game it will be pretty much impossible for a team to field it's first choice attack in all matches. If a team is able to field 75% of it's first choice attack in today's game that is pretty good. What simplistic! I watched the quite a bit of the series and the highlights are still available online. Feel free to watch them and tell me if the ball was not swinging and turning for most part during the series.

I highlighted a part of the statement which is absolutely nonsensical. In a 4 bowler attack, every single bowler is absolutely vital. Or does that escape your attention in some way? Your averaging out 40 and 24 and getting it to 29 was nothing if not simplistic. Just the fact that an entire Test match was played out with 40 runs per wicket should tell you something. It may not have been the flattest of tracks. But it will be absolutely simplistic to claim that they were bowler friendly tracks. And you keep changing your numbers, Outsider. Or did that too escape your attention. You started with 15 Tests and now the count is down to 9. What is it going to be further down?

Baah.....anyone can bowl and take wickets in these conditions against the Paki line up. They don't have any results to back themselves up in alien conditions. They'll be slaughtered in Australia. You just form these crazy notions in your head like Amir is the world's best bowler, Paki attack is the best in the world, English attack is the 2nd best, India should play 5 crappy bowlers etc. etc. and show nothing to back them up. All results point to the contrary and then you come up with some inane phrase like 'cricket is a funny game, so Munaf can pick up a 5 fer at Columbo', 'cricket is played like this and that'. I know how cricket is played as well. You are not the only gyaani around here. Just learn to back away when all facts are showing you results to the contrary. For starters explain to me how teams can average 29 runs/wicket over an entire series in batting friendly conditions? What is simplistic about my assertion that the conditions were not batting friendly on the whole when I saw the ball swing and turn with my own eyes and wickets fell at 29/wicket?

We will see how crazy these notions are, Outsider. Notions are just that - notions. They dont necessarily have to have something backing them up. Problem is - when you get into the statistical mindset too much you start looking for numbers to back up your theory. The fact is any bloody theory can be bolstered by a preferred set of numbers. That is life. Live with it. I am not for such selective statistical gimmickry. If you want such, you wont get it from me. And I never said I was a cricket gyaani. I am a passionate cricket fan. That is all. If you are a gyaani, so be it. By the way - the results do not point to the contrary. You have to ask Ponting what he thinks of Aamer. You have to go back and find out exactly how many matches India fielded 5 bowlers. And the English attack definitely has had the better of Australia too in recent times. You are saying that too does not count. By the way, who is to say that Munaf would not have picked up a fiver?! :). And did you not notice that the Australian bowling lineup was nowhere close to being this successful against the same lineup?

[thevortex]

Sidebottom has played four Test matches in the last two years. Anderson is one of the biggest home track bullies around, averaging 27 at home and 43 away. Neither is in even the same galaxy as Dale Steyn. The choice between Anderson and Sidebottom is not a "significant point" in the slightest, leave alone when compared to a bowler like Steyn. As for Finn - the dude has played Bangladesh and a Pakistani batting line-up that is even worse than Bangladesh. He is no better or worse than the similarly young Parnell right now, as Parnell has come up against strong Indian and English batting line-ups. Broad - again, you dismiss Morkel as "not a bowler who bowls wicket taking lengths". In that case can you explain why you rate Broad, because Morkel has 92 wickets at 30 as compared to Broad's 92 at 34 and both are of fairly similar ages and experience levels. I'll give you that Swann is better than any spinner SA has, but it is not enough to overcome the huge advantage Steyn gives SA. And until England actually wins all around the world like SA, the statement that "this combination just takes this attack far above SA. In all kinds of conditions" is utterly meaningless.

Karan - Broad is any day a better bowler than Morkel. I agree with vvslaxman on that. Dale Steyn is a big plus, no doubt. But other than that, SA has no other big pluses. As pointed out, England has various pluses. The fact that Sidebottom who can come in as their spearhead has played only a few matches should count as a plus! And that is impressive. I would want to see how this attack fares in less favourable conditions for sure. But on a flat wicket, they are not going to be as disadvantaged as the SA bowlers. Other than Steyn, there is nobody else who swings the old and the new ball (well Kallis still does that). And they have no spinners to speak of. Which attack would you prefer in such conditions?