It’s time to put together the pace attack for our greatest Ashes XI of all time, starting with a choice between Australia’s most prolific quick and the leader of the current attack.
No fast bowler picked up more of the vote than Glenn McGrath in our initial poll a couple of weeks ago, as he was picked by 83 per cent of Roarers to head into this stage as the no.1 pace-bowling seed. At the other end, just sneaking into sixth place with 15 per cent, was Pat Cummins.
McGrath’s record in Ashes cricket was outstanding. His 157 wickets are the second-most by a paceman in Australia-England Tests, and of all bowlers only Shane Warne and Dennis Lillee has more. They came often, too, and without much cost. In 30 matches, McGrath’s average against England was 20.92, while his strike-rate was just 46.3.
Cummins obviously doesn’t have a resume the length of McGrath’s, but his ten appearances against England have been impressive ones. The leading wicket-taker in both Ashes series he’s played in, he has taken 52 wickets at an average of 21.84 and strike-rate of 47.
Only one of these two New South Welshmen can make our Ashes XI, though, so who’s it going to be: Glenn McGrath or Pat Cummins. Let us know who you’ve picked and why in the comments section below!
Tony Hodges
Roar Rookie
I’m entirely confident that’s what the polling will show.
Mark Scarfe
Roar Guru
Cummins can't be in this conversation. Like comparing Smith to Bradman. Let the careers end then look at the stats.
Paul
Roar Guru
in similar vein, it's a big deal if a batsman gets 50 and huge deal in they get a century, but hard cheese if you're out for 49 or 99. As you say Micko, these are numbers someone decided years ago as a measure of ability, without worrying about any other factors.
Seymorebutts
Guest
Good point... I think the reason they use the Ashes is that its about the only way you can compare a player from the 1930's to today for example. There are still plenty of variables, uncovered pitches, new ball every 90 overs etc but if you assume that England and Australia have consistently put good sides on the park throughout their history then its a useful tool. Dennis Lillee didnt play a single game against South Africa for example .. Yet Glenn McGrath played numerous, so if we used the Boks as a yardstick Lillee's name wouldnt even be considered. So if I had to give a reason, that would be it ;-)
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
No please dungerBob I promise you McGrath has won.. :stoked: don't do it..
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Yawn!!! Always the Ashes... Actually the toughest and most exciting games Aus have played in past 25 years has been against South Africa... Or am I wrong.
Micko
Roar Rookie
That's why I flat out refuse to pick current players in these "greatest teams".
Micko
Roar Rookie
It goes to show this arbitrary "5 for/10 for" stat somebody invented to prove elite bowlers is flawed in a way. I guess it doesn't show competition for wickets as well, with Australia's strong current bowling line up one example. But with teams like NZ back in the day relying on Hadlee, he was good enough to get all those wickets and carry that team, but he also lacked bowling competition, meaning he had a better chance to pick up those "5 for/10 fors" that other champion bowlers don't get. Same with Murali and others.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Presumably Hadlee as well, who basically carried NZ for a decade.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
It's a case I've heard made about Murali and Herath. Both bowling lots of overs as the standout star in an otherwise poor bowling unit = lots of Michelle's.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I actually love Porsches but they do do it without fanfare. But l did love it when he got riled up as it was a bit like the howl of the Flat 6.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
Good analogy Rowdy. He was never that exciting to watch but he was bowling in periods of play when exciting stuff happened somehow. That late evening spell when he ripped out the WI top order was breathtaking.
Paul
Roar Guru
If you combine Cummins innings where he took either 4 or 5 wickets, to date it works out he does this once every 4.07 innings.In comparison McGrath did it every 4.26 innings, but Cummins is only taking 5 or more once every 12 innings roughly, versus McGrath every 8.38 innings.
Micko
Roar Rookie
I saw some discussion that he has a weird quirk of being super consistent by getting 3-4 wickets a lot but rarely getting 5 or more, or 1 & 0.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
That's a good move Rowdy.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I'll make sure I'm not there.
Nudge
Roar Rookie
Anderson wouldn’t make the second team
JGK
Roar Guru
Scandalously!
Nudge
Roar Rookie
The difference now though is the England batting line up show a little bit of fight. You look at the Stokes innings in the third test and he had some good support all the way through. Butler Bairstow and Leach all showed fight. And the following test when England had to bat out the last day with 8 wickets in hand they still managed to last deep in the day. Throughout the whole 90’s and early 2000’s the England batting line up’s were nothing short of basket cases. Threw in the towell every single time
Paul
Roar Guru
He and Warne were consistently a level above the other guys you named, but all were capable of taking plenty of wickets on their day. On that basis, yes they were average in the same way as Ponting, Harvey, G Chappell & Smith are average when compared to Bradman. I'm also simply saying the number of 5 or 10 wicket hauls should not be taken in isolation as a measure about the relative merits of different bowlers.