Australian bowling attack stands among Test cricket's greatest, says Greg Chappell

Former Test great compares Cummins-led quartet to West Indian, Pakistani and past Australian pace units

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Sources3 outlets
Australia's current Test bowling quartet of Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon ranks among the best in the world over the last 50 years, according to former Test great Greg Chappell, who says the group has taken an unprecedented number of wickets as a four-man unit and sits in the same pantheon as the great West Indian attacks of the late 1970s.

Writing across Nine newspapers, Chappell argues that the current attack matches past greats in longevity, relentless line and length, and the ability to grind down opponents through partnership bowling.

Chappell draws comparisons to several legendary bowling units: the West Indian combination of Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner, Malcolm Marshall and Colin Croft, whom he notes combined hostility with control; the Australian attack of the late 1990s and early 2000s featuring Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Jason Gillespie and Brett Lee; the South African quartet of Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel, Vernon Philander and Jacques Kallis; and Pakistan's Imran Khan, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis with the spin of Abdul Qadir.

Chappell breaks down each current bowler's role: Hazlewood mirrors McGrath's relentless probing line; Cummins attacks the stumps with fuller lengths; Starc provides the left-arm angle, swing and X-factor pace; and Lyon provides the control and sustained pressure of an elite spinner.

The analysis follows Australia's decisive victory over South Africa in Durban last week, where the bowling attack was central to the win. Chappell notes that in Kingsmead, batsman Matt Renshaw set the tone for Australia in the first innings.

While acknowledging that the historic West Indian pace battery holds the crown for sheer terror and the 2000s Australian attack for ultimate match-winning balance, Chappell concludes that the current crop matches them in key areas.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The comparison places the current Australian team in historical context, adding weight to debates about whether this is one of the greatest bowling attacks of all time.
  • It highlights the rarity of a bowling quartet sustaining dominance over many years, a key factor in Australia's recent Test success.
  • The article could shape public and selector perception of the attack's legacy, especially as the individual players approach the latter stages of their careers.

Background

Test cricket has a rich history of great bowling units. The West Indies of the 1970s and 1980s were feared for their pace battery, often described as facing an execution squad. Australia's early 2000s attack combined pace, spin and relentless accuracy. The current quartet has played together for several seasons, forming the core of a team that has won consistently at home and abroad.

Key Perspectives

Fans of past eras: They may argue that the West Indian attack's sheer hostility or the 2000s Australians' match-winning balance sets a higher bar that the current group has not yet reached. Statistically minded observers: They point to the unprecedented wicket tally of the current four-man unit as a modern attack, suggesting they have outperformed many legendary combinations in raw numbers. Critics/Skeptics: Some note that conditions and batting line-ups have changed, and that the current attack has not faced the same depth of batting talent or hostile pitches that earlier greats encountered.

What to Watch

  • How the attack performs in upcoming away series, particularly in Asia or England, where conditions may be less favourable.
  • Whether the quartet can maintain its collective form and fitness as the players age.
  • Any signs of retirement or rotation that could break up the unit before its legacy is fully assessed.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workSubscribe