England test team of the last 40 years: the fast bowlers

[bigfluffylemon]

Another bloody tough one. How do you pick just 3 from this list? And do you pick the three best in a vacuum, or need to consider the balance of the attack? Even shortlisting was hard for this one - there are a couple of 'mighta-beens' in there who did well in the few games they played but were unlucky with injuries.

[sussexpob]

Anderson, Willis, Tremlett...

I think the first two select themselves.

I picked Tremlett because I think if he'd been born without the fitness issued, he'd have achieved a great deal in test cricket. On pure talent alone, he's arguably the best English bowler of his generation. Even later in his career when he lost a tad pace and the injuries had ravaged him, he turned out a small spell of being an exceptional bowler.

[Gingerfinch]

Gough, Anderson and Broad. The latter for longevity. Fraser was close.

So my team

Gooch
Cook
Gower
Root
KP
Stewart
Flintoff
Swann
Gough
Broad
Anderson

[Arthur Crabtree]

Main problem with WIllis is he can't field. Fraser neither.

I think there are differences here regarding the conditions.

Jones had the potential, which is a shame. Tremlett too.

I've held out against Anderson for a long time, but he has actually got better even into his thirties. So he pushes out Fraser from my side, and he can field. Goughy, especially in Asia. Willis.

[bigfluffylemon]

I think it's past the point now where it's debatable about Anderson. He's been so good for so long. I know there is a case that he's better at home, but who isn't? He's won in Asia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, so he's hardly a passenger when it doesnt swing, as well as taken a bag full at home.

Easily the best from that list for me.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Can't see Bob Willis formally apologising afterwards for dropping catches off Anderson and Swann.

[Durhamfootman]

this was a toughie

I have a lot of sympathy with the Tremlett argument, and I started to pick him, but then changed my mind. He kind of had one great year, not entirely dissimilar to Mitchell Johnson for Australia and a lot of years where it just didn't quite click; where the intensity that made for that great year just wasn't quite there. Once upon a time, before that short window, I used to call him Chris Tremble, because he had all the attributes to be a big snarling quick... in the great WI mould... but didn't quite have the same ferocity to go with it. For that short period he did... what changed, I have no idea

I changed him for Goughie in the end. It could have been Broad on the numbers, but Goughie pretty much carried the attack all the way through the bad years for England.... and he dances a fine quickstep

Having said all that about Tremlett, I did go for Simon Jones despite him only having a small window too because of injury. And maybe with fast bowlers a short window is all you are ever going to get... see how I contradict myself? I chose Jones because he was a fine exponent of reverse swing, which I wanted to balance my attack and I didn't pick Freddie as my all rounder.

I went with Anderson, purely on the numbers. He is one of my least favourite England seamers (just personal bias) and in truth I don't need him in my side, because I have Botham who is a fine swing bowler, but how can I not pick the seamer with more international wickets than any other in history?

[Durhamfootman]

Sounds daft, but I didn't select Willis on character. I always got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that he was so intense he was likely to start a fight in an empty dressing room. I would have left out Boycs for the same reason. I wanted a harmonious, but not chummy, dressing room and there is only ever room for one KP in there

[bigfluffylemon]

Sounds daft, but I didn't select Willis on character. I always got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that he was so intense he was likely to start a fight in an empty dressing room. I would have left out Boycs for the same reason. I wanted a harmonious, but not chummy, dressing room and there is only ever room for one KP in there

I never even thought of character as a factor. That's why I like these discussions, great to see how other people choose their picks. The discussion is more interesting than the outcome in many ways (as I said, the outcome is somewhat artificial). I'd just pick the XI I think are the best performers, and if they all hate each other in the dressing room, I don't care as long as they perform on the field.

There's probably another poll somewhere - the d1ckhead XI - players that massively divided the dressing room and/or were hated by their opponents, but were so damn good at what they did that they had to be picked regardless. Other than the England names that have been discussed (Boycs, KP, Swann), I'm sure there would be plenty of Aussies on the list (Hayden and Symonds spring to mind, Warner too), very few if any New Zealanders (maybe Jesse Ryder), and Shoaib Akhtar would be first name on that particular team sheet, with Harbhajan a close second...

[DiligentDefence]

Willis's best years were coming to an end at the start of this period so it's Anderson, Gough and Broad for me.

[alfie]

Anderson Broad and Willis for me. Bob supplies the raw pace and the other two are just such a masterful pair I can't see past them. Might be a bit of a fight over the new ball

Don't like leaving Gough out. But I just see those three as the best combination. Pace and bounce ; masterful swing and control ; match changing spells.

But I'm going to need a spinner who can bat...