Allan Massie: Attack holds key to global dominance

I am not convinced that these rankings in cricket, or indeed rugby or football, are very significant, but some people value them. Doubts have recently been raised about the validity of golf rankings also, since neither Luke Donald, the current world No?1, nor his predecessor, Lee Westwood, has won one of the four majors. The same situation has arisen in women's tennis too.

In rugby and football there is a World Cup, but that measures achievement only in one time-limited tournament. Neither of the last two winners of the RWC, England in 2003 and South Africa in 2007, was generally reckoned the best team in the world, though each was, correctly, described as "World Champion" for the four years following their triumph.

For most of cricket's history, Australia and England were way ahead of the field, and Australia ahead of England. Other countries, even South Africa, were evidently weaker. Between 1928-9, when Percy Chapman's side won in Australia, and 1953, when Len Hutton's team regained the Ashes at the Oval, Australia lost only one of eight Ashes series - the Bodyline one in 1932-3. The reason for their supremacy then could be summed up in one word: Bradman. The greatest batsman in the history of the game. However not even the Don could do it all by himself. In the Thirties he was assisted by two great wrist-spinners, Bill O'Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett, and after the Hitler war by the outstanding fast-bowling combination of Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller and Bill Johnston. Nevertheless it was Bradman who made the difference, and secured Australia's supremacy.

For half a dozen years in the 1950s England were the best team, though there were no official rankings then. They won three Ashes series in succession and never lost a series between 1951 and 1958-9, when Australia surprisingly regained the Ashes, in a series marked and marred by controversy over illegal bowling actions. Even so, England might have won that series too if they had had a good opening partnership and if the MCC, who still selected the touring party, hadn't withdrawn their invitation to the Yorkshire slow left-hander, Johnny Wardle, after he was dismissed by his county and offended Lord's by giving his name to articles in the Daily Mail, which were severely critical of the Yorkshire committee and his county captain.

The only other period till now when England might have been considered No?1 was for a few years in the late Sixties and early Seventies when they won series in the West Indies and Australia and were unbeaten at home.

In general - leaving Bradman out of consideration - the best team is the one with the best attack.Batting failures lose Test matches, but bowlers win them, if only because winning generally requires you to take 20 wickets in a match. England's supremacy in the Fifties was based on an attack comprising at different times of Alec Bedser, Brian Statham, Fred Trueman, Frank Tyson, Jim Laker, Tony Lock and Wardle, with Trevor Bailey offering invaluable support as the team's all-rounder.

Likewise, the West Indies' dominance which ran from the late Seventies to the early Nineties was founded on their fearsome four-man fast bowling attack.

They had great batsmen, notably Viv Richards and Gordon Greenidge, but it was the bowlers, from Andy Roberts and Michael Holding through to Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh by way of Malcolm Marshall (the finest of them all), Joel Garner, Colin Croft and a couple of others, who inspired fear in batsmen and wrought havoc. There's the golfing maxim: "You drive for show and putt for dough"; in cricket bowlers are, as it were, the guys who putt.

Australia, the best team in the world for most of the last two decades, had their great batsmen - the Waugh twins, Ricky Ponting, and Adam Gilchrist, for example - but it was the combination of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, with more than 1,300 Test wickets between them, which made them the best. Of course, you need big scores from your batsmen to give the bowlers their opportunity to apply "scoreboard pressure", but it's generally bowlers who win matches.

India, the current No?1 in the rankings, offer an exception to this rule. Their success has been built on their wonderful batting line-up of Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and VVS Laxman, while their bowling attack has been no more than good.

Nevertheless Anil Kumble, now retired, and Harbhajan Singh have between them taken more than 1,000 Test wickets, more than the present England attack can boast of in total.

As for England, though the batsmen ran up big totals in Australia last winter, it was the combined ability of Jimmy Anderson, Chris Tremlett, Steven Finn, Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann to take 20 Australian wickets in a match (with a little help from run-outs) which secured the Ashes.

Even if England do manage the 2-0 or 3-1 victory over India that they need to be ranked No?1 (and at the moment of writing they are at 76 for 3), some will doubt whether they are really the best till they play South Africa, which will not be until August next year. South Africa, after all, have the best fast bowler in the world, and the only consistently really fast one playing now, in Dale Steyn - and it's bowlers who win matches.