the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee

[Richard]

see previous post

I'll add one of these -

Which previous post?
Yours?
Why does that need to be repeated?

 

[archie mac]

I can't believe you've read every single Haigh book?
I got one anthology for last Xmas - can't remember the name and don't have it to hand, it was a selection of short articles - which contained a piece where he pondered (in that unique way of his) the matter, then came, ponderously, to the conclusion that there was one big drawback that more than offset the several little gains (which, of course, would almost certainly have ended-up happening anyway).

You are refering to 'Game for Anything' I think. I will go through and see if I can find it.

I have not read Ashes 2005 as yet but it is on my list It is a bit sad that I have read the rest though

 

[archie mac]

I don't really care whether they took it seriously, played it tough, whatever.
Fact is, there was nothing at stake. They weren't playing for anyone, except Kerry Packer. There was no team to have pride in. Especially if you were playing for "Rest Of".
Surely you're not going to credit Kerry Packer with the introduction of helmets? It was Dennis Amiss' idea.

The Aust. teams that went to England upto 1909 were chosen by the players themselves. I am not sure what the difference is? Kerry Packer had the best players playing in the toughest comp. That was to me the real Aussie side.

I was just saying that WSC sped up the use of helmets. I thought Yallop was the first to wear a helmet in Test cricket circa 1978 or was he just the first Aussie?

 

[Richard]

You are refering to 'Game for Anything' I think. I will go through and see if I can find it.

Yes, that's the one.
There's, beyond all question, a piece in there.

I have not read Ashes 2005 as yet but it is on my list It is a bit sad that I have read the rest though

Not really, Haigh is an exceptional writer.

 

[Richard]

The Aust. teams that went to England upto 1909 were chosen by the players themselves. I am not sure what the difference is?

The difference is that the players generally made the best selections. See the McAllister\Hill schism for some of the problems that caused.
Selectors were an inevitable response to the changes in cricket of the early 1900s. And a quite right one.
Difference is, selectors were a result of Tests. In the Packer case, he made his selections to try to outdo Tests.
But, as Haigh demonstrated, early on it was clear the Packer players were reprisenting nothing.

Kerry Packer had the best players playing in the toughest comp. That was to me the real Aussie side.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't reprisenting anything - other than World Series Cricket. I don't care how hard they played it - nothing was at stake, be it The Ashes, The Worrell Trophy or whatever.
And that was how it should have been. Nothing will ever change that.

I was just saying that WSC sped up the use of helmets. I thought Yallop was the first to wear a helmet in Test cricket circa 1978 or was he just the first Aussie?

Don't know, I've only ever known Amiss was the first to use one.
I don't think it was sped-up by WSC. I think it was sped-up by the summer of 1976, with the West Indian pace barrage. It took a year for a solution to materialise.

 

[marc71178]

I don't really care whether they took it seriously, played it tough, whatever.

Why not?

Because it makes you look wrong perhaps?

 

[archie mac]

Yes, that's the one.
There's, beyond all question, a piece in there.

Yes I found it and re-read it. I thought he gave a very balanced argument, which on the whole was in favour of WSC (my take).

He does say that WSC was about money, but by the 2nd season the Aust public was following the WSC over traditional cricket because they were seeing them as the Aust. side.

He does say that it increased the use of helmets.

 

[Richard]

Why not?

Because it makes you look wrong perhaps?

And everyone whose writings I judged my judgement that WSC was bad on, too?

 

[Richard]

Yes I found it and re-read it. I thought he gave a very balanced argument, which on the whole was in favour of WSC (my take).

He does say that WSC was about money, but by the 2nd season the Aust public was following the WSC over traditional cricket because they were seeing them as the Aust. side.

Yes - but that was only after initial doubts. Which I think said more about the marketing that the WSC employed than the fact that someone was perceived to be reprisenting Australia.

He does say that it increased the use of helmets.

Does he? I'll have to re-read it. As I say, I think they were inevitable since the England-West Indies series in 1976. And possibly since 1974\75, too.

 

[SJS]

I found these views from someone who saw all the great fast bowlers of the 70's and 80's, particularly the West Indians, from as close as any one could possibly have...and this is what he has to say.

There have been many outstanding fast bowlers in the past fifteen years but none has quite matched Lillee, who I consider to be the greatest of them all. As a batsman you can never relax against him, even if you are past a century and doing well. He has the power to think players out, always willing to try something, never mechanical. Strong and well-built, he has just about the perfect action and, at his peak, was as fast as anyone. I first struck him or perhaps it should be the other way round - when he played for Australia for the World team in 1971-72, a series in which he made his name, and his eight wicket spell in our first innings at Perth was some of the quickets bowling I have experienced.

He can just about bowl anything - the out-swinger, the in-swinger, the off-citter, the leg-cutter, a good bouncer, even a change ball leg break! .....he has the stamina which enables him to bowl for long periods and his effort is never less than 100 percent. If he could have had himself and Hall operating at opposite ends while at their peak what a site that would make, for the spectators if not for the batsmen.

 

[Goughy]

Interestingly, Holding ranks Lillee as the greatest he ever saw.

Again, I think Lillee is probably the most skilled fast bowler in recent memory but I would take Marshall for reasons I probably could not explain. Probably more on personal preference than any firm belief that he was much better than Lillee

 

[SJS]

Interestingly, Holding ranks Lillee as the greatest he ever saw.

Again, I think Lillee is probably the most skilled fast bowler in recent memory but I would take Marshall for reasons I probably could not explain. Probably more on personal preference than any firm belief that he was much better than Lillee

I think Lillee is the greatest fast bowler I have seen and that means last four decades and there were some awesome bowlers in this period. Imran, Hadlee, Roberts, Holding and Marshall among others.. I think Lillee was the complete fast bowler.

My memory of Hall is realatively dim but I have no doubt he would rank very high in every short list. I can see him running in with his right arm pumping. He seemed to run a bit sideways with his left shoulder leading as if his action started with his run up, if you follow what I mean and he was REALLY fast. The ball seemed to leave his hand and thud into the keeper's gloves. There did not seem much in between. I dont remember feeling that way with anyother bowler.

BTW, you did not ask who I just quoted.

 

[Goughy]

BTW, you did not ask who I just quoted.

Gavaskar?

 

[SJS]

Gavaskar?

Clive Lloyd !!!

 

[bagapath]

Clive Lloyd !!!

Ha! that explains it. Clive never had to face Marshall in test matches. That makes it easier for him to choose Lillee as the best he ever faced.

A mate of mine and I saw Dennis Lillee sipping beer in a pub in our city a few months ago. For the first time in my life I decided to ask for a famous person'a autograph. Dennis was courteous and obliged. We were delighted to have got the autograph of the second greatest fast bowler of the post WWII era.

Alas, the best fast bowler of the past 60 years died at a young age back in 1999. His autograph would have been even more special.